CHAPTER VI INFLUENCE OF THE LABOUR...
Transcript of CHAPTER VI INFLUENCE OF THE LABOUR...
CHAPTER VI
INFLUENCE OF THE LABOUR WELFARE DIMENSIONS ON JOB
SATISFACTION IN INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND
MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES IN GOA
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 INFLUENCE OF THE DIMENSIONS OF LABOUR WELFARE
ON THE LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYEES IN
INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND
MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES IN GOA
6.3 PREDICTORS OF JOB SATISFACTION IN INDIAN
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND MULTINATIONAL
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES IN GOA: STATUTORY
AND NON-STATUTORY LABOUR WELFARE FACILITIES
6.4 CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER VI
INFLUENCE OF THE LABOUR WELFARE DIMENSIONS ON JOB
SATISFACTION IN INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND
MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES IN GOA
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Labour welfare implies the setting up of minimum desirable standards and the provision
of welfare facilities like health, food, clothing, housing, medical assistance, education,
insurance, job security, recreation and other such facilities that enable the employees to
lead a good work, family and social life.
According to Srivastava (2004) if the environment of the organization helps in satisfying
various needs of the employees, they develop pro or favourable attitude towards the job,
organization and finally towards the management. The provision of labour welfare
facilities develops a positive attitude among employees that not only enhances the
effectiveness of the organization, but also is desirable for their own sake. Thus providing
labour welfare facilities positively influences the job satisfaction of employees.
The proper organization and administration of labour welfare facilities can play a vital
role in promoting better working conditions and standard of living for industrial workers,
as well as enhance their job satisfaction, especially in developing countries.
In the previous chapter it was observed that labour welfare has a significant positive
correlation with job satisfaction. Implying that as labour welfare facilities increase the
240
level of job satisfaction of employees in pharmaceutical companies in Goa are likely to
increase. There may be some dimensions of labour welfare that could influence the job
satisfaction of employees, which employers may need to pay attention to. The researcher
was thus curious to study the influence of the dimensions in the labour welfare inventory
(LWI) that influence the job satisfaction of employees in the pharmaceutical companies in
Goa.
The present chapter intends to focus on:
> Investigating those dimensions of the LWI that influence the level of job
satisfaction of employees in Indian and multinational pharmaceutical companies
in Goa.
> Highlight the significant difference in the statutory and non-statutory labour
welfare facilities in the Indian and multinational pharmaceutical companies in
Goa.
> Examine the influence of the statutory and non-statutory labour welfare facilities
as predictors of job satisfaction in the pharmaceutical companies in Goa.
Accordingly the researcher, in this chapter has made an attempt to study and determine
the influence of the dimensions in the Labour Welfare Inventory on the level of job
satisfaction of employees in Indian and multinational pharmaceutical companies in Goa
and also to examine whether the statutory or non-statutory labour welfare facilities are a
predictor of job satisfaction in these companies.
241
The null hypotheses Ho4 and Ho5 were accordingly framed.
Ho4: The dimensions in the labour welfare inventory do not influence the job
satisfaction of employees in Indian pharmaceutical companies and
multinational pharmaceutical companies in Goa.
Ho5: The statutory labour welfare facilities are not a predictor of job satisfaction
than non-statutory labour welfare facilities in the pharmaceutical companies
in Goa.
The eight dimensions in the LWI include education/training, recreation, medical,
subsidized loans, canteen, housing, safety, and others (uniforms, water facilities, toilets,
retirement benefits, workman's compensation, rest rooms, bonus, travelling allowance,
leave facilities and crèche). These labour welfare dimensions were categorized into
statutory and non—statutory labour welfare facilities. In accordance with the Factories Act
(1948) the statutory labour welfare facilities includes medical facilities, canteen, safety
and others; and the non-statutory labour welfare facilities incorporates education/training,
recreation, subsidized loans, and housing.
