Manesar: Worker, manager gulf was never bridged

By Prasanta Choudhury

The news that some Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) are reworking their curricula to prepare young managers to handle the realities of people management is reassuring. This is the first rational step taken after the tragic events in Manesar. Until now, the state government and policy makers seemed more concerned with the possibility of Maruti shifting the plant from Haryana to Gujarat than finding what caused an upheaval of a magnitude that is a major setback to India’s globalization plans.

Charges of inept management and infiltration of workmen with murderous intent in the workforce has been flung around by protagonists of either camp. But neither argument is tenable since the same management has managed the other plants of Maruti well and it is difficult to believe that murderous workmen were recruited only in one plant. The Gurgaon plant of Maruti, after all, introduced many innovations like a common canteen and uniforms for all employees.

The cause for the multiple tragedies-the murder of an innocent manager, the ransacking of the plant and the loss of livelihoods of 500 workmen-needs a deeper analysis.

There has been a breakdown of communication between the management and the union and also a loss of trust between individual managers and their workmen. While the senior management focuses on the union-management relationship and discussions, the real relationships are built on the shop floor between the individual manager and his group of workmen. The sum total of these constructive relationships creates a positive and vibrant industrial relationship in the plant. The union can instigate workers and disrupt operations but cannot make the workmen indulge in destruction and violence if there is a bond of trust and communication between the manager and worker at the workplace.

[caption id=“attachment_447514” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Charges of inept management and infiltration of workmen with murderous intent in the workforce has been flung around by protagonists of either camp. Naresh Sharma/Firstpost[/caption]

The pillar stone on which this relationship is built is fair play and genuine concern for the workmen. Discipline and hard work makes this relationship stronger. A strict manager who is fair and is concerned about the well-being of his workmen is both feared and respected.

About four decades back, when India was still in the early stages of industrialisation, managements tried to manage industry through the unions, neglecting relationships with individual workmen on the shop floor. This created the Frankenstein of large unions spread over many companies and lakhs of members headed by charismatic union leaders like Dr. Datta Samant. These unions held the management to ransom, since the workmen were under their total control. The unions got disproportionate wage increases and weaned the workmen further away from the management by continually exposing the impotence of the latter. The industrial scenario was plagued by strikes and lockouts.

The management was gradually pushed to the wall and was forced to fight back only when further wage rises were not sustainable. Tougher stands were taken and the biggest setback to the mega unions was the textile strike of 1982 which resulted in closure of textile mills in Mumbai and the loss of livelihood for 2,40,000 workmen. After this incident, workmen decided to be more involved in their own unions and, backed by pro-active measures adopted by the management, gradually reduced their dependence on the professional union leaders. The entry of educated workmen into the workforce facilitated the change process.

Unlike the other plants of Maruti, the problems at the Manesar plant have been brewing for long, and it is surprising that no solution was arrived at in so many months of simmering strife punctuated by three major strikes.

At the Union-Management level there seem to be three issues that were never really resolved.

1. The insistence of the management that the Manesar workmen accept the leadership of the main Maruti plant for their union. This was definitely in violation of the workmen’s right to select their own union. This proposition was never acceptable to the workmen and marked the beginning of the breakdown in relationship.

2. Excessive use of low-cost contact labour in manufacturing operations in violation of labour law. At one time there were 1,200 contact labour against 1000 permanent workmen, drawing 50 percent lower wages and doing similar work. This was seen as blatant exploitation by the contract labour. Permanency of contract workmen was a key demand from the union.

3. Wage increase commensurate to high productivity levels as perceived by the workmen.

The animosity between the management and workmen had built up through three strikes, the last strike having lasted 33 days. Though work restarted, the issues kept festering.

The union leaders who led the third strike were full-time employees and were well respected by the workmen of the plant. When work restarted after the third strike, they were suspended pending enquiry into instigation of the strike. The management negotiated with them and offered them severance pay up to Rs 40 lakhs each, for resigning, which they accepted. They went back to their villages rich. The workmen saw this as a betrayal of their cause, abetted by the management, and lost trust in the union in addition to their existing distrust of the management. The alienation was now complete.

It is difficult for an outsider to know why relationship and communication between workmen and managers had not developed. Only a few questions can be raised.

1. Were the workmen allowed to rejoin in a dignified manner after each of the three strikes?

2. How were the contract labour treated? Like the permanent workmen or as menial labour?

3. Were the more unpleasant, hazardous and back-breaking jobs given to the contract labour, in spite of their being paid half the wages of the permanent workers?

4. Did the repeated strikes create a widening gulf between the workmen and managers?

For the benefit of globalisation of Indian industry, the Manesar Plant of Maruti will have to be operational again and the industrial relation disputes be buried once and forever. The initiative for this will have to be taken up by the shop floor managers.

The bridges of communication, trust and respect have to be built on the shop floor. The HR or IR departments can only facilitate this process.

Prasanta Choudhury is a well-known corporate manager who is credited for the growth of VIP Luggage into a dominant brand. He is at present director and partner in a Consulting and Corporate Training Company. His book “Some Hits, Some Misses – The Confessions of an Indian CEO” is due to be in print in November 2012.