The Hindu Business Line : Changing labour dynamics

A SEMBLANCE OF order is emerging in the industrial situation at the Honda Motor Cycles and Scooters India plant at Gurgaon, Haryana. As public passions cool and frayed nerves calm down, it is time to reflect on the symbolism of the violence unleashed on the Haryana Police and the savage counter attack that it launched as only a police force that sees itself as a victim can. It is quite possible that the initial violence was indeed instigated by political elements as alleged by some sections of the public. After all, those who targeted the police could not only have been reasonably certain of a brutal response but also one that is vastly out of proportion to the initial provocation and consequently the public disaffection that must inevitably ensue. To a certain extent the contrasting picture in the neighbourhood of affluence and deprivation existing cheek by jowl might also have had something to do with the violent reaction, such as it is, of the agitating workers, as had been alleged in some quarters. But it is safe to say that the issue goes far beyond the realm of an ordinary labour dispute between a motorcycle company and its workforce. Indeed, it has become the very metaphor for the changed dynamics of management-labour relations in the country post-liberalisation.

In the era before liberalisation, even though there was no fusion of souls between labour and management, the latter operated on the principle that labour had to be placated on its various demands as no output was costlier than costly labour. This was entirely understandable as the production capacity of an average unit was often minuscule and a sheltered home market turned what ever was produced into instant profits. The whole emphasis then was on tempering the labour demands to the extent possible but a `strike' or any other form of industrial action was to be avoided at all costs. But the onset of liberalisation turned upside down the rules of labour-management interaction.

Labour costs ceased to be a mere pass-through but something that had to be kept down in the interests of long-term viability. If that meant losing profits in the short term as a result of strikes, managements seemed to reason that it was a price that must be paid. In the ensuing struggle between organised labour and management, the latter gained the upper hand, as the logic of economic survival seemed to inject a certain dose of aggression in their dealings with labour. The industry is today at a point where it has begun even to question the very rationale for workers to organise themselves into collective units, and some constituents have gone to the extent of actually thwarting efforts by the labour to do so. From a larger stakeholder perspective, that would be a folly. There may be occasions when labour representatives over-reach themselves out of a misguided sense of their importance or even out of venality. But the answer to that lies in setting up more channels of communication with labour rather than undermining the traditional trade union movement, however much it is perceived as an anachronism.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Changing labour dynamics

Greenfield airport projects — Time for private-public partnerships to take off

Automobiles: Running high on confidence

Damp squib

Gas pipeline: Optimism not misplaced

Storming a male bastion

JRD — The builder of modern Tatas

Monetary policy

Independent directors