242
6.2 INFLUENCE OF THE DIMENSIONS OF LABOUR WELFARE ON THE
LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYEES IN INDIAN
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND MULTINATIONAL
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES IN GOA
The null hypothesis Ho4 states that the dimensions of the labour welfare inventory do not
influence the job satisfaction of employees in Indian pharmaceutical companies and
multinational pharmaceutical companies in Goa. To test the null hypotheses, a correlation
matrix between job satisfaction and labour welfare dimensions, and within the labour
welfare dimensions was constructed as shown in Table 24. This was followed by running
the multiple regression analysis. The findings in the correlation matrix would explain
those dimensions in the LWI that are significantly correlated with job satisfaction of
employees in the pharmaceutical companies in Goa. The multiple regression analysis
would identify those labour welfare dimensions that influence job satisfaction.
The results of the correlation matrix are reported in Table 20.
243
• • • Table 20
• correlation Matrix of JOD Sausracnon ana Lanour Welfare uimensions •
JS
Total
Education &
Training Recreation Medical
Subsidised
Loans Canteen Housing Safety Others MNC Staff Age Sex Experience
JS Total Pearson Correlation 1
- .610
.. .512
.. .506 .462
.. .571
.. .510" .509 .. .571 .. .541
. .556 . .345.. .041 .263
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .566 .00(
N 201 201 201 201 201 201 201
.598
201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Education &
Training
Pearson Correlation .- 610 1
. . .886 .652** .420** .583- .716
.. .679
.. .593
.. .. .423
.. .263
. .179 .064 .06!
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .011 .367 .33
N 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Recreation Pearson Correlation - .512 .886 1 .697** .548** ** .757..
. .612
. .. .608
. .351 .215 .157 .078 .03
Sig. (2-tailed) , .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .026 .272 .66:
N 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Medical Pearson Correlation .506-
.. .652
.. .697 1
.. .540
.. .555
.. .620
.. .644
.. .583
.. .387 .200
.. .158 .030 .0S
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .004 .025 .670 .41
N 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Subsidised
Loans
Pearson Correlation .462- .420** .54-e .540 1 .580** .575** ** .357 ** .486 ** .418 .234- .214** .061 .16z
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .002 .393 .02 ,
N 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Canteen Pearson Correlation
.. .571
.. .583
.. .598
.. .555
.. .580 1
. .583
.. .425
.. .582
.. .547
.. .265 .138 .077 .08
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .051 .279 .25:
N 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Housing Pearson Correlation - .510
.. .716
.. .757
- .620
.. .575
- .583 1 ** .504
.. .565 .390
.. .220 .072 .117 -.03'
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .312 .099 .58:
N 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
JS
Total
Education &
Training Recreation Medical
Subsidised
Loans Canteen Housing Safety Others MNC Staff Age Sex Ex p eriencE
Safety
N
Pearson Correlation .509 .679" .612 .644.. .357.. .425- .504 1 .626 .316 .325.. .160. -.035 .06 ,
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .023 .619 .35
201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Others
N
Pearson Correlation .571 .. .593- .608- .583.. .486 .582.* .565.. .626- 1 .354 .313.. .272.. -.009 .195
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .903 .001
201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
MNC
N
Pearson Correlation .541 .. .423 .351" .387.. .418 .547 .390- .316 .354- 1 .223.. .051 -.095 .09.
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .471 .178 .19(
201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Staff
N
Pearson Correlation .556- .263- .215 .200 .234 .265- .220- .325.* .313- .223.. 1 .326- .000 .275
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .002 .004 .001 .000 .002 .000 .000 .001 .000 .990 .00 ,
201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Age
N
Pearson Correlation .345.. .179. .157. .158. .214 .138 .072 .160. .272 .051 .326 1 -.204 .894
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .011 .026 .025 .002 .051 .312 .023 .000 .471 .000 .004 .00(
201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Sex
N
Pearson Correlation .041 .064 .078 .030 .061 .077 .117 -.035 -.009 -.095 .000 -.204- 1 -.303
Sig. (2-tailed) .566 .367 .272 .670 .393 .279 .099 .619 .903 .178 .990 .004 .00,
201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
Experience Pearson Correlation .263.. .069 .031 .058 .164. .081 -.039 .066 .195.. .093 .275.. .894.. -.303..
