Hi Friends,
                                              Even as I launch this today ( my 80th Birthday ), I realize that there is yet so much to say and do.
                                                  There is just no time to look back, no time to wonder,"Will anyone read these pages?"
                                       With regards,
                                       Hemen Parekh
                                       27 June 2013

Friday, 12 November 1982

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Synopsis: Communication For Productivity
Letters written to some 7500 Workers / Managers / Union Leaders, following a period of strike / Go slow / Murders (1979 - 1987), at Mumbai factory of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. This direct / open / honest communication led to a remarkable atmosphere of trust between Workers and Management, which, in turn, increased productivity at 3% per year (ave).


12 Nov 1982

To:

Dear Friends

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

S.R.   Mohandas does   not like the word "Bargaining". According  to  him  it  implies,  "barring-the-gain"  of  the opponent  and an  "adversary"  relationship.   He prefers to call it "Collective Negotiating" - you negotiate a difficult terrain, jointly, to reach a common goal.
SRM also tells us that in collectively negotiated wage settlements, there is  no place for "give and  take".  It has to be only "take and take".   Union "takes" (away !) the wages from the  Management and  the Management must  master the art (or  science)  of "taking"  (extracting)  the  work from  the workmen !
So "take-and-take"! Extort if you like! This is the central theme of his article enclosed.
Another wrtie-up (enclosed), which I thought would interest you,  is on  the  wage  negotiations currently  taking  place 15,000 km. away -  in the American  steel industry.  We are far removed from the Scene but the subject is quite relevant.
Is there a common thread running through the two write-ups? I do not think, SRM, anywhere in his article, is preaching the kind of "tough" stand being practiced by the American Steel Industry.' The toughness is in a mess due to many reasons - one of which is high labor-cost as compared to the Japanese.
But then SRM neither precludes tough-methods, if situation so demands.  On  the  other  hand  we also  find  that  some managers  in  the American  Steel   industry believe  that  a lasting  solution to   the problems  faced  by  the  industry cannot  be  found in   arm-twisting techniques  but  only  in worker participation  and involvement in  the problem-solving exercises - in other words, in "decision-taking" processes.
The blind-spot is "give and take" - perhaps even "take and take".  How do we get across to the employees that we must all "make" before anyone can "take"?

H.C. PAREKH

Tuesday, 2 November 1982

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Synopsis: Communication For Productivity
Letters written to some 7500 Workers / Managers / Union Leaders, following a period of strike / Go slow / Murders (1979 - 1987), at Mumbai factory of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. This direct / open / honest communication led to a remarkable atmosphere of trust between Workers and Management, which, in turn, increased productivity at 3% per year (ave).

2 Nov 1982

To:

Dear Friends

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
S.R.   Mohandas does   not like the word "Bargaining". According  to  him  it  implies,  "barring-the-gain"  of  the opponent  and an  "adversary"  relationship.   He prefers to call it "Collective Negotiating" - you negotiate a difficult terrain, jointly, to reach a common goal.
SRM also tells us that in collectively negotiated wage settlements, there is  no place for "give and  take".  It has to be only "take and take".   Union "takes" (away !) the wages from the  Management and  the Management must  master the art (or  science)  of "taking"  (extracting)  the  work from  the workmen !
So "take-and-take"! Extort if you like! This is the central theme of his article enclosed.
Another wrtie-up (enclosed), which I thought would interest you,  is on  the  wage  negotiations currently  taking  place 15,000 km. away -  in the American  steel industry.  We are far removed from the Scene but the subject is quite relevant.
Is there a common thread running through the two write-ups? I do not think, SRM, anywhere in his article, is preaching the kind of "tough" stand being practiced by the American Steel Industry.' The toughness is in a mess due to many reasons - one of which is high labor-cost as compared to the Japanese.
But then SRM neither precludes tough-methods, if situation so demands.  On  the  other  hand  we also  find  that  some managers  in  the American  Steel   industry believe  that  a lasting  solution to   the problems  faced  by  the  industry cannot  be  found in   arm-twisting techniques  but  only  in worker participation  and involvement in  the problem-solving exercises - in other words, in "decision-taking" processes.
The blind-spot is "give and take" - perhaps even "take and take".  How do we get across to the employees that we must all "make" before anyone can "take"?

H.C. PAREKH