'Work-to-rule' is not a bad thing
Unions attached to the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC), demanding
a salary hike, recently launched a 'Work-to-rule' campaign. It didn't
exactly cripple the national economy, but the union action greatly
inconvenienced a lot of people. The 'grievances' are yet to be addressed
and resolved. Organized labour in other sectors have also threatened
similar action, it is reported.
I am all for people organizing themselves so that they together seek
redress for grievance and protect their rights. If there were no trade
unions capitalists would no doubt have even more of a ball at the
expense of the working class.
I am not sure however of the morality of strike action at this
particular point in time, especially since this particular decision was
prompted by prerogatives that lay outside the core concerns of the
workers; it is clearly part of a larger design to undermine the
Government with a view to forthcoming elections. That's politics, I
suppose.
I've heard of work-to-rule of course. The media reported there was a
general slow down and on top of it the workers refusing to sign up for
'over time'. People must use whatever weapons at their disposal to
secure justice, one could argue and legitimate this kind of action in a
key corporation. The term got me going, though.
What's 'work-to-rule'? It refers to the practice of working to the
strictest interpretation of rules as per contract and job description
therein. In terms of industrial action, it means that in contrast to a
strike, workers do not withdraw their labour but instead stay on their
jobs but drastically slow down operations by adhering to a narrow
interpretation of work rules.
Common sense tells me that rules are made to ensure a minimum level
of operational efficiency. That is, if worked just do what they are
supposed to do, institutions will still make the margins. Apparently
that's good only on paper; industries are typically given to extracting
from the worker value that spills over the parameters of the contract
and therefore working-to-rule cuts in on expected profits. The bosses
are naturally made to squirm in degrees that correspond to their
relevant greed.
We are talking here, however, about a State-owned enterprise, about a
history of union action, and a certain way of doing things courtesy of
resolute trade unionism and Leftist agitation that secured for the
working class certain guarantees and a legal cushion to keep the bosses
at bay, when and where necessary. Subject of course to the limitations
that can be imposed citing Emergency Regulations and of course other
more telling counter-measures such as thuggery.
We are talking of a work ethic and a particular kind of relationship
between 'work' and 'rule'. Thanks to legal protection, the power that
the strike-threat gives and poor management have given rise to a work
culture where laziness, arrogance, passing-the-buck, poor attitude,
utter inefficiency and impunity pervades the public sector.
People make sure they are 'in' on time. Once they are 'in', they can
relax. They have a leisurely breakfast in the canteen to begin things.
Then it's a matter of idling along until the tea-break. It's another
1.5-2.0 hours to lunch time. Time goes fast, work does not.
The post-lunch session is marked by 'waiting for the afternoon cup of
tea'. Then it's 'getting ready to leave' time. If sign-out time is 4.45,
'signing-out' begins around 4.15; people have to get ready, freshen up
and then line up wherever they have to sign-out.
It makes one actually want employees to do the work-to-rule thing,
i.e. do some semblance of justice to job description.
This is not to say that all public servants are inefficient of
course, but neither is the laid-back employee a rare exception in this
sector. The point is that if work-to-rule implies the narrowest
interpretation of contract, the 'minimum' amount of work that one can
get away with without suffering punishment, then it is still 'more work'
than really gets done in many State institutions.
I am not saying that the bosses are right or better of course, but
the workers do lose some sting when they are forced by circumstances and
draconian rules to resort to collective action if what they've mostly
done is warm their bottoms and navel-gaze. They get high when it comes
to the matter of 'rights' and has often been pointed out, many get F's
for 'responsibility'. It is in this sense that working according to
rules becomes a target to be achieved and not a fall-back option. The
'rule' is not behind, it is ahead.
There are other possible interpretations of 'work-to-rule', I
realized. The term could be taken to mean, 'work is or should be
paramount or the overriding element in an organization; everything else
is or should be under 'work'. What we have instead, in many cases, is
'bluff rules'. And 'bluff' has stiff competition from 'incompetence',
'sloth' and 'thieving'.
Then there are some who are working-to-rule; that is, all the work
they do is geared towards securing positions of power.
This is typical of political parties that engage in 'union work' as a
platform from which they can, hopefully, achieve political objections
that have little or nothing to do with workers' grievances, demands and
other issues. That kind of 'work' we can do without, I believe, and
should be punished come election time because that particular path to
power necessarily hurts the public and abuses the workers.
So let's have it; have work-to-rule as a necessary first step in the
journey towards a better national work ethic. Let's have work-to-rule;
so that work supersedes everything else when it comes to reward
(promotions, increments and other benefits), so that work (and not
laziness, foot-dragging, inefficiency and incompetence) actually rules.
[email protected].
|