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .331 .662 .417 .020 .252 .582 .355 .006 .190 .000 .000 .000
N 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 20
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
From the above Table it can be observed that all the eight labour welfare dimensions are
positively and significantly correlated with job satisfaction at the 0.01 level. This implies
that an increase in any of the labour welfare dimensions is likely to significantly increase
job satisfaction of employees (N=201) in the pharmaceutical companies in Goa. For
instance an increase in education/training will significantly increase the job satisfaction of
the employees. Similarly any increase in recreation facilities, medical facilities,
subsidized loans, canteen, safety, housing, safety, and others would have a significant
influence on the job satisfaction of employees (N=201) in these companies in Goa. Thus
any effort made by the management of pharmaceutical companies in Goa to increase any
labour welfare measure would significantly increase the job satisfaction of their
employees.
Though these eight labour welfare dimensions are significantly correlated to job
satisfaction, it does not mean that all of them are independent of each other. This can be
observed from the correlation matrix, where the eight dimensions of labour welfare are
highly correlated with each other. For example education/training is significantly
correlated with the other seven labour welfare dimensions at the 0.01 level. Likewise
recreation has a significant correlation with the rest of the dimensions of labour welfare.
This could be said for all the labour welfare dimensions that they are highly correlated to
each other at the 0.01 level of significance.
This is but natural because each of these eight dimensions is indeed a composite labour
welfare measure. These are the labour welfare facilities that employers provide and that
employees expect to receive. An employee who receives good education/training would
also like to acquire better recreation facilities, medical facilities, more subsidized loans,
246
improved canteen facilities, housing, safety measures and others. This goes for each of
the other labour welfare dimensions as well, which reveals that each of the labour welfare
dimensions are significantly correlated with one another. These are very strongly
correlated and so they are not independent variables by themselves. It means that the so-
called independent variables are not really independent.
This is an indication of a multi-collinearity problem, which could make the findings of
the study unreliable and lead to large standard errors of the estimators. The problem of
multi-collinearity was further realized when a multiple regression was run with job
satisfaction as the dependent variable and the dimensions of labour welfare as the
independent variables. The results of which are revealed in Table 21. A glance at the
Table confirms that there is a multi-collinearity problem, since the value of the R 2 is very
high (R2 = 0.67) but quite a few of the coefficients of labour welfare are not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level (medical facilities, subsidized loans, canteen, housing and
safety). The rule of thumb is that if the correlation between the regressors is significant,
and if the R2 is high but quite a few of the coefficients are not statistically significant, it is
a sign of a multi-collinearity problem (Gujarati, 2004).
Table 21
Multiple Regression Analysis for Multi-collinearity
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .823 a .678 .656 10.308 a. Predictors: (Constant), StaffMPCs, Gender, Age, Staff, MPCs, Recreation, Subsidised Loans, Safety, Canteen, Others, Medical, Housing, Education / Training
247
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression
Residual
Total
41822.148
19868.847
61690.995
13
187
200
3217.088
106.251
30.278 .000a
a. Predictors: (Constant), StaffMNC, Gender, Age, Staff, MPCs, Recreation, Subsidised Loans, Safety, Canteen, Others, Medical, Housing, Education/Training
b. Dependent Variable: JS Total
Coefficient?
