BANK EMPLOYEES MOVEMENT

To All Activists:

BANK EMPLOYEES MOVEMENT:

(In Part-1 & 2, released on 2nd & 4th Sept.2020 we discussed in brief the period of 1946 to1969 & 1970 to 1996. Now, in Part-3, we discuss post- UFBU formation, broadly from 1997 to 2020. In this part, we discuss Unions' united role under UFBU, whether proved boon or bane. Whether did bank men achieve anything or how this unity helped Banking industry & it's workfore?.-FBPA) 

PART-3

In social media, among entire banking fraternity, whether in job or retired, people are up in arms and mincing no words to abuse, accuse and condemn their Union leaders. A rare phenomenon, we never saw in history such vilification, as it stands today. Leaders are perceived corrupt, but not all. It's highest degree of annihilation. They are stupid, inefficient and of swollen mind, but this too is not right in all cases. They are HMV of IBA, very clear from their words & conducts, but this too is not in all case. All are alike, to say it, would be unjust, but since all they together join all unfair or wrong decisions, speak a common language, so they all have to share equal blames as well. There is a saying, 'a rotten fish that spoil the bunch of water.' 

It's high time to examine the third phase of movement of UFBU era, from a critical angle as to whether the greater unity, really worked well or all is lost. We shall try our best to be fair and impartial in our analysis and articulations. We shall only examine into UFBU tenure to unravel the truth. As compared to first & second aforesaid phases of bank employees movement, is there any 'single' achievement in third phase of UFBU era under the heap of garbage it dumped in bank men fraternity, is the issue to be examined  by us. 

The blunders that Unions committed in opposing Pension were realized soon and they felt the immediate need  to go in damage control exercises. For this it was a precondition to find out some ways and means to take on Board the biggest Union, AIBEA. 

In our Part 2 concluding para we stated: 'AIBEA thought, the inter-Union conflicts harm Bank men interests. It causes delay and frustrations among bankmen and help Bankers/IBA to take advantage. Thus, it decided to make an effort to bring all Unions on one platform.' You would see, both sides have common cause to be united, but different motives. Other Unions were just about to seek alternate remedy to damage caused to their followers by rejecting pension on their advice, while AIBEA had the purposes wedded to greater objectives of broad based unity to deal with emerging challenges confronting the vital interest of Banking and it's workforce.

United Forum of Bank Unions, a dream that late Tarkeshwar Chakraborti dreamt, came in existence on 14.2.1997. All Unions together submitted Charter of Demands (CODs) for the respective cadres. Drum beats have started for second pension, which went unnoticed by AIBEA. However, in COD for no cogent reason, 'pension' was allowed to be dragged in by IBA.

Appreciate the facts, the Pension as demand, as agreement, as Regulations & implementation etc was a separate issue, had no link or connection with Bipartite Settlements of wages & service conditions from day one. Further, it was just settled in 1995, had no such need to review it so soon it either. But, IBA had inherent 'purpose' to drag 'pension' in Bipartite Settlement to extract financial synergy from wage load allocations. It happened accordingly. Now, let us take point wise as under: 

1. In 7th BS, Pension Scheme was given a hit by formulating two Pay Scales one to draw Pension by merger of  indices at 1684 and other lower one at 1616 indices to draw Pension. It was the first damage caused under UFBU, totally unprincipled. Pension outgo was scuttled.

2.  The D.A. is a sort of compensation to price rise. From 2002, all have been given 100% neutralization. Pre-2002 retirees were left out and even today they get old DA, on different rates. Pre-2002, pensioners are lowest paid pensioners and due to no 100% neutralization, their DA is scuttled hugely. It continues.

3. There is discrimination in DA periodicity as well. Working people get DA on quarterly average and Pensioners on half yearly average of indices. It exists  despite SCI ruling that in same Institution/ Establishment there can't be discriminatory rules in case of Compensation. UFBU never looked into it or made any effort at IBA level or Court to correct this ambiguity. It persists.

4. However, in 8th settlement aforesaid two scales, 1616/1684, was termed as 'aberration' and rectified, but from prospective date of 1.5.2005. This was 4th blunder to leave pensioners in lurch retired from 1.4.1998 to 30.4.2005, who got pension at 1616 scale. Such people had to fight upto Hon'ble Supreme Court to secure justice. No any sort if help or assistance by Unions even in implementation of judgement.

5. Pension Funding 'sources' are well defined in Pension Regulations, 1995. Please read it carefully to ascertain as to whether is there any Clause, which permits Banks to take out a portion of wage load in the name of increased pension cost arising out of new wage increase. There is no such clause, but now in every settlement IBA works out 'increased cost' of Pension, which is shared in 50:50 ratio by bank men and Bankers. This 50% amount is reduced from sanctioned wage load. For this purpose, Bankers dragged Pension issue in COD & discussion.

6. Contrary to fact, as stated in para 6 supra, now Unions say, Pension Scheme is different issue to  wages & service conditions bipartite. If it is case, then why 'pension issue' was dragged in 7th, 8th, 9th & 10th settlements? Was it not just to cut pension outgo, IBA-UFBU made it a part of settlement, but when the question of revision comes, Unions, IBA, both, turned their table! 

