Bus drivers' strike is weapon of the weak

Bus drivers' strike is weapon of the weak

Thousands of commuters were stranded last week when city bus
drivers staged a strike protesting the enforcement of a new
traffic regulation. Sociologist Aswab Mahasin attributes the
strike to long suppressed frustration on the part of the drivers.

JAKARTA (JP): The bus drivers' strike came as a shock to both
authorities and residents last week. It turned the normally
crowded streets of Jakarta into vacant stretches on Tuesday,
leaving passengers stranded at bus terminals and shelters.

Only 20,000 public buses serve this city of 8.5 million
people, compared to about two million private cars. Their sudden
disappearance had a tremendous impact on Jakarta. Even with no
warning of the drivers' actions, the army and the police forces
were on hand to assist the public on a moment's notice. The
situation was back to normal by Friday and surprisingly, very few
incidents were reported.

Bearing in mind the initial reactions of the drivers and the
general public last year, when the law first went into effect,
after a delay of a year, the strike seemed predictable. At the
time rumors about a possible drivers' strike alerted the army and
police forces, who poised themselves for immediate deployment.
The fact that strikes did not happen earlier was only due to the
wise decision last year to postpone enforcing the new fine scale
and some other aspects of the law.

Now, with Law No. 14/1992 fully in effect, the strike should
have been anticipated. But it came as a shock, not only to the
general public but to the security forces as well.

The fines stated in the new law are incredibly steep, about
tenfold the previous rates.

And, as experience shows, rulings of this sort are bound to be
violated, with loopholes allowing the solicitation of bribes. The
chronic gap between the rules in theory and in practice is such
that there are always possibilities of minor offenses or
negligence being exploited. A driver may forget to close a door
as the passengers keep getting on and off every mile or so. He
may also forget to keep first aid supplies and mechanical tools
on board. Such infractions were once settled informally and at
reasonable rates. Now, the new rates for the fines, and thus, the
bribes, are now out of the drivers' reach. As well, the drivers
have little recourse in voicing their grievances. For that
reason, they ended up striking last week.

Reportedly, the minibus drivers started the strike. This is
understandable as theirs is the most vulnerable public
transportation sector. Regardless of the fact that the minibuses
are all the same color and run under the same name, they are
under the control of individual owners, most middle and small
scale businessmen. Each may own one or two minibuses and their
only stake in the joint company is administration fees.

Furious

Drivers and owners are loosely organized, their only contact
coming when the daily rental money for the buses is collected
from the drivers at the end of the day. The drivers sometimes
subcontract the buses to often unlicensed hustlers. As a result,
traffic regulations may or may not be obeyed.

The drivers have to bear all the expenses. They are
responsible for gasoline, terminal fees, tips to watchmen at the
bus stops, occasional bribes, their bus crews' wages, and the
flat daily payment to the owner. Only a tiny portion remains as
take home income. This may range from US$5 to $10 depending on
their luck during the day. Its no wonder that the drivers become
so furious when threatened with increased fines.

Still, some people wonder how they organized the strike in the
first place. Having never been unionized or organized, and even
competing fiercely with one another each day, how could they have
staged such a cooperative action?

The assumption is that there must have been a dalang, a
mastermind, auctor intellectualis, or agent provocateur of some
sort. Proof of these conspiracy theories, very popular in
explaining any unrest these days, will have to wait until the
questioning of the 35 people detained by the police is completed.

At this point we can simply assume the strike was a
spontaneous reaction, genuine and in a sense apolitical, an
explosion of long suppressed frustration.

In the meantime, any response to the strike on the part of the
authorities involving a change or amendment of the law could be
perceived as a sign of weakness on the government's part.

Even the legislators could lose face. After all, they were
responsible for the law's approval in the first place. Hence the
stern and uncompromising police reaction to the sit-in. As for
the drivers, they can simply get back behind the wheel. They have
sent their message and though it may have fallen upon deaf ears,
some realize that the weapon of the weak is still around.

The writer is a former NGO worker, now serving as deputy
director for a training program on the environment and
development with the Foundation for Sustainable Development in
Jakarta.