16
Dear Shyamali,
There is no bar in white-collar employees forming a union, but if they are of supervisory or managerial level, it is better for them to form an association if they are refused registration by the Registrar of Trade Unions. In India, white-collar employees have also been allowed to form unions.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
There is no bar in white-collar employees forming a union, but if they are of supervisory or managerial level, it is better for them to form an association if they are refused registration by the Registrar of Trade Unions. In India, white-collar employees have also been allowed to form unions.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi! I am not asking this question from a legal point of view. But, I want to know really is how many of you feel a need for a union from your own point of view? Regards, Shyamali
From India, Nasik
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Nasik
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Unionization is a response to the treatment or the lack of it given to the employees in any industrial environment. It can also emerge as a response to injustices heaped upon the employees or the need to garner collective security of employment, etc.
In fact, a union's fundamental commitment is to "protect and further the rights" of its members.
The straight answer to your question depends upon the state of reality regarding these and other similar factors. Sometimes unionization starts because employers underestimate the very existence of the human beings called their employees. So, if the factors indicate the need to unionize, white-collar employees are quite likely (and maybe should) opt for unionization.
Technically, ANYONE can unionize! Whether he/she would benefit from protection and other factors is a different matter, as these are available only to those employees who conform to the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Furthermore, the status of "workman," as defined under the act, is NOT dependent upon the wage/salary or the job title held by an individual. It primarily and fundamentally depends on the list of duties attached to the job an individual performs at any given time.
There is nothing wrong with unionization. It's just that some (in fact, most) individuals who misbehave and encourage misbehavior under the protection of law, along with politicians, weak administration, and the judiciary, have made unions worthy of hatred by most employers. Therefore, they feel that at least white-collar staff should NOT join unions.
I would NOT generalize either way but am quite open to the process of unionization and their existence even if it leads to temporary hostile relations. It's a new challenge! We can manage the relationship also by providing intelligent inputs in the interaction!
Unions suggest "representative, institutional, transactional relationships between various interest groups in the industrial context." This is a very challenging arena for new skills in relationship management. It is convenient. It forces parties to assume joint responsibilities for the well-being and growth of the organization and generally makes the industrial system more accountable and democratic. It contributes significantly to purging the system of feudalism and authoritarian culture!
Where total employment is small, there may not be a need for unionization, but when one has to deal with large numbers, it is convenient to have a union on board. How to make them responsible, orient them to the organizational and collective interests will be the new challenge before us.
Shyamali, this reply could have been in one word - YES/NO, but in the interest of the message board, I have chosen to provide a detailed reply. Kindly bear with this!
Regards,
Samvedan
September 25, 2006
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Unionization is a response to the treatment or the lack of it given to the employees in any industrial environment. It can also emerge as a response to injustices heaped upon the employees or the need to garner collective security of employment, etc.
In fact, a union's fundamental commitment is to "protect and further the rights" of its members.
The straight answer to your question depends upon the state of reality regarding these and other similar factors. Sometimes unionization starts because employers underestimate the very existence of the human beings called their employees. So, if the factors indicate the need to unionize, white-collar employees are quite likely (and maybe should) opt for unionization.
Technically, ANYONE can unionize! Whether he/she would benefit from protection and other factors is a different matter, as these are available only to those employees who conform to the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Furthermore, the status of "workman," as defined under the act, is NOT dependent upon the wage/salary or the job title held by an individual. It primarily and fundamentally depends on the list of duties attached to the job an individual performs at any given time.
There is nothing wrong with unionization. It's just that some (in fact, most) individuals who misbehave and encourage misbehavior under the protection of law, along with politicians, weak administration, and the judiciary, have made unions worthy of hatred by most employers. Therefore, they feel that at least white-collar staff should NOT join unions.
I would NOT generalize either way but am quite open to the process of unionization and their existence even if it leads to temporary hostile relations. It's a new challenge! We can manage the relationship also by providing intelligent inputs in the interaction!
Unions suggest "representative, institutional, transactional relationships between various interest groups in the industrial context." This is a very challenging arena for new skills in relationship management. It is convenient. It forces parties to assume joint responsibilities for the well-being and growth of the organization and generally makes the industrial system more accountable and democratic. It contributes significantly to purging the system of feudalism and authoritarian culture!
Where total employment is small, there may not be a need for unionization, but when one has to deal with large numbers, it is convenient to have a union on board. How to make them responsible, orient them to the organizational and collective interests will be the new challenge before us.
Shyamali, this reply could have been in one word - YES/NO, but in the interest of the message board, I have chosen to provide a detailed reply. Kindly bear with this!
Regards,
Samvedan
September 25, 2006
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Manage White Collar Entrepreneur Stress By Emotional Equity.pdf