Comments of ABS on Views of IBA  & UFBU : These demands have been raised by bankers even befoe 10th BPS had started.  Charter of Demand submitted is already 16 months old.   IBA has still not discussed the issue with higher authorities.  This means IBA has not bothered to read Charter of Demands seriously and take up these with GoI. Even a dummy banker will be able to conclude that UFBU leaders are totally spineless and worthless,  as they have even failed to question or confront IBA for such a lax attitude,  Just imagine what will happen to officers from Scale I to Scale VII, if they sleep over a loan file of Mukesh Ambani or Adani, resulting in stoppage of the project?

Moreover, in our articles even before 10th BPS was due, I have time and again mentioned that introduction of 5 days banking should never be part of the 10th BPS as it has nothing to do with wage revision.   This is based on international practices and based to human values which require that employees get sufficient time at weekends to spend with their families.  However, UFBU has intentionally linked this issue with wage revision to exploit the sentiments of employees, and IBA is using this as a tool to divert / suppress other demands for wage increases.   Finally, you will land up with minimum increase in wages and continue with 6 days week.

The issue of regulated working hours for officers is really a NON ISSUE.  The working hours are already defined as 7 hours on week days and 4 hours on Saturdays.    Can any UFBU leader,  explain what kind of regulation now they want?    Where is the need to reopen this issue?  If UFBU leaders had the guts and ready to support banker fraternity, they should announce that no branch will remain open after 6.00 PM and should demand as welfare measure (or under RTI )regularly from management the details of people who remained logged in CBS or other computer systems, beyond 6.00 PM and place these facts before Labour Commissioners and other Human Rights Commissions and shame the bank CMDs, EDs, GMs who are forcing the officers to sit late.    Thus, to raise the issue of regulated working hours is only to exploit the emotional pitch of the bankers who are being forced to sit beyond 5.00PM.  The employees are asked to sit beyond 5.00 pm as management knows that individual employee can not fight due to threat of transfer and / or charge sheet on flimsy grounds.  However, if unions fight unitedly and suo moto takes notice of branches being opened beyond 6.00 PM at the most,  I am sure, management will have to bow down.  Thus, Union leaders can resolve this issue easily by taking up the issue at their own level and ensure that whichever officer is issued any notice for not sitting late, the matter is taken up by union on his behalf,  and if necessary  case filed in court and every new case is clubbed with the original case filed.

No court will decide in favour of management for regular late sittings, it can be forced only in case of emergency like failure of computer systems in a region or national level etc.  I am sure no banker ever minds sitting late in such emergent situations.

Comments of ABS on Views of IBA  & UFBU :  The move to have quarters / housing accommodation for all employees (assuming that it is for workman staff too)  is a controversial move as it has its pros and cons.  It is sure that no bank will buy or construct quarters in the heart of cities, and bankers who are not provided with bank vehicle find it extremely difficult to commute from bank quarters  to their branches.   The cost and maintenance of such quarters is so costly that it is not cost effective even for bank.   The better solution will be to demand leased accommodation for remaining employees and such limits to be based on scientific based market rates.   Moreover, the HRA should be at least 30% as in central government.   This will help employees to enjoy the flexibility of area where they wish to live with options available for schooling of children.  To raise such a demand should have been based on some opinion poll among the employees. [I personally had to refuse the bank accommodation at one of my postings, as the same was too far away and most of the flats have extremely poor maintenance. Thankfully, at that time  was allowed to opt for leased accommodation, which now is not allowed by bank if bank accommodation is available, even if in depleted conditions.  At another posting my official accommodation was far better than the leased accommodation.   Thus, move is a controversial one]

Comments of ABS on Views of IBA  & UFBU : IBA has not given any commitment and we can comment about these only when IBA gives the details.

(b) UFBU reminded IBA about periodical demand for  updation of pension on occasions of wage revision

(b) IBA felt that the issue has to be  examined, in its entirety, looking at the cost involved, outflow, etc. 
 

Comments of ABS on Views of IBA  & UFBU : Both these issues are based on social responsibilities of banks towards the senior citizens above the age of 72 years or whose spouses have died.   It is regrettable that even after submission of demands 16 months ago, IBA has not bothered to calculate even the cost on 100% DA formula for pre 2002 retired employees.

Similarly, for updation of pension, IBA is not ready with any plans and have yet to examine the cost involved.

Thus, in nutshell IBA has not committed anything but agreed to examine the issue.

Comments of ABS on Views of IBA  & UFBU : It is clear that IBA has flatly refused to accede the demand.  Although, this demand was highly beneficial to new employees, if Banks agree, but with the changed scenario at government thinking, it is almost impossible to get this demand accepted as even government employees have also been shifted to NPS.  Thus, it appears UFBU has asked for this demand only to please their cadre, and I am of the firm view that in this changed circumstances it will never be accepted.   [Let me be blunt on this issue for newly recruited employees.  If unions are serious, then they need to tie up with Central Government employees unions and raise the issue jointly and force Parliament of India to absolish NPS for central government and public sector units, or else it is futile to discuss this issue with IBA]

Comments of ABS on Views of IBA  & UFBU : This is another issue which has no relevance to wage revision. On many earlier occasions I have written that this issue must be delinked from wage revision as it affects hardly 1% of the employees, and lot of time (may be over  10 years) has been wasted in discussions on this issue without any achievement.

Comments of ABS on Views of IBA  & UFBU : This is the most critical issue for which bankers are waiting, but was kept as a last priority by IBA. Why? UFBU has simply told the cadres now that IBA is not agreeable to make further offer (i.e. bankers should not expect more than 10% rise on Pay-Slip component.