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


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


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



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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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

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.

trade unionism and workers participation in...

Documents