TRADE UNIONISM AND WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN...
Transcript of TRADE UNIONISM AND WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN...
CHAPTER 6
TRADE UNIONISM AND WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN
MANAGEMENT
Welfare measures and job satisfaction felt by the employees of the study
units were analysed in chapter 5. The present chapter focuses chiefly on trade
union activities of the employees in the study units. It also explores the extent of
workers participation in management.
Trade Unionism
Primarily Trade Unions are organizations of workers that work for the
maintenance and enhancement of their economic status by insisting on
improvement in working conditions and other facilities and benefits. According
to Dale Yoder (1974)1, A Trade Union is a “continuing, long-term association of
employees formed and maintained for the specific purpose of advancing and
protecting the interests of members in their working relationship”.
The right to unionize on the part of the workers and to strive for their
socio-economic betterment is today not only guaranteed by legislation but also
duly accepted and recognized by all the sections of society both in democratic
and communist countries of the world. There is a firm and widespread
conviction about the absolute necessity of trade unionism for fostering and
maintaining harmonious relationship between labour and management.
Balasubramanian (2002)2 has identified some of the most important and
pressing problems of trade unions in India, which include uneven growth:
industry-wise and area-wise, small size of unions, financial weakness,
multiplicity of unions and inter-union rivalry, leadership issues, politicalisation
of unions etc.
Industrial relations in Kerala are closely linked with trade unionism. This
is true with regard to both public and private sector enterprises, since trade
unionism is deep rooted in the Kerala economy as a whole. Trade union are
playing a very significant role in modern industrial society.
In the following section, various factors that have a say in the extent of
trade unionism and collective bargaining are analyzed on the basis of data
collected from the employees. The factors considered for the present analysis
include membership in trade unions, participation in trade union activities, role
of trade unions in protecting its member’s interest, multiplicity of trade unions,
political affiliation of trade unions etc.
6.1 MEMBERSHIP IN TRADE UNIONS
The employees join unions to ensure a just and fair dealing by
management on the basis of a predetermined policy, and through collective
strength restrain the management from taking any action which may be
irrational, illogical, discriminatory or contrary to their general interests. Trade
unions increase the resistance power of employees through collective bargaining.
An attempt is made to analyze the spread of trade union movement among the
industrial employees of Kerala in Table 6.1. (For analyzing the membership in
trade unions, workers and supervisors only are considered.)
Table 6.1
Membership in Trade Unions - Category wise analysis
Perception
Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Yes 164 98 143 95 204 97 199 92 368 97 342 93
No 4 2 7 5 6 3 17 8 10 3 24 7
Total 168 100 150 100 210 100 216 100 378 100 366 100
Source: Field Survey
212
Table 6.1 shows that in public sector 98 percent supervisors and in private
sector 95 percent supervisors are trade union members. The trade union
membership among the workers in public sector comes to 97 percent and 92
percent in private sector. In both sectors, employees are enthusiastic in becoming
trade union members. This is due to the high political consciousness of
employees in Kerala.
Only 3 percent supervisors and 5 percent workers in private sector and 2
percent supervisors and 3 percent workers in public sector remain away from
trade union membership. Both categories of employees in both sectors are very
much enthusiastic in joining the trade unions. This is due to the realization that
trade unions can play a decisive role in meeting the demands of the employees.
Pandey (1998)3 remarked, “A trade union is an essential institution in any
industry to safeguard the interests of the workers and to voice their demands”.
Every employee wants to increase his income and to have better working
conditions. But the individual employee has very little bargaining powering
compared to his employer. If he joins the union, the union will take care of his
economic interests because the union has greater bargaining power to get its
demands accepted by the management.
Rao and Patwardhan (1998)4 have pointed out, “Unionization signals the
desire of workers: a) to share power; b) to influence changes in workplace; c) to
have stability and security; and d) to nurture a long-term relationship with the
employer-the four pillars on which employee satisfaction, belongingness and
commitment necessarily rest.”
In an attempt to study the significance of difference among various
categories of employees about their membership in trade unions using chi-square
analysis, it was found that these differences are not significant since the p value
obtained was 0.2099 at 5% level of confidence which is more than 0.050. The
computed chi-square value is 1.5713 at 1 degree of freedom. The difference
213
between public and private sector employees is significant since the P value is
0.0105 which is lower than 0.05 at 5% level of confidence in the difference
significant test using chi-square analysis. The computed value of chi-square is
6.5250 at 1 degree of freedom. The contingency co-efficient is 0.0179.
6.2 PARTICIPATION IN TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES
For the existence and sound growth of trade unionism, an active
involvement and participation of its members in union activities is indispensable.
Though about 93-97 percent employees are members of trade unions, many of
them are members for name sake only. Hence it is important to see how many of
them are actively participating in trade union activities.
Table 6.2
Participation in Trade Union activities in organizations- Category wise analysis
Level
Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Not at all 0 0 20 13 12 6 34 16 12 3 54 15
A little 114 68 80 53 108 51 124 57 222 59 204 56
Average 42 25 40 27 56 27 42 19 98 26 82 22
Very much 12 7 10 7 30 14 10 5 42 11 20 5
Undecided 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 3 4 1 6 2
Total 168 100 150 100 210 100 216 100 378 100 366 100
Source: Field Survey
The analysis shows that 68 percent supervisors and 51 percent workers in
public sector are participating a little in trade union activities. In private sector,
57 percent workers and 53 percent supervisors are participating a little. In public
sector 25 percent supervisors and 27 percent workers are averagely participating
in trade union activities. (For analyzing the participation in union activities,
opinions of workers and supervisors only are considered).
214
Only 19 percent workers and 27 percent supervisors in private sector are
participating averagely in trade union activities.16 percent workers and 13
percent supervisors in private sector are not at all participating in any trade union
activities. In public sector 14 percent workers are participating very much in the
trade union activities. It clearly shows that even if majority of the employees are
trade union members, a considerable portion of them are not participating well in
the trade union activities. A lower degree of membership participation in union
activities reflects a lower level of support to the union and thereby reduces its
effectiveness and strength.
It was observed during the study that many employees join a union
because their fellow workers are the members of the union. At times, an
employee joins a union under group pressure; if he does not, he often has a
difficult time at work. On the other hand, those who are members of a union feel
that they gain respect in the eyes of their fellow workers. They can also discuss
their problems with the trade union leaders.
It was observed in the study that the employees’ interest in and inclination
towards trade unions is declining. One possible reason for this might be the
political leadership of trade unions. Political leaders use trade unions as spring
boards for boosting up their political mileage.
