Private Sector Indian Manufacturing Organizations and...
Transcript of Private Sector Indian Manufacturing Organizations and...
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 850
Private Sector Indian Manufacturing Organizations and Workplace
Industrial relations: towards a new Employment Relationship
Harshita Singh Debi Saini
Introduction & background
“Look East, Link West”, was the most imposing caption by PM Modi at Make in India launch on
25th
September, 2014. Manufacturing contributes only 15% to India's GDP, and India‟s share in
world manufacturing is only 1.8% (World Bank, 2011). It employs 12% of the Indian workforce
or about 53 million people (NSS, 2009). Particularly for developing countries, an investment in
manufacturing promises rapid growth and sustainable job creation unlike services that offer the
opportunity to achieve only the first objective, not the second (UNIDO, 2013). Research
demonstrates a positive correlation between modern manufacturing and the growth of labor
productivity and economic welfare (Maddison 2001; 2007; Naudé& Szirmai, 2012).Unlike the
East Asian economies, India has not been able to draw growth and employment from
manufacturing in any significant magnitude (Trivedi et al, 2011). But India has the potential.
India ranks high on various manufacturing competitiveness indexes (GMCI, 2013; CIP, 2013)1.
Indian government wants to push the manufacturing‟s contribution to GDP to 25%. The
government has launched a national campaign to boost manufacturing, has set up a national
manufacturing competitiveness council (NMCC) and has started several training programs to
ensure skilled workforce availability. As a result several international players like Hyundai,
Airbus and Samsung are focusing on setting up their facilities in India (IBEF, 2015). Besides
this, there have been more than 4,000 inquiries on investment prospects in the Indian
manufacturing since the launch of „Make in India‟ campaign. India‟s new manufacturing policy
is vital to create jobs and maintain growth (WEF, 2011). As more and more firms are showing
interest in expanding their production and distribution systems in India, they want to know how
to manage their employees located in an entirely different social and political environment like
India and survive in long term. More particularly, they need to know whether they should adopt
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 851
globally uniform corporate employment relation policies or tailor such policies according to
Indian environment. Understanding the employment relations in Indian manufacturing are not
only important for multinational
1 GMCI= Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index (Deloitte & US Council on
Competitiveness, 2013), CIP= Competitive Industrial Performance Index (UNIDO, 2013).
corporations (MNCs), they are also important for local firms, investors and entrepreneurs who
wish to invest in Indian manufacturing and for researchers and academicians particularly when
much of the literature on changing patterns of employment relations is focused on developed
economies.
Developments in employment relations are well documented in western literature (e.g. Capelli,
1995; Callus et al, 1991; Moroshima, 1995; Osterman, 1986; Kochan et al, 1984; Gould, 2010;
O.Donell,2011; Lansbury et al, 2009; Zhao et al, 2012; Zou & Lansbury, 2009). However,
relatively little has been written about the contemporary employment relationship in the Indian
context (Budhwar, 2003; Saini, 2008). None of the studies have ever endeavored to obtain an
accurate account of employment relations in Indian context. Nevertheless, unraveling the impact
of globalization and liberalization on employment relationship in India has clearly been a
theoretical and methodological puzzle.
Literature Review: The Effects of Globalization on Employment Relationship
International Debates and Evidences
Cappelli‟s work on employment relations in US is perhaps a good starting point to review the
literature on this topic.
One of the central themes of Cappelli‟s work „Rethinking Employment‟ is that competitive
pressures due to globalization forced US companies to adopt improved organization design and
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 852
downsize their employment (Cappeli, 1995).US employers have responded to the changing
environment by relying on external labor markets. There is less job security for the core workers,
more job switching, fewer job hierarchies, and compensation and training decisions that are more
governed by the outside labor market (Osterman, 1986). A host of new management practices
have evolved to change employment relations in US considerably (Capelli, 2002). These include:
Decentralizing control over operations, contingent workers, and contingent pay and contracting
out, empowering employees through teams.
Similar trend in employment relationship is also visible in the Australian context. Australia has
been deregulating its labor market, emphasizing workplace negotiation over arbitration,
abolishing industry protection, marginalizing unions, using productivity improvement as a basis
for remuneration and, more recently, encouraging individualism in workplace bargaining. These
trends are interpreted as adoption of an US-style approach (Gould, 2010). Collective approaches
to employment relations have increasingly been replaced with more individualized arrangements
(O Donnell, 2011).
