WITHDRAWN–Administrative Duplicate Publication: Industrial Relations and the Tragic Flaw

What Ails Industrial Relations?

Anyone familiar with Shakespeare and his tragedies would have heard about the ‘tragic flaw’ of his heroes. All his tragic heroes—Macbeth, King Lear, Hamlet and Othello—catapulted towards their tragic end because of a tragic flaw: Vaulting ambition in Macbeth, misplaced trust in King Lear, indecisiveness in Hamlet, green eyed jealousy in Othello and so on.

Is industrial relations practice also characterized by a tragic flaw which significantly undermines its potency?

‘Conventions and Cases’ Cameos

Let us examine this question by juxtaposing select internationally recognized industrial relations conventions which constitute engagement moralities and match them with corresponding narratives reflective of engagement realities in today’s workplaces.

The narrative clearly indicates that the industrial relations reality is contra indicated with the ‘right to organize unions’ and ‘right to participate in unions’ principles as laid down in the Convention under reference. Significantly also, leaders at the helm of employee mobilization and collectivization become targets of retaliation and often have to face dismissals.

Let us take a look at another convention-case pair—Article 2 of the same ILO Convention No 98 adopted in the year 1949 and yet another news story in the year 2009.

Although there should be zero tolerance as far as any form of workplace violence is concerned, what is useful to be borne in mind is that independent of this issue, there is a need to address violation of the right to organize to protect employment rights on the part of managements and also to examine the role of political and regulatory regimes with respect to workplace justice and worker rights. Violence is condemnable but at the same time under the garb of dealing with the violence, any attempt to brush aside the need for reflection and action on the simmering discontent over managerial policies and practices which compromise worker rights also needs to be addressed.

Relevant to this discussion, attention is also drawn to Articles 3 and 4 of the same Convention No. 98 referred to above which advocates national-level facilitative mechanisms for protecting the right to unionize which in the Indian context is traceable to the Constitution of India and related Labour laws

Article 3: Machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise as defined in the preceding Articles. (1,op.cit.)

Article 4 of the same Convention No 98 has this guideline for member countries: Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. (1,op.cit.)

In the Indian context, Article 19(1)(c) provides the Constitutional basis for unionization: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech…. (Refer Note 2) All citizens shall have the right - (c) To form associations or unions. ⁵ And there is also the Trade Unions Act (1926), an Act which provides for the registration of Trade Unions and in certain respects to define the law relating to registered Trade Unions. ⁶

And yet again, before drawing any conclusions from the above guidelines and rights clauses, take a look at the following four narratives:

Take a look at a news report about management reactions to the formation of a second union in the organization:

When contacted, newly formed Maruti Suzuki Employees Union’s (MSEU) General Secretary Shiv Kumar said: ‘There is no mention of having the second union in the agreement as the management strictly does not have any role to play in setting up a union.’ ‘As soon as our application, which was submitted on June 3, gets approved by the Haryana Labour Department, MSEU will come into effect’. However, a senior company official said the core strike issue of a second union has not been accepted by the management. On June 4, the workers went on a strike demanding recognition of a new union—MSEU—formed by those working at the Manesar plant. ⁷

Yet another news snippet which gives us a glimpse into a Marxist trade union leader’s perspective:

CITU senior leader, A Soundararajan, who was leading an agitation in Hyundai Motors for recognition of the union, said the leftist union strongly condemns such violent actions. But, if the state is witnessing a spate of labour issues, it is to be traced to the attempts by the managements and government to suppress trade union rights like not allowing formation of unions, not respecting the workforce, engaging more casuals and contract workers, not extending them proper wages and benefits, victimizing workers, dismissing and suspending them etc. He said CITU is fighting the dismissal of 1000 workers in 32 units, including that of MNCs in Chennai, Coimbatore and other centres ⁸

And, finally, a rare news item about the then Central Labour Minister’s rather candid statement on the state of industrial relations, which he had to retract and had to express regret for, due to strong negative reactions from industry and industry associations:

Union Labour Minister Oscar Fernandes declined to criticise the attack, saying it ‘should serve as a warning for management’. ‘It is my appeal to the management that the workers should be dealt with compassion,’ Oscar Fernandes told reporters at a press conference. ‘There are disparities in the wages of permanent employees and contract workers. The workers should not be pushed so hard that they resort to whatever happened in Noida,’ he said. The workforce is ‘unable to express its simmering discontent over the management policies,’ leading to strained ties between them and the management, he said, while expressing his condolences to members of the bereaved family. Media reports said workers were dismissed after they demanded pay rises and allegedly ransacked the firm’s offices in Greater Noida. ‘I can’t believe someone in the government is condoning something like this,’ Rajeev Chandrasekhar, president of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, told reporters. ‘An innocent man has died. I am frankly flabbergasted. I am shocked.’ The Confederation of Indian Industry said there was ‘nothing in the world that can justify lynching of any person and no dispute can be settled by murdering an adversary’. Labour Minister Oscar Fernandes has apologised for his remarks on the murder of the CEO of an Italy-based company in Greater Noida. ⁹

And to round off in our quest for the tragic flaw of industrial relations practice, if any, two more little cameos reported in the media in a press interview after the tragic events in Manesar.

Some critical conclusions can be drawn from the ‘conventions and cases’ cameos, which have been compiled for examining the question of whether there is a discernible tragic flaw that propels organizations towards workplace volatility which periodically erupts into violence at the workplace with tragic consequences.

Nothing better illustrates the state of volatility in the arena of industrial relations which have led to a revival of interest in industrial relations both as a discipline and as a practice than the three workplace tragedies in recent times—Graziano (Greater Noida-September 2008), Pricol (Coimbatore 2009) and Suzuki (Manesar July 2012). Three excerpts from newspaper reports of the incidents provide evidence of the state of affairs. They are as follows:

The vice president (Human Resources) of Pricol, Roy J. George, (Tendulkar, 1960, p. 333) who was attacked on the factory premises at Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, here on Monday, died at a private hospital on Tuesday afternoon. The workers were agitating over the dismissal of 42 employees from one of the units of the company. The police have registered a case of murder. ¹¹

All three incidents erupted in the midst of on-going confrontations between workers and managements in these three reputed organizations where violence appeared to explode unexpectedly and inexplicably in an already simmering cauldron of industrial relations frustration and aggression. These three events shook state agencies and corporate boardrooms and also sent shivers down the spines of managements in the troubled areas.

Each of these incidents was then followed predictably by the usual rounds of acrimonious finger pointing, point scoring, scapegoating amplified and magnified by the media. The labour law reforms brigade again swung into hyper-action quickly to try and leverage the tragic events for furthering the cause of ‘labour market flexibility’ by launching a shrill attack on ‘outmoded’ legal constraints, which inhibit market-driven ‘hiring and firing’. The doomsday tactical argument of industry associations that such labour militancy characterized by homicidal violence will lead to foreign capital flight, dampening of new investments and plant relocations to more salubrious labour market environments, was unleashed on a ruling class already beleaguered by meltdowns, slowdowns and scams.

However, after the initial period of trauma, it dawned on corporate India that since the responsibility to run an organization rests with management, resorting to the favourite past time of blaming unions and governments beyond the initial period of shock and insecurity was not going to lead anywhere. Managements felt the need to learn to try and come to terms with workers and their representatives amidst the volatile circumstances and turbulent ground realities. ¹⁴

Suddenly, it became obvious that an HR professional generation fed on ‘HRD’ over the past two decades was out of its depths when it came to the revival and resurgence of a more conscious labour force and a more activist union leadership. The romantic illusion that a sophisticated HR approach aligned with the strategic purposes of a market-driven corporate management had achieved a seemingly docile, domesticated, stable and compliant workforce totally accepting of unilateral managerialism and unquestioned work intensification suddenly came crashing down.