Varma (1998)5 has rightly pointed out, “the decline in the number of
members in unions is further compounded by the diminishing enthusiasm among
those who are still members of the union. This is-or it should be – a matter of
concern for the trade union leaders”.
The results of chi-square test applied to test any significant difference
between the two categories of employees as to their participation in trade union
activities give the value of chi-square as 13.4110 with 4 degrees of freedom and
p value as 0.0093. Since the p value is lesser than 0.05 at 5% level of confidence,
it is concluded that there is significant difference between supervisors and
workers about their participation in trade union activities. The difference
215
between public and private sector employees is significant since the p value is
0.0000 at 5% level of confidence in the difference significant test using chi-
square analysis. The computed value of chi-square is 36.9326 at 4 degrees of
freedom.
Union leadership at different levels
It is interesting to know how many trade union workers from the sample
units were elevated to the different levels of union leadership-state level, district
level and taluk/block level. During the survey, the following information was
revealed. It was summarized in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3
Union leadership at different levels-sector wise analysis
Level Public Private Total
State 4 2 6
District 9 6 15
Taluk/Block 16 10 25
Total 29 18 47
Source: Field Survey
Table 6.3 shows that from public sector, four trade union leaders arrived
at state level leadership whereas from private sector, only two union leaders
were elevated to state level. Similarly, out of the 15 union leaders arrived at
district level, nine were from public sector. While considering the case of
Taluk/block leadership, out of the 25 leaders, 16 were contributed by public
sector. It can be rightly inferred that more trade union leaders were contributed
by public sector than private sector. It is because, the trade union activities and
spirit is more in public sector.
216
6.3 NECESSITY OF TRADE UNIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Trade unions were emerged to protect and defend the workers from
encroachment and injustice of employers. Trade unions protect the workers right
to higher and better life. It helps to overcome and conquer prejudice and
antagonism against workers. An attempt is made to analyze the perception of
employees about the necessity of trade unions in organizations in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4
Necessity of Trade Unions in organizations- Category wise analysis
PerceptionExecutives Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private
Necessary 68(75)
82(93)
146(86)
130(87)
170(80)
200(93)
384(82)
412(91)
Unnecessary 22(25)
6(7)
22(14)
20(3)
40(20)
16(7)
84(18)
42(9)
Total90
(100)88
(100)168
(100)150
(100)210
(100)216
(100)468
(100)454
(100)
Values in parentheses are percentages Source: Field Survey
Table 6.4 shows that 93 percent executives and workers and 87 percent
supervisors in private sector consider unions as necessary. Only 75 percent
executives, 86 percent supervisors and 80 percent workers in public sector
consider unions as necessary. To 25 percent executives, 14 percent supervisors
and 20 percent workers in public sector unions are unnecessary. Public sector
executives considerably oppose the trade unions in organisations. About 25
percent of the executives in public sector keep the view that trade unions are
unnecessary in organisations.
The union provides a mechanism through which employees can make
their voice heard by the top management. Union serves as a via media of
communication between the employees and the top management. So majority of
employees support the existence of trade unions in organizations.
217
Mohanan (1999)6 observed “trade unions have brought about some
economic, political and social changes for the better conditions of workers.
Economically, they have improved the relative lot of the workers. Politically,
they have produced a mighty, secular, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, egalitarian
and socialistic force in the country. Socially, they have emerged as a unique
force of national integration.”
A majority of the employees opined a trade union is necessary to
safeguard their rights and to voice their demands in the organization. This shows
that though the workers’ interest in trade unions is declining, (Table 6.2) unions
can regain the workers faith, if they do some introspection, and take corrective
measures now.
Bhangoo (2006)7 suggested, “Today, the role, need and importance of
trade unions have increased manifold to protect the economic as well as non-
economic interest of the working class and society from the onslaught of
globalization.”
The chi-square analysis produces a value of 0.7974 at 2 degrees of
freedom. A higher p value of 0.6712 at 5% level of confidence indicates that
there is no significant difference between various categories of employees about
necessity of trade unions in organization. The difference between public and
private sector employees is significant since the p value is 0.0000 at 5% level of
confidence in the difference significant test using chi-square analysis. The
computed value of chi-square is 14.7758 at 1 degree of freedom. The
contingency co-efficient is 0.1255.
6.4 ROLE OF TRADE UNIONS IN PROTECTING ITS MEMBER’S
INTEREST
The traditional concept of trade union function was to defend the workers
rights and interest against the employers. Protection of employees and provision
for security and improving the wages, conditions of work and standard of living
218
are the main new functions of trade unions. Opinion about the role of trade
unions in protecting its member’s interest is analyzed in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5
Role of trade unions in protecting its member’s interest - Category wise analysis
PerceptionExecutives Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private
Well Protected
22
(24)
20
(22)
28
(17)
76
(51)
90
(43)
114
(53)
140
(30)
210
(46)
Fairly protected
40
(45)
34
(39)
60
(36)
42
(28)
64
(30)
62
(29)
164
(35)
138
(30)
Not protected
28
(31)
34
(39)
80
(47)
32
(21)
56
(27)
40
(18)
164
(35)
106
(24)
Total90
(100)
88
(100)
168
(100)
150
(100)
210
(100)
216
(100)
468
(100)
454
(100)
Values in parentheses are percentages Source: Field Survey
Table 6.5 shows that in private sector, 53 percent workers and 51 percent
supervisors believe that unions have well protected the interest of their members.
In public sector 43 percent workers also attributed it. In public sector 45 percent
executives and 39 percent executives in private sector keep the view that unions
have fairly protected the interest of their members. In public sector 36 percent
supervisors’ and 30 percent workers also shared the same view. In public sector
47 percent supervisors and 31 percent executives and in private sector 39 percent
executives feel that trade unions have not protected the interest of its members.
As Sharma (1988)8 pointed out, “the trade union movement has provided
a powerful vehicle to the working population for the realization of its hopes and
dreams. With the help of the unions the workers belonging to the organized
219
sector have been able to improve not only their economic lot, but also their
working and service conditions.”
The employees join the unions because of their belief that it is an
effective way to secure adequate protection from various types of hazards and
income insecurity. Employees believe that trade unions compel the management
to provide welfare services for the benefit of the workers and their families.
The results of chi-square test conducted to analyze the significance of
difference among the three categories of employees as the role of trade unions in
protecting its member’s interest suggest that there is a significant difference
between executives, supervisors and workers’ as the p value (0.0000) is less than
0.05 at 5% level of confidence. The calculated value of chi-square is 40.9549 at
4 degrees of freedom. All collective bargaining is not useful to all categories of
employees in an organization. The fruits of many collective bargaining are
enjoyed by a section of employees in many situations. That is the reason for
difference.
