Sanitation Failing Without Wages

An Inquiry into Pune’s Waste Collection Cooperative Model by Pune-Sixteen, a Citizen Initiative of Residents of Pune-16

Note: We present this inquiry as an open and respectful communication, especially with the director of the SWaCH Cooperative, whose team has engaged with us in three open and good-faith meetings, initiated with the consent of the PMC. Our intention is not confrontation, but collective reflection — and, ideally, structural reform.

Pune struggles with heaps of garbage in public view. As concerned local citizens, we grapple with the persistent problem of household garbage being dumped on the footpaths near Homi Bhabha Hospital, Model Colony, Pune–411016.

On the suggestion of the local ward office of the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), we initiated a dialogue with the team entrusted with door-to-door waste collection in our area, to understand the bottlenecks and explore collaboration in keeping our footpaths clean. This study emerged from those interactions, and offers a critical review of the operational model adopted by PMC for waste collection.

The PMC spends approximately 0.04% of its ₹10,000–₹15,000 crore annual budget on the task of (1) Collecting waste door-to-door from 9.6 lakh households, (2) Sorting, bagging, and transporting the waste in handcarts to feeder points, and (3) Loading the bags into PMC trucks when they arrive at those points.

The first question we raise is: Is this a reasonable budgetary allocation by a municipal body whose core mandate includes solid waste management?

Importantly, this sum is not paid to the waste-pickers who physically perform the work. Instead, nearly 95% is used to pay salaries of a hired team of 167 staff (managing coordination, data entry, finance, administration, and outreach), and 5% for related costs. Meanwhile, the waste-pickers derive their income from two unregulated sources:

Together, these income streams add up to ₹120–130 crore per year — a substantial sum that flows entirely through the informal economy, with no institutional oversight, no wage protection, and no transparency.

To lend this system a legal appearance, the illiterate Dalit waste-pickers are organized into a registered cooperative society called SWaCH, whose governing body comprises 14 waste-picker members, one representative from PMC, and one from the trade union KKPKP. The funds released by PMC are officially transferred to the cooperative, which then disburses them to the hired team as salaries and operating costs — but not to the workers actually collecting the waste.

This leads to our second key question: Is this an equitable, transparent, and ethically defensible model for delivering a basic civic service like door-to-door waste collection?

The waste-pickers — who collect household waste daily, sort it manually, transport it to feeder points, and load it into PMC trucks — are performing the same essential public function as PMC’s regular sanitation staff. Yet, they are neither classified as employees nor protected under minimum wage laws, formal status, structured wages, or employment benefits like ESI, provident fund, job security, or pension. This arrangement clearly is a deliberate design choice, not an oversight. The creation of a worker cooperative effectively insulates the municipal body from any demand for parity. 

One justification offered is that waste-pickers work fewer, flexible number of hours (typically 2–6 hours a day) than regular PMC workers (8 hours). PMC and SWaCH further argue that this model allows for flexibility that regular public service frameworks do not accommodate: there are no educational requirements, no age bars, and no rigid entry criteria. Waste-pickers are free to determine how many households they serve, and absences do not result in punitive wage cuts — the cooperative arranges replacements when needed. In other words, the model provides a kind of functional inclusion for those who might not otherwise be employable by the state.

While such flexibility is undeniably important for many waste-pickers, it must be weighed against the absence of wage guarantees, legal protections, and social security. The model, as it stands, still rests on informal income sources and lacks institutional oversight.

Thus, we raise the third question: Can the use of a cooperative — intentionally or otherwise — to avoid recognizing waste-pickers on par with public servants performing the same job, even while offering functional flexibility, withstand legal and ethical scrutiny? ***

The three activities in focus are labor-intensive, daily operations that form the visible and citizen-facing backbone of the SWM chain. They are not capital-heavy, but they are operationally critical. Budgetary allocation of 0.04% of the PMC budget, ≈ ₹5–6 crore/year, is shockingly low for a city of Pune’s scale. Especially because these activities directly affect public hygiene, footpath usability, and urban aesthetics.

The entire system depends on informal labor, with no wage guarantees. The PMC’s own SWM budget is over ₹500 crore, yet this front-end segment receives a fraction of a percent.