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 30.766 6.476 4.751 .000
Staff 14.559 2.283 .408 6.376 .000
Gender 2.561 1.575 .072 1.626 .106
Age .271 .102 .127 2.649 .009
Education / Training 1.300 .341 .407 3.808 .000
Recreation -.789 .299 -.284 -2.639 .009
Medical .325 .312 .069 1.043 .298
Subsidised Loans .131 .215 .038 .612 .542
Canteen .272 .257 .068 1.061 .290
Housing .211 .225 .067 .938 .349
Safety -.016 .322 -.003 -.049 .961
Others .374 .151 .158 2.475 .014
MP Cs 11.650 2.433 .329 4.789 .000
StaffMPCs -7.468 3.213 -.179 -2.324 .021
a. Dependent Variable: JS Total
To alleviate this problem of multi-collinearity the researcher tried many specifications
with different combinations of the labour welfare dimensions. This finally led to selecting
248
education/training, and others (uniform, water facilities, toilets, retirement benefits,
compensation, rest-rooms, bonus, travelling allowance, crèche and leave facilities) as the
labour welfare dimensions, since their coefficients were highly significant at the 0.01
level and are thus indicative of influencing job satisfaction. Other independent variables
such as the dummy variables MPCs (Di), gender (D2), staff (D3) and age were also
selected because of their high significant coefficients (0.01 level), which are also
suggestive of them influencing job satisfaction. These independent variables together
would probably be able to explain the maximum variance in job satisfaction. The other
independent variables (recreation, medical, subsidized loans, canteen, housing, safety and
stsff MPCs) were dropped because their coefficients were not found to be significant in
influencing job satisfaction or were found to be highly correlated with education/training
and others. Similar method has been used by researchers in earlier studies (Joshi and
Sharma, 1997; Bhargava and Kelkar, 2000; Afza, 2005; and Randhawa, 2005).
After having selected the independent variables that were indicative of influencing job
satisfaction the researcher once again used the multiple regression analysis to test the null
hypothesis Ho4, the results of which unfold in Table 22.
249
Table 22
Influence of Labour Welfare Dimensions on Job Satisfaction of Employees in Indian
and Multinational Pharmaceutical Companies in Goa
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
I .807a .652 .641 10.524
a. Predictors: (Constant), MPCs, Age, Gender, Staff, Others, Education/Training
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
I Regression
Residual
Total
40203.393
21487.602
61690.995
6
194
200
6700.566
110.761
60.496 .000a
a. Predictors: (Constant), MPCs, Age, Gender, Staff, Others, Education /Training
b. Dependent Variable: JS Total
Coefficient?
Model '
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
I (Constant) 37.530 4.636 8.095 .000
Education /Training .862 .177 .270 4.872 .000
Others .392 .130 .165 3.008 .003
Age .321 .101 .150 3.191 .002
MPCs 10.530 1.708 .297 6.165 .000
Gender 3.008 1.575 .084 1.910 .058
Staff 11.316 1.674 .317 6.761 .000
a. Dependent Variable: JS Total
250
Based on Table 22 the following multiple regression model emerges.
a+ x + 132 X 2 + 133 X 3+134 Di+ 135 D2+ 6 D3 +
Y = Dependent variable (job satisfaction)
a = Constant term
RI 132 • • 136 = Regression coefficient
X1 X2 = Dimensions of labour welfare
X1 = Education / training
X 2 = Others
X 3 = Age
Di = 1 for MPCs
0 for IPCs
D2 = 1 for Female 0 for Male
D3 = 1 for Manager 0 for Worker
c = Error term
The regression equation is
Y= 37.5 + .86 X1+ .39 X2+.32 X3+ 10.5 D1+ 3 D2+ 11.3 D3
( 1 ) Adjusted R2 = 0.64
N=201
For MPCs the regression equation is: (1.1)
Y(Dt= 1)=48+ .86 Xi+.39 X2+.32 X3+3 D2+11.3 D3
For IPCs the regression equation is: (1.2)
Y(D1=0)=37.5 +.86 X1+.39 X2+.32 X3+3 D2+11.3 D3
251
Table 22 and equation (1) emphasize that the coefficients education/training (X 1 ) and
others (X2) influence job satisfaction. The findings show that a one unit increase in
education/training is likely to increase the level of job satisfaction of respondents in IPCs
and MPCs by 86 percent, while a one unit increase in others is most likely to increase the
level of job satisfaction in these companies by 39 percent. Moreover the standardized
coefficient of education/training (0.27) is higher than that of others (0.16). This signifies
that education/training has a higher influence on job satisfaction than others. Furthermore
the coefficients of education/training (X i ) and others (X2) are statistically significant at
the 0.01 level as can be observed from their respective t-values. Thus the null hypothesis
Ho4, which states that the dimensions in the labour welfare inventory do not influence the
job satisfaction of employees in Indian pharmaceutical companies and multinational
pharmaceutical companies in Goa is not accepted.