The difference between public and private sector employees is significant
since the p value is 0.0000 at 5% level of confidence in the difference significant
test using chi-square analysis. The computed value of chi-square is 28.4917 at 2
degrees of freedom.
6.5 POLITICAL DOMINATION OF THE TRADE UNIONS AND
SACRIFICING INTEREST OF EMPLOYEES
The present linking of unions with political parties and politicians is
dangerous for the healthy growth of trade unionism in India. It diverts the
attention of unions from the problems of working class.
The trade unions in India have been allied with one or the other political
parties, not in the nature of partnership based on equality and independence, but
as mere adjuncts of the political parties. Many trade unions are the hand-maids
of the political parties.
220
Table 6.6
Political domination of the trade unions and sacrificing interest of employees - Category wise analysis
PerceptionExecutives Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private
Sacrificed 34(38)
26(30)
76(45)
24(16)
70(33)
40(19)
180(38)
90(20)
Not sacrificed
56(62)
62(70)
92(55)
126(84)
140(67)
176(81)
288(62)
364(80)
Total90
(100)88
(100)168
(100)150
(100)210
(100)216
(100)468
(100)454
(100)Values in parentheses are percentages Source: Field Survey
Table 6.6 shows that a good number of sample in both sectors from all
categories believe that political domination of their union has not sacrificed the
interest of the employees of the organization. The response rate for private sector
was 84 percent for supervisors, 81 percent for workers and 70 percent for
executives.
The response rate for their counter parts in public sector comes to 67
percent for workers, 62 percent for executives and 55 percent for supervisors.
However, the number of employees who oppose this view in public sector was
also noteworthy. The response rate was 45 percent for supervisors, 38 percent
for executives and 33 percent for workers.
Trade unions are drifting more and more towards politics rather than
clinging to their main goal of collective bargaining and negotiation with the
management to obtain greater benefits for the workers. This development is the
outcome of reckless multiplication of political parties which are penetrating deep
in the rank and file of the trade unions to establish their strength and stability.
Ramanujam (1979)9 observe, “Just as the people of India can subscribe to
any religion or to none, yet the State is secular, even so workers can belong to
any political party or to none, but the union itself could be independent”.
221
6.6 IMPORTANT FACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF
UNIONS IN MEETING THEIR OBJECTIVES
The trade unions in India suffers from a variety of problems such as
disunity of workers, unjustified demands, non-co-operative attitude of
management, incompetent leadership, intervention of political parties in meeting
their objectives. This vicious circle has adversely affected the status and
bargaining capacity of trade unions. Trade unions are considered to be
experimenting institutions with industrial democracy, which would strengthen
democratic forces and help in functioning of political democracy.
Table 6.7
Important factor responsible for the failure of trade unions in meeting their objectives- Category wise analysis
PerceptionExecutives Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private Public PrivateDisunity of Workers
36(40)
56(64)
82(49)
62(41)
94(45)
114(53)
212(45)
232(51)
Unjustified Demands
0(0)
6(7)
6(3)
6(4)
10(5)
14(6)
16(3)
26(6)
Non cooperative Attitude of Management
36(40)
16(18)
46(27)
56(37)
70(33)
62(29)
152(33)
134(30)
Incompetent Leadership
10(11)
8(9)
18(11)
20(14)
32(15)
20(9)
60(13)
48(10)
Intervention of political parties
8(9)
2(2)
16(10)
6(4)
4(2)
6(3)
28(6)
14(3)
Total90
(100)88
(100)168
(100)150
(100)210
(100)216
(100)468
(100)454
(100)Values in parentheses are percentages Source: Field Survey
Table 6.7 shows that 64 percent executives, 53 percent workers and 41
percent supervisors in private sector attributed disunity of workers as the single
reason responsible for the failure of unions in meeting their desired objectives.
The response rate of public sector for this factor comes to 40 percent for
executives, 49 percent for supervisors and 45 percent for workers. Majority of
222
the employees blame employees themselves (i.e., disunity of workers) for the
failure of trade unions in meeting their objectives.
In private sector 37 percent supervisors, 29 percent workers and 18
percent executives considered the non-cooperative attitude of management as the
most important factor responsible for the failure of unions in meeting their
desired objectives. In public sector 33 percent workers, 27 percent supervisors
and 40 percent executives shared this view.
Leelavathy (2000)10 remarked, “They need to emphasize of improving
labour efficiency, reduced dependence on Government, broaden the base of the
trade union movement (by extending even to the unorganized labour), encourage
more takeovers by the workers co-operatives, restructuring their organization
and functioning and they need to be more receptive regarding the requirements
of globalization.”
It was observed during the study that the factors that make a trade union
strong and healthy are unflinching adherence to the union’s constitution and
rules, regular payment of dues, fully representative character of the union, co-
operation with sister unions and a sound leadership. Lack of some or many of
these factors are responsible for the failure of trade unions.
The chi-square analysis produces a value of 6.4002 at 8 degrees of
freedom. A higher p value of 0.6025 at 5% level of confidence indicate that there
is no significant difference between various categories of employees about
important factor responsible for the failure of trade unions in meeting their
objectives. The difference between public and private sector employees is not
significant since the p value is 0.2769 at 5% level of confidence in the difference
significant test using chi-square analysis. The computed value of chi-square is
5.1022 at 4 degrees of freedom.
6.7 MULTIPLICITY OF TRADE UNIONS
223
The multiplicity of rival unions is one of the great weaknesses of the
Indian trade union movement. The multiplication of trade unions at the plant
level, each union commands only a negligible proportion of the workers of an
establishment and does not enjoy the confidence of most of the employees.
Due to the existence of multiple unions there occurs the problem of union
rivalry. Employers are given an opportunity to play unions against each other.
They can refuse to bargain on the contention that there is no true representative
union. Besides this, the workers’ own solidarity is lost.
During the survey, Personnel Managers were asked about whether
multiplicity of trade unions affected industrial relations in their organizations.
100 percent Personnel Managers in both sectors believes that multiplicity of
trade unions affected industrial relations.
Table 6.8
Multiplicity of trade unions and industrial relations- Trade union leaders’ perception
LevelPublic sector Private sector Total
No. % No. % No. %
Highly affected 5 17 3 15 8 16
Partly affected 13 43 12 60 25 50
Not at all affected 12 40 5 25 17 34
Total 30 100 20 100 50 100
Source: Field Survey
Table 6.8 analyses trade union leaders’ perception about whether
multiplicity of trade unions affected industrial relations in organizations. In
private sector 60 percent trade union leaders and in public sector 43 percent
trade union leaders consider that multiplicity of trade unions has partly affected
industrial relations in their organizations. In public sector 40 percent trade union
leaders’ and in private sector 25 percent trade union leaders’ are of the view that
224
multiplicity of trade unions has not at all affected industrial relations. However,
17 percent trade union leaders’ in public sector and 15 percent in private sector
keep the view that multiplicity of trade unions has highly affected industrial
relations in their organizations.