Even if we assume ₹100 crore/year is collected informally via user fees, PMC’s formal contribution to these front-end activities is less than 5% of the total economic value of the service. In contrast, cities like Indore and Mysuru allocate 1–2% of their total budget to decentralized waste collection and segregation. Therefore, 0.04% is not a reasonable allocation.  It reflects a systemic undervaluation of the most essential and visible part of the waste management chain — and effectively outsources the cost and risk to the poorest workers and the informal economy.

SWaCH is not the problem — the model of institutional outsourcing without accountability is. Waste-pickers have no formal wages; they are not paid by PMC. They rely on informal user fees and recyclables. There is no oversight of ₹100+ crore/year. The user fee economy is completely unregulated, with no receipts, audits, or grievance redressal. There is only a token governance. The cooperative is technically worker-owned, but real control lies with salaried staff and PMC-appointed representatives. There is an ethical bypass. By routing funds through a cooperative, PMC avoids labor law obligations, wage protections, and social security. 

There is no transparency in financial flows and apparently in decision-making. Equity is deeply compromised — the model externalizes cost and risk onto Dalit women workers. The entire operation is ethically indefensible — it masks informal exploitation under the guise of empowerment.

In a just model, the waste-pickers whould be paid a minimum monthly wage by PMC, with PF and ESI benefits. The ₹90/month fee should be brought under PMC billing, with digital receipts and opt-out mechanisms. The governance should be made transparent by ensuring functional literacy, training, and real voting power for waste-picker board members. At least 1% of the PMC’s budget should be allocated to front-end SWM activities, with a focus on labor dignity.

=======

Text to address the third question:

Agreed. Do you think we will be able to refute this argument?



ChatGPT said:

Yes, Rajendra — this “flexibility” argument can absolutely be refuted, or at least critically qualified to expose its limits, costs, and strategic misuse.


It’s not a bogus argument — there is a degree of functional flexibility in the SWaCH model. But that flexibility:


Benefits the system more than the worker, and


Comes at the cost of wage security, legal rights, and dignity, which no fair public model should compromise.


🛠 Refuting the “Flexibility” Argument: Key Points

🔹 1. Flexibility without security is not empowerment

Being allowed to “choose households” or “work part-time” is not a substitute for:


Minimum guaranteed income


Legal protection from exploitation


Access to benefits like PF, ESI, maternity leave


If a private contractor offered this same “flexibility” but no salary or social protection, we’d call it exploitative.


🔹 2. Informal income ≠ dignity or predictability

The supposed “freedom” comes at a cost:


No sick pay


No pension


No childcare or healthcare cover


Waste-pickers bear full risk of illness, injury, or loss of income


Would we accept this model for teachers or nurses? If not, why for waste-pickers?


🔹 3. Flexibility benefits PMC most of all

No recruitment process


No liability for absenteeism or death/injury


No HR costs or labour court exposure


No retirement pensions or wage escalations


The real flexibility lies with PMC, not the worker.

It is outsourcing without responsibility, under a benevolent mask.


🔹 4. False binary: flexibility or rights

The current model assumes: “Either give them flexibility or give them rights.”

But globally, informal workers can be protected:


Through minimum floor wages


Flexible hours with proportional benefits


Income tracking and opt-in social protection schemes


So why not here?


🔚 Conclusion of the Refutation

Yes, some flexibility exists — but it’s over-glorified.

It’s used to justify a deeper structural denial: of recognition, rights, and regulated dignity.


In your article, you can acknowledge the merit of flexibility but frame it as insufficient and misused. Let me know if you'd like me to draft this section for the body of your article. It could be titled:


"Flexibility or Freedom? The Mirage of Empowerment in the Cooperative Model"


You’re well-positioned to lead this critique.









You said:

given that argument, how can the workers be fitted into public service framework?



ChatGPT said:

That’s the core of the structural solution, Rajendra. The flexibility-vs-rights dilemma can be resolved with thoughtful reforms that retain choice for workers while ensuring dignity, security, and fairness. Here's how waste-pickers can be brought under a public service framework — without losing the flexibility that currently exists:


✅ 1. Introduce a “Tiered Public Sanitation Worker” Category

Create a new class within the PMC workforce, say, “Auxiliary Sanitation Workers” or “Community Sanitation Associates”.


