UPDATE 2:
The talks with the Director regarding the remaining ladies have ended with a blunt and negative response. The meeting was a short one, on the account of the Director being busy. In all, his response to our requests that the remaining ladies be re-instated can be summarised in a few lines -
- As students, you shouldn't be involved in this business. Nothing can be done for the ladies.
- There are certain government regulations that estimate the number of ladies required per square foot of area, and following these regulations has resulted in the removal of these women.
- We have been as kind and generous to these ladies in the past - but it is simply not possible for me as Director to keep track of every face now.
From our point of view, the response to each of these arguments is relatively simple:
- We are involved in this business as humans. Students is simply a secondary tag we bear.
- a. What are these regulations? b. Were we then in violation of these previously?
- How is this relevant?
With this in mind, we are now writing a formal letter to the Dean (students) - asking the following questions:
- What is the IWD estimate of the square-foot area of each Hostel?
- What are the regulations that determine how many housekeeping staff are required ?
- How many ladies are estimated as required and why is this different from the previous estimate?
We will also be requesting the following:
- A copy of the contract that is currently in use for the housekeeping staff.
- IWD approved plans of the hostels.
Having assumed this more confrontational status, we need all the support we can get from you. Please show that you care, share this or say a few words of your own.
UPDATE 1:
(original post below)
The director's reconsideration has yielded some benefit. Half of the ladies have been reinstated. For this, kudos to the director and the Dean (students). The problem is slowly marching towards resolution.It is to be noted that these ladies have been asked to work in the academic blocks, leaving the hostel still understaffed*. However, more importantly, in the eyes of the ladies who have not yet been reinstated, the situation has no doubt taken a very ugly turn. Whether they have misunderstood or this has actually happened, we can't tell - but they have come to believe that the five taken back where chosen on a system of merit. Which leaves them feeling hard-done by, as they haven't really put a foot wrong.
There are two ways to describe this situation. We've chosen to be as objective as possible, to the point of sounding cold and distant to all the emotion involved. The picture isn't quite complete though. There is a very human side to this.
These ladies, or aunties, as we commonly refer to them - are still lining up outside the IISER gates on a daily basis. Deluding themselves to believe that they can win their jobs back by merely willing it to happen, because the alternative is probably beyond contemplation. A single mother of 3 children, a lady with an alcoholic for a husband (this woman also recently sustained substantial injuries in an accident) - these are stories that you cannot walk away from without a sour taste scarring your psyche for the rest of the day. And that doesn't do them justice, not even remotely. They aren't just stories, they are people - like the rest of us.
"I turned down another job to work here. And now I've lost both jobs. I did my work well, (
I can vouch for that, this aunty works on my floor and it is invariably clean by 9.00 am) but one day I'm working and the next day I'm gone. What do I do?" The tears dry in the blazing heat, leaving a salt mine.
What can we do? For one, every voice counts. If you can share this, or post a few words of your own about this, it will be very helpful. For another, YATN plans to hold a meeting with the director. If you are on campus and feel as strongly about this as we do, please do try to make it. We will post details here as soon as we have them.
*Understated as this point is, it also a matter of critical importance. Will post developments as they happen.
_______________________________________
(Original post starts here)
This post is with regard to point 3 of the previous post.
IISER Mohali's hostels are kept clean by a body of housekeeping staff. They are primarily middle-aged to elderly ladies, earning close to minimum wages. On a daily basis, nearly 50 of them used to be responsible to keep 2 wings on 8 floors of 4 hostels clean. This included around 250 toilets stalls.
Recently, owing to a change in the structure of the tender for the housekeeping contract, 10 ladies were removed from their posts. (Please find the tender
here.) This change in tender warrants some discussion, but prior to that, some crucial points must be noted. The remaining 40 ladies are now distributed as 10 ladies per hostel - meaning that they all have to handle almost an entire floor on their own. This considerable increase in duties of an already over-worked work force promises to be disastrous. Even ignoring concerns about the ten ladies who have been removed abruptly after 6-7 years of service, this move seems to be ill-conceived. A slightly more careful review of the tender shows causes for concern.
For one, the tender has been issued been issued by the Administration Office. This is an oddity, considering that other hostel services, such as the mess tender were issued by the Office of the Dean (Students). Of course, it could well be the case that this is how the duty is divided, however, the clear lack of understanding of the hostel's requirements on the part of the Admin Office is evident from the tender.
Under Annexure 1 - B. Broad details of Scope of Work
Pt 2 - Continuous moping to be done at reception floor and other floors during office hours. 9.00am - 5.30pm.
Pt 4 - Cleaning and dusting of entire furniture, partitions, wooden cabin walls, railings, doors, windows venetian blinds, racks, sofas, typewriters, computers, telephones, curtains, wall mounted fans etc. with dry/wet cloth, feather brush and duster.
The hostels do not have a "reception". Nor do they have a majority of the items listed in pt 4 - sofas, typewriters, telephones, or wall mounted fans for instance. Similar errors are seen in sections C and D. Multiple other points refer to the hostel as the "office" - as if this was tender was simply adapted from one of the tenders used for the Administrative or Academic buildings. If that is the case - has sufficient thought been put into the number of staff required to handle the task?
These categorical arguments aside, there is the issue of the ten ladies who were removed. What can be done to solve the issue?
Before we discuss this, a few positions have to be clarified. The Dean (students) has put on record his opposition to this change in tender and has requested the Director to reconsider the situation. As YATN we are currently waiting for the response to this request before we formally state our position on the same.
Simultaneously, over a few meetings with the entire housekeeping staff of the hostels, we are trying to rectify a few other issues that they face. For one, we are trying to ensure that all the ladies read and develop at least a rudimentary understanding of their contracts. Also, to augment their minimum wage income, we are trying to help them organise themselves into a cooperative society. The goal of this is to help them produce and sell certain products in their free time, like in a cottage scale industry. Over time, if sufficiently successful, this organisation may be able to bid for the housekeeping contract directly.
Watch this space for updates. Any comments or suggestions are welcome.