‘I do not know why’ ¹⁵ was the Maruti Suzuki MD’s reaction when asked what led to the Manesar violence while Mr Suzuki’s directive was to, find the root cause of what actually took place and why it happened. ¹⁶ When Graziano happened, the then Central Labour Minister offered an explanation, ‘The workers are unable to express their simmering discontent over management policies.’ ¹⁷ . When Pricol happened, A Sounderarajan, a CITU leader said that ‘it is to be traced to the attempts by the managements and government to suppress trade union rights’. ¹⁸ Again, the Pricol union said, ‘What happened at Pricol was unfortunate and regrettable….Only the attitude of the management led to the violence.’ ¹⁹

Labour leaders also understand that such incidents only serve to create even more draconian conditions because trade unions get tarnished even further since unionism gets to be perceived as homicidally militant and involved workers are subjected to criminal investigation, prosecution and indictments. The state-corporate machinery tends to get even more strident and overpowering affecting worker mobilization and intervention efforts and initiatives and thus setting the clock back significantly for worker mobilization in already fragmented and fractured worker collectivization.

Insights from the Cases

Looking at the three incidents, the tragic loss of life through the use of violence to settle differences and disputes at the workplace is not justifiable, considering there are other means and methods available for dealing with issues. Reflecting on the information available in the public domain as reported in the media, such traumatic incidents can be retraced in terms of three stages through which events unfold before the climax as follows:

Flash points which play the immediate role of igniting the eruption;

The flash points usually and also as is evident in the three episodes take the form of managerial actions like altercations between supervisors and workers, suspensions and dismissals of workers or worker leaders on grounds of misconduct; near-term pointers could be protracted labour unrest over wages and other terms and conditions, which are simmering due to managerial inaction or organizational indifference, refusal to engage in collective bargaining in good faith with the majority union, vindictive transfers, illegal partial lockouts, break-in-service orders, stoppages of increments, illegal deduction of wages and incentives or even market conditions like meltdowns or slowdowns; simmering contextual factors would be factors like managerial belligerence in dealing with collective representation and action, lack of compliance with labour laws and the attendant standards as laid down in the statutes, renewed or competitive union mobilization strategies and tactics, meltdown or slowdown dynamics, work intensification, labour contractualization and casualization and employment of apprentices and contract labour contrary to certified standing orders and the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970, wage disparities between permanent and contract/casual workers. ²⁰

An impartial analysis of anecdotal information available in the public domain related to the three tragic events suggests that there could be five interrelated factors why conditions are created for such avoidable workplace tragedies to happen anywhere and anytime.

Casualization and Contractualization of the Workforce

At the root of the three incidents clearly is the progressive increase in the ratio of contract workers to permanent workers. The insecurity and inequality which enters into the shop floor dynamics as a result of the contradictions inherent in workforce structures becomes a major factor accounting for the simmering discontent proposition. Pricol workers, for instance, were agitating for over 2 years against the hiring of contract workers prior to the workplace incident. ²¹ According to Chairman Suzuki, at the Maruti Suzuki Manesar plant, the ratio of regular to contract was 50–50 before the incident as compared to 30–35 per cent contract workers in Japan. He reiterated that Maruti Suzuki does not intend to put an end to the contract worker system at its car plants in India but would move towards the Japanese norm. ²²

Wage Disparities and Disputes

Contractualization has led to wage disparities between permanent and contract employees contravening the ‘equal pay for equal work’ principle leading to serious disaffection and disputes with managements. Pricol workers were agitating for over 2 years against the non-payment of pay and other benefits prior to the incident (23, op.cit.). The (Pricol) management had also been deducting up to ₹1,000 a month each worker citing the loss incurred by the company as the reason. ²³ Graziano dismissed 190–200 contract employees in June after they had staged a sit-in demanding a salary raise and the status of permanent employees consequent to a dispute over an agreement to provide a pay increase, by attaching conditions to the pay hike. ²⁴ A fact-finding team of the All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU) that visited the spot after the September 22 incident found that out of the 1,200 workers employed in the factory, only 500 were regular workers and the rest were on contract. Graziano at the time paid its regular workers ₹3,200 a month for working 12 hours a day; contract workers were paid ₹2,200 per month and were denied various rights. ^25/25a

