While the Pillai Committee recommendations, implemented in July 1979, established parity between bank and government officers, subsequent Pay Commissions over the years have widened the gap between the two categories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Anandakumar
A myth has slowly gained ground that bank employees are paid inordinately high wages. While arriving at this opinion, there has been no attempt to compare the wages of bank employees with other comparable professions, chiefly those employed in government. A closer scrutiny would suggest that bank employees are, in fact, poorly paid, and not part of a high-wage island.
In a perfect market, every factor of production gets its due share. But in reality, markets are unfair and imperfect. The stakes are loaded heavily against the working class; that explains the growing disparity between the capital-owning/top managerial class and the labour class, despite breathtaking GDP growth rates.
The disparity exists not just vis-À-vis labour and the managerial class, but also across categories of the labour class. The latter exists because “relativity” has not been maintained.
There are two forms of relativity that need to be considered — internal relativity, which looks into whether the salary levels within the organisation correspond to the organisational hierarchy; and external relativity, which deals with the relationship between the wages paid and the market wages.
GOVT EMPLOYEES FAVOURED
Prior to 1979, Group ‘A’ Officers of Central Government were earning less than bank officers. In 1979, the Pillai Committee was constituted to study the salary structures of bank officers and Group ‘A’ Officers of the Central Government and bring equity among various banks.
The Committee observed that the functions and responsibilities of bank officers in the new set-up were comparable to those of Group ‘A’ Officers in the Central Government and suggested pay parity between them.
The Pillai Committee recommendations were implemented in banks with effect from July 1, 1979, and the pay scale of the lowest rung of officers in banks were equated with pay scales of the lowest rung of Group ‘A’ Officers of Central Government at Rs 700.
The parity which was established by implementing the Pillai Committee Recommendations was distorted by subsequent Pay Commission revisions. In the Sixth Pay Commission, the wages of Group ‘A’ Officers zoomed past the bank officers’ wages. External relativity was given a quiet burial.
It is quite appropriate to compare the salary of bank officers with Group ‘A’ Officers of the Central Government to ascertain whether bank officers constitute a high-wage island.
The basic pay according to the Fifth Pay Commission for Group ‘A’ Officers was Rs 8,000 and the corresponding pay for bank officers was Rs 7,100. But in the Sixth Pay Commission the basic pay for Group ‘A’ Officers of the Central Government went up to Rs 21,000 (basic pay Rs 15,600 + grade pay Rs 5,400) whereas the pre-revised basic pay of bank officers was only Rs 10,000.
Between the Fifth and the Sixth Pay Commissions, the basic pay of Group ‘A’ Government officers went up by 162.5 per cent.
The gross salary of government officers was Rs 31,312, whereas the bank officer’s salary was only Rs 16,110. It can be seen that a bank officer draws a gross salary which is just 51.45 per cent of the gross salary of Group ‘A’ officers at the lowest rung.
Even house rent allowance was paid at 30 per cent of basic pay for government officers, whereas bank officers were getting a maximum of 8.5 per cent in metros. The pre-revised salary of the bank clerk was Rs 6,600 as compared with the Central Government clerk’s salary of Rs 11,000.
Many State Governments have adopted the Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations. A number of public sector undertakings have implemented the Pay Commission recommendations as a benchmark for their salary revision.
The government, public sector and private sector undertakings are paying high salaries to their entire workforce, with the exception of the banking sector. Given these facts, can bank officers and employees be described as belonging to an island of high wages?
MORE WORK, LESS PAY
The business hours for the customers used to be four hours a day and working hours for the staff was seven hours with a 30-minute lunch break. To provide best customer service, the business hours have been increased to six hours, within the stipulated working hours of seven hours a day. After business hours, the bank staff need three to four hours to complete back-office work at the branch level, because of which the working hours for officers are practically extended to about 11 hours a day without any monetary compensation or increase in salary structure, whereas new generation private sector banks duly compensate the extended working hours in their salary packages.
We have completed 40 years of bank nationalisation, and we owe our gratitude to the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for taking the bold step. The country’s transformation since then is in no small measure due to the role played by nationalised banks.