Researchers have found labour welfare dimensions to influence the job satisfaction of
employees (Joshi and Sharma, 1997; KirissIi et. al., 1992; Khan and Robertson, 1992;
Rahman et. al., 1995; Sinha and Singh, 1995; Rao et. al., 2002)
Given that the labour welfare dimensions of education/training and others influence the
job satisfaction of respondents in the pharmaceutical companies in Goa, a glimpse at
regression equations (1.1) and (1.2) indicates that there is a difference in the level of job
satisfaction in IPCs and MPCs in Goa. The intercept of MPCs is much higher than that of
IPCs signifying that the respondents in MPCs enjoy a higher level of job satisfaction than
their counter parts in IPCs in Goa.
252
Moreover the adjusted R 2 is 0.64. This indicates that 64 percent of the variance in the
perceived level of job satisfaction is explained by the independent variables. This makes
the model a good fit.
It can be concluded from the above discussion that there is a difference in the dimensions
of the labour welfare inventory - education/training and others - that influence the job
satisfaction of employees in Indian pharmaceutical companies and multinational
pharmaceutical companies in Goa. The labour welfare dimension education/training has
more influence on job satisfaction than others.
6.3 PREDICTORS OF JOB SATISFACTION IN PHARMACEUTICAL
COMPANIES IN GOA: STATUTORY AND NON-STATUTORY LABOUR
WELFARE FACILITIES
Organizations are becoming more aware of the importance of providing labour welfare
facilities. The Government has enforced various labour welfare laws, so that the industrial
worker can enjoy better working and living conditions and is happy in the organization.
The labour welfare facilities provided in an organization are statutory and non-statutory in
nature. Which of these labour welfare amenities — statutory/non-statutory — is a predictor
of job satisfaction needs to be investigated. In this study the labour welfare dimensions in
the LWI have been classified into statutory and non-statutory labour welfare facilities.
Medical facilities, canteen, safety and others are the statutory welfare facilities and
education/training, recreation, subsidized loans, and housing are the non-statutory labour
welfare facilities.
253
The present research therefore is an attempt to examine whether the statutory labour
welfare facilities are a predictor of job satisfaction than the non-statutory labour welfare
facilities in the pharmaceutical in Goa. This lead to framing the null hypothesis Ho5,
which states that the statutory labour welfare facilities are not a predictor of job
satisfaction than non-statutory labour welfare facilities in pharmaceutical companies in
Goa.
To test this hypothesis, first the test of significance, t-test was done, which would
determine the existence of a significant difference between the statutory labour welfare
facilities (SLWF) and the non- statutory labour welfare facilities (NSLWF) in IPCs and
MPCs in Goa and then the regression analysis run that would specify whether the SLWF
or the NSLWF are a predictor of job satisfaction in these companies.
Table 23 illustrates the difference in the SLWF and NSLWF for IPCs in Goa.
Table 23
Difference in the Statutory and Non-Statutory Labour Welfare Facilities
in Indian Pharmaceutical Companies in Goa
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Statutory 85.2870 115 12.83756 1.19711
Non-Statutory 44.7391 115 14.41617 1.34432
Paired Differences
t df
Sig. (2-
tailed) Mean SD
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Statutory Non-Statutory
4.05478E1 10.58818 .98735 38.59189 42.50376 41.067 114 .000
254
From Table 23 it can be realized that for the IPCs in Goa there is a difference in the
provision of SLWF and NSLWF and this difference is statistically significant at the 0.01
level, as the t-value is 41.067 (P<0.01). It implies that the SLWF are provided to a
significantly greater extent than the NSLWF in IPCs in Goa.