Terminations and Suspensions of Workers

Disaffection and discontent and worker reactions have been met often with intimidating terminations and suspensions, which are used freely especially at the slightest sign of union formation and mobilization for enhancing wages or for demanding regularization. Pricol terminated about 1,000 workers who were not made permanent for the last 20 years for forming a union (23 op,cit.). The company sacked 42 employees for indiscipline on grounds of preventing capacity utilization of the factory and stopping other workers from carrying out their duties. ²⁶ / ²⁷ Graziano had been compelled by worker protests to agree to reinstate all but 15 of the 200 contract employees whom it had dismissed after they had staged a sit-in demanding a salary raise and the status of permanent employees (25 op.cit.). Maruti Suzuki’s reaction to the July 18 violence was strident, ‘There is no scope to retain any of the workers involved in the assault and violence at Manesar. We want to create a strong deterrent with a clear message to miscreants that the guilty have no chance as we restart production,’ said the Maruti Chief Operating Officer (administration) SY Siddiqui. Again as reported, Maruti Suzuki while lifting the month-long lockout at its violence-hit Manesar plant from August 21 served termination notices on 500 regular workers. The company as reported then is also said to be planning to remove 500 contract workers over their alleged involvement in the violence on July 18. ²⁸

Threat of Closure or Relocation

Another tactic used is to threaten closure although this has not been implemented in any of the three cases. Pricol, for instance, said these strikes have hit profitability and they could shift base. ²⁹ When the Graziano international chief Marcello Lamberto came to India after the incident, local company director R.C. Jain said, ‘One of the key issues they will discuss is whether the Greater Noida plant should continue to function or be closed down. ³⁰

Prevention of Formation of Unions and Breaking Existing Unions

A thread which runs through all three cases is the concerted effort to prevent the formation of unions or attempts at breaking existing unions.

As many as six workers who formed the Kovai Mavatta Pricol Labour Trade Union and Kovai Mavatta Pricol Employees Trade Union were transferred to Uttaranachal ³¹ and the workers protested against it a couple of years before the incident (31, op.cit.). A senior official was quoted as saying that George was targeted because he was ‘weaning away’ employees from a union that was leading the protests (8, op.cit.). Though the workers were ready for talks, the management said they should not be part of a particular trade union (31, op.cit.).

‘There is no compromise on violence,’ Nakanishi told TOI. ‘When violence happens, we should not have any consideration for any kind of compromise,’ was the Maruti MD’s assertion when asked whether he was ready to engage the MSWU, in any kind of peace talks to start operations. ³² And when asked what would happen to the new union, MSWU, that had got recognition from the Haryana government as well as Maruti’s support after the previous one was disbanded last year, the response was unequivocal— ‘It will be derecognized, for sure.’ ³³ / ³⁵ To try and offset the influence of the union on the worker, a good conduct bond was imposed by the Maruti management, which required the Maruti workers at Manesar plant to declare they would ‘not resort to go slow, intermittent stoppage of work, stay-in-strike, work-to-rule, sabotage or otherwise indulge in any activity, which would hamper normal production in the manufacturing unit’ and was intended as a preventive mechanism. ³⁴ . In addition, as an alternative to worker affinity to unions, Nakanishi said that the company had taken steps to improve relations with the workers by engaging a consultant to conduct an impartial assessment and also conducted communication programmes. ‘Perhaps it was not enough…to show any permanent result and remove any chances of a trust deficit.’ From what transpired on July 18th, such initiatives did not appear to have weaned away workers from their unions or improved relationships with supervisors and managers. ³⁵