Such changes in employment relationship are also reported in the Chinese context by
researchers. The use of new technologies by Chinese companies has resulted in changes to work
organization. The most profound change in this regard has been the increase in numerical
flexibility (Lansbury et al, 2007; Zou & Lansbury, 2009).Various forms of teamwork have been
introduced to change the work practices on the assembly line as well as to improve
communication between management and employees in Chinese automotive and banking
industry (Zhao et al, 2012).
Similarly, in the British context, researchers have observed that due to the pressures of
globalization, firms are adopting alternate forms of employment arrangements (subcontracting,
contingent work, agency workers etc.) which leads to the growing employment insecurity for
employees and also the increased use of performance related pay systems ( Wanrooy et al, 2013).
All these researches point at the shift away from the traditional Standard Employment
Relationship2 towards Non standard forms of employment relationship or New Employment
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 853
Relationship3.
However, Mc.Govern and his colleagues, 2007 asserted that changes in the standard employment
relationship based on full time employment are not transformative. They are temporary in nature.
According to him, market responsive employment relations practices are influenced by economic
downturns in the economy and such practices return back to career jobs, training and job
security, once the economy revives. Similarly, Baldry et al, 2007 observed that there are changes
in the workplaces in the new economy characterized by the rise of knowledge workers but in
certain sectors of the economy especially manufacturing, things still remain the same.
Thus, three views exist in the international literature on the effect of globalization on
employment relations. The first view suggests that the globalization has altered the standard
employment relationship radically through contract
2 Term Standard Employment Relationship used here refers to a „stable, socially protected,
dependent, full-time job . . . the basic conditions of which (working time, pay, social transfers)
are regulated to a minimum level by collective agreement or by labor and/or social security
law‟ (Bosch, 2004).
3 Term New Employment Relationship refers to a form of employment relationship
characterized by the use of subcontracting, contingent workers, rise of white collar jobs, decline
in trade unions, growth of HRM and technology (kalleberg, 2000; Kalleberg et al, 2000).
jobs, job insecurity, more personalized work experiences and increased use of HRM for
managing people at workplaces. A second strand of commentary suggests that the so called
transformation of SER is temporary, in response to market turbulence and swings back to
normal once the market recovers. A third strand of commentary exists in literature that views
changes in employment relations as pragmatic, eclectic and incremental in nature. According
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 854
to this view, contemporary employment relations entail improvisation and the adoption of
certain aspects of both SER and NER.
Table1. summarizes the changes in the employment relationship due to globalization and
liberalization that appears consistent with the literature throughout the world. For the most
part, the table lists out hypothesized changes by referring back to the literature.
Table1. Changing employment relationship in the era of globalization
Standar
d Employment New Employment Amalgamation/
Relationship
(SER)
Relationship
(NER)
adaptatio
ns
Jobs Full time work
Sub contracting,
part time Core
workers
along
work, contingent
work with contract labor
Trade
unions strong weak Strong/ weak
depending on
sectors
Employee management
Through formal
rules
Discreti
on in employment
Joint decision
making,
decision
s
to
managers and
selective autonomy
to
supervisors line managers
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 855
Collective
bargaining
/
Strong/ national
level absent
Wea
k/
enterprise
unit
procedures level
Labor
markets Strong internal labor Market mediated Variable practices
markets arrangements
linke
d to
economi
c
conditions
Wage
system
Piece
rate
Pay for
performance Variable
Job security high low
Variable depending
on
market
conditions
Work organization
Traditional
division
of Self managed teams,
quality
Depends on
the level
work circles, job rotation
of
employees
Workplace governance IR/PM HRM Both IR & HR
Employee
communication One way Two way Two way
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 856
Employee consultation
and absent present Depending on the
participation
subject
matter
Employee motivation High Low Depends on
organizatio
nal efforts
(employee
engagement
etc.)
