Embedded Files
If It Works, ‘Fix’ It: The Case of GH1 Mess
On February 1, 2014, the Girls’ Hostel I (GH1) mess management was handed over to a private contractor, the last of the older hostel messes to make this transition from ‘government’ to ‘private’ mess management. In GH1, this transition had already begun as early as 2010 with respect to the mess workers by which time, most permanent CoW/daily wage workers had been phased out of GH1 mess and replaced by contract workers on the labour supply model, leaving only mess management in the hands of permanent employees. It is notable that GH1 residents repeatedly expressed their satisfaction with the service being provided to them by these mess workers and requested that this status quo be maintained. And yet, this user satisfaction with the existing system was not allowed to interfere with the ongoing Institute plans to hand over perennial work (such as hall messes) to private contractors. A system that was not broken was thus ‘fixed’, and as always, the cost has been borne by the workers who have been providing exemplary service to GH1 residents for anywhere from 2 to 10 years. It is ten of these workers who have now been turned out of GH1 mess for no fault of their own. Though they have been accommodated currently in other hall messes on the insistence of the CoW chair, there is little surety of their being able to continue in their new positions where they are clearly seen as an imposition by both contractors and co-workers. The entire exercise raises some fundamental systemic issues with regard to the private contractual system in the Institute:
Whose needs are being addressed since obviously neither the users nor the workers appear to be the consideration?
Who benefits from this system which merely removes all accountability of the Institute by handing over perennial work to private contractors?
The case of the GH1 mess provides disturbing answers to these questions which demand our attention, and more importantly, our collective intervention to ensure a humane, just, and democratic workplace for all members of this Institute community.
Points to Ponder:
The official justification for the rampant spread of the private contractual system of work on campus is that it leads to greater ‘efficiency’, defined usually as better service by workers and decreased burden on Institute administration which can then focus on ‘more important’ academic matters. Even if we take these arguments at face value, the GH1 case raises troubling legal and ethical questions regarding this model of ‘efficiency’:
Worse working conditions: The insertion of a private contractor between the Institute and the workers providing the necessary perennial service clearly eases, if not facilitates, exploitative working conditions (such as 16 hour workdays and the constant threat of job loss). Are such working conditions really conducive to ‘better service’? The exemplary functioning of the GH1 mess BEFORE it was privatised gives a lie to this claim.
Loss of Teamwork: Providing mess service involves producing 3 fresh and palatable meals a day on time every day of the week. This is not possible simply by putting ‘adequate number’ of workers in place, but is more importantly a delicate exercise of teamwork and participation which GH1 workers were able to carry out effectively and which was destroyed by this arbitrary change.
Institute’s Role in Hiring/Firing: Considering the fact that it was the GH1 Hall authorities who created the list of 25 workers to be retained, while it was the CoW chair who ensured that the fired GH1 workers were accommodated in other Hall messes, the Institute administration clearly remains deeply involved in the hiring and firing of contract workers. How, then, is the burden on Institute administration decreased through privatisation? The only decrease appears to be in Institute’s responsibility and accountability with respect to the workers providing essential services.
Monopoly of Contractors: While privatisation means that those actually providing the service (workers) face constant uncertainty regarding their work (its nature/conditions and continuation), the private contractors themselves get more and more entrenched within the Institute.
Currently, for example, 11 hostel messes are distributed amongst merely 4 private contractors, one of whom has the contract for 5 of the hostels! How is the Institute’s dependence on a handful of private contractors for essential services conducive to its overall development as a ‘world-class’ educational centre?
Our Role as a Community:
IIT Kanpur has prided itself on its democratic functioning wherein all stakeholders have had a voice in the Institute’s vision and functioning. If we value this tradition, we need to ask ourselves if democratic functioning is possible in a scenario where the second-largest constituency on campus (the contract workers) is rendered invisible and voiceless, while control of essential services goes into the hands of private contractors who have no direct stake in the Institute. Just about a year ago, in an Open House convened by the Faculty Forum we had passed a resolution pledging involvement of all campus community constituencies in ensuring the legal and ethical rights of contract workers on campus. Is it not time for us to collectively redeem that pledge, to put democracy into action by voicing our concerns and taking control of what happens within our Institute? If we work together, we can make a difference; we can make IITK into an exemplary Institute ensuring a just, humane, and democratic workplace for all those earning their livelihood on campus.
Hamara Manch
March 2014
Attachment: GH1 mess 2014.pdf
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse