Abhinandan Granth (English Article)

Apart from the communists, there is another school of thought which attaches a rather exagge­rated importance to strikes and to trials of strength between employers and employees. They stand for free and independent organisations of workers and desire them to settle freely and independently the terms and conditions of their employment through collective bargaining with employers. Nobody can say, they contend, what is fair between the offer of employers and the demand of workers. Let the two haggle over it and fight it out, if necessary, through strikes and lockouts. That is the only sure way, according to them, of finding out what employers can afford and what workers will find acceptable. If the two parties were evenly matched and if the contest between them were not to do any damage to the society as a whole, one could agree with them and watch and enjoy the fight. But the two parties are not evenly matched except in a few countries like the United States of America. Moreover, strikes and lock-outs do not inflict a loss only upon employers and employees. They inflict a loss upon and cause grave hardship to the society as well. In the earlier period of industrial development, when the society was not so compact and complex, even long-drawn-out strikes or lock-outs did not have effects far beyond the particular employers and em­ployees involved in the struggles. But the society is now so compact and complex that dislocation in one sector affects the entire economy and causes a serious countrywide disturbance. This is particularly so in the case of basic and vital industries and in what are known as public utility services. The fact therefore is, in the closely interrelated society of today, disputes between employers and employees do not any longer remain, except in a few cases, domes­tic quarrels between the two. They become an issue of vital public importance and the society cannot any longer sit back and allow the two parties to fight them out. This has happened on many occasions even in that classic land of free enterprise, the United States of America. It is these far-reaching consequences of industrial disputes which have persuaded statesmen and enlightened em­ployers and labour leaders to think anew about strikes and lock-outs and devise ways and means for avoiding them.

There is general agreement now that strikes and lock-outs are undesirable from the point of view of workers, employers and the society as a whole and that all efforts should be made to prevent and avoid them. It has been easier to achieve that objective in industrially advanced countries where trade unions are strong and there is a long tradition of collective bargaining. The problem is far more difficult in countries which are just beginning to industrialise themselves. And it is in these coun­tries that it is far more important and necessary to avoid interruptions of the normal processes of production. Industrial development of those coun­tries will be held up and rendered more difficult if from time to time disputes develop and lead to stoppages of work. The easy way to avoid them is to ban all strikes and lock-outs and organisations of workers as is done in communist countries. But that is a way which is not open to a democracy; for, it is not enough to ban strikes and lock-outs: it be­comes obligatory to go much further and abolish all democratic rights and liberties and establish a regimented totalitarian system. Nor is it possible to lay down that no disputes and frictions should arise and that there should be perfect peace and harmony in industrial relations. Disputes and dif­ferences are bound to arise when human beings with different interests have to work together and what is necessary is to devise easy and expeditious ways for resolving them and avoiding their degene­ration into long-drawn-out conflicts between capital and labour.