Furthermore when the test of significance was extended to the MPCs in Goa the results
were found to be similar. The MPCs too demonstrated a significant difference in the
SLWF and NSLWF. This can be observed in Table 24.
Table 24
Difference in the Statutory and Non-Statutory Labour Welfare Facilities
in Multinational Pharmaceutical Companies in Goa.
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Statutory 1.0069E2 86 15.54520 1.67628
Non-Statutory 62.5000 86 20.50351 2.21095
Paired Differences
t df
Sig. (2- tailed) Mean SD
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper
Statutory Non- Statutory
3.81860E1 12.46124 1.34373 35.51435 40.85774 28.418 85 .000
The Table illustrates that in MPCs there is a statistically significant difference in the
SLWF and the NSLWF at the 0.01 level, the t-value being 28.418 (P<0.01). This means
that the SLWF are significantly better provided to the employees than the NSLWF in
MPCs in Goa.
Pr'
255
From the findings of the above two Tables 23 and 24 it can be concluded that in IPCs and
MPCs in Goa it is the SLWF that are significantly superior than the NSLWF. This could
perhaps be because these pharmaceutical companies take utmost care to provide those
labour welfare facilities that are mandatory and required by the law. They offer their
employees SLWF to a greater extent than NSLWF because they probably do not want to
get on the wrong side of the law and get into any litigation. Thus the SLWF are provided
to a greater extent than the NSLWF in IPCs and MPCs in Goa. The pharmaceutical
companies in Goa therefore follow the Policing theory of labour welfare, wherein the
management provides labour welfare facilities under the fear of punishment by the State.
The labour welfare facilities provided has become a legal /statutory responsibility of the
employer.
Having found that there is a statistically significant difference in the SLWF and NSLWF
in IPCs and MPCs in Goa, the researcher was curious to investigate whether the SLWF or
the NSLWF are a predictor of job satisfaction in pharmaceutical companies in. Goa. To
test the null hypothesis Ho5, which states that the statutory labour welfare facilities are
not a predictor of job satisfaction than non-statutory labour welfare facilities in
pharmaceutical companies in Goa, the multiple regression analysis was applied. The
results of the same are revealed in Table 25.
256
Table 25
Statutory and Non-Statutory Labour Welfare Facilities as Predictor of
Job Satisfaction of Employees in Pharmaceutical Companies in Goa
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
I .802a .644 .633 10.646
a. Predictors: (Constant), Age, MPCs, Gender, Staff, Non-Statutory labour welfare facilities, Statutory labour welfare facilities.
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
I Regression
Residual
Total
39703.542
21987.453
61690.995
6
194
200
6617.257
113.337
58.385 .000a
a. Predictors: (Constant), Age, MPCs, Gender, Staff, Non-Statutory labour welfare facilities, Statutory labour welfare facilities
b. Dependent Variable: JS Total
Coefficient?
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
I (Constant)
Non-Statutory
Statutory
Age
MPCs
Gender
Staff
33.296 5.794 5.746 .000
.143 .067 .158 2.131 .034
.276 .084 .251 3.293 .001
.335 .101 .157 3.320 .001
9.853 1.781 .278 5.533 .000
2.893 1.605 .081 1.802 .073
11.225 1.699 .315 6.607 .000
a. Dependent Variable: JS Total
257
Based on Table 25 the following multiple regression model emerges.
