Author
Listed:
- Rizabuana ISMAIL
- Ria MANURUNG
- Mhd Reza ARDILLAH
- Ivana TIAR
Abstract
Working environment concept is an indicator of the workers whether they do their job in harmonious working environment or not. Plantations in Indonesia as the legacy of Dutch colonialization is still regarded as preserving inharmonious working environment and condition, structurally and culturally. This research was done at one unit of plantation at the area in Simalungun Regency which is the property of a state-owned company in North Sumatra province. Samples consist of workers in administration (office), processing techniques (factory) and plantation workers at afdeling who has been working for more than 5 years. Based on Anova test, it is found that there are two workers groups with different views about working environments, which are between workers in office and workers in factory, and on the other hand the workers at afdeling. There are four items of QWL discovered in the research that could explain the differences in working environment on both workers group, which are: 1). inharmonious situation arises on income variable and insufficient compensation, 2). the disparity of income through overtime of afdeling workers which causes inequality, thus results in high level of inconvenience, fatigue and overwhelm. 3). The harmoniousness is seen among afdeling workers but the inharmoniousness appears among other workers in other sections. Appreciation towards managerial side was given by the workers because the workers’ job-related inputs were acknowledged. 4). Inharmoniousness resurfaces when quality time with family is reduced due to long working hour especially to receive additional fee. Afdeling workers consider this disturbing the harmoniousness in working environment.
Suggested Citation
Rizabuana ISMAIL & Ria MANURUNG & Mhd Reza ARDILLAH & Ivana TIAR, 2018.
"Distinction On Location And Work Contentment: Qwl Study On Palm Oil Plantation, Indonesia,"
Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 18(2), pages 117-128.
Handle:
RePEc:eaa:aeinde:v:18:y:2018:i:2_8
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eaa:aeinde:v:18:y:2018:i:2_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: M. Carmen Guisan (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.usc.es/economet/eaa.htm .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.