Tripartite social dialogue

According to ILO's definition, Social Dialogue means the practice of Tripartism between governments and the representative organizations of workers and employers to achieving solutions and to building up social cohesion and the rule of law through, among other means, international labor standards. Wikipedia defines Social Dialogue as negotiation, consultation or simply an exchange of views between representatives of employers, workers and governments. It may consist of relations between labor and management, with or without direct government involvement. Social dialogue is a flexible tool that enables governments and employers' and workers' organizations to manage change and achieve economic and social goals.
In this writer's career as a representative of the private sector and as head of various business organizations, he has been a passionate and vocal advocate of Social Dialogue, especially bilateral, between the employers and workers to achieve industrial harmony, compliance with international labor standards, and reduce cases of litigation in various courts. During his tenure as President Employers Federation of Pakistan, he was recognised for his initiatives not only by local but also by global tripartite stakeholders.
Workers Employers Bilateral Council of Pakistan was formed in 2000 and soon was billed as the largest bilateral platform for Social Dialogue between employers and workers. The enlightened entrepreneurs and the moderate workers leadership joined hands to bring about a paradigm shift in industrial relations. The idea of such a platform was initially discussed during his term as Chairman of SITE Association of Industry and we managed to convince the workers' leaders to join employers in forming an organization where workers and employers would sit on the same side of the table. This writer coined the name of the organization, and soon the acronym WEBCOP became the shining example of real time Social Dialogue.
As an industrialist and actively involved in industrial relations and human resource development since 1973, he came to the conclusion that litigation must be avoided as far as possible, because it is time-consuming, it results in mistrust, and the decision in favor of any side is a short term pyrrhic victory. In the years 1972-77, during the pseudo Islamic Socialism era, a policy was surreptitiously executed to destroy private sector industrial base and to create a radical workers' leadership. Small time labor leaders became Little Caesars, prodded by minions of the ruling party as well as by the bureaucracy. These labor leaders would forcefully form unions at plant level, indulge in blatant extortion by threatening strikes and plethora of legal cases, and by taking pride in boasting how many factories that closed down because of them. The dark nights ended when Martial Law was enforced in July 1977. Thereafter, a gradual change was evidenced. Strikes, lockouts, and dharnas were things of the past.
This shift in the industrial environment provided more options for the employers. Since the employers could not fire inefficient and unproductive workers, and since the employers had to provide bonuses, leaves, social security and old age benefit contributions, and other perks, etc, to permanent employees, they started hiring contract and daily wage workers from manpower service providers. Within a few years, trade unionism slowly withered away and today less than 2% of the workers are union members, mostly in very large units or state-owned enterprises. Contract workers and informal workers far outnumber formal and unionized workers. This situation will further increase post-Covid-19.
Although this is not an ideal situation and is in non-compliance with ILO International Labor and Environmental Standards, such as Freedom of Association or Collective Bargaining, the fact is that by and large employers generally disregard ILES, unless of course they are large exporters and per force have to comply with all ILES standards etc.
Another area of importance is the status of GSP Plus granted to Pakistan by the European Union. The preferential access to EU markets provided under the scheme is conditional upon Pakistan's effective implementation of 27 international conventions covering human rights, civil and political rights, labour rights, and environmental protections. Pakistan must comply with eight labour standards. One way to ensure compliance was to introduce the ILO Better Work Programme in Pakistan. This writer very strongly lobbied at ILO in Geneva and in Pakistan for the introduction of the ILO Better Works Programme that would become a practical tool for Pakistan's textile exporters, especially the readymade garment sector. Commerce Ministry was also convinced to allocate resources from the Export Development Fund to provide financial support and incentive to exporters to join the programme. The BWP for Pakistan has been approved in Geneva and it would become operational in participating garment factories in Karachi, Lahore, and Faisalabad by the beginning of 2021.
Pakistan Workers Federation, superbly led by General Secretary Zahoor Awan, has actively supported this writer's enthusiasm for BWP. The third stakeholder is the Government through Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, mandated to liaison with ILO. The ILO BWP teams that often visited Pakistan on scoping missions or for further negotiations were impressed with the harmony shown by the three stakeholders and appreciated the unanimous decisions of the stakeholders. This was possible because Tripartite Social Dialogue used to be organized before the ILO teams would come.
However, the positive outcome of Tripartite Social Dialogue can be thwarted by external and inimical elements for whatever motives. A case in point is the 18-year-old Karachi hotel labour dispute involving 37 workers. President EFP has proposed a Tripartite Social Dialogue to resolve this matter, because every year, this case was doing the rounds at the ILO International Labor Conference, which is an annual two-week event held in Geneva in June. The EFP's stance was fully supported by Zahoor Awan and by the then Secretary MOPHRD, Dr Hashim Popalzai. The three representatives of management and workers at the Ministry, brought about consensus with both the parties, and left minor details for them to hammer out. Another successful result of Tripartite Social Dialogue.
A month later, it was found out that the workers had done a U-turn. Moreover, at the ILO Governing Body meeting at ILC in June 2019, both Zahoor Awan and this writer learnt to their chagrin that The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) based in Geneva, had complained to ILO that the General Secretary of the PWF and President of EFP are members of the Federal Tripartite Labor Consultative Committee but are not in any way a party to the dispute involving the Hotel trade union. Someone had put a spanner in our efforts to resolve this nearly two decades old issue.
COVID-19 provided an excellent opportunity for a Tripartite Social Dialogue to handle the serious issues of lockdown such as allowing factories to operate, payment of wages and salaries and the decision of the government that workers would not be laid off or retrenched. Unfortunately, at least in Sindh, the government-sponsored workers' representatives having no strong membership base but having some kind of political backing were found to be wanting. They have little choice but to toe the line of the party ruling in Sindh. They were least bit concerned about opening of factories and markets. In every meeting, their only mantra was "employers are not paying wages to workers" without offering any proof or names of companies.
A well-structured and focused Tripartite Social Dialogue would have handled the uncertain environment. The workers, however, tended to tilt towards the Sindh government position and thus the employers felt bitter about this. The decisions of the Sindh government have tremendously impacted negatively on industries of Karachi. Sad to state, the workers' representatives are to be rightly blamed for demanding wages for workers who sat home, did not work, and hence unproductive. The large mainstream workers' organizations, such as Pakistan Workers Federation, Muttahaida Labor Federation, or the National Labor Federation, are never represented, consulted or invited, since these large Federations are, for whatever reasons, not under the radar of Sindh Labor Department.
The myopic and tunnel vision of these government-sponsored workers representatives will come to haunt them once the crisis settles down. Neither they, nor the government, would be able to deal with the deluge of massive layoffs, retrenchments, and closures of factories and businesses. Employers Federation of Pakistan has very rightly stayed away from farcical tripartite meetings just for this prime reason. EFP may also not be able to motivate, caution or provide guidance to industries to comply with international labor standards. The Sindh government and its sponsored workers' representatives would be entirely responsible for the disorder, damage, and disruption that are bound to fall on Karachi's industries. "Sometimes it's better to keep silent than to tell others what you feel because it hurts badly when you come to know that they can hear you but can't understand".
(The writer is former President of Employers Federation of Pakistan. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the newspaper)