Y= a+ x + 132 X 2 + 133 X 3+ fit D i + 135 D2+ 6 D3 + E
Y = Dependent variable (job satisfaction)
a = Constant term
13 1 132 • • ••• = Regression coefficient
X = Non-statutory labour welfare facilities
X 2 = Statutory labour welfare facilities
X 3 = Age
Di = 1 for MPCs 0 for IPCs
D2 = 1 for Female 0 for Male
D3 = 1 for Manager 0 for Worker
= Error term
The regression equation is
Y= 33.2 +.14 X1+.27 X 2 +.33 X3+ 9.8131+ 2.8 D2 + 11.2 D3 (2)
Adjusted R2 = 0.63 N=201
For MPCs the regression equation stands as: (2.1)
Y(Di= 1)=43 + .14 Xl+.27 X2 +.33 X3 + 2.8 D2 +11.2D3
For 1PCs the regression equation is: (2.2)
Y (Di= 0) = 33.2 + .14 X 1+ .27 X 2 + .33 X 3 + 2.8 D2+ 11.2 D3
From Table 25 and regression equation (2) it is obvious that the SLWF (X 2) is a predictor
of job satisfaction than the NSLWF (Xi) in the pharmaceutical companies in Goa. This is
because a one unit increase in the SLWF is likely to increase the job satisfaction of the
respondents in the pharmaceutical companies by 27 percent, while a one unit increase in
the NSLWF is likely to increase the job satisfaction of the respondents in these companies
by 14 percent. Moreover in the pharmaceutical companies the SLWF have a better
influence on job satisfaction than the NSLWF, as the standard coefficient of SLWF (0.25)
is greater than the standard coefficients of NSLWF (0.15). This signifies that the SLWF
have a larger influence on job satisfaction than the NSLWF in the pharmaceutical
companies in Goa. Since the SLWF are a better predictor of job satisfaction than non-
statutory labour welfare facilities in pharmaceutical companies in Goa the null hypothesis
Ho5 is not accepted.
While comparing the IPCs and MPCs in Goa, the regression equations (2.1) and (2.2)
specify that the MPCs in Goa experience a higher level of job satisfaction than the IPCs,
given that the SLWF are a better predictor of job satisfaction than the NSLWF. This can
be noticed from the intercepts of the MPCs, which is higher than that of IPCs.
Moreover the adjusted R2 is 0.63, which makes the regression a good fit, since 63 percent
of the variance in the perceived level of job satisfaction is explained by the independent
variables.
To conclude it can be said that the SLWF are a predictor of job satisfaction than NSLWF
in pharmaceutical companies in Goa. It is thus important that if the employers of
pharmaceutical companies want to further increase the level of job satisfaction level of
q0„
their employees then they need to pay special attention to the SLWF which have emerged
as a predictor of job satisfaction of employees than NSLWF.
6.4 CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter the researcher analyzed the influence of the dimensions of labour welfare
on the job satisfaction of employees in IPCs and MPCs in Goa. The statutory/non-
statutory labour welfare facilities as a predictor of job satisfaction in pharmaceutical
companies was also observed. Based on the findings in this chapter the following
conclusions can be drawn:
■ The eight dimensions of labour welfare were positively and significantly
correlated with job satisfaction. An increase in any of the labour welfare
dimensions would significantly increase job satisfaction of employees in the
pharmaceutical companies in Goa. If the pharmaceutical companies improve the
welfare facilities for their employees then the job satisfaction of their employees
would greatly increase.
■ Two labour welfare dimensions - education/training, and others — were found to
be indicative of influencing job satisfaction. Education/training were more
influential in influencing the job satisfaction of employees than others in the IPCs
and MPCs in Goa.
■ There was a significant difference between the SLWF and NSLWF provided in
the IPCs and MPCs in Goa. The SLWF emerged as significantly better provided
than the NSLWF in both the IPCs and MPCs in Goa.
260
■ The SLWF emerged as a better predictor of job satisfaction than NSLWF in the
pharmaceutical companies in Goa. The SLWF influenced the job satisfaction of
employees to a greater extent than NSLWF in these companies.
■ The employees in MPCs were found to experience a higher level of job
satisfaction that their fellow mates in 1PCs, given the labour welfare facilities,
including the SLWF and NSLWF. The IPCs need to therefore work towards
increasing the job satisfaction of their employees.
261