Many a time, it is contended that multiplicity of unions is because of
outside leadership, but more pertinent point is that they are able to form new
unions because law permits and gives sanctity to the small unions. Any seven
persons can get together to form a union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
V. V. Giri (1972)11 has rightly pointed out, “Effective trade unions are
helpful in avoiding inarticulate unrest of workers involving extensive
absenteeism, frequent job changes, fighting; wandering from one plant or
locality to another.” Multiplicity of unions defeats these advantages.
The very high p value of 0.4767 at 5% level of confidence obtained in the
chi-square analysis (chi-square value 1.4816 at 2 degrees of freedom) suggest
that there is no significant difference in the perception of trade union leaders in
two sectors regarding multiplicity of trade unions affecting industrial relations.
6.8 MAIN ACHIEVEMENT OF THE TRADE UNION
The employee collectivities strive to improve the terms and conditions of
employment. They improve the social well being of labour by securing for them
a higher standard of living. They set in to motion a process of democratization of
industry by establishing proper worker-management relations. For workers, the
union then acts as a service – rendering agency in the area of their relationship
with the owners of capital.
Chaudhuri (1998)12 suggest the new role of trade unions as, “to protest
against unfair management practices and social evils like AIDS, alcoholism,
occupational diseases, pollution in the interest of the workers and society at
large”.
Table 6.9
225
The main achievement of union - Trade union leaders’ perception
AchievementPublic Private Total
No. % No. % No. %
Increase in wage and salary
20 66 16 80 36 70
Increase in bonus 2 7 1 5 3 6
Reduce hours of work
2 7 1 5 3 6
Improving working conditions
6 20 2 10 8 18
Total 30 100 20 100 50 100
Source: Field Survey
Table 6.9 gives an account of trade union leaders’ perception regarding
the main achievement of their union. In private sector 80 percent trade union
leaders’ and in public sector 66 percent trade union leaders’ keep the view that
increase in wage and salary is the main achievement of their union. But, 20
percent trade union leaders’ in public sector and 10 percent trade union leaders’
in private sector believe that improving working conditions is the main
achievement of their union. In public sector 7 percent each trade union leaders’
and in private sector 5 percent each trade union leaders’ believe that increase in
bonus and reduce hours of work are the main achievements of their union. More
trade union leaders’ consider increase in the wage and salary of the employees
the main achievement of their union.
Schuler and others (1989)13 commented, “In considering whether
collective action is appropriate, employees are also likely to consider whether a
union could obtain the aspects of the work environment not provided by the
employer and to weigh those benefits against the cost of unionization.”
226
The chi-square analysis applied to test whether there is any significant
difference between trade union leaders in two sectors regarding the main
achievement of their union gives the value as 0.7632 with 3 degrees of freedom.
The p value of 1.1574 at 5% level of confidence suggests that the difference is
not significant.
6.9 ONE UNION IN ONE INDUSTRY
The multiplicity of unions leads to inter–union rivalries, which ultimately
cuts at the very root of unionism, weakens the power of collective bargaining,
and reduces the effectiveness of workers in securing their legitimate rights.
Unions try to play down each other in a bid to gain greater influence among
workers. In the process they do more harm than good to the cause of unionism as
a whole. Therefore, there should be ‘one union in one industry’.
Table 6.10
One union for one industry - Trade union leaders’ perception
PerceptionPublic sector Private sector Total
No. % No. % No. %
Yes 22 73 16 80 38 76
No 8 27 4 20 12 24
Total 30 100 20 100 50 100
Source: Field Survey
Table 6.10 indicates the trade union leaders’ perception about the idea for
one union for one industry. In private sector 80 percent trade union leaders and
in public sector 73 percent trade union leaders’ favoured the idea of one union
for one industry. However, 27 percent trade union leaders’ in public sector and
20 percent trade union leaders in private sector rejected this idea. More trade
union leaders favoured the idea of one union for one industry.
227
Rath and Misra (1996)14 observed, “The fight against managerial
mismanagement will be replaced by the fight against technological
obsolescence. Further, the unions will be more concerned with the survival of
the business because their own survival will depend on it. This may lead to
single union concept and de-affiliation from Central trade unions”.
The results of chi-square test applied to test any significant difference
between the trade union leaders in two sectors regarding one union for one
industry give the value of chi-square as 0.2924 with 1 degree of freedom and p
value as 0.5886. Since the p value is more than 0.05 at 5% level of confidence, it
is concluded that there is no significant difference between trade union leaders in
two sectors regarding one union for one industry.
6.10 POLITICAL AFFILIATION OF TRADE UNIONS
The Indian trade unions have alliance with political parties. Decisions in
the trade union field are taken by the respective political parties to which unions
are attached, and therefore, with the changing political situation, the decisions
also change.
Chhabra (2006)15 observed, “Trade unions are drifting more and more
towards politics rather than clinging to their main goal of collective bargaining
and negotiation with the management to obtain greater benefits for the workers.
This has led to violence and coercion becoming a part of the attitude of the
Indian worker.”
228
Table 6.11
Political affiliation of trade unions - Union leaders’ opinion
AffiliatedPublic sector Private sector Total
No. % No. % No. %
Yes 27 90 16 80 43 86
No 3 10 4 20 7 14
Total 30 100 20 100 50 100
Source: Field Survey
Table 6.11 gives an account of trade union leaders’ opinion about whether
the trade unions are affiliated to political parties. In public sector 90 percent
trade union leaders’ and in private sector 80 percent trade union leaders’ agreed
that their trade unions are affiliated to political parties. While, 20 percent trade
union leaders’ in private sector are of the view that their trade unions are not
affiliated to any political parties, only 10 percent trade union leaders’ in public
sector disclose that their trade unions are not affiliated to any political parties.
More public sector trade unions are affiliated to political parties.
All the unions operating in different organizations are plant level unions
and the industry-cum-regional unions are rarely found. The unions operating in
various organizations are either affiliated to or taking guidance from various
Central trade union organizations.
Unions often invoke political patronage to beat the management. There
are compelling reasons for unions to be political. With the Government
assuming the role of an arbiter in industrial relations, the question before labour
and management often is not how to influence each other, but how to mount
pressure on the Government which is going to determine their fates.16
229
Management partiality towards some unions
In many times, the attitude of employers towards some trade unions is
hostile. Management’s partiality towards some trade unions can be considered as
an unfair labour practice on the part of the employers.
