United Forum of Bank Unions - True facet
This has the reference to UFBU Circular Dated 15.04.2016 .In the circular UFBU has detailed the progress in respect of issues of the bank retirees. I do not have faith in UFBU for watching the interests of the retired employees. The history of actions of UFBU speaks otherwise.
- In the 7th bipartite agreement, UFBU agreed for calculation of pension on pre revised pay (pay as per 6th bipartite) for employees retiring after 01.04.1998, thus effectively reducing their pension by 15%. The issue of updation of pensions of past retirees also remained unaddressed.
SEVENTH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT : (Agreement dated 27.03.2000)
# 16. PENSION In relation to an employee who retires or dies while in service on or after the 1st day of April, 1998 ‘Pay’ for the purpose of Pension shall be the aggregate of the pay drawn by the member of award staff in terms of the sixth Bipartite Settlement dated 14th, February, 1995 and the dearness allowance thereon calculated upto index number 1616 points in All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960=100. This shall be subject to the necessary amendments to be made to the relevant provisions of Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995".
- In the 8th bipartite agreement (effective from 01.11.2002) , the anomaly created in the 7th bipartite, of calculating pension on pre-revised pay, was removed. 100% neutralization of DA was allowed for serving employees w.e.f. 01.05.2005, whereas nothing was said in the agreement about the retirees on this issue of DA. The issue of updation of pensions of past retirees also continued to remain unaddressed. Even the budget of 3-4% of cost for retired employees, proposed by IBA, was appropriated for the benefit of the serving employees in the bipartite, ignoring the interests of the retired employees. The budget proposed by the IBA could have been utilized for updation of pension for the past retirees.
- In the 9th bipartite dated 27.04.2010, a retrograde agreement for retirees, fresh anomaly in respect of denying 100% neutralization of DA for pre Nov,2002 retirees was created retrospectively from 01.05.2005.
NINTH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT :(Agreement dated 27.04.2010 )
# 3. Further to Clause 7(2) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 2nd June 2005, it is agreed between the parties as under:
(i) On and from 1.5.2005, in the case of employees who retired during the period 1.4.1998 to 31.10.2002, dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 1684 points in the quarterly average of the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960=100. Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said four points shall be calculated in the manner given below:
- In the 10th bipartite agreement (effective from 01.11.2012), UFBU agreed for major portion of increase in wages in the form of Special Allowance & further agreed that special allowance will not form part of pay for calculation of pension, thus effectively reducing the pension of retirees, retiring after 01.11.2012. It is a repeat of action, in different words, as having agreed in the 7th bipartite for agreeing for calculation of pension on pre-revised pay. Again the issues of 100% neutralization of DA for pre Nov.2002 retirees & updation of pension remained unaddressed.
I fail to understand as to why UFBU is typically against the interests of retired employees.The Hon'able Supreme Court Of India had time and again, in various judgments, had termed pension as deferred wages. A bank employee works for average 35 to 40 years in the bank and in average enjoys the pension for 15-20 years. The UFBU, being the representative of employees interests, should have worked for the decent & respectable pension for the employees, instead of agreeing for effectively clipping of pension in every bipartite after the implementation of pension in banking industry in 1995.
The UFBU, the so called champions of bank employees, had historically worked against the interests of bank employees , in furtherance to ensure their own existence. During 6th bipartite talks, IBA/Govt. proposed pay parity with govt employees. UFBU out-rightly rejected the proposal, as the same would have reduced the existence of the unions. Had the UFBU agreed for the pay parity, the present wages of the bank employees would have been much higher. At present wages of bank employees are app. 60% of the wages of similarly placed govt. employees.( on the assumption of pay parity adopted by Pillai Committee for fixing of pay structure of bank officers in 1979).
Historically pay commissions had always given better awards than negotiated settlements. Nearly, all the pay commissions, starting from Shastri Award (1953) & Desai Award (1962) for bank employees & Central Pay Commissions for govt. employees, have given awards for pay increase between 20% to 40%, whereas in none of the bipartite settlements for bank employees, the pay increase had been more than 16%.
In bipartite settlements, the profitability of the banks continues to be the restricting factor. With obligations of social financing for PSB's, the profitability of PSB'S will continue to be under stress and will always adversely affect the bipartite settlements.
Pay commissions are independent of the management (Bank/Govt.) and the deciding factors for the pay commission are mainly the employment scenario of the country and comparable wages in the other comparable sectors / organisations, with equitable & reasonable standard of living for the employees.
Here it is worth mentioning that the pension of govt. employees gets automatically revised along-with implementation of pay commission report for serving employees. Further the pension of govt. employees gets increased 20% at reaching the age of 80 years and further increase of 20% is allowed every 5 years thereafter.
Thus the present model of bipartite settlements of wages of bank employees has completely failed its objective.
Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this blog is to create awareness on the subject and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must do his own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this blog.
--------------------------------------