Morphology of Volatility

The combined impact of the five factors which has emerged from the analysis has something to do with the morphology of volatility, which is observable in industrial relations at the firm level in recent times. Beyond the five factors, there is a clearly discernible underlying factor which is at the root of the morphology of volatility in industrial relations. This factor is the severe antipathy and hostility which industry seems to harbour towards worker collectivization, collective voice, collective representation and collective leadership of workers in the workers’ quest for solidarity, equity and parity as this is perceived as a challenge to the unquestioned managerial unilateralism enjoyed by managements over the past decade. This is exacerbated by the intensification of productivity enhancement processes on the one hand and stringent managerial control processes backed up with sanctions like wage cuts, disciplinary actions, suspensions and terminations, threat of relocation and closure. Simmering discontent propels the workers towards the search for solidarity through mobilization and collectivization and rejection of ‘company unions’ and ‘pro management union leaders’.

Embedded in the five-factor analysis and interpretation is the morphology of volatility in industrial relations which is depicted below in the form of 11 interlinked propositions emerging from the three workplace episodes:

Contractualization and Casualization creates a dual internal employment structure of permanent workers and temporary workers.

The dual internal employment structure leads to two sets of employment terms and conditions with vastly varying wage and benefits disparities

Wage and Benefits disparities leads to discontent and disputes due to contravention of the equal pay for equal work principle

Managerial methods of labour process intensification further exacerbate the already existing contradictions between permanent and temporary workers and between workers and managements.

Rank and File discontent and disaffection with labour process intensification as well as with wage and benefits disparities simmers with resentment

Managerial reaction to the simmering discontent takes the form of disciplinary actions, wage cuts, suspensions and terminations which are perceived by workers as retaliatory victimization.

Worker mobilization by new internal worker leaders and existing trade unions leaders in response to worker discontent leads to managerial retaliation in the shape of transfers, suspensions and dismissals of workers and trade union leaders further increasing shop floor turbulence.

Simultaneously there is evidence to show that managements use managers on the one hand to wean away workers from ‘unacceptable’ unions and leaders directly and indirectly while on the other hand use their considerable influence with the state labour machinery to prevent the registration of emerging pro worker unions which have been formed by workers and worker leaders by rejecting pro management unions, and by denying recognition to pro worker unions post registration.

Given the combined effect of all of the above forces, the shop floor erupts into a major conflagration at the workplace leading to tragic fatalities, physical and psychological injuries, and damage to assets.

The state law and order machinery steps in and initiates criminal proceedings against workers, worker leaders, trade union leaders and managements declare indefinite lockouts, derecognize pro worker unions and on resumption resort to en masse dismissals of all permanent and temporary workers ‘involved’ in the violent incidents and resume operations with fresh recruits on management’s own terms and conditions under a heightened security regime.

Some of these factors relate to a certain configuration of industrial relations factors which together constitute what we have termed as the Morphology of Volatility. The Morphology of Volatility characterizing the contexts in which workplace violence seems to be erupting flows from a certain way of thinking and a certain mindset underlying enterprise management processes and relations. Managerial unilateralism, work intensification methodologies, denial of worker voice, opposition to collective representations of grievances and disputes, wage inequities, retaliatory words and deeds, victimization of worker leaders, mass dismissals post-workplace incidents of violence, sweeping replacements of the permanent and contractual labour on resumption of operations—in combination creates a context which is hardly conducive for a principled industrial relations environment.

The enterprise management mindset profiled above can only breed alienation, insecurity, inequality, simmering discontent and occasional eruptions witnessed in the three cases we have been engaging with. The outburst of attention by the media, the public and the state in the aftermath of the occasional incident of explicit violence, generally projects and promotes a no-compromise, retaliatory-punitive approach which hopes to chasten and chastise the perpetrators of explicit violence while at the same time glossing over the undercurrents of implicit violations of worker dignity and rights.