Table 6.12
Management partiality towards some unions- union leaders’ perception
PerceptionPublic Private Total
No. % No. % No. %
Yes 22 73 17 85 39 78
No 8 27 3 15 11 22
Total 30 100 20 100 50 100
Source: Field Survey
Table 6.12 reveals the trade union leaders ‘opinion about managements
partiality towards some trade unions. In private sector 85 percent trade union
leaders’ and in public sector 73 percent trade union leaders’ believe that
managements show partiality towards some trade unions, where as 27 percent
trade union leaders’ in public sector and 15 percent trade union leaders in private
sector keep the view that managements do not show partiality towards some
trade unions. More trade union leaders’ believe that managements show
partiality towards some trade unions.
The results of chi-square test conducted to analyze the significance of
difference among the trade union leaders in two sectors regarding managements
partiality towards some unions suggest that there is no significant difference
between trade union leaders in two sectors as the p value (0.3292) is more than
0.05 at 5% level of confidence. The calculated value of chi-square is 0.9518 at
1degree of freedom.
230
6.11 ATTITUDE TOWARDS OTHER UNIONS
At the plant level rival unions are functioning everywhere. No doubt there
is room for disagreement within the democratic structure of trade unions. In
practice, a good many trade union leaders dislike opposition and exhibit an
authoritarian style of behaviour.
Table 6.13
Attitude towards other unions – Union leaders perception
AttitudePublic Private Total
No. % No. % No. %
Approved 14 47 8 40 22 44
Impartial 16 53 12 60 28 56
Disapproved 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 30 100 20 100 50 100
Source: Field Survey
Table 6.13 explains the trade union leaders’ attitude towards other trade
unions in the same organization. In private sector 60 percent trade union leaders’
and in public sector 53 percent trade union leaders’ are keeping impartial attitude
towards other trade unions in the same organization. In public sector 47 percent
trade union leaders’ and in private sector 40 percent trade union leaders’ are
approving other trade unions in the same organization. No trade union leader
disapproved other trade unions in the same organization.
Das (1999)17 observed, “In many important industrial units, unions,
whether affiliated to central organizations or not, operating independently each
claiming to speak on behalf of all workers. Attempts are made by each to
undermine the influence of other unions and leaders.”
231
Interest of the management in the welfare of the employees
During the course of the survey, Trade union leaders’ were asked to
record their perception regarding the interest of the management in the overall
welfare of the employees. The result is presented in Table 6.14.
Table 6.14
Interest of the management in the welfare of the employees – Trade union leaders’ perception
Level of interestPublic Private Total
No. % No. % No. %
Very much 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pretty good 2 7 1 5 3 6
Average 22 73 15 75 37 74
Very poor 6 20 4 20 10 20
Total 30 100 20 100 50 100
Source: Field Survey
The analysis shows that 73 percent trade union leaders in public sector
and 75 percent leaders in private sector believe that the management is averagely
interested in the overall welfare of the employees. In both sectors 20 percent
union leaders feel that the interest of the management is very poor. Trade union
leaders in both sectors are not satisfied about the interest shown by the
management in the overall welfare of the employees. This causes the employees
to think that management is interested only in profit making. The higher level
dissatisfaction naturally leads to demand for more facilities. If management
looks after the welfare of labourers, they feel satisfied with their job and they get
motivated. Meanwhile, the workers develop a pro-management attitude and a
sense of organizational commitment.
232
6.12 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Collective bargaining aims to establish by negotiation and discussion
agreed rules and decisions on matters of mutual concern to employers and
unions as well as methods of regulating the conditions governing employment.
Flanders (1970)18 defined it “as a social process that continually turns
disagreements into agreements in an orderly fashion”.
Collective bargaining is used by trade unions as a representative
organization of workers to prevent workers and employees from bargaining
individually in particular situations. This entails concerted action on the part of
the employees and employers with a view to determine the terms and conditions
of service on the basis of a common agreement.
Table 6.15
Satisfaction level about collective bargaining- Category wise analysis
LevelExecutives Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private
Highly satisfied
4(4)
2(2)
18(11)
8(5)
22(10)
20(9)
44(9)
232(51)
Satisfied46
(51)64
(72)82
(49)106(70)
100(48)
138(64)
218(49)
26(6)
Dissatisfied32
(36)14
(15)38
(23)26
(17)66
(31)44
(20)136(29)
134(30)
Highly dissatisfied
4(5)
2(2)
16(9)
0(0)
14(7)
4(1)
34(7)
48(10)
Undecided4
(4)6
(6)14(8)
10(6)
8(4)
10(4)
26(6)
14(3)
Total90
(100)88
(100)168
(100)150
(100)210
(100)216
(100)468
(100)454
(100)Values in parentheses are percentages Source: Field Survey
Table 6.15 discusses the category wise perception of public and private
sector employees regarding the satisfaction level about collective bargaining.
The rate of satisfaction about collective bargaining in private sector among
different categories was higher than that of public sector. In private sector the
233
satisfaction rate was 72 percent for executives, 70 percent for supervisors and 64
percent for workers whereas in public sector, it was only 51 percent for
executives, 49 percent for supervisors and 48 percent for workers.
The dissatisfied group in public sector comes to 36 percent for executives,
31 percent for workers and 23 percent for supervisors, but the dissatisfied group
in private sector was comprised of 20 percent workers, 17 percent supervisors
and15 percent for executives. In public sector 11 percent supervisors and 10
percent workers are highly satisfied about collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining, with a very long history at its back, has been
shaping the labour-management relationship in the industrial units of Kerala.
During the course of the survey, it was found that the practice of collective
bargaining is very common in Kerala, and in all the enterprises studied, the
management and unions had signed collective agreements.
Some of these agreements are formal, industry-wide agreements reached
through centralized collective bargaining between the trade union federations
and the management of these industries, pertaining particularly to wages and
service conditions. A large number of agreements arrived at by direct
negotiations of the parties concerned are signed in the presence of concerned
conciliating officer. These agreements get legal validity and bind all the parties
to the agreement, including even those workers who are not the members of the
signatory union.
The above difference between different categories of employees is not
significant since the p Value (0.0675) at 5% level of confidence is more than
0.050 in the difference significant test using chi-square analysis. The computed
value of chi-square is 14.5889 at 8 degrees of freedom. The difference between
public and private sector employees is significant since the p value is 0.0000 at
5% level of confidence in the difference significant test using chi-square
analysis. The computed value of chi-square is 49.9222 at 4 degrees of freedom.
