We're another week closer to the 11 February strike deadline by hotel unions. The unions say that since the government had asked them to "halt"-not "withdraw"-protests for two months, they reserve the right to protest or strike if the decision does not address their demand to be paid a 10 percent service charge. The unions have submitted a nine-page argument for having the service charge to the government committee, which is expected to recommend a way out by early next month.

The group of 16 business and industry groups that rallied behind the hotels to shut down rather than wait for a strike, has completed a socio-economic impact study on what the charge could do to the economy. Its main argument against the charge is that it is against the principle of pricing, where the value of work is determined by the employer and not by mobs. It also argues that the charge is unacceptable, especially when labour laws don't allow employers to fire even the most unproductive workers, requires them to pay for work not done and does not allow the hiring of contract labour.

Tourism last year dropped by 11 percent. And industry argues that if it were to fall by the same percentage this year, the direct cost on the economy would be Rs1.8 billion. With four taken as a multiplier of the effects, losses could add up to Rs7.2 billion. The government we're told is "working" to meet the deadline, but there's no hint of what its recommendations would be. The union says it knows what to do should the decision be unfavourable. Industry's single-point agenda is no service charge, or even negotiations until the threat of strike is withdrawn. Some arguments and counter-arguments of the unions and industry:
l Unions say the 10 percent charge is standard in many countries. Industry refutes this saying that this is in no way an "international standard". Unions cite examples from countries like Indonesia and Singapore.
l Unions say trekking and travel agencies and other industries won't demand the charge. Industry maintains it will be inevitable, given even the union's andolan (revolution) is illegal.
l Unions say service charge will only be charged in hotels and Nepali fast food outlets. Industry says it's a contradiction that "union bosses" do not seem to worry about the extra change that those in lowest rungs of the economic ladder could earn.
l Unions say that workers elsewhere have better facilities than what Nepali workers get. Industry maintains that if Nepali workers should get similar perks as those in Germany then everything in Nepal should be as it is in Germany.
l Unions have presented "low" salary structures in different hotels to prove their point. Industry maintains that the account does not factor in free or subsidised food, medical benefits, etc.
l Unions say hotels maintain different account books and hide profits. Industry charges there are several government departments looking into that and especially with VAT there are no chances of doing what the unions allege.