Trade union participation in leather industry in Kolkata.
Bose, Indranil ; Mudgal, R.K.
Introduction
The Kolkata leather industry has been divided in to different
sub-sectors such as tannery units (medium and small scale), export
oriented leather goods manufacturing units, fabricator of leather goods
and units catering to indigenous market, fabricator of industrial
gloves, small, medium and large scale footwear manufacturers, house-hold
manufacturing units and merchant exporters etc. The available data shows
that the trends in the employment creation by these subsectors are not
uniform. The lack of uniformity seems to be natural as the number of
units in each type of sub-sectors widely varies across leather industry
in Kolkata. For example, the number of micro-enterprises across
sub-sectors of Kolkata leather industry has been maximum creating
highest number of employment whereas the number of large scale units in
the leather industry has been very limited. Table 1 shows the trend in
employment creation in the sub-sectors over the years.
During 2007-2009 period employment in Kolkata leather industry has
increased at a very moderate rate of about 4.6%. The growth rate is
relatively higher in fabricator and house hold manufacturing units,
export oriented leather goods manufacturing units etc. However, the only
large scale footwear manufacturing unit in the Kolkata leather cluster
has witnessed reduction in the number of workers.
Except a few major leather and leather products manufacturing
units, in majority of the units across different subsectors of the
Kolkata leather cluster, the working conditions are not only appalling
but there is also scant regard for workers' safety or health.
Though, the traditional leather units of Kolkata is dominated by low
caste and Muslim migrant workers from neighboring states of Bihar,
Jharkhand and Eastern Uttar Pradesh, the entry of people from different
backgrounds are growingly visible in the sector. About 70% of the
workers engaged in the industry are traditionally employed as temporary
workers. Most of them join the industry as workers with very low or no
skill and they acquire required skills simply by observation at the
initial stages. Very often these low skilled new entrants to the sector
acquire skill under the guidance of their relatives or somebody else
from their place of origin, also employed as worker in a leather unit in
Kolkata. They are the people who actually bring these very cheap workers
from their villages to enable them to learn the required skills at the
place of their employment.
However, the labor market is flexible and intensively competitive
and mostly they are paid on a piece rate basis. Abundant supply of labor
together with the absence of unit level strong labor unions has pushed
down the wages to the reservation level. Minimum wages are not followed
in most cases and the workers are also not in the position of demanding
higher wage rates as the supply of labor is in abundant. According to a
recent government order, the minimum wage rate for unskilled /low
skilled workers in tanneries and leather manufacturing units in KMDA
area should be Rs. 162.33, Rs. 178.46 for semi-skilled workers and for
the highly skilled workers it should be Rs. 196. 31. In reality very few
units comply with these minimum wage rates. In most of the manufacturing
units, specially in the leather footwear and accessories manufacturing
units, work is based on almost putting out system and during peak season
the workers work for 16 to 18 hours per day and during the slack season
the daily working hour comes down to 6 to 7 hours per day only causing
loss of employment to many low skilled or unskilled workers. However,
the limited number of workers under the regular pay-roll remains with
their jobs. In tanneries and fabricating units the machine operators and
highly skilled workers are offered regular employment and in leather
product manufacturing units the high skilled workers, specially the
solemen and uppermen are kept as fixed workers. The practice of child
labor and the women workers is rampant in many small home based leather
product manufacturing units. It has been growingly restricted in
organized units due to self regulation by the units themselves under the
surveillance of respective industry bodies like Indian Leather Products
Association etc. Though the regular workers and supervisory staffs in
formal sectors in the Kolkata leather industry are covered under
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, Employees
State Insurance Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act, large number of
temporary, casual and contractual workers do not get these facilities.
The unions campaign to extend the provisions of the PF Act to the
temporary, casual and contractual workers of Kolkata leather industry.
But it has not been possible as the numbers of such workers'
continue to vary from season to season and very insignificant level of
permanency exists for unskilled and semi-skilled workers in Kolkata
leather industry. However, since 2008 with the passing of the
Unorganized Workers' Social Security Act by the Government of West
Bengal, the conditions of the irregular workers from the Kolkata leather
industry has improved along with the same types of workers from other
industries as well. Still the coverage of the Act has not reached any
significant level and majority of the irregular workers are yet to be
benefited in the state from many industries, including the leather
industry.
Kolkata Leather Cluster Unionism
Three different trends in trade union involvement are clearly
visible in Kolkata leather industry. In low to moderate technology
leather units, specially in the tanneries, the unskilled or low skilled
irregular workers join the trade unions with the main objective of
ensuring the job with the same unit even in the case of seasonal
employment along with reasons like ensuring higher wages, whereas the
semi-skilled or skilled workers with relatively permanent employment
status tend to join trade unions with the objective of enjoying
collective power to safeguard themselves against any unfair decision by
the employers. The highly skilled professionals, mostly independent
professionals employed through retainership basis have their own unions
on the issues of professional advancement, remuneration, service
contracts etc. However, the rate of unionization across the Kolkata
industry does not show any specific trend as different types of people
employed in the sector have different penetration rates and different
units also show the different levels of unionization. Most of the units
do not have unit level unions and instead have industry level unions
with different penetration rates across industries. These industry or
craft unions are politically affiliated and have different levels of
influence on the respective union members at the local levels.
Workers of Kolkata leather industry are affiliated to three
different unions based on their professional status. For instance, most
of the medium scale leather units have the presence of Calcutta Tannery
Workers Union (affiliated to INTUC), Calcutta Leather Workers Union
(affiliated to AITUC), Bengal Leather Workers Union (affiliated to CITU)
and All Bengal Charmakar Union (INTUC affiliated) whereas in relatively
larger units like Asian Leather Limited, Bata India Limited etc. with
relatively larger workforce, the existence of organization specific
trade unions has been traditionally witnessed. In Bata factory at
Batanagar near Kolkata, eight unions affiliated to different political
parties exist over last 40 years and the Bata Mazdoor Union (affiliated
to INTUC) and Progressive Workers Union (affiliated to CITU) demand
majority union status with larger workforce support during this period.
Bata has the highest trade union penetration rate as more than 90% of
its current workers of about 3000 people are members of either of the
unions. However, from the overall industry perspective the trade
unionization rate is not only relatively low (less than 10%), but also
the union membership is unevenly distributed across units. State level
unions affiliated to the different political central unions are also
active to varying degrees which have considerable influence on the
casual and temporary workers of Kolkata leather industry.Since AITUC and
CITU are the central unions with the largest membership among most of
the unorganized sector, it can be accepted that the temporary and casual
workers from the leather industry in Kolkata are also the members of
major craft unions active in West Bengal. INTUC has some 60000 members
in the unorganized sector in West Bengal, but it has little bargaining
activity in the leather sector.
A report by the Department of Labor, Government of West Bengal
(2009) has shown a steady growth in the number of trade union membership
in Kolkata leather industry. Majority of the trade union members are
from tanneries followed by manufacturers and fabricators. Table 2 shows
the growth pattern of the union membership in the leather industry of
Kolkata.
Change in trade union membership in the Kolkata leather industry
does not follow any specific trend, though period wise pattern may be
identified. For example, during 1993-97 the number of union membership
increased steadily, whereas since 1997 to 2000 the number decreased. In
the years 2001-2002 and 2007-2008, the decrease in numbers of trade
union membership has been at the rate of -8% and -1.95% respectively.
Review of Literature
Mathur and Mathur (1962), Reveri (1972), Soman (1957), Karnik
(1960), Kennedy (1955), Sharma (1963), Fonseca (1964), Ghosh (1960) and
Malhotra (1963) have provided information, both theoretical and
empirical, on trade union movement in India. The studies of Kennedy
(1955), Vaid (1962), Dufty (1964), Fonseca (1964), Sharma (1963), Johri
(1967), Soman (1957), Nigam (1984), Agarwal (1984) and Bhangoo (1987)
have raised issues such as process of unionism, its role in economic
development, role of the legislation and government in promoting
unionism, new problems and challenges of trade unions and other related
issues of trade unionism in India. The major limitation of these studies
is their excessive dependence on secondary data without using behavioral
data. Studies on unionism at the area, industry and enterprise level are
very few in India. Kulkarni's (1946) research was the pace setter
in the real sense. Kennedy (1955), Sheth (1960), Singh (1968), Murphy
(1981), Gaur (1986) and Asdhir (1987) have studied trade unionism in
Bombay, Tamil Nadu, Ahmedabad, Rajasthan and Punjab by applying
historical approach. Pandey and Vikram (1969) studied trade unions in
Delhi's construction industry and Bograte (1968) have worked on the
trade union movement among the Kolkata dock workers. The important area,
industry or plant level studies include those of Mast (1969), Thakur
(1968), Punekar (1958), Vaid (1965), Ramaswamy (1977), Sahoo (1977),
Monga (1973), Arya (1980), Sinha (1984) etc. The studies indicate that
there has not been any significant difference in characteristics of
trade unions at area, industry, state and national levels with regard to
multiplicity of units, inter-union and intra-union rivalries and other
important aspects of the trade unionism.
Pandey and Vikram (1969) have done the causal analysis on level of
workers' participation in trade unions in Indian industries. They
have identified the attributes such as lack of enlightened leadership,
illiteracy among workers, managements' hostility, low interest of
the workers etc. The studies by Dayal and Sharma (1970), Sinha and Paul
(1963), Ganguli (1954), Sayles and Strauss (1953), Monga and Mogga
(1981) and Mukherjee (1985) have investigated the variables, attitude
toward unions' functions and other perceptions. These studies have
mainly investigated the relationship between trade union participation
and different variables like age, length of service, sex, wage
satisfaction, promotion, rural or urban background, educational level
etc.
Significant researches have also been observed on the fundamental
characteristics of trade union leadership in India. Researches in this
regard can be witnessed in streams like dependence of leadership
efficiency on different demographic factors of the leader, level of
political interference in trade union leaderships etc. Mathur and Raman
(1962), Dayal and Sharma (1976), Singh (1980) and Rao (1984) have
attempted to analyse the leadership efficiency with the help of factors
like age, gender, caste, parental occupation, political affiliation etc.
Reindrop (1971), Ramaswamy (1977) and Acharji (1980) have observed that
the outsiders, mainly the political leaders play the dominant role in
the functions of trade unions in many industries. Pattabhi (1967), Aziz
(1974), Ashraf (1974), Baveskar (1974) in their research works have
highlighted the political manipulations, dependence and weakness of the
unions and the use of union funds for different political purposes.
Nanda (1968) and Ramaswamy (1971) have contributed significantly to
research on the outside political intervention in trade union leadership
in the country. They have categorically shown the role of politically
affiliated trade unions in civil elections in different parts of the
country.
Available literature on Kolkata leather industry mostly comprises
different reports, monographs and few research papers. Report of Council
of Indian Leather Exports (2005) has provided the information that West
Bengal used to account for 65 percent of India's leather goods
exports (1999-2000 exports were valued at USD 226 million). But its
share of total Indian leather and leather goods exports is 15 percent.
The European Union and North America are the leading importers of West
Bengal's leather and leather goods (79 percent and 12 percent
respectively). Unfortunately, West Bengal is generally considered a
source of low-priced, poor quality leather goods. Improving the quality
of both leather and leather goods is a problem as most tanneries and
manufacturers are small and cannot afford the investments required to
upgrade production facilities. Only a few manufacturers have modern
equipment. But most of them are handicapped by low overall production
capacity, which prevents them executing large export orders. However,
West Bengal is till considered India's largest manufacturer of
leather goods. In addition to BIL (annual capacity over 20 million pairs
of shoes/uppers) there are approximately 20,000 small units making
footwear/uppers (12 million pairs per year); industrial gloves (50
million pairs per year); garments (800,000 pieces per year); and
accessories and luggage 35 million pieces per year). Annual Report of
the Indian Leather Producers Association (2009) has observed that
Kolkata is the single largest concentration of leather industry in West
Bengal and Kolkata offers the leather industry several advantages like
easy availability of a wide variety of leather (cow, calf, buffalo,
sheep, goat); low production costs; a large pool of unskilled,
semi-skilled and skilled workers at competitive rates; and abundant
water and power. An airport and two ports facilitate exports. West
Bengal's leather industry directly and indirectly employs over
200,000 people. Roy and Satyaki (2009) has conducted an extensive
research on the institutional failures and imperfections that prevail in
the supply of indivisible inputs and collective action in a typical
'low-road' cluster in Kolkata and has argued that market
failures due to the existence of information imperfections,
externalities and public good and the institutional failure to resolve
those shortcomings only partially explain the depressed status of these
clusters, including Kolkata leather cluster. He further added that, the
explanation critically rests on the fact of asymmetric power relations
and conflicts arising between the trader and the small producer
reproducing a production relation that thwarts the high road growth
path. The spawning of small enterprises in such clusters is a result of
self-exploitative fragmentation that does not flow from
entrepreneurship, but from the survival strategy of labor in the context
of depressed wages. In this working paper the author has highlighted all
comprehensive issues like production organization, labor process and
other issues pertaining to the socio-economic analysis of the
functioning of the Kolkata leather cluster. The paper further observes
that most of the units are owned by the male and about 87.5 % of the
units surveyed by the author are either owned as proprietorship or as
family owned house-hold work. Though very few literatures have been
identified on the work-force pattern and labor practices in the Kolkata
leather in dustry, researches by Sabharwal (2000), Roy & Satyaki
(2009) may be considered as pioneering on the issue. Report on leather
industry including footwear and other art works in India, published by
the Labor Bureau, Ministry of Labor and Employment, Government of India
(2008) has given a comprehensive picture on the working conditions and
social backgrounds of the workers, working in the leather industry
across India, including the leather industry at Kolkata, which should be
considered as another important source to depend on.
Significant amount of research is available in the knowledge domain
regarding the impact of different factors on the trade union
participation by the workers. Bolton et. al (2007) have comprehensively
explained the concept of trade union participation as the collective
involvement of members in union related activities, which are closely
related to the effective functioning of the union. Gamage and Hewagama
(2012) have divided the union participation activities into two
categories namely formal and informal. According to Fuller et al (1995)
the formal activities consist of involvement in elections, participation
of meetings, voting, filing grievances and serving as an office bearer.
They have also identified informal union activities like helping other
members to file grievances, reading union publications, talking about
the union with others. Cohen (1994) has empirically identified the
similarities and differences among six forms of union participation
namely union commitment, participation in decision making, participation
in union activities, attitudinal militancy, serving in elected offices
and the propensity to strike. Most of the research on union
participation has considered it as a multi-dimensional construct.
McShane (1986), Tetrick et al (2007) and Jinadasa & Opatha (1999)
have mentioned these multi-dimensional influences in determining the
trade union participation. Shore and Newton (1995) in their study have
included some other measures as communication and civic virtue. Scholars
like Gorden et al (1980), Metochi (2002), Fullagar (1986), Kuruvilla et
al (1990) have identified the importance of demographic variables like
gender, age and race in influencing the trade union participation by the
workers in their respective research papers along with the relationship
between behavioural attitudes and union participation. Barling, Kelloway
and Bremermann (1991), Desphande and Fiorito (1989) have suggested that
having positive attitudes about
the union is positively related to voting for unionization. Fullagar
and Barling (1989) found that union loyalty resulted in greater formal
participation in union activities. It implies that, the members who feel
loyal to their union are more likely to vote in union elections and
participate in union meetings and activities. Morrow & McElroy
(2006) have observed that there is a significant positive relationship
between satisfaction with communication from national union leaders and
union loyalty. Monnot et al (2010) has found that the magnitude of the
relationship between commitment and participation are moderated by
status-based group members, i.e., white collar vs. blue collar. Shore,
Tetrick and Newton (1994) have developed another model on union
commitment and participation. According to the model variables like
organizational commitment, job satisfaction and pro-union attitudes are
the antecedents of union commitment. Further the relationship between
union instrumentality and union commitment is mediated by pro-union
attitudes. Researchers have developed two viewpoints to substantiate the
model. The first view has been aligned with the economic exchange
perspective which emphasizes the members' commitment to unions due
to instrumentality perceptions of the union. This view implies that
unions are able to improve the terms and conditions of workers. The
second view deals with the social exchange perspective which considers
the union as a source of support for its members.
Objectives of the Study
The paper attempts to analyse the impact of different factors like
perceived union loyalty, perceived union instrumentality, perceived
'them and us' attitude and the collectivism at workplace on
the trade union participation in the organized leather industry in
Kolkata.
'Union loyalty' can be defined as the pride in union a
member possesses (Gorden et al., 1980). In other words, it can also be
explained as the continuous mental as well as physical association of a
member to an organization talking about his /her occupational interests.
'Union instrumentality' has been explained by the Newton and
Shore 1992 as the economic exchanges of union membership in terms of
cost benefit analysis. 'Them and us' has been explained as the
basic difference between the management and the workers side (Metochi,
2002). 'Collectivism' has been comprehensively explained as
closely linked individuals willing to give priority of the group
interests rather than individual one (Cregan, Bartram & Stanton,
2009).
Hypothesis
Based on above objectives, following hypotheses has been framed:
H1: Perceived union loyalty is a significant factor influencing
trade union participation.
H2: Perceived union instrumentality is a significant factor on
trade union participation.
H3: Union members perceived 'them and us' attitude is a
significant influence on the willingness to participate in trade union
activities.
H4: Workplace collectivism significantly influences the trade union
participation of the workers.
Data Collection
The sample consists of seven leather units of Kolkata with the
presence of the trade unions. Specific care has been taken to shortlist
these units with at least 20% unionized workforce, from both regular and
irregular categories. It has been observed that most of the unionized
workers are from the operational categories. Very few supervisory staffs
and no managerial employees have been found to be unionized in these
surveyed leather units. 350 questionnaires were distributed in manual
forms in the selected seven companies, 50 questionnaires for each
organization. After rejecting the incomplete questionnaires 254 valid
questionnaires were used for data analysis purpose. Hence, the response
rate was 72.5 percent. The responses to the questionnaire were
registered on a 5-point Likert scale. The data has been collected during
a period of 90 days in the January -March 2012 period.
Testing of Reliability
The internal item consistency reliability has been examined with
Cronbach's alpha test. The coefficient has been calculated for the
aggregate sample of 254 respondents. The result shows that alpha value
of each instrument has been above .7, which suggests the internal
reliability of the instrument is satisfactory.
Testing of Validity
The validity testing of the questionnaire has been done by using
factor analysis. The factor loadings of .30 or higher is normally
considered in the interpretation as a factor. Whereas the factor
loadings in the range of 0.30-0.40 are considered to meet the minimal
level for interpretation of structure, loadings 0.50 or greater are
considered practically significant. Factor loading exceeding +0.70, is
considered as being indicative of a well-defined structure Union
loyalty. union instrumentality, 'them and us' attitude,
workplace collectivism and union participation had 32 items and the
results of factor loading over 0.5 for each item has been produced by
principal component factor analysis. The internal consistency of items
within each variable has been shown by Alpha coefficients being greater
than 0.60. The results showed that construct validity of the
questionnaire has been at a satisfactory level.
Results
The hypotheses have been tested by using statistical techniques of
correlation and linear regression analysis. As final hypothesis of the
study involved in testing the aggregate effect of all the variables on
union participation, multiple regression analysis has also been
conducted.
The correlation between union loyalty and union participation is
0.582, which is the strongest association compared to other variables.
The correlation coefficient is .305 at. 05 significance level in between
the union instrumentality and union participation. This shows a moderate
relationship between these two variables. Two other correlations, namely
between 'them and us' attitude and union participation as well
as the correlation between workplace collectivism and the trade union
participation have been found to be not significant
The linear regression analysis (Table
3) attempts to explain the level of significance of impact of four
variables on trade union participation in the sample leather units.
There is a positive association between perceived union loyalty and
union participation.
R square for the union loyalty (.338) implies that 33.8% of the
variance in union participation in trade union of the operational level
workers is explained. At the same time only a small margin of error (e =
.83) is involved in the regression line. It can be concluded that there
is a positive association between perceived union loyalty and union
participation. Therefore, the first hypothesis is proved.
The second hypothesis is the association between perceived union
instrumentality and union participation. The linear regression analysis
shows that R square is .093 with standard error of estimate of .967,
which implies a slight impact on union participation. The F value is
16.160, which is significant at 5% level (p = .05), suggesting that
union instrumentality has significantly explained 9.3% of the variance
in union participation.
The third hypothesis implies a positive relationship between union
members' perceived 'them and us' attitude and trade union
participation by the workers. The simple regression analysis indicates F
value of 1.380, which is not significant at 5% confidence level. Hence
it can be concluded that there is no significant relationship between
union members' 'them and us' attitude and trade union
participation.
There is no significant relationship between union members them and
us attitude and trade union participation.
The fourth hypothesis is also not accepted as the R square value
.003 with the F value of .455 is not significant at the 5% confidence
level, though the correlation coefficient indicates a positive
relationship. Hence the hypothesis signifying the relationship between
the workplace collectivism and union participation is not substantiated.
Conclusion
The study has found the empirical evidence to support that the
perceived union loyalty and union instrumentality have positive
significance impact on trade union participation union members. However,
'them and us' attitude and workplace collectivism have not
been observed to have significant impact on trade union participation in
the sample leather units.
Limitations
The study however has the following limitations:
* All the data have been collected through single source self
reported measures. Therefore, common method variance may be a major
problem. Responses of individual survey items may not be truly
independent as there has been a chance influence of group membership.
Further research has the scope to limit this shortcoming.
