News reports from across the country revealed that approximately a million bank employees from scale I, II, and III participated in the strike, which saw 100 per cent participation. Though the strike was for two days, public sector banks remained closed for four days due to the weekend inconveniencing customers to some extent. Besides no physical banking transactions, including cash withdrawals, deposits, cheque clearances and remittances during these four days in public sector banks, ATMs of a large number also ran dry. To the people, the assurance that the ATMs would be replenished when the staff joined service, was little consolation.
The nationwide strike was protesting the privatisation of public sector banks and the retrograde banking reforms. The reasoning given by bank employees against privatisation of PSU banks is that it will lead to a rise in service charges which will have to be borne by the customer, and they justified the strike stating that they were fighting for the common people and not for bank employees. Other reasons proffered was that recruitments will decrease, that private banks will close down branches in rural areas, it will impact reservation in jobs and support to agriculture. While much of this would be the truth, what is also required is that these statements be vouched for with data.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Take the case of Goa, private banks do have branches in rural areas and villagers will vouch for better service of the private bank ATMS than that of some of the PSUs. For that matter, aren’t private banks in the country, and not just the State, giving the public sector banks stiff competition, despite the increase service charges that the bank employees claim will be introduced in the case of privatisation? The reason why a large number of people seek out private banks is because these banks offer better services to their customers. The public sector banks should aim to meet those standards of efficiency displayed by the employees of the private banks, so that they can be competitive in the market.
For employees of public sector banks, an appointment is seen as job security for the rest of their working life with all the perks and pension on retirement. There is a sense of complacency in the employees. What public sector banks need to change is this attitude in employees. Bring about the discipline and accountability that is seen in private banks, bring the marketing targets that are set for employees of private banks to bring about discipline in public sector banks. One of the reasons given against privatisation is that recruitment will drop. In the current era, where the personal interface in banks has considerably reduced due to online banking systems and the ATM services, is a huge staff for banks warranted?
Public sector banks have to improve their services. Privatisation may not be the only solution and going private does not imply that the banks will improve their services. There are also examples of failed private banks and also of those in the cooperative sector. Accountability and discipline of the staff may make the difference. When the unions oppose privatisation and demand an infusion of capital and human resources, this has to be warranted by the delivery of services. Public sector banks cannot expect to be bailed out by the government every time. Just as private banks they too have to assume the responsibility of showing a profit in the balance sheet. Let the public sector banks demonstrate that they too are responsible entities.