Job satisfaction High low
Variable depending
on
the job
While tracing the history of globalization effects on employment relations in India, one thing
that becomes very clear is that the detailed picture of employment relations built through
extensive surveys and interviews as in the case of USA and UK are completely missing in
Indian context (Bhattacharjee & Ackers, 2010). Nevertheless, some significant effects of
globalization and liberalization on human resource management and employment relations in
India can be identified. They are:
Globalization and Employment Relations in India
Before liberalization the rules of the employee relations system were determined by the
institutions of the state such as compulsory adjudication, conciliation, standing orders, and
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 857
labor laws and so on (Bhattacharjee, 2001; Hill, 2009; Bhattacharjee and Ackers, 2010). The
dominant objective of the government during the regulation era was to maintain industrial
peace (Shyamsunder, 2010).
The oil shocks in 1970‟s resulted in a steep decline in industrial production and manufacturing
stalled, employment growth slowed and labor markets tightened. These changes in the
economy also affected union activity, collective bargaining practices and labor markets (Hill,
2009). A new approach to economic development based on export oriented industrialization
was adopted by the Indian government.
Since 2000, the challenges of liberalization, privatization and globalization have intensified.
There is a switch in state policy away from favoring employment relations based on union and
collective bargaining towards more laissez faire approach (Budhwar, 2002). There has been a
rise in employer resistance to union recognition and a growth in the scale of the non union sector
(services etc.) (Saini, 2006a; 2006b). Other than having its effect on macro level institutions, the
liberalization of Indian economy and globalization have had lasting impact on the conduct of
employment relations4 at the firm and the workplace level also (Kuruvilla, 1996). As revealed by
several researchers in their surveys and case studies, progressive developments in employment
relations such as workplace partnership or the systematic adoption of modern HRM practices
have occurred in numerous cases in India ( Saini, 2006;2003, Budhwar, 2002; Budhwar &
Khatri, 2001; Budhwar & Boyne, 2004).
Indian managers are implementing new management techniques nowadays and various HR
functions like training, performance appraisals, career development etc. are given more
importance than before (Jain et al, 2012). Changes in the workplace structuring are taking place.
There is increasing evidence of managing employee relations in Indian companies through HR
strategy. Both empowerment and instrumentalist HR strategies are being practiced (Saini, 2008).
With the ever increasing globalization, there is the increased employment of contract and casual
labor and use of human resource management devices in India (Ramaswamy, 1999; Kuruvilla
and Erickson, 2002). Sharma (2006: 2078) commented that work in India has become more
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 858
casual and less secure. Another reason for changes in work and employment in India are secular
changes in technology and work organization (Dutta, 1990; Krishnan, 2010).
After the neoliberal reforms of 1991, there is an increase in local union leaderships instead of
national level union federations (Ramaswamy, 2000; Ramaswamy and Schiphorst, 2000). At
present trade unions in India are passing
4 In order to impose some order on the complexity of employment relationship and to narrow
down our conceptualization of employment relations, a common framework of analysis is
adopted for reviewing the literature as well as the cases. Certain dimensions of employment
relationship for research are identified. These relate to the conduct of HRM, work organization,
the question of managerial style in the handling of relations with employees and trade unions
and the use of employee communication channels, performance management systems and
training & development initiatives.
through a difficult period (Das, 2008; Singh and Kulkarni, 2013; Sundar, 2006). There is an
increased instance of union avoidance strategies adopted by Indian employers (Mathur, 1993)
However, on reviewing the recent literature on employment relation in India, one realizes that
most of the new literature on Indian employment relations is either about the new services sector
or about how to transform old formal sector in line with the best practices in services sector
(Ackers, 2006). By providing a detailed evidence of how has the employment relations changed
in the manufacturing sector, this study will permit a more considered view of employment
relations in India.
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 859
Theoretical Underpinnings
Two main theories explaining the nature of employment relations and charactering the presence
or absences of conflict are: unitarism and pluralism. According to pluralism, an industrial
enterprise is not a unitary organisation but a coalition of individuals and groups with varying
interests and objectives. It assumes some amount of conflict among actors as natural and healthy.
On the other hand, unitarist perspective holds that everyone within an organization shares a
common purpose and are all committed to this purpose. According to this perspective any
conflict in an organization is undesirable. Unions and collective bargaining are seen as
undesirable.