7. Much hyped & publicized Second Pension Option was not an achievement at all. It was purely a buy-out deal of UFBU with IBA, finalized at exorbitant costs that beneficiaries had to pay and at huge financial losses that they had to bear from the date of retirement to 26.9.2009 for which period pension was not paid. For this deal, the principles and procedures as enshrined in Pension Regulations, 1995 were suppressed and sidelined, to the best advantage of Banks.

8. In 9th BS, where second pension option buy-out deal was done at exorbitant cost, Old Pension Scheme was given back to IBA on decorated platter.  UFBU didn't explain as to what it bargained & achieved for bank men in exchange.

9. 7th B/Settlement 1616/1684 case, which was termed 'aberration' in 8th settlement & rectified from 1.5.2005, and case  for 1.4.1998-30.4.2005, pending in SCI, despite this fact in notice, with deliberate wrong reasons and intentions, in 10th Settlement on 25.5.2015, a part of Basic Pay, ranging from 7.75 to 11% was cut and made that as Special Allowance disqualified for Pension calculation. 

Retirees from 1.11.2012 are badly impacted. Kerala High Court single bench has annulled it, but in appeal. In 1616/1684 case SCI had already denounced, annulled and imposed 9% interest penalty to pay on arrears to beneficiaries, who were deprived their right. But, UFBU is still sitting in IBA lap, trying to continue with Special Allowance further.

10. In RBI Pension Revision imbroglio was unnoticed. No such steps were ever raised in Banking. False 'promises' were doled out by UFBU to appease Pensioners settlement after settlement. In 10th BS high voltage drama was staged, where biggest workmen Union went on promising not to sign settlement, without Pension Revision, but under 11th hour strategy revision was met with tragedy.

11. In 11th COD, biggest Officers Association went same way, made out promises not to sign 11th settlement without Pension Revision in biggest Dharana at New Delhi. National media was briefed accordingly. 11th BS is advancing, again Pension Revision is a subject matter of 11th hour strategy, most likely may become a tragedy again.

12. UFBU Convener has been of opinion that they are the representative of working employees, have no obligations to pensioners. He may be right in his individual perception. In fact Pension Revision is not an issue of Pensioners. Issue in question is Revision of Pension Policy, which is an integral part of service conditions that Unions loudly profess to be their brain child . We fail to understand how he fails to have this elementary knowledge, make inappropriate & inconsistent remarks in vital matter of service conditions. It speaks his casual, callous  and biases towards Pension Policy and Pensioners who are still in job. His mindset is very clear and with such mindset, Pension Policy can't undergo reform.

13. Biggest Mediclaim Insurance Scam have been in news that in this deal people harvested good money from Insurance brokers. Bankers involved in Mediclaim Insurance policy for retirees to extract maximum lower premium for working employees policy, by giving retirees additional business to Insurance Co.. People know that working employees premium is borne by Banks. Retirees bear self premium. If retirees bear self premium, how is it called IBA Insurance Policy? 

Secondly, UFBU just turned it's eyes from DFS letter dated 24.2.2012, wherein IBA was directed to spend Welfare Funds to provide health insurance to working & retirees. IBA in 2015, did provide insurance cover to working employees and refused it to retirees in open conformity with UFBU.

14. UFBU is silent on decimating DA rate from settlement to settlement. In 9th BS it was .15%, in 10th slide down to .10% & in 11th it is fixed at .07%. Given a look to this trend in 12th settlement in 2022, it will go down to .03% and by 2027, it may run in minus%. Doesn't it appear a probable situation in store? Is there any explanation on this particular situation? 

15. 5/7 days leave encashment offer is of management. It must be looked from management angle. If looked from trade union point of view, we find it reducing rest & recuperation days, killing man days, so killing employment opportunities. Why not more leave days PL sought in place from 11/1 to 10/1? Why not leave encashment on superannuation is made unlimited? 

16. PLI is a management scheme, has nothing to do with wage revision. It was to be viewed accordingly and not as an achievement. Management can incentivize workforce through various means and measures to boost operating results, but treating it as supplementary wage increase particle is bankruptcy of a trade Unions.

17. What's the rationale to have 20 years Pay Scale span. Long back, immediately after nationalization, it was trimmed from 24 to 20 years. How it's reasonable in present day context, where movement from one cadre to other is so fast? Why UFBU failed to perceive it as inappropriate and time barred? Why not it was demanded to reduce from 20 to 15 years, with stagnation increments after every one and a half year intervals?

18. Ever since UFBU came into being tendency of contractual labour has been increasing. According to reliable information in PSBs, about 1,45,000 temporary employees are working in subordinate cadre for last 10 to 15 years in regular vacancies. This practice has been legitimized by Unions by forming Contractual Labour Unions and extracting subscription from them. UFBU or its Unions have no concerns to such vast chunk of temporary employees being exploited by Banks. 

We don't find a single instance to record a note of satisfaction in third phase of movement, where all bank men and their Unions have been totally united. Gone phase 1 & 2 were the better days, if compared with 3rd phase. Bank men achieved many more under disunity and have been losing heavily when united under UFBU. (concluded)

-J. N. Shukla

National Convener

Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists

6.9.2020

9559748834