* This study is also limited to four factors of trade union
participation of the operational level employees in the sample leather
units of Kolkata. Future studies can be done regarding trade union
participation of non-operational employees of the same industry.
Reference
Agarwal, M.L. (1984), "Trade Unions in India-Trends and a
Gandhian Perspective", Indian Journal of Labor Economics, 26 (4),
1984:400-08.
Ashdir, Vijay (1987), Industrial Relations in India, Deep and Deep
Publications, New Delhi
Acharji, Nilma (1980), Trade Union Leadership Profile, Ambica
Publications, New Delhi
Aziz, Abdul (1974), "Aspects of Trade Unionism in
Karnataka", The Economic Times, June 21, Bombay
Ashraf, M.S. (1974), "Political Affiliations of Industrial
Workers-an Area study," Indian Journal of Industrial relations, 10
(2):48-53
Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K. & Bremermann, E.H. (1991),
"Pre-employment Predictors of Union Attitudes: The Role of Family
Socialization and Work Beliefs", Journal of Applied Psychology, 76
(5):725-31
Baveskar, B.S. (1974),"Sociology of Politics", in Survey
of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology, Vol. II, ICSSR,
Popular Prakashan, New Delhi
Bhangoo, K.S.(1987),"Trade unions in India : Problems and
Responsibilities ', in J.L. Rastogi et. al., Planning for
Industrial Relations Management, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi
Bolton, D., Bagraim J.J., Witten, L., Mohamed Y.,Zvobgo V. &
Khan M. (2007), "Explaining Union Participation: The Effect of
Union Commitment and Demographic Factors", Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 33(1):74-79
Cohen, A (1994), An Empirical Assessment of the Multidimensionality
of Union Participation, Journal of Management, 19: 749-73
Cregan, C., Bartram, T. & Stanton, P. (2009), "Union
Organizing as a Mobilizing Strategy: The Impact of Social Identity and
Transformational Leadership on the Collectivism of Union Members",
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47 (4):701-22
Deshpande, S.P. & Florito, J. (1989), "Specific and
General Beliefs in Union Voting Models", Academy of Management
Journal, 32: 883-97
Dayal, Ishwar & B.R. Sharma (1970), "The Strike of
Supervisory Staffs in State Bank of India, Progressive Corporation,
Bombay
Dayal, Ishwar & B.R.Sharma (1976), Management of Trade Unions,
Shri Ram Centre, New Delhi
Dufty, N.F. (1964), Industrial Relations in India, Allied
Publishers, Bombay
EDI (2009), Diagnostic Study Report of Kolkata Leather Cluster,
Kolkata
Fonseca, A.J.(1964),Wage Determination and Organized Labor in
India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi
Fullagar, C. & Barling, J. (1989), "A Longitudinal Test of
a Model of the Antecedents of Early Union Commitment: the Role of
Socialization Experiences and Steward Characteristics", The Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 15: 517-33
Gamage, Prasadini N & Hewagama, Gayani V. (2012),Deteminants of
Union Participation of Public Sector Organizations in Sri Lanka,
Srilankan Journal of Management, 31, Colombo.
Ganguli, H.C. (1954), "Relations of Union Membership to
Attribute of Industrial Workers", Indian Journal of Social Work,
15(3): 45-49
Gaur, G. L. (1986), "Trade Unionism and Indus trial Relations,
Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi
Ghosh, Deepak (1960),"Industrial Relations in Changing
Perspective", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 11 (3):156-62
Gordon, M.E., Philpot, J.W., Burt, R.E., Thomson, C.A. &
Spiller, W.E. (1980), "Commitment to the Union: Development of a
Measure and an Examination of Its Correlates, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65: 479-99, New York
Jaspal Singh (1980), India's Trade Union Leadership, National
Publishing House, New Delhi
Jinadasa, P.C.V. & Opatha H.H.D.N.P (1999), "An Empirical
Study of Membership Participation in Trade Union Activities :Evidence
from Selected Service Organizations in SriLanka", Sabaragamuwa
University Journal, 2 (1):17-31
Johri, C.K. (1967), Unionism in the Developing Countries, Asia
Publishing House, Bombay
Karnik, V.B. (1960), Indian Trade Unions: A Survey, 1st Edition,
Allied Publishers, Bombay
Karnik, V.B. (1965), Indian Trade Unions: A Survey, 2nd
Edition,Allied Publishers, Bombay.