Globalization has substantially influenced the nature of IR policies followed by the employers,
and reduced the power of trade unions. The IR frameworks of different organizations in the new
business environment are being oriented to new exigencies. Strategic shift in the approach of
management to dealing with IR are noticeable at covert as well as overt level. From different
type of IR models that are followed by the employers a shift of focus is noticeable. The shift can
be seen from different type of pluralist models to a type of unitarist IR or repressive pluralism.
In the era of globalization employers are trying to shift from the first four models of IR to the last
four, thus adopting policies of a kind of “weak union model” or “no union model”.
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 860
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 861
Research methodology
Obtaining an accurate account of employment relations pattern in India requires a comprehensive
and multidimensional research approach (Budhwar & Varma, 2010). Given the nature of ERs as
a normative or suggestive rhetoric, the capability of symbolic interpretive paradigm in capturing
the reality as it is makes it a preferred method of research inquiry (Storey, 1997). Taking a cue
from our research questions and the framework given by Verma & Budhwar, 2014, a case study
approach has been deployed in this research (Cresswell , 2011). We have analyzed case studies
of few representative workplaces so as to discern the dominant patterns of employment
relationship in India. We are concerned with changes in SMEs and large manufacturing
companies operating in India, irrespective of their ownership. Our concern is to specify more
precisely what we think is significant change in the Indian manufacturing.
Analysis
Following case study approach, four organizations were studied. We have studied both large
and small organizations. Data is collected through interviews from various levels in the
organization. Our unit of analysis is an establishment5. Sample statistics are as follows:
Organization 1.
Organizatio
n2.
Organization3.
Organizatio
n4.
Organizati
on
Domestic SME
Foreign SME
Domestic Large
Foreign
Large
type
Participant 8 6 6 5
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 862
s
Documents
Employee standing orders, union-management settlements, IDA 1947, TUA,
1923, annual reports,
newsletters etc.
Data
source
HR head,
owner,
MD, HR
head
,
VP-HR, plant HR
head,
VP-HR,
lin
e
plant head,
workers,
worker
s, line
line manager,
union
manager,
supervisor,
line manager
managers,
supervisors
leader, workers
employee
Data
analysis
Data analysis using thematic analysis technique by Miles & Huberman, 1994;
content analysis
using Holsti, 1969
Case1. It is a domestic medium sized enterprise involved in the manufacturing of heavy
construction equipment, earthmovers etc. The company was established in 1995. It is an
example of typical owner controlled Indian firm. The management style is very control
oriented. Most of the labor management practices are traditional, with little evidence for use
of HRM. All the workers are hired through agencies. Not even a single worker is on company
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 863
rolls. There is no such thing as performance appraisal or safety training etc for workers.
Workers are seen as a liability and to reduce their power they are hired and fired through
agency. Any unionizing activity is closely monitored and curbed well in time. Role of HR is
not that of employee welfare but to act as an agent of management in controlling workers.
5 One organization can have several establishments (plants). For this study a single
establishment of an organization is considered as unit of analysis.
Case2. It is a medium sized Japanese joint venture firm involved in the manufacturing of
automobile hoses. The company was established in 2005. Japanese style of management can be
seen to have an influence on the functioning of this company. There is great emphasis being laid
on quality. There are rewards related to quality that are given to employees. But the localization
of employee management practices can be easily seen. Most of the workforce is contractual that
is paid according to the minimum wages without any appraisal or training. Safety is given
importance and hence safety training is there but apart from that no other major type of training
is given to the employees. They learn on the job. Employee communication is top down.
Case3. It is a large domestic firm involved in the manufacturing of agricultural machinery. The
company has a long history. Established in 1944 by two brothers, this company is a family
owned organization. Trade union is present in this company and most of the worker related
decisions are taken in consultation with the union leaders. Trade union represents only the
permanent workers. Over the years the strength of permanent workers has decreased resulting in
most of the workforce being contractual that is paid according to the minimum wages without
any appraisal or training. This has also decreased the trade union strength and influence in the
company. Employee communication is largely top down. Line mangers discuss everyday plans
with workers and supervisors on a daily basis. Training is mainly on the job with some sort of
attitude training and safety training for new joiners.
