With lifeguards on strike, swimmers have no one to cover their backs
Around 650 lifeguards began an indefinite strike on Tuesday to press for several demands, including a hike in salary. As a consequence swimmers who venture into the sea will not have anyone watching their backs. They are more vulnerable despite assertions made by the government that more personnel would be pressed into service and assurances from Drishti, which runs the lifeguard service in State, that many personnel have not joined the strike.
As far as timing is concerned this could be the best time of the year for lifeguards to strike work, if one were to look at it from their point of view. If you were standing on the other side of the fence then this is the worst time because it is the peak of the tourism season and the number of swimmers in the Arabian Sea is higher than usual. This naturally increases the chance of an untoward incident.
So the question is, was it right for lifeguards to strike work and leave tourists vulnerable to the tides? It is easy to blame them, but the fact remains that the government was given sufficient notice of the strike and if it did nothing to resolve issues raised by lifeguards then a large portion of the blame would lie on the table of the government and the Tourism Minister.
The lifeguards are demanding a monthly wage of Rs 21,000, re-employment of 17 workers whose services were terminated in 2014, security of service, life insurance cover, better service conditions, pension and gratuity, road-map for regularization of services, provision of alternate employment after retirement and finalization of retirement age. It’s a long list of demands and taken together one can surmise that insecurity of service and uncertainty about the future seems to be at the heart of the problem.
Talks between the government and AITUC apparently came to naught and the government admitted failure when it invoked the provisions of Essential Services Maintenance Act to compel lifeguards to return to their posts. This tactic did not work and the lifeguards are presently protesting near the old secretariat. Their employer, Drishti has dubbed the strike as illegal and unjustified, but unless the problems raised by lifeguards are resolved they will continue to linger.
Although lifeguards are technically employed by Drishti, their salaries are dependent on the contract signed between the government and Drishti. In more simple terms if the government is willing to shell out more cash, their salaries can be increased. Question is, if the government is willing to implement the Seventh Pay Commission for government employees why can’t it raise the salaries of lifeguards who provide an important service on the beaches?
The lifeguard service provided by Drishti is exemplary and there is no need to interfere with it. It works because it is run by a private enterprise. Entrust the same work to the government and the result would be utter disaster. In other parts of the world, lifeguards are employed by the local authority, but the system works there because of the high levels of governance and the lack of corruption.
Some of the demands made by lifeguards, like provision of alternate service after they retire and pension, are outlandish, but the ones concerning better service conditions, payment of gratuity and finalization of retirement age could have been resolved. Pointing an accusing finger at lifeguards for striking work during the peak season will not do, the government must intervene because the lack of sufficient guards on the beaches is equivalent to putting lives of tourists in danger.