Recognize SWaCH waste-pickers under this category.


Allow 5–6 hour work slots, but pro-rate wages, ESI, PF, and insurance accordingly.


PMC remains legally the employer, with the Cooperative acting as facilitator or staffing agency (not principal employer).


🧩 Example:

If PMC workers earn ₹25,000 for 8 hours, these workers can earn ₹15,000 for 5 hours — but with formal ID cards, job protection, grievance redress, and benefits.


✅ 2. Municipalize the User Fee System

Bring the ₹90/month fee under PMC billing:


Add it to property tax or water bills (like solid waste cess)


Or collect via UPI-based SWaCH app with PMC receipt backing


Use the funds to:


Pay wages directly to workers


Top up insurance and social security


Eliminate cash-based informal transactions


🎯 This removes corruption, creates audit trails, and puts PMC back in control and responsibility.


✅ 3. Link with National Urban Employment Programmes

Leverage existing schemes like DAY-NULM, or proposed Urban MGNREGA pilots


Register waste-pickers as urban informal workers


Offer:


Attendance-linked minimum income


Occupational health support


Digital ID and bank linkage


💡 This approach doesn’t disturb existing cooperative structure but wraps it inside a safety net.


✅ 4. Train and Transition Willing Workers into Regular Posts

For workers who want full-time stability:


Offer bridge training (e.g., literacy, safety, tool handling)


Reserve seats in future PMC Class IV recruitment


Recognize years of SWaCH service as priority weightage


🌱 This provides a growth ladder, especially for younger waste-pickers.


✅ 5. Institutionalize Cooperative Governance

Enforce minimum education or training for elected board members


Mandate independent audits, grievance cell, and financial disclosure


Ensure real voting power and prevent overconcentration of authority among salaried staff


Define a code of conduct for both the Coop and PMC in dealing with workers


🔍 What This Achieves

Goal Achieved by

Flexibility of hours Tiered employment + partial shifts

Worker security Wages, PF/ESI, legal employer recognition

Institutional accountability Municipal billing + Coop audit reforms

Public responsibility Bringing PMC back into payment structure

Growth and recognition Training-to-service bridge pathway


✊ Bottom Line

Flexibility and dignity are not mutually exclusive.

A just state must not use flexibility as an excuse to deny rights.


You’re absolutely right to push this issue — and now we have clear proposals to replace the “either–or” mindset with a “both–and” framework.


Would you like me to help write this section into your article, or make it a policy appendix?









You said:

I think the flexibility argument cuts both ways. Ot means sick and infirm can work against (nonexistent) medical advice



ChatGPT said:

Exactly, Rajendra — and that’s a powerful insight.


The “flexibility” argument cuts both ways: while it may offer superficial autonomy, it also permits — even encourages — exploitation, particularly of the sick, elderly, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable.


Here’s how you can critically unpack this dual-edged nature of the argument in your article:


🧨 The Myth of Flexibility: A Double-Edged Sword

Proponents of the SWaCH model often cite “flexibility” as a virtue: no age bar, no qualifications, self-determined work hours, and informal absence without penalty. But this very flexibility can mask deeper risks.


On one hand, it allows some waste-pickers — especially women or elderly workers — to balance domestic responsibilities, work at their own pace, or reduce workloads when needed.


On the other hand, it creates a structure where:


Sick or injured workers continue to work without medical clearance — because no work means no income


There is no medical leave, sick pay, or occupational health coverage


Waste-pickers with chronic illnesses or disabilities are not protected, but rather absorbed invisibly into the informal labor pool


The model quietly enables the use of the most vulnerable as stop-gap labor, while shielding the system from legal or ethical accountability


This isn’t flexibility — it’s insecurity dressed up as autonomy.


In a truly fair model, flexibility would be supported by:


Optional part-time work, not mandatory informalization


Income floors, not income uncertainty


Health safeguards and rest periods, not silent suffering


🛑 Suggested One-Sentence Framing for Your Article

What is presented as flexibility is often a burden in disguise — allowing the sick, elderly, or injured to continue working without protection or care, simply because no formal employment means no formal responsibility.


Let me know if you'd like me to draft this as a paragraph for the body of your article — it can either be a refutation inside the third question’s answer, or a standalone section titled “Flexibility for Whom?”