Case4. It is a large sized Korean company involved in the manufacturing of electronic products
like fridge, AC, washing machine etc. The company was established in 2000. Korean style of
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 864
management can be seen to have an influence on the functioning of this company. There is great
emphasis being laid on quality and innovation. There are rewards related to quality that are given
to employees. There is no trade union. But the localization of employee management practices
can be easily seen. Most of the workforce is contractual that is paid according to the minimum
wages without any appraisal or training. Safety is given importance and hence safety training is
there but apart from that no other major type of training is given to the employees. They learn on
the job. Employee communication is top down.
Dimension Case1. Case2. Case3. Case4.
Anti union strategies
yes
yes
yes
yes
Towards
contractu
al
yes
yes
yes
yes
arrangeme
nts
Line managers
crucial limited Some yes yes
role extent
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 865
Performance related
pay
no
yes
yes
yes
Formal
recruitme
nt no no no no
channels
Communication
Top
Top
down
Top down
Mixed
down
Training
no
Safety
Safety on job,
attitude
Safety, on
job
,
training
behavioral,
ownership
Collective
bargainin
g
no
no
Yes but weak at
the
Individual
level
arrangeme
nts enterprise level
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 866
Results and discussion
All the case companies irrespective of their size or origin are adopting some kind of anti union
strategy. Preferred channels of recruitment are still informal like word of mouth, referrals, a
apprentice. Most common form of training has been on the job. Line managers face
difficulties in convincing workers to attend such training sessions. Employee communication
is mostly top down with limited involvement of workers in the form of suggestion schemes,
quality circles etc. Limited information is shared with workers. While some large
organizations can share financial information, strategic information is never shared. The
dominant employment arrangement is the core periphery. Performance management system
for workers is absent or wherever it is present it is used only for pay related decisions and not
for employee development.
Employment arrangement in India is very different from other countries. While in US, UK etc.
also core periphery system exists. But periphery there means part time workers, flexi timers,
contractual workers, outsourcing. While in India, most of the peripheral workforce is either
contractual or casual. In case of US the adoption of alternate arrangements like sub contracting is
an attempt to reduce costs. It makes sense from efficiency point of view, since labor costs form a
major chunk of production costs there. But in case of India labor costs are only 14% of the total
production costs. So, using contractual labor for controlling costs seems a vague logic (as given
by most of the employers) in case of India. In India the ultimate objective of management in
employing contractual workforce is control. Employment of contractual labor is routine jobs is
not permissible by law. But laws are violated and bureaucrats are bribed heavily to overlook
these matters of immediate concerns. Although there is a provision in the law that employer
should pay overtime to the workers at the rate of double the basic wages, no employer follows
this practice. There is no reasonable answer for this. But still most of the companies are
following these practices because others are doing this. It is a kind of institutional isomorphism
that exits.
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 867
Foreign companies that come to India, comes here with a different mindset. Both the foreign
companies‟ studied in this paper have strong union in their home country. But when they started
operations in India they were very clear from the beginning about being union free workplaces.
In India workers are still uneducated or minimally educated, therefore formal channels of
recruitment and training are still not very popular. Due to the regional differences, caste system
etc. employers often have to mend their employment practices. While in other countries;
employers have adopted HRM strategies to divert worker attention from unions to their career. In
India HRM practices are not adopted as unified approach. Coercion is used as a means to divert
workers from getting unionized. Separate IR/HR departments are still prevalent in some
companies with different roles and responsibilities. This trend was popular in UK in 1980‟s
Future directions
Further studies can aim at doing a private vs. public comparison of Indian manufacturing to see
the differences and similarities in their labor management approaches. Similarly, a comparison of
services vs. manufacturing sector can be done to understand the peculiarities of managing
employees in each sector. Since this study is based on only a sub sector of Indian manufacturing,
further study of other manufacturing sub sectors and their comparison is desirable.Cross country
studies in employment relations have been very rare (Kuruvilla & Erikson, 2002).
Therefore, an appropriate extension of this study could be a cross country comparison.
References
Ackers, P. (2006). Leaving labour? Some British impressions of Indian academic employment
relations. Economic and Political Weekly, 4187-4194.
