PRODUCTIVITY

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).

28 May 1984

To:

Dear Mr.

PLEASE, CALL A GATE-MEETING!

Sub: Productivity

I refer to my letter addressed to the Gen. Secretary of the BKS Union, L&T Unit, dated April 11, 1984 on the above subject, with copies to you and your Gen. Secy. and my subsequent  letter addressed to you dated May 9, 1984 with copy to Gen. Secretaries - Sena Bhavan &  L&T Unit, Powai.

As you are aware, all efforts are being made to achieve within three months from the date of signing the Settlement an improvement of 25% in productivity, over the productivity levels achieved during the currency of 1979 Settlement with the active cooperation of the local Committee members.

I am forwarding herewith copies of my recent letters addressed to the Shop Representatives on the same subject.

In the Powai-Level Productivity meeting held on 8th May 1984, the Gen. Secy. (L&T Unit) has offered to speak to the Shop Representatives in this matter and assured us of his team's fullest