The contingency co-efficient is 0.3592.
234
Collective bargaining - Personnel Managers perception
Collective bargaining is a power relationship between the management
and the unions. As the relationship is motivated by the economic, political and
even moral power, the parties exert pressure or at least threaten to exert pressure
on each other. It is probably this threat to undertake direct action by either party
which prompts them to compromise.
Personnel Managers were asked to comment on the effectiveness of
collective bargaining in their organizations. This is summarized in Table 6.16.
Table 6.16
Collective bargaining in the organizations - Personnel Managers perception
EffectivenessPublic sector Private sector Total
No. % No. % No. %
Very effective 2 14 4 29 6 21
Effective 12 86 10 71 22 79
Not effective 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 14 100 14 100 28 100
Source: Field Survey
Table 6.16 shows that 86 percent Personnel Managers in public sector
believe that collective bargaining in their organizations is effective. In private
sector 71 percent Personnel Managers also contribute to this view. In private
sector 29 percent Personnel Managers and in public sector 14 percent Personnel
Managers feel that collective bargaining in the organizations is very effective.
Collective bargaining is widely prevalent in the State of Kerala. It has the
potential of facing the great challenge as a behavioral process of conflict
resolution. Various bipartite and tripartite collective agreements concluded in the
State have proved very helpful in avoiding many of the major strikes and lock
outs.
235
Murty ans Das (1988)19 observes, “As bargaining proceeds, parties shape
their attitudes towards each other. It is noticed that parties are cautious about the
influence of attitudes emerging from negotiations and implementation of the
agreement and on the future negotiations. Their behaviour appears to be more
co-operative rather than competitive.”
WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT
Workers Participation in Management means the workers are given a
chance to share the function of the management in achieving the organizational
goals of the undertaking. This participation is achieved through the
representatives of the workers at all the levels of the management. Participative
management represents industrial democracy in action and workers and
management should both be re-educated to play their roles as partners in the
process of production and put industrial democracy to work effectively.
According to Keith Davis (1975),20 “Workers’ participation refers to the
mental and emotional involvement of a person in a group situation which
encourages him to contribute to group goals and share in responsibility of
achieving them”.
WPM is a system of communication and consultation, either formal or
informal, by which the workers of an organization are kept informed, as and
when required, about the affairs of the undertaking and through which they
express their opinion and contribute to decision-making process of management.
6.13 WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT IN KERALA
ENTERPRISES
In the following section, various aspects of WPM in the industrial
enterprises in Kerala are analysed on the basis of data collected from the
employees.
The factors which are analysed include
1) Satisfaction about WPM
236
2) Managements’ encouraging of WPM
3) Factors responsible for the failure of WPM, and
4) Form of participation in management decision-making
6.13.1 Satisfaction about workers participation in management
Workers’ participation in management cuts the root of industrial conflicts.
It tries to remove or at least minimize the adverse and conflicting interests
between the parties, by substituting in their place co-operation, homogeneity of
objectives and common interests. Both sides are integrated through participation
and decisions arrived at become ‘ours’ rather than ‘theirs’. Participation leads to
increased understanding throughout the organization.
Table 6.17
Satisfaction level about WPM - Category wise analysis
Satisfaction Level
Executives Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private
Highly satisfied
0(0)
6(7)
6(3)
6(4)
10(5)
14(6)
16(3)
26(51)
Satisfied36
(40)56
(64)82
(49)62
(41)94
(45)114(53)
212(45)
232(6)
Dissatisfied36
(40)16
(18)46
(27)56
(37)70
(33)62
(29)152(33)
134(30)
Highly dissatisfied
10(11)
8(9)
18(11)
20(14)
32(15)
20(9)
60(13)
48(10)
Undecided8
(9)2
(2)16
(10)6
(4)4
(2)6
(3)28(6)
14(3)
Total90
(100)88
(100)168
(100)150
(100)210
(100)216
(100)468
(100)454
(100)Values in parentheses are percentages
Table 6.17 discusses the category wise perception of public and private
sector employees regarding the satisfaction level about worker’s participation in
management. In public sector, 40 percent executives are satisfied about WPM. In
public sector 49 percent supervisors and 45 percent workers were satisfied about
it. The dissatisfied group consists of 27 percent supervisors and 33 percent
237
workers in public sector. In public sector, 40 percent executives are dissatisfied
about WPM.
In private sector, the satisfaction rate was 64 percent for executives, 53
percent for workers and 41 percent for supervisors. The response rate for
dissatisfied group was 37 percent for supervisors, 29 percent for workers and 18
percent for executives in private sector.
Participation helps in dispelling employees’ misunderstandings about the
outlook of management. If workers are invited to share in organizational
problems, and to work towards common solutions a greater degree of
organizational balance occurs because of decreased misunderstanding and
individual and group conflicts. Participation enhances individual creativity and
response to job challenges. Individuals are given an opportunity to direct their
initiative and creativity towards the objectives of the group. This facilitates
individual growth. When the workers have participated in the decision-making
process, their resistance to change is reduced.
During the survey, Personnel Managers were asked about the
effectiveness of Workers participation in Management in their organizations.
The result is given in Table 6.18.
Table 6.18
Workers participation in Management in the organizations- Personnel Managers opinion
EffectivenessPublic sector Private sector Total
No. % No. % No. %
Very effective 2 14 4 28 6 22
Effective 10 72 8 58 18 64
Not effective 2 14 2 14 4 14
Total 14 100 14 100 28 100
Source: Field Survey
238
Table 6.18 gives an account of personnel managers opinion about WPM
in the organizations. In public sector 72 percent personnel managers and in
private sector 58 percent personnel managers consider WPM in the organizations
is effective. How ever, 28 percent personnel managers in private sector assessed
it as very effective. More number of personnel managers in private sector feels
that WPM in the organizations is effective.
6.13.2 Managements’ encouraging of WPM
For effective workers’ participation in management, the attitude of the
management must be broad, progressive and democratic. It must be willing to
associate the workers and discuss the problems freely and frankly with them.
Management should not take it as an imposed liability.
Table 6.19
Management’s encouragement of WPM- Category wise analysis
LevelExecutives Supervisors Workers Total
Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private
Never6
(7)8
(9)14(8)
6(4)
2(1)
12(6)
22(5)
26(5)
Seldom22
(24)40
(45)61
(36)62
(41)122(58)
102(47)
205(45)
204(43)
To some extent52
(58)22
(25)70
(43)52
(35)50
(24)76
(35)172(36)
150(30)
Usually4
(4)14
(16)17
(10)24
(16)22
(10)22
(10)43(9)
60(14)
Always6
(7)4
(5)6
(3)6
(4)14(7)
4(2)
26(5)
14(3)
Total90
(100)88
(100)168
(100)150
(100)210
(100)216
(100)468
(100)454
(100)Values in parentheses are percentages Source: Field Survey.
Table 6.19 explains about category wise perception of public and private
sector employees regarding to what extent management encourage workers
participation in organization. In public sector 36 percent supervisors and in
private sector 41 percent supervisors believe that management seldom encourage
239
WPM in organization. While, 45 percent executives in private sector feel that
management seldom encourage WPM, only 24 percent executives in public
sector shared this view. In public sector 58 percent workers and in private sector
47 percent workers think that management seldom encourage WPM.
It was reported by executives that since the workers are not well-educated
in the field of business decision-making and that they lack vision to foresee the
things, their participation in the Board meetings and other discussion tables
makes the decision-making process very slow. It was also reported that
sometimes they come up with nonsense ideas or unilateral arguments which
takes away much of their valuable time during the course of discussion.
While 58 percent executives in public sector feel that management
encourage WPM in organization to some extent, only 25 percent executives in
private sector shared this view. In public sector 43 percent supervisors and in
private sector 35 percent supervisors believe that management encourage it to
some extent and 35 percent workers in private sector and 24 percent workers in
public sector feel the same. But 16 percent executives and supervisors in private
sector and 10 percent workers in public and private sector consider that
management usually encourage WPM.
WPM is an elastic concept. For management it is a joint consultation
prior to decision making, for workers it means co-determination, for trade
unions, it is a new set of power equation within organization, while for
Government it is an association of labour with management without the final
authority or responsibility in decision making.
The results of chi-square test conducted to analyze the significance of
difference among the three categories of employees as the Management’s
encouragement of WPM suggest that there is significant difference between
executives, supervisors and workers as the p value (0.0004) is less than 0.05 at
5% level of confidence. The calculated value of chi-square is 27.6281 at 8
degrees of freedom. The difference between public and private sector employees
240
is significant since the p value is 0.0902 at 5% level of confidence in the
difference significant test using chi-square analysis. The computed value of chi-
square is 8.0340 at 4 degrees of freedom. The contingency co-efficient is 0.2115.
6.13.3 Factors responsible for the failure of WPM
The participative management is not very popular and successful in
Kerala. Managers fear of giving up power, workers fear of victimization by
management, lack of education/training of workers to participate, lack of
leadership among workforce, attitude of trade union, multiplicity of trade union
etc., are some of the main reasons for the failure of WPM in Kerala. During the
survey, employees were asked to rank their reasons for the failure of WPM. This
data is analyzed in Table 6.20.
Table 6.20
Factors responsible for the failure of WPM in organizations
FactorsPreference
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Managers fear of giving up power 480(52)
170(18)
96(10)
78(9)
78(9)
20(2)
Workers fear of victimization by management
14(1)
40(4)
58(6)
124(13)
318(36)
368(40)
Lack of education/training of workers to participate
20(2)
114(12)
160(18)
280(30)
188(20)
160(18)
Lack of leadership among workforce
30(3)
50(5)
124(13)
198(21)
256(28)
264(30)
Attitude of trade union 92(10)
278(30)
260(28)
124(13)
68(7)
100(12)
Multiplicity of trade union 286(31)
270(29)
224(25)
118(13)
14(1)
10(1)
Total 922 922 922 922 922 922
Values in parentheses are percentages Source: Field Survey.
241
Table 6.20 discusses about preference of public and private sector
employees regarding the factors responsible for the failure of WPM in
organizations. Majority of the respondents (52 percent) give first preference to
managers’ fear of giving up power as the factor responsible for the failure of
WPM in organizations. Another 31 percent give first preference to multiplicity
of trade unions.
Attitude of trade unions is given first preference by 10 percent as the
factor responsible for the failure of WPM. Table shows that 18 percent give
second preference and 10 percent give third preference to managers’ fear of
giving up power. It can be seen that 29 percent give second preference and 25
percent give third preference to multiplicity of trade unions. More employees
give first preference to managers’ fear of giving up power and multiplicity of
trade union as the factors responsible for the failure of workers participation in
management in organizations.
The participative management is not very popular and successful in the
sample units. During the study, the general complaint emerging from the
employees was the ‘apathy of management’ and their fear of giving up power.
Many employees believe that because of such attitude of management towards
their problems, most of the problems discussed in the joint committee meetings
remain unsolved. A section of employees believe that management is not
enthusiastic about this scheme.
It was complained that management take unilateral and arbitrary
decisions on certain matters, without resolving disputes through free and frank
discussion. Many employees criticized the management for not revealing some
vital information relating to production for discussion in the joint committee
meetings.
Many employees believe that trade union leaders give undue importance
to `power’ instead of showing unanimity and positive approach for arriving at an
242
agreeable solution. Due to the multiplicity of unions and union rivalry, the
selection of workers representative is also a problem.
6.13.4 Form of participation in management decision-making
In order to assess the desired forms of participation in decision-making as
preferred by employees four different forms of participation, both formal and
informal, were given and the respondents were asked to indicate their preference
for these forms. The results are given in Table 6.21.
Table 6.21
Preference of employees regarding the forms of participation in management decision making
Form of participationPreference
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
One or two employees nominated to the Board of Directors
278
(30)
164
(18)
258
(28)
222
(24)
Workers representatives in various joint committees
220
(24)
330
(36)
198
(21)
174
(19)
Through suggestion scheme 152
(16)
230
(25)
290
(31)
250
(27)
Through face to face decision making at the work place
272
(30)
198
(21)
176
(19)
276
(30)
Total 922 922 922 922
Values in parentheses are percentages Source: Field Survey.
Table 6.21 analyses the preference of public and private sector employees
regarding the forms of participation in management decision making in
organizations. It is clear from the Table that 30 percent employees give first
preference to one or two employees nominated to the Board of Directors and
through face to face decision making at the work place as the forms of
243
participation in management decision making in organizations. Another 24
percent give first preference to workers representatives in various joint
committees as the form of participation in management decision making in
organizations and 16 percent give first preference to suggestion scheme as the
form of participation in management decision making in organizations. Table
discloses 18 percent give second preference and 28 percent give third preference
to one or two employees nominated to the Board of Directors as the forms of
participation in management decision making in organizations.
Workers representatives in various joint committees as the form of
participation in management decision making in organizations is given second
preference by 36 percent and 21 percent give third preference to workers
representatives in various joint committees as the form of participation in
management decision making in organizations. While, 25 percent give second
preference and 31 percent give third preference to suggestion scheme as the form
of participation in management decision making in organizations, 21 percent
give second preference and 19 percent give third preference to through face-to-
face decision making at the work place as the form of participation in
management decision making in organizations. More employees give first
preference to one or two employees nominated to the Board of Directors and
through face to face decision making at the work place as the forms of
participation in management decision making in organizations.
The idea of having parity in the board has received god response from
employees. A sizable number of employees have given much importance to
informal face to face sharing to decision-making at work place.
Sahu (1985)21 has rightly put, “whatever steps are taken to involve
worker’s representatives in the decision-making process at higher management
levels, they must be supplemented by arrangements for associating rank and file
workers with decisions that are taken at the shop floor level and that affect them
directly”.
244
There is a need for change in the attitude of both management and
employees because the scheme of participative management and its
operationalisation is a matter of attitude orientation. One of the seriously
disturbing factors for the success of participative management is multiple and
politicalised trade unionism. United, strong, trained and responsible trade unions
with sound leadership are indispensable for creating permissible environment for
participation.
References
1. Yoder, Dale, Personnel Management and Industrial Relations, Prentice- Hall
of India, New Delhi, 1974. p. 521.
2. Balasubramanian, A., Trade Union Movement, Everest Publishing House,
New Delhi, 2002. pp. 72-73.
3. Pandey, B. D., The origin and development of Personnel function in India-A
case study in Tata Steel, Personnel Today, July-September, 1998. pp. 11-15.
4. Rao, E. M., and Patwardhan, Vikrant, Indian trade unions: On the brink of
extinction? Personnel Today, July-September, 1998. pp 17-25.
5. Varma, Madhurendra, K., Role of management and trade unions in the new
scenario, Personel Today, October-December, 1998. pp.10-14.
6. Mohanan, S., Some aspects of Industrial Relations since New Economic
Policy, Southern Economist, May 1, 1999. pp 25-28.
7. Bhangoo, Kesar Singh, Trade unions in globalised economy of India, Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41, No.4, April, 2006. pp.397-405.
8. Sharma, Baldev, R., HRD and Industrial Relations, Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol.24, No.2, October, 1988. pp.238-244.
9. Ramanujam, G., Disharmony in Industrial Relations- Reasons and Remedies,
The Indian worker, January 29, 1979. pp.3-5.
10. Leelavathy, D. S., Industrial Relations in India: Challenges and strategies.
Southern Economist, July 15, 2000. pp. 17-21.
11. Giri, V. V., Labour Problems in Indian Industries, Asia Publishing House,
Bombay, 1972. p. 11.
245
12. Chaudhuri, K. K., In search of better Industrial Relations, Personnel Today,
October-December, 1998. pp.35-36.
13. Randall S., Schuler, et al., Effective Personnel Management, West
Publishing, New York, 1989. p.561.
14. Rath, Devashis and Misra, Snigdharani, Future of industrial relations and
Industrial relations in Future: The Indian Scenario; Vikalpa, vol.21, No.4,
October-December, 1996. pp.47-54.
15. Chhabra T.N., Human Resource Management-Concepts and Issues, Dhanpat
Rai& Co. Private. Ltd. New Delhi, 2006. p. 597.
16. Eugene, V., Schneider, Industrial Sociology, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi,
1983, p. 318.
17. Das, H., Trade Union Activism- Avoidable or Inevitable? Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, No.2, October, 1999. pp. - 224-236.
18. Flanders, A., Management and Unions: The theory and reform of industrial
relations, Faber and Faber, London, 1970.
19. Murty, B. S., and Das, R.K., Emerging trends of industrial relations: the case
of collective bargaining practice in Indian steel industry Indian Journal of
Labour Economics-Vol. xxx, No.4, January, 1998. pp. 295-305.
20. Keith Davis., Human Relations at Work, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi,
1975. p.288.
21. Sahu, B.; Objective of participative management. Indian Management, 24(2),
1985. pp.9-14.
246
247
1 Yoder, Dale, Personnel Management and Industrial Relations, Prentice- Hall of India, New Delhi.1974.p.521.2 Balasubramanian, A; Trade Union Movement, Everest Publishing House, New Delhi, 2002.pp.72-73.3 Pandey.B.D. The origin and development of Personnel function in India-A case study in Tata Steel .Personnel Today, July-September, 1998. pp. 11-15.4 Rao, E.M and Patwardhan, Vikrant; Indian trade unions: On the brink of extinction? Personnel Today, July-September, 1998. pp 17-25.5 Varma, Madhurendra, K; Role of management and trade unions in the new scenario; Personel Today, October-December, 1998.pp.10-14.6 Mohanan. S; Some aspects of Industrial Relations since New Economic Policy, Southern Economist,May1,1999;pp 25-28.7 Bhangoo, Kesar Singh, Trade unions in globalised economy of India, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41, No.4, April, 2006.pp.397-405. 8 Sharma, Baldev, R. HRD and Industrial Relations, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol.24, No.2, October, 1988.pp.238-244.9 Ramanu jam. G. Disharmony in Industrial Relations- Reasons and Remedies; The Indian worker, January 29, 1979pp.3-5.10 Leelavathy.D.S; Industrial Relations in India: Challenges and strategies. Southern Economist, July 15, 2000; pp-17-21.11 Giri, V. V. Labour Problems in Indian Industries, Asia Publishing House, Bombay.1972. p. 11.12 Chaudhuri.K.K; In search of better Industrial Relations, Personnel Today, October-December, 1998.pp.35-36.13 Randall S. Schuler, et al, Effective Personnel Management, West Publishing, NewYork.1989.p.561.14 Rath, Devashis and Misra, Snigdharani; Future of industrial relations and Industrial relations in Future: The Indian Scenario; Vikalpa, vol.21, No.4, October-December, 1996.pp.47-54.15 Chhabra T.N., Human Resource Management-Concepts and Issues, Dhanpat Rai& Co. Private .Ltd. New Delhi.2006.p. 597.
16 Eugene.V.Schneider, Industrial Sociology, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, 1983, p.318.17 Das, H .Trade Union Activism- Avoidable or Inevitable? Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Volume 35, No.2, October, 1999. pp. - 224-236.18 Flanders, A. Management and Unions: The theory and reform of industrial relations, Faber and Faber, London, 1970.19 Murty. B.S and Das. R.K., Emerging trends of industrial relations: the case of collective bargaining practice in Indian steel industry Indian Journal of Labour Economics-Volume-xxx,No.4, January, 1998; pp. 295-305.
20 Keith Davis:Human Relations at Work,Tata McGraw-Hill,New Delhi,1975,p.288.21Sahu, B.; Objective of participative management. Indian Management, 24(2), 1985, pp.9-14.