Role Played By UFBU

UNIONS HAVE BEEN
CRUSHING BANK MEN
UNDER THEIR FEETS &
LET THEM NOT CRY EVEN..!

The undersigned, in initial days of Pension Scheme formulations, in 1980s, questioned late Com. Prabhakar, as to why not Pension Demand should be made a part of Bipartite Settlement demands?. He explained his views very precisely:

'Look, bipartite settlement is for working employees, has its own formates and periodicity. Pension demand is new demand. It may take years to realize and even not, so linking pension demand with Bipartite has not been thought appropriate. It must be fought and achieved separately. If included in Bipartite demands, Bankers will cry of cost implications to negate Pension & wage increase both.'

See, Com. Prabhatkar's foresightedness. Now, follow trails of distortions in Pension scheme through Bipartite Settlements, to ascertain how far Com. Kar was right in his strategy in Pension regard. In 7th BS, 1616/1684 clause was inserted to cut pension outgo. In 8th it was called aberration, rectified, but from prospective effect.

Second option demand was reiterated in 9th BS COD, settled  in 2010, look to costs that second optees had to pay, collateral damages to sustain with and denial of pension from date of retirement, ignoring the cannons already enshrined in Pension Regulations, 1995.

Come to last BS, again to address cost implications, a part of Basic component was melted in Special Allowance-secluded from pensionary entitlement.

Notable fact is that in all earlier settlements in the name of Pension Cost, 50% of pension cost was appropriated in sanctioned loads. Is there any such clause in Pension Regulations, 1995, that make such appropriation legally or logically perceivable? Not to our notice!

Bipartite Forum has become a Selling platform of the rights that bank men had earned through struggles. It has been an ugly development in last 20 years.

In our earlier columns we wrote about Bhoothlingam Committee recommendations, which Govt wanted to impose on Bank employees to replace existing DA formula. It was fought bitterly and defeated by Unions. DA policy could be preserved.

Our old Pension Scheme could not be preserved, rather Unions doled it out on golden platter in 2010 by agreement, without realizing relative cost. That's why we called them Niyazis- Pak General who surrendered to Indian Forces in Bangladesh war.

Great gimmicks, we saw in a demand of restoring old pension scheme in COD of 10th BS. It made us to ask, were they drunk while abrogating old pension scheme in 9th settlement or while making a demand of restoration in 10th COD.

Pension Scheme had separate identity. Pension was separately conceptualized, fought and achieved as exclusive post retirement financial security bill, totally de-linked from Bipartite Settlement. Let us look to RBI Pension Scheme, which we think, came into force a little ahead in 1990. It finds mention in Bank Pension Agreement of 29.10.1993. RBI Unions didn't mingle their Wage Demands and Pension any time. For Pension Revision they moved strategically totally de-linked from wage settlements. They fought revision as exclusive issue, be it at RBI floor, Court or government. A very sincere efforts were made first to take RBI Board of Governors on board and till last RBI management stood with Unions, while fight was waged by Unions.

In going on BS talks, so far we have heard of roars around pay slip rise. Pension revision is not yet touched even, as cost implications are not so far examined, though promised in Joint Notes, 25.5.2015. From long back, Family Pension is recommended to Govt, but yet awaited, obviously to make it a part & achievement of 11th settlement, as an eye wash at best!

We find no accountability of Unions to their members, rather it is eloquently clear & on record that they have been accountable to IBA and acting on IBA's dotted lines. They have declared their policy not to give cognizance to bank men comments & concerns. On 30th Jan.,  in their own words, they demanded 15% pay slip rise to defer 2 days strike.

The IBA Chairman agreed too, but is there any explanation why the strike was not deferred?

When there is no mandate to IBA from Banks, how far the statement, emanating from some quarters that IBA had any such stand as not to give revision in one go, can be trusted upon?.

Bank men are in dark tunnel. Even after agreeing to 15% rise and rest to discuss further, let strike happen, have sole purpose to made  bank men stand beside CAA+NRC subservient brigade, at the instance of left+congress+others political mentors for subversive purposes than the purpose of bank men, whether in service or retired.

Still Pension Revision is put on loop line.

Bank men are paying hefty price for political adventurism of their Unions. Never it happens in past, but in last 20 years, Unions have been crushing bank men under their own feets and let them not cry even!


(J. N. Shukla)
National Convenor,
Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists,
Prayagraj