Samsung Strike Ends: How DMK's Actions Go Against Its Own Social Justice Motto

The party's approach, which included police action against protesting workers, drew criticism from its ally CPM.

After stretching for over 37 days, the labour strike at Samsung India's plant in Tamil Nadu's Sriperumbudur – one of the bigger labour movements India has witnessed in recent years – came to an end on 15 October.

(Photo: PTI)

After stretching for over 37 days, the labour strike at Samsung India's plant in Tamil Nadu's Sriperumbudur – one of the bigger labour movements India has witnessed in recent years – came to an end on 15 October.

As the protests by over a thousand workers prolonged, demanding the recognition of their newly formed labour union – the Samsung India Workers Union (SIWU), backed by the CPI(M)-affiliated Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU) – a consensus wasn't reached before straining the seven-year political relationship between the ruling MK Stalin-led Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and its close ally CPI(M).

The DMK government's approach to the Samsung protest, which included police action against striking workers and its reluctance to recognise the SIWU, drew criticism from the CPM.

Adding to this were accusations that the ruling party was prioritising corporate interests over the welfare of labourers, undermining the CPM's base of trade unionists and working-class supporters. Moreover, the DMK's attempts to distance itself from the CPM by signalling that the alliance is not imperative for its political strategy further exacerbated tensions.

A day after the DMK-led government and Samsung India confirmed that the strike had come to an end, SIWU said that workers will resume work from 17 October, The Quint has learnt.

So, why were Samsung workers protesting? What were their demands? And where does the DMK-CPM relationship stand now? The Quint explains.

Better Wages, Recognition of Union: What Workers' Demanded

In 2007, Samsung India set up a manufacturing facility in Sriperumbudur, near Chennai, specialising in a variety of flagship consumer electronics and home appliances, including luxury QLED TVs, the frame lifestyle TV, refrigerators, and washing machines.

Nearly 1,810 workers are employed at the Sriperumbudur plant, out of which 40 are women. In addition, 370 contract workers are also employed. Though many employees have worked with the plant for nearly 16 years, most earn monthly wages between Rs 20,000 and Rs 40,000, while their counterparts in Korea receive around Rs 4.55 lakh per month.  

On 16 June, an overwhelming majority of workers at Samsung India Electronics Private Limited formed the labour union – SIWU – under the provisions of the Trade Union Act of 1926. This was done under the presidentship of E Muthukumar, the CITU's veteran trade union leader.

The workers applied to register the union under the Registrar of Trade Unions on 26 June. However, Samsung India objected that the use of ‘Samsung’ in the SIWU was a violation of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

Speaking to The Quint, A Soundararajan, general secretary of the CITU, said,

"According to the Trade Union Act of 1926, the SIWU was required to be statutorily registered within 45 days of the application submission. However, after 85 days had passed without approving, the SIWU petitioned the Madras High Court on 20 September. The High Court instructed the Registrar of Trade Unions and the SIWU to meet and complete the registration process within two weeks, setting a deadline of 14 October." 

"The Registrar of Trade Unions, a statutory authority under the Trade Union Act of 1926 responsible for registering unions, succumbed to the pressure from Samsung India Electronics Private Limited and kept the registration of the workers' union pending," Soundararajan added.

On 11 July, SIWU members submitted a charter of demands, including better wage and work conditions, to Samsung India's management. Subsequently, workers issued a strike notice on 19 August, stating that they would begin a strike after 14 days. Some of their demands included:

• Recognising the SIWU

• Rs 36,000 as a total raise for three years – split as 70 percent for 2024, 15 percent for 2025, and 15 percent for 2026

• Service weightage of Rs 500 per annum based on the year of joining the service

• Work hours to be cut to seven hours a day, with a five-day workweek and a three-shift system.

• The number of sick leaves to be increased from 10 days, and workers to get 7 days of casual leaves

• Increase family medical insurance from Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh

What Sparked the Protests?

According to sources from the factory, Samsung management brought the issue to the Labour Commission for conciliation. Simultaneously, they filed a complaint with the Sriperumbudur police, requesting police protection to ensure the safe movement of vehicles and people in and out of the factory.

The management also sought to prevent and remove trespassing workers and union members, ensuring no striking workers gathered illegally within 500 meters of the factory premises.

The SIWU, on 30 August, held a meeting with nearly 700 employees, resolving to strike from 4 September.

Following this, Samsung approached the Madras High Court, seeking a directive to the police to prevent and remove striking employees.

But, on 2 September, the court rejected Samsung's plea and advised the management and the union to resolve their dispute through a conciliation officer and reach a settlement as soon as possible.

Further, on 6 September, a conciliation meeting was held before the Labour Commission. However, Samsung management remained firm in its refusal to meet the 20 demands presented by the union.

As a result, the SIWU launched an indefinite strike on 9 September, backed by nearly 1,500 employees, at Echoor, a km from the Samsung facility in Sriperumbudur.

Delayed Response: DMK Government Acts After Prolonged Standoff

Samsung escalated the issue to Tamil Nadu's Ministry of Industries after 70 percent of its workforce went on strike, causing significant operational disruptions and a decline in production.  

The strike received considerable media attention, and a month later, the DMK government stepped in to mediate between Samsung and the employees' union. 

On 5 October, CM MK Stalin appointed three ministers— Minister for Industries TRB Rajaa, Minister for Labour Welfare TM Anbarasan, and Minister for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises CV Ganesan – to resolve the dispute.

After five rounds of negotiations with the agitating workers, no progress was made.

According to highly placed sources from within the CPM, DMK ministers reached out to their leaders, requesting them to urge the CITU leadership to call off the strike.

The ministers emphasised the DMK government's focus on attracting foreign investments and warned that the strike could damage the state's image. However, the CPM leaders reportedly declined the request to back down from the agitation.

The MoU and the Midnight Arrests: A Controversial Turn

After the Tamil Nadu government held several rounds of discussions with both Samsung India's management and SIWU, an MoU was drafted. The agreement included provisions for a monthly ‘productivity stabilisation incentive’ of Rs 5,000 from October 2024 to March 2025, which would be included in the annual wage increment for the 2025-26 financial year.

However, the striking workers' union declined to acknowledge the MoU as there was no indication of accepting the union.

Speaking to The Quint, Senthil, a protesting Samsung worker, said,

"That's where it all began. Despite ongoing talks, the DMK government, with police assistance, took a heavy-handed approach against the protesting workers. Union leaders were arrested at midnight, and the tents at the protest site were dismantled. Workers arriving at the protest site via public transport were forced to show their ID cards and were detained on the spot. FIRs were filed against the protesters, and they faced threats of severe consequences."

On the condition of anonymity, a Kanchipuram police official said that protests initially remained peaceful, and despite pressure from Samsung, there were no directives from the government to suppress the protest.

"However, following a meeting between government ministers and the labour union, instructions were received from higher officials to detain key trade union leaders," said the police officer.

Senior journalist and political observer R Mani stated that Samsung management has a history of exploiting the employees working in its factories worldwide.

"They have been pardoned by the Korean government several times and penalised by the other governments for their unethical trade practices and financial crimes. Samsung has maintained a ‘no union’ policy since its inception more than 80 years ago until July 2021."

“How can a government turn to a police solution for a labour issue? Why are the ministers siding with a corporate entity instead of standing with 80% of Samsung’s employees on strike?” Mani questioned.

DMK Stalling Union Recognition: A Disservice to Social Justice?

Despite the statutory requirements for timely registration, the delays were interpreted as a lack of commitment to supporting workers' rights.

Critics argued that the government's inaction undermined the workers' ability to organise and advocate for their needs, raising doubts over the government's intention to uphold labour rights.

Soundararajan told The Quint that workers had provided a written response to Samsung's objections regarding the registration of the employees' union, "clearly informing the government that registering the union would resolve half of the problem." 

Speaking to The Quint on the condition of anonymity, a senior official from Samsung on 12 October stated that the management was unwilling to engage in discussions with the union "as long as it was supported by the CITU," insisting that they would only negotiate directly with the workers and not involve any third party.

On 14 October, a team of four DMK ministers, including EV Velu, TRB Rajaa, TM Anbarasan and CV Ganesan, held negotiations with both CITU representatives and Samsung management, but it reached no consensus.

However, a day later, Rajaa announced that the CITU had agreed to call off the strike and return to work. Samsung's management assured that no punitive action would be taken against the workers.

After a meeting was held, CITU-backed SIWU announced its decision to end the 37-day strike and resume to work on 17 October.

DMK vs CPM: A Strained Relationship?

In the days leading to the consensus, DMK supporters and its affiliated social media accounts began criticising the ongoing employee strike in favour of Samsung. They posted claims that the CITU was responsible for the exit of multinational companies like Nokia and Foxconn from Tamil Nadu.

Additionally, several DMK supporters shared video clips of a few employees who remained at work, arguing that the strike was ineffective.

Communist party leaders and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) president Thol Thirumavalavan, too, visited the protesting workers on the strike and extended their support.

CPM's State Secretary K Balakrishnan criticised the DMK, asserting that they cannot turn a blind eye and passively accept the government's actions. He emphasised that when workers are affected, it is essential to raise their voices. 

The CPM Puducherry unit took to social media, stating that the DMK government and the police action with blatant arrogance, disregarded the courts and the worker's right to protest. "This oppression is reprehensible! We will not back down," it remarked.

Commenting on the DMK's actions, political observer Mani said,

"The CPM's core vote bank comprises trade unionists and the working class. By undermining this base, the DMK realises that the communist vote bank may dwindle. Through its approach to the situation, the DMK is sending a clear message to the CPM: if they want to leave the alliance, they are free to do so, fully aware that the communist party has no choice but to remain in the alliance."

DMK's Labour Policies: A Continuation of Anti-Worker Sentiment

The DMK's policies and actions regarding issues pertaining to the labour sector have drawn considerable criticism, suggesting a pattern of prioritising corporate interests over workers' rights.

This perception isn't entirely new; it reflects a longstanding tension between the party's electoral promises to support labour and its actual governance decisions.

Stalin's stance on employee protests has sparked debate since it came to power. While the party, founded by Annadurai, has historically been linked to labour movements and worker rights, its recent actions have led to questions regarding its commitment to these principles.

On 21 April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Assembly had approved an amendment to the law that would enable workers to choose 12-hour shifts for four days a week. Following intense criticism from protesting workers and trade unions who claimed the amendment would lead to exploitation, the DMK government rescinded it on 25 April.

Addressing the Samsung protests, Mani remarked that the DMK government was "responsible for letting the issue escalate to this extent."

"Why did the government hesitate to register the union and delay the process beyond the 45-day limit? The DMK, a party celebrating its 75th year and known for championing social justice, must ask itself: Is arresting employees at midnight for fighting for their rights truly an act of social justice? Is this the Dravidian model it advocates?” he asked.