Karnik, V.B. (1971) Indian Trade Unions: A Survey, 3rd Edition,
Allied Publishers, Bombay.
Kennedy, V.D. (1955), Problem of Indian Trade Unionism and Labor
Relations, University of California Press, California
Kulkarni,P.D. (1946) Textile Trade Unionism in Bombay," Indian
Journal of Social Work, 7(3): 67-69
Labour Bureau (Ministry of Labor and Employment, Government of
India) (2008), Report on Leather Industry Including Footwear and Other
Art Works in India.
Malhotra,P.C. (1963),"Indian Labor Movement -A Survey",
S.Chand and Company, New Delhi
Mathur, A.S. (1964), Indian Working Class Movement, Chaitanya,
Allahabad
Mathur, A.S., (1957, 1965), Trade Union Movement in India,
Chaitanya, Allahabad
Mathur, A.S.& P. Raman (1962) & (1971 repeat publication)
"Trade Union Leadership in India", Agra University Journal of
Researchers, 10: 97-110
McShane, S. (1986), "The Multi-dimensionality of Union
Participation", Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59: 177-87
Metochi, M. (2002), "The Influence of Leadership and Member
Attitudes in Understanding the Nature of Union Participation, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 49-72
Monga, M.L., Ashok (1981), "Commitment to Unionism",
Productivity, 22(3): 11-18
Mukherjee, Indrani (1985), Industrial Workers in a Developing
Society: A Sociological Study, Mittal Publications, New Delhi
Monnot, M.J., Wagner, S. & Beehr, T.A.(2011), A Contingency
Model of Union Commitment and Participation: Meta-analysis of the
Antecedents of Militant and Non-militant Activities", Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16(2), pp.189-216
Morrow P.C. & McElroy, J.C. (2006), "Union Loyalty
Antecedents: A Justice Perspective, Journal of Labor Research, XVIL
(1):31-52
Murphy, Eaman(1981), Unions in Conflict: A Comparative Study of
Four South Indian Textile Centres, 1918-39, Manohar Publications, New
Delhi
Nanda, A.C. (1968),Trade union influence in elections: a case
study, Economic and Political Weekly, 3(10), pp. 167-170.
Pandey, S.M. & Vikram, C.M. (1969), "Trade Unionism in
Delhi's Building Industry", Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations, 4 (3):298-321
Pattabhi, Raman, N.M. (1967) Political Involvement of India's
Trade Unions, Asia Publishing House, Bombay
Ramaswamy, E.A. (1971),"Trade Unions and Electoral
Processes", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,7 (2):118-29
Rao, M.M. (1984), "Union Leadership Profile in
Visakhapatnam", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 19
(4):502-06
Ray, Satyaki (2009), "Labor Issues in Unorganized Sector
Employment", Economic and Political Weekly, 12 (29
&30):1159-60.
Reindrop, Julian (1971), Leaders and leadership in the Trade Unions
in Bangalore, the Christian Literature Society, Madras
Report of Council of Leather Exports, Govt. of India, (2005)
Reveri, C. (1972),The Indian Trade Union Movement, 1st Edition,
Orient Longman Bombay
Reveri, C. (1979), The Indian Trade Union Movement 2nd
Edition,Orient Longman, ombay Council of Leather Exports (Government of
India) (2005), Reports 2005, 2009
Department of Labor, Government of West Bengal @010), Report 2010
Indian Leather Producers Association (2010), Report 2010, Kolkata
Sayles, L.R. & Strauss, G. (1953),The Local Union: Its Place in
the Industrial Plant', Harper Collins, New York
Singh, V.B. (1965), 'Trade Union Movement in India', in
V.B. Singh (ed.), Economic History of India (1857-1956), Asia, Bombay
Sharma, G.K. (1964), Labor Movement in India, Sterling Publishers,
Jalandhar
Sheth, N.R. (1960),'Trade Unions in an Indian Factory: A
Sociological Study', Economic and Political Weekly, 12,(29 &
30):1159-60
Soman, R.J. (1963), Peaceful Industrial Relations --Their Science
and Technique, Vora Publications, Ahmedabad,67-75
Shore, L.M., & Newton, L.A. (1995), Union--Member Relations:
Loyalty, Instrumentality and Alienation, in L.E. Tetrick and J. Barling,
Changing Union Employment Relations: Behavioral and Social Perspectives,
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., Sinclair, R.R. & Newton, L .A.
(1994), "Validation of a Measure of Perceived Union Support",
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 971-77
Tetrick, E.L., Shore L.M., McClurg, L.N. & Vandenberg R.J.
(2007), "A Model of Union Participation : The Impact of Perceived
Union Support, Union Instrumentality and Union Loyalty", Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92 (3):820-92
Table 1 Trend of Employment Creation in the Sub-sectors of Leather
Industry of Kolkata
Sub-sector No. of Employment Employment
units (2007-08) (2008-09)
Tannery units 224 8450 8900
Export oriented leather goods 236 23600 25000
manufacturing
Fabricator of leather goods and 1200 3600 3800
units catering indigenous
market
Industrial gloves manufacturer 31 4650 4800
cum exporter
Fabricator of gloves 200 6000 6000
Large scale footwear manufacturer 1 3000 2970
Small scale footwear manufacturer 25 1000 1100
Fabricator and house hold 2000 10000 10500
manufacturing units
Merchant Exporter
Leather goods exporter 96 1920 2000
Leather gloves exporter 11 220 250
Total 4024 62440 65320
Source: Diagnostic Study Report of Kolkata Leather Cluster, EDI
(2009)
Table 2 Growth Pattern of Trade Union Membership
in Kolkata Leather Industry
Year Approx. total Approx. rate of change
union membership over the previous
year membership
(in percentage)
1989-90 5916 NA
1990-91 6760 14.27%
1991-92 7270 7.54%
1992-93 7305 0.48%
1993-94 7690 5.27%
1994-95 8100 5.33%
1995-96 8789 8.50%
1996-97 9600 9.22%
1997-98 10200 6.25%
1998-99 10560 3.52%
1999-2000 10733 1.63%
2000-2001 11414 6.81%
2001-2002 10500 -8%
2002-2003 10900 3.80%
2003-2004 11150 2.29%
2004-2005 11600 4.03%
2005-2006 12133 4.59%
2006-2007 12545 3.39%
2007-2008 12300 -1.95%
2008-2009 12716 3.38%
Source: Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal
(2010)
Table 1 Reliability of the Instruments
Item Variables Cronbach's
No. Alpha
1 Union loyalty 0.856
2 Union instrumentality 0.751
3 Them and Us 0.745
4 Workplace Collectivism 0.725
5 Union participation 0.893
Table 2 Correlation among the Variables
Variables Mean Std. Correlations
Deviation
Union Union
loyalty instrum
-entality
Union Loyalty 3.09 0.970 1.0 .550 *
Union instrumentality 3.40 0.824 .550 * 1.0
Them and Us 3.18 1.012 .144 * .373 *
Workplace Collectivism 4.02 0.589 .139 .294 *
Union participation 3.17 0.844 .582 * .305 *
Variables Correlations
Them Workplace Union
& Us collectivism par-
ticip
-ation
Union Loyalty .144 .139 .582 *
Union instrumentality .373 * .294 * .305 *
Them and Us 1.0 -.007 .093
Workplace Collectivism -.007 1.0 .054
Union participation .093 .054 1.0
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)
Table 3 Linear Regression Analysis
Variables [R.sup.2] Adjusted [R.sup.2]
Union loyalty .338 .334
Union instrumentality .093 .087
Them & Us .009 .002
Workplace collectivism .003 -.003
Variables Standard Error F value Sig.
of the Estimate (p < .05)
Union loyalty .82609 80.745 .000
Union instrumentality .96702 16.160 .000
Them & Us 1.001 1.380 .241
Workplace collectivism 1.014 0.455 .501
Table 4 Summary Results
Hypothesis Hypothesis
No.
1 Perceived union loyalty is a significant
factor influencing trade union participation
2 Perceived union instrumentality is a
significant factor on trade union participation
3 Union members 'perceived them and
us attitude' is a significant influence on
willingness to participate in trade union activities
4 Workplace collectivism significantly
influences the trade union participation of
the workers
Hypothesis Significant/ Con-
No. Insignificant clusion
1 Significant Hypothesis is
accepted
2 Significant Hypothesis is
accepted
3 Not significant Hypothesis is
not accepted
4 Not significant Hypothesis is
not accepted
Indranil Bose is Senior Assistant Professor, Department of
Management Studies, Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management &
Technology, Bareilly 243001. E-mail:sentindranil@gmail.com. R.K. Mudgal
is Registrar and Senior Professor, Teerthanker Mahaveer University,
Moradabad 244001. E-mail: registrar@tmu.ac.in
