IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/wp01853.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Disputes and dispute resolution: the effect of union density on employee intention to quit-the Indian scenario

Author

Listed:
  • Rai Himanshu

Abstract

A review of the existing literature suggests that employees in unionized workplaces have significantly more voice mechanisms present than in non-unionized workplaces. In India, historically, the trade unions have played the role of an agent of social and economic changes, protecting and enhancing the interest of its members and trying to squeeze more and more out of managements through bargaining or conflict. Unions protect workers directly from arbitrary discipline while providing management with a means of managing the work force that does not call on the use of overt sanctions since industrial action performed an additional voice function. It is observed that meaningful and lasting employee participation occurs only when the union has sufficient power to induce the management to forgo some of its traditional prerogatives; the union and management share a vision of how participation could serve the interests of both the parties; and when the union has substantial institutional security. Presence of a powerful collective bargaining machinery and proactive communication between the management and the unions not only minimises the grievances but also promotes healthy industrial relations. Workers have a reduced capacity to initiate issues and articulate grievances in the non-unionized workplaces and they enjoy comparatively less benefits than their unionized counterparts. While workers joined unions because they thought unions could protect them against victimization, secure the wage increases, and ensure job security and improved conditions of work, on the other hand, in the absence of unions, employees may not raise disputes because of fear of victimization, fear of being branded disloyal to the organization, and fear of reprisals by the management. Based on the literature review and analysis, a framework linking union density, employee prolificacy to raise disputes, management propensity to make decisions unilaterally, and workers intention to quit has been suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Rai Himanshu, 2004. "Disputes and dispute resolution: the effect of union density on employee intention to quit-the Indian scenario," IIMA Working Papers WP2004-10-03, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:iim:iimawp:wp01853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iima.ac.in/sites/default/files/rnpfiles/2004-10-03rai.pdf
    File Function: English Version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Benson, 2000. "Employee Voice in Union and Non‐union Australian Workplaces," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 38(3), pages 453-459, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Marsden, 2013. "Individual Voice in Employment Relationships: A Comparison under Different Forms of Workplace Representation," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52, pages 221-258, January.
    2. Michael Barry & Adrian Wilkinson, 2016. "Pro-Social or Pro-Management? A Critique of the Conception of Employee Voice as a Pro-Social Behaviour within Organizational Behaviour," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 54(2), pages 261-284, June.
    3. Kelly Pike, 2020. "Voice in Supply Chains: Does the Better Work Program Lead to Improvements in Labor Standards Compliance?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(4), pages 913-938, August.
    4. A. Tarik Timur & Daphne Taras & Allen Ponak, 2012. "‘Shopping for Voice’: Do Pre-Existing Non-Union Representation Plans Matter When Employees Unionize?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 50(2), pages 214-238, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iim:iimawp:wp01853. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eciimin.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.