Discussion and Conclusion

This analysis is non-justification of violence to settle issues but it is meant to suggest that managements need to examine the root causes of violence, which create conditions under which such incidents can happen, have happened and will happen… And such moments of truth should be seized as opportunities to move towards workplace transformation based on the post-apartheid Mandela-Tutu inspired formula of truth and justice as a basis for reconciliation and healing ³⁶ . Pricol-Graziano-Suzuki—there was violence within the precincts of enterprises, there were antecedents leading up to the violence, there have been consequences…. But is there evidence of a deeper understanding emerging from these gruesome events…? ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹

Critical reflection on these incidents and the actions and reactions after these incidents suggests that what indeed is on display in the reactions appears to be the doctrine of ‘an eye for an eye’ which seems to have greater currency than the voices calling for a ‘healing touch’. There are three references to the phrase ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ in the Old Testament of the Bible—Exodus 21:24—‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot’ ⁴⁰ ; Leviticus 24:20—‘fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured’ ⁴¹ ; Deuteronomy 19:21—‘Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.’ ⁴²

If such crude formulations seem to be from the distant now non-existent past, ponder over this one. Recently, a senior Indian political leader, in the aftermath of the beheading of an Indian soldier on the Indo-Pakistan border, called for 10 Pakistani heads for every Indian Head. ⁴³ Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Apostle of non-violence, perhaps has understood this best when he says with great conviction born of his lifelong experiments with ahimsa, ‘it is my firm conviction that nothing enduring can be built on violence’ Tendulkar, 1960. ⁴⁴ In grasping this deep insight, he was profoundly influenced by a passage in the New Testament ‘You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ ⁴⁵

Turning the other cheek is the other way, perhaps, as a possible basis for a healing touch. Gandhi also knew in the deepest recesses of his ever introspective soul that such an approach is not the mark of snivelling, drivelling cowardice but a sign of rare courage—‘I have thought about it a great deal. I suspect he meant you must show courage—be willing to take a blow—several blows—to show you will not strike back—nor will you be turned aside…. And when—and when you do that it calls upon something in human nature—something that makes his hate for you diminish and his respect increase’⁴⁶. Ahimsa in Gandhi’s reckoning is the art of disarming the hostile other through the dignified resistance of transformative non-retaliation.

Workers, worker leaders and worker collectives know fully well that workplace violence has more serious consequences for the ordinary worker in terms of further erosion of worker rights like collective voice and representation and the more fundamental right to livelihood and survival than the consequences for the agents of enterprise managements. Explicit physical violence begets more livelihood violence like summary termination of workers when work resumes, threat of closure or relocation and tighter controls in workplace routines.

Martin Luther King has said this in his own inimitable turn of phrase that

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that⁴⁷ (King, 1967, pp. 62–63)

Workplace volatility has led to the return of collective mobilization and labour unrest which points towards the need to reconnect to the forgotten discipline and practice of industrial relations with its expertise in the praxis of stakeholder holism, awareness of contradictions, democratic mutuality and sensitivity to constitutional and legal rights of engagement.

Behind the volatility is neoliberal managerial unilateralism, which seeks worker silence in the face of stringent organizational regimens. Neoliberal managerial dynamics in a market-driven competitive context produces an atmosphere of contested dissonance among stakeholders when submissive silence is the desired outcome. The reality of an acute sense of insecurity and uncertainty in the minds of the wage earning employed confronted with the new reality of eroding employment levels, uncertain tenures, declining incomes and rising cost of living is countered by managements pointing towards survival pressures on organizations forcing them to resort to cost reduction. This in turn sets the stage for the resurgence of employee collectivization and collective protective action by the wage earning classes in order to defend positions which have been taken as given in more prosperous times. And managements and specialists long brought up on a diet of ‘HRD’ to deal with human capital issues suddenly find themselves inadequate and ill prepared to deal with the re-emergence of the phenomenon of collective mobilization fuelled by seething discontent. The silencing strategies of management may produce the uneasy silences of marginalization, which needs only a trigger to erupt into avoidable workplace conflagrations.