We feel proud to work in nationalised banks and be part of the nation-building exercise.
We started with social banking but now have almost attained the standards of global banking. Yet, we are paid less than municipal wages.
The need of the hour is to restore the pay parity with government employees and uphold external relativity as done by the Pillai Committee 30 years ago.
(The author is Vice-President, AIBOC.)
Who is responsible for all these things. No doubt the persons who are negotiating for wages with the government.
ReplyDeleteOver the long period when the Association and Unions ruled, they have themselves used the workforce and the management that the result is absolute domination by the Management & the Government.
ReplyDeleteDear freinds
ReplyDeleteWe have inefficient and corrupt leader ship at UFBU.
Inefficient :- These UFBU leaders have been negiotiating with IBA from Post PCR, and slowly our wages have come down to half of our equivalent services of goverment. WHo is responsible. only Banker's leadership.
Corrupt leadership:- Even after bringing us to such despicable position leaders donot want to vacate the leadership position. Our more 90% leadership is retired. They are representing the mass of Bank's working class. How can they be our true representative. Now our wage revision fund has been shared for retired employee. Can some body give me example from world history, where Unions have ever negiotiated for retired employee and snatched the share from fund allocated for wage HIKE. if Rs 7100 crore was left only for wages distribution we could have got more than 35% hike in our wages.
We have given our representation to them ( Amost important thing of our life) now in all our future career, we will have to suffer and survive with low pay and social status declination. Now our Sub-staff will get less than sweeper staff our Goverment and bank officer would be less than Goverment Babu.
Rajesh
kudos to MR Rajesh ... spread the awearness
ReplyDeleteBANK’s WAGE REVISION Mathematics
ReplyDelete1. Initially IBA has agreed for Rs 6000/ Crore as wage revision Burden due external relativity (6th Pay commission recommendation). Later on improved up to Rs 7800 Crores.
2. Employee Unions raised the demand for pension Option. Option was converted into Pension burden calculation and sharing of Pension burden. Silently and conveniently External Relativity was ignored and lost.
a) Initially for current employee Pension burden (Rs 6000/ crore )
b) later on even for employees retired after 1996 pension burden Rs 3000 Crores.
3. Mathematics of pension is as follows
Assumption Rs 250/ crores is 1% (figures in Crore)
Total Wages offered by IBA = Rs 7800/- (Approx 31.2 %)
Total Burden of Pension = Rs 6000/-
Out of which
IBA agreed pension burden = Rs 4200/ (deducted from wage offer)
Wage revision offer shown to us = 3600 Crores (7800 – 4200= 3600) (actually 14.4 %)
Employee to bear Pension burden = Rs 1800/
Net (Actual ) Wage revision offer is only = Rs 1800/
(Rs3600 -1800= 1800) = 7.20 %
High Lights of wage revision Agreement :-
1. IBA was ready to pay 31.20 % rise Rs 7800/ Crore
2. Full pension burden is adjusted from wage hike in either way.(7800-6000)
3. Unions wants to help even retired (after 1996) employee from this wage revision.
4. Net Wage revision offered is meager Rs 1800/ Crore (Aprox 7.20%)
5. If pension is actually given as an option Employee would get 31.20 % rise in wage which when compared with external relativity (Central Govt employee was given 33 % to 40 % Rise.) may be in acceptable limit.
6. Pension burden is fully loaded on Bank’s employees.
7. In desperate bid to obtain 2nd pension Option, Union have opened a new way to IBA for sharing the future wage revision burden by employees.
8. This is not the pension option, it is burden sharing by Current employees.
9. Unions are silently playing against current employee interest,
Decision of Retired employee burden (RS 3000/ Crores ) sharing is not clear
Members needs to be alert of development, and read all UFBU circulars carefully. And Act if necessary.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteYou have nice blog. Several folks these days do not know whether they are acquiring appropriate wage for their profession. To be clear one can check online salary comparison websites to know what other organizations offer for the same position. For instance to compare wage of an analyst one can just type analyst salary in a salary comparison website like Whatsalary.com