Baldry, C., Bain, P., Taylor, P., Hyman, J., Scholarios, D., Marks, A., Watson, A., Gilbert, K.,
Gall, G., & Bunzel, D. (2007). The meaning of work in the new economy. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 868
Bhattacherjee, D. (2001). The Evolution of Indian Industrial Relations: A Comparative
Perspective. Industrial Relations Journal, 32(3)
Bhattacherjee, D., & Ackers, P. (2010). Introduction: employment relations in India—old
narratives and new perspectives. Industrial Relations Journal, 41(2), 104-121.
Bosch, G. (2004). Towards a new standard employment relationship in Western Europe. British
journal of industrial relations, 42(4), 617-636.
Budhwar, P. S. (2003). Employment Relations in India. Employee Relations, 25(2), 132-148.
Budhwar, P.S. (2001), “Human resource management in India” in Budhwar, P. and Yaw A.
Debrah (Eds.) Human Resource Management in Developing Countries. London: Routledge, 75-
90.
Budhwar, P. S., & Boyne, G. (2004). Human resource management in the Indian public and
private sectors: an empirical comparison. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15(2), 346-370.
Budhwar, P. S., & Sparrow, P. R. (2002). An integrative framework for understanding cross-
national human resource management practices. Human Resource Management Review, 12(3),
377-403.
Budhwar, P., & Varma, A. (2010). Guest editors' introduction: Emerging patterns of HRM in the
new Indian economic environment. Human Resource Management, 49(3), 345-351.
Callus, R. (1991). Industrial relations at work: the Australian workplace industrial relations
survey. Australian Govt. Pub. Service.
Cappelli, P. (1995). Rethinking Employment. British Journal Of Industrial Relations, 33(4),
563-602.
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 869
Datta. S.K. (1990). "Automation and Industrial Relations: Implications for employment,
utilisation and deployment of workforce". Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,25(3): 254:76
Das, S. K. (2008). Trade unions in India: union membership and union density. The Indian
Journal of Labour Economics, 51(4), 969-82.
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and U.S. Council on Competitiveness, 2013
Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management
review, 14(4), 532-550.
Gould, A. M. (2010). The Americanisation of Australian workplaces. Labor History, 51(3), 363-
388. doi:10.1080/0023656X.2010.508373
Hill, E. (2009). The Indian Industrial Relations System: Struggling to Address the Dynamics of a
Globalizing Economy. Journal Of Industrial Relations, 51(3), 395-410.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Massachusetts:
Addison -Wesley Publishing Co.
Indian Brand Equity Foundation. (2015). Indian manufacturing: Overview and Prospects Report.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract
work. Annual review of sociology, 341-365.
Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F., & Hudson, K. (2000). Bad jobs in America: Standard and
nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States. American Sociological
Review, 256-278.
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 870
Kochan, T.A. (1984). „The Transformation of the Industrial Relations and human resources
functions‟, Industrial relations, 24(3).
Kuruvilla, S. (1996). Linkages between industrialization strategies and industrial
relations/human resource policies: Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and India. Industrial &
Labor Relations Review, 49(4), 635-657.
Kuruvilla, S., & Erickson, C. L. (2002). Change and transformation in Asian industrial relations.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society,41(2), 171-227.
Krishnan, T. N. (2010). Technological Change & Employment Relations in India. Indian Journal
Of Industrial Relations, 45(3), 367-380.
Lansbury, R. D., Seung-Ho, K., & Chung-Sok, S. (2006). Globalization and Employment
Relations in the Korean Auto Industry: The Case of the Hyundai Motor Company in Korea,
Canada and India. Asia Pacific Business Review,
12(2), 131-147. doi:10.1080/13602380500532180
Lansbury, R. D. (2009). Work and industrial relations: towards a new agenda. Relations
Industrielles /Industrial Relations, 326-339.
Maddison, A. (2001). The World Economy. A Millennial Perspective. Paris: OECD.
Maddison, A. (2007a). Contours of the World Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mathur, A. N. (1993). Experience of Consultation during Structural Adjustment in India (1990-
92), The. Int'l Lab. Rev., 132, 331.
McGovern, P., Hill, S., Mills, C., & White, M. (2007). Market, class, and employment. OUP
Catalogue.
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 871
Morishima, M. (1995). Embedding HRM in a Social Context. British Journal Of Industrial
Relations, 33(4), 617-640.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward
a shared craft. Educational researcher, 20-30.
National Sample Survey 66th round (NSS-66) conducted in 2009-2010.
Naudé, W. A., & Szirmai, A. (2012). The importance of manufacturing in economic
development: Past, present and future perspectives. UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University
School of Business and Economics.
O'Donnell, M., O'Brien, J., & Junor, A. (2011). New public management and employment
relations in the public services of Australia and New Zealand. International Journal Of Human
Resource Management, 22(11), 2367-2383. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.584400
Osterman,P. (1986). „Skill, Training and work organization in American establishments‟,
Industrial Relations, 32: 125-46.
Ramaswamy, E. A. (2000). Managing human resources: A contemporary text. Oxford University
Press.
Ramaswamy, E. A., & Schiphorst, F. B. (2000). Human resource management, trade unions and
empowerment: two cases from India. International Journal Of Human Resource Management,
11(4), 664-680. doi:10.1080/09585190050075051
Ramaswamy, K. V. (1999). The search for flexibility in Indian manufacturing: New evidence on
outsourcing activities. Economic and Political Weekly, 363-368.
Ratnam, V. CS (1995),„Economic liberalization and the transformation of industrial
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 872
relations policies in
India,‟. Employment relations in the growing Asian economies. London: Routledge, 220-281.
Ratnam, V. C.S. (2006), Industrial Relations, New Delhi, Oxford University Press.
Saini, D. S. (2003). Dynamics of New Industrial Relations and Postulates of Industrial Justice.
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 46(4).
Saini, Debi (2006a) “Declining Labour Power and Challenges before Trade Unions: Some
Lessons from a Case Study on Private Sector Unionism,” Indian Journal of Labour Economics,
Vol. 49, No. 4, pp.911-924.
Saini, Debi (2006b) “Managing Employee Relations through Strategic Human Resource
Management: Evidence from two Tata Companies,” Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
Vol. 42, No.2, pp.170-189.
Saini, Debi (2008) “Labour in the New Industrial-Relations Era: Global and Indian
Perspectives,” A.T. Business Management Review, Vo. 4, No. 2, pp. 82-92.
Sharma, A. N. (2006). Flexibility, employment and labour market reforms in India. Economic
and Political Weekly, 2078-2085.
Sundar, K. S. (2006). Trade unions and the new challenges: One step forward and two steps
backward. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 49(4), 895-910.
Shyam Sundar, K. R. (2010). Emerging Trends in Employment Relations in India. Indian
Journal Of Industrial Relations, 45(4), 585-595.
Singh, I. S., & Kulkarni, V. (2013). Trade Unionism in India-Perceptions & Future. Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(1), 35.
XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings; January, 2016
ISBN no. 978-81-923211-8-9 http://www.internationalseminar.in/XVII_AIS/INDEX.HTM Page 873
Trivedi, P., Lakshmanan, L., Jain, R., & Gupta, Y. K. (2011). Productivity, Efficiency, and
Competitiveness of the Indian Manufacturing Sector. Reserve Bank of India Paper.
UNIDO. (2013). Industrial Development Report 2013: Sustaining Employment Growth: The
Role of Manufacturing and Structural Change
UNIDO (2013). The Industrial Competitiveness of Nations: Looking back, forging ahead.
Competitive Industrial Performance Report 2012/2013
Van Wanrooy, B. Bewley, H., Bryson, A., Forth, J. Freeth, S., Stokes, L. and Wood, S. 2013.
The 2011 workplace employment relations study: first findings: initial report on sixth
employment relations survey of a representative sample of 2,680 British workplaces between
March 2011 and June 2012. Ref: BIS/13/535 London: Department for Business Innovation and
Skills.
World Economic Forum. (2011). Article “India‟s New Manufacturing Policy Vital to Create
Jobs and Maintain Growth”.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods).
Sage Publications, London.
Zhao, S., Zhang, J., Zhao, W., & Poon, T. (2012). Changing employment relations in China: a
comparative study of the auto and banking industries. International Journal Of Human Resource
Management, 23(10), 2051-2064. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.668364
Zou, M., & Lansbury, R. D. (2009). Multinational corporations and employment relations in
the People's Republic of China: the case of Beijing Hyundai Motor Company. The
international journal of human resource management, 20(11), 2349-2369.