The widely held belief is that employers manage organizations on behalf of shareholders, employees join trade unions and associations in order to protect their interests and the state and its agencies are interested in promoting social and common good. Throw in the struggle between neoliberal managerialism and equity-seeking collectivism and the volatile interaction of this kind by its very nature will have fewer areas of shared concern and larger areas of sharp divergence. Learning to understand and deal with the stakeholder differences built into the contradiction ridden totality induced by neoliberal policies and practices is perhaps the most critical aspect of the development of an implicit industrial relations policy and practice framework informed by workplace democracy and social justice. The industrial relations engagement at the micro-level also raises questions related to the larger question of the path to development adopted by the state in tandem with global and domestic capital.

The effort to develop a frame of reference in a social relationship characterized by contradictions of a very fundamental nature is perhaps the central challenge in approaching industrial relations from a multiple stakeholder point of view. This involves a re-examination of industrial relations in context at any given point in time given the combined confluence of turbulent economic, political and social forces informed by neoliberal ideologies and regimes.

The declining importance of industrial relations and its low visibility in the functioning of organizations has led to the lowering of its significance in the minds of the interacting stakeholders. The function has also often been reduced to being seen as a ‘legalistic’ enterprise involving knowledge of labour laws and is presented as a ‘tussle’ between manipulative expediency and grudging compliance with shrill cries for labour ‘reforms’ to induce labour market ‘flexibility’. Or industrial relations has been projected as an enterprise whose sole mission is to prevent any mobilization of personnel for collective representations of expectations, grievances and disputes using all known behavioural and managerial tactics, tools and techniques in the pursuit of neoliberal managerial unilateralism.

Neoliberal managerialism has directed its energies towards replacing industrial relations with the ideas and actions of what has been proffered as ‘human resource management’. Central to the Human Resource Management (HRM) world view and enterprise is the ubiquitous ‘performance management system’ for human capital utilization. Mechanisms for rating, ranking and slotting on a bell curve form the staple diet of the intensification of maximizing extraction from human resources under the command of neoliberal managerialism. The HRM manages, utilizes, extracts, exploits; industrial relation questions, warns, challenges, dismantles, subverts and lifts. The HRM systems and processes tend to make personnel self-centric, self-aggrandizing, divisive, and compete with each other, undercut one another; industrial relations dynamics and processes have the potential to make people more other centric, mutually supportive, communitarian, protective of each other, defend each other. The HRM creates a control-oriented compliance culture founded on individualism, industrial relations creates a dialogue-oriented fairness culture founded on creative contradictions and collective mobilization. Industrial relation is a different way of crafting an organizational community—not easy, not always neat and not necessarily orderly. However, there is a greater potential for humanity, fairness, justice, community even as organizational life may indeed be experienced as continuously contested contexts.

All concerned stakeholders have to always bear in mind that industrial relations is not just a law and order question but a social relationship in which the toiling masses engage in a quest for a more humane, just, egalitarian political and socioeconomic formation. All parties concerned will have to rebuild their relationships on the solid foundation of Constitutional provisions and legislative rights and responsibilities of the interacting stakeholders informed by national and international standards related to the rights of workers. Among the numerous factors which need to be addressed for the restitution of labour-management relationships in the aftermath of such tragic events, three key factors that can create the right conditions to begin with are—respect for workers’ right to collective representation, reduction in the proportion of or elimination of contract workers in work of a permanent nature and a policy of equal pay for equal work irrespective of whether the worker is permanent or on contract.

Revisiting theory to understand reality in the domain of industrial relations needs greater reflexivity on the part of both the researcher as well as the practitioner…. And in this exploratory reflexivity, implicit norms need to be given as much importance as explicit facts in analysing concrete industrial relation conditions. The distortion of facts on account of the culture of normative myopia is the tragic flaw of industrial relations theory and practice.