Modern Industrial Relations in India A study of modern industrial relations in India can be made in three distinct phases. The first phase can be considered to have commenced from about the middle of the nineteenth century and ended by the end of the First World War. The second phase comprises the period thereafter till the attainment of the independence in 1947, and the third phase represents the post-independence era. First Phase : During the first phase, the British Government in India was largely interested in enforcing penalties for breach of contract and in regulating the conditions of work with a view to minimising the competitive advantages of indigenous employers against the British employers. A series of legislative measures were adopted during the latter half of the nineteenth century, which can be the beginning of industrial relations in India. The close of the First World War gave a new twist to the labour policy, as it created certain social, economic and political conditions, which raised new hopes among people for a new social order. There was intense labour unrest because workers’ earnings did not keep pace with the rising prices and with their aspirations. The establishment of ILO in 1919 greatly influenced the labour legislation and Industrial relations policy in India. The emergence of trade unions in India, particularly the formation of All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) in 1920 was another significant event in the history of industrial relations in our country. Second Phase : The Policy after the First World War related to improvement in the working conditions and provision of social security benefits. It was a period of boom for employers. With rising prices, their profits went up enormously.
industries were being thrown away so many people lost their jobs, and lots of poverty struck India. “You English committed one supreme crime against my people. For a Hundred Years you have done everything for us. You have given us no responsibility for our own government.” Document 7 shows how The British took over India and did not give the Indians a word in their own land, and government, which was extremely unfair. Gandhi is explaining this and is truly upset with the British. “The destruction of industry led to unemployment on a vast scale… The poverty of the country grew.” (Document 6) Although the Indians were being kept safe, the people were losing their jobs and the level of poverty was extremely high. Industries were being demolished, therefore people lost their jobs, and less jobs were
Early in American history during colonial times and into the middle of the 19th centry, relations between employers and those whom they employed were many times hostile and adversarial. Sometimes these disagreements between employee and employer would explode into violent confrontations. Workers wether skilled or not would fight with management over improved/safer working conditions, fair pay, long exhausting hours by uniting and form...
The Industrial Revolution in the took place in the 18th and 19th century and many people sought work in factories. The conditions and the daily life of the workers at this time are preserved in various ways. The differences of what took place are due to the perspective of different types of people. Some believe that the factory workers had everything they needed and were living blissfully. While others say that they were in extremely hostile environments and were abused by their superiors. There is reason to believe that the factories and their workers during the Industrial Revolution were unsuitable and dangerous for anyone to work in.
Blanpain, R and Bamber, G J. (2010). Comparative Labor Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies: Xth and Revised Edition. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
How people worked, the nature of their interaction with society, was one of the fundamental changes brought on by the demands of the industrial revolution. Taking advantage of the benefits obtained by the division of labor and scale of production required that people work together in large groups. This new paradigm of working collectively under the factory system had no contemporary parallel – except for the working conditions of slaves who also labored in large groups. An examination of the lives of factory workers and slaves shows that there are many similarities between the way slaves were managed, and the management of industrial workers. The very nature of the administration of large groups required a similar organizational structure to effectively run a larger scale operation.
The Industrial Revolution was a time in history from about 1740 to 1840, with booming factory development (History.com). During this time period, people were moving from their farms in the suburbs to the big cities to work in the factories. While people were moving to the cities the population in places was growing quickly which caused more poverty in the city. Owners of businesses found that if more people came for work so they could pay them less and get more workers. This made the factories horrible to work in. The factory conditions in the Industrial Revolution were appalling because there were unsafe working conditions, the owners had condescending attitudes, and there were unreal expectations.
[6] Kripalani, Majeet & Egnardio, Pete. The Rise Of India. Business Week Online. December 8, 2003. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_49/b3861001_mz001.htm
The Industrial Revolution is a term that all countries and societies will talk about for generations. The industrial revolution began in Britain in the 18th and later in the 19th century in other countries. Basically industrial revolution is the change that occurs to leave the hand tools and to start making machines. The industrial revolution is characterized by the transition of the agricultural jobs to the industries jobs such as; factory jobs and in textile companies. In the countries of Asia is which the industrial revolution is occurring today. This paper would demonstrate how Asia is leading the industrialization world now in this century, and shows some elements that Asia are using are.
India's strategy for development has had many critics. It was pointed out that the emphasis on heavy industry
Industrial revolution – the general historical phenomenon characterizing a certain moment in the development of capitalism.
There are many different approaches and theories regarding industrial relations nowadays. In order to mount an opinion on which is the ‘best’ or most appropriate theory of industrial relations, each theory will have to be analyzed. The three most prevalent theories of industrial relations which exist are The Unitarist theory, The Pluralist theory and The Marxist theory. Each offers a particular perception of workplace relations and will therefore interpret such events as workplace conflict, the role of trade unions and job regulation very differently. I will examine each of these theories in turn and then formulate my own opinion regarding which is the ‘best’ or most appropriate theory.
The role of the government on industrial relations is very important as it sets the legal framework that industrial relations operates in. Appropriate industrial relations legislation should recognize the requirements of both employers and employee’s. Both the employee and the employer want to profit from each other but are also reliant on each other. This means that the equal bargaining power of employers and workers must be recognized (Peetz, David. 2006). Appropriate industrial relations laws should address any imbalance of power and give both groups an equal degree of control. Appropriate industrial relations should not only allow a mixture of both collective and individual bargaining but also facilitate employee participation in day to day workplace decisions. After all it’s the structure and framework of the employment relationship, which is governed by legislation that leads to good Industrial Relations.
The pluralist approach to industrial relations accepts that conflict is inherent in society and can be accommodated through various institutional arrangements. Pluralism recognizes the existence of more than one ruling principle and allows for different and divergent views from both management and trade unions, achieved through negotiation, concession and compromise. This approach to industrial relations reinforces the value and legitimacy of collective bargaining between management and trade unions as conflict-resolving and rule-making processes. This approach is found in businesses with a large number of employees, such as aa retail store chain or hotel chain.
This essay will look at the definition of what an employer and employee are according to legislation. It will then discuss whether or not an employer can prevent an employee from working for others (or themselves), after the employment has ended. Analysis will be done on whether restraint of trade clauses are legal and if so the restrictions they carry for both employer and employee. This essay will also look at how and if a restraint of trade clause can be changed so that they can be valid and the employer can enforce them. This essay will look at whether employers can stop employees from working for others and themselves during employment, this will be done by looking at and discussing garden clauses. Critique will be done on both restraint of trade clauses and garden leave clauses. The essay will conclude with how difficult or easy it is for an employer to restrict their employee’s employment.
Industrial relations are broadly concerned with bargaining between employers and trade union on wages and other terms of employment. The day-to-day relations within a plant also constitute one of the important elements and impinge on the broader aspects of industrial relations - C.B. Kumar, development of industrial relation 1961, p (ix)