When we attend seminars on the new Labour Codes consultants often present the 50% Basic Rule as a simple mathematical adjustment. They say that if the Basic is low we should simply reduce the Allowance and increase the Basic Pay to solve the problem.
This advice assumes that salary structures are flexible. For private companies they are. But for Cooperatives, Federations and PSUs this advice is not just useless because it is dangerous.
We are facing a clash between a Law and a Complicated Reality. Here is why the "Cut and Paste" solution fails for the Cooperative sector.
1. The Rigid Law: Black and White Compliance
The Code on Wages 2019 is unyielding. It states clearly that Basic Pay + DA must be at least 50% of the Gross CTC. If you do not meet this the "Excess Allowance" is treated as Wages which forces higher PF and Gratuity payments.
The law does not care why your Basic is low. It does not care about your history or your unions or your Board policies. It demands a number.
2. The Complicated Reality: A Real World Case Study
To understand why we cannot simply "tweak" the structure let us look at real numbers from a typical Managerial Pay Scale in the Cooperative sector. As professional in cooperative setup, knows the most cooperatives follow fixed pay scale wage structure, wherein Basic is differed employee to employee in same designation but the allowance are fixed and equal for all the employees under that particular grade or pay scale.
In our sector Allowances are fixed, heavy and rigid because they are attached to the Grade.
Basic Pay: ₹20,000
DA: ₹12,126
Total "Wages" (for Code): ₹32,126
However the Grade carries massive Fixed Allowances. When we add the Grade Pay plus Fixed allowances and other benefits the total monthly Cost to Company (CTC) reaches approximately ₹2,21,970.
Let us do the math for this Entry Level Manager.
Required Wage (50% of CTC): ₹1,10,985
Actual Wage: ₹32,126
The Ratio: 14.47%
We are not missing the mark by a small margin. We are missing it by nearly ₹79,000 per month.
In a private company HR would simply reduce the allowances by ₹79,000 and move it to Basic. We cannot do that. These allowances are fixed for the "Manager" designation. If we reduce the fixed allowance for this specific employee to fix their ratio we violate the "Equal Pay" policy because other Managers in the same grade are getting the full amount.
You may like to see : HRM in Cooperatives: Roles, Challenges & The Way Forward
3. The Seniority Crisis: Nullifying Experience
Because we cannot lower the Fixed Allowances we are forced to raise the Basic Pay. This leads to the Parity Paradox.
To make the new Manager compliant we effectively have to raise their Basic + DA from ₹32,000 to ₹1,11,000.
Now look at a Senior Manager at the 5th stage of increments.
Basic: ₹39,720
DA: ₹12,126
Total Wage: ₹51,846
Even at this senior level the wage ratio is only 20% of their CTC.
The Injustice: If we fix the Junior's salary to be compliant (raising wages to ₹1.11 Lakhs) the Junior suddenly has a Higher Basic Pay than the Senior who is stuck at ₹51,000. Seniority is effectively nullified.
4. The Over Compliance Trap: Why Fixing the Bottom costs the Top
This leads to the biggest financial disaster. To fix this injustice and maintain parity we must apply the changes universally.
If we decide to merge a specific allowance into Basic Pay to help a junior employee reach the 50% mark we must technically merge it for everyone in that cadre.
The Calculation: 60% becomes 85%
The Target: We have a Junior Manager whose Basic is 30%. We shift allowances to make him reach 50%.
The Collateral Damage: We have a Senior Manager in the same grade whose Basic is already at 60% due to increments.
When we implement the "Universal Merger" of that allowance the Senior moves from 60% to 80% or 85%.
The Financial Explosion: We are now forced to pay PF and Gratuity on 85% of the Senior Manager's Gross. We are paying a premium on the Senior Manager’s salary not because the Government asked for it but because our internal structure gave us no choice.
5. The "Cost Neutral" Fallacy
Some finance experts suggest we should just abolish an allowance to fund this cost. > "If liability increases by ₹5,000 let us cut the Medical Allowance by ₹5,000."
This is the Zero Cost Fallacy. In a Cooperative structure employees view Fixed Allowances as their earned rights. To unilaterally "demolish" an allowance just to fund a statutory compliance looks deceptive. It sends a message that the organization is unwilling to invest in the social security of its people. It turns a "Compliance Exercise" into a "Wage Cut" and invites legal challenges regarding adverse changes in service conditions.
We cannot simply tweak the payslips. We have to:
Renegotiate Wage Settlements: To fundamentally change how "Allowances" are defined for the next 10 years.
Consolidate the Scale: We need to dismantle the "Low Basic High Allowance" architecture and merge these massive fixed allowances into the Pay Scale itself.
Accept Higher Costs: There is no "Cost Neutral" way to implement this in a Cooperative. We must prepare the Board for a permanent increase in the Wage Bill.
Private companies can implement the new codes. Cooperatives must survive them.
This dilemma proves that for us the path to compliance is not a straight line. It requires a fundamental rethink of our compensation philosophy to balance legal mandates with our structural realities. I am eager to know how your Federation or Cooperative is tackling this rigid allowance trap. Are you considering a complete Pay Scale revision or are you exploring other solutions? Share your views and strategies in the comments below.
By MIT I HR Professional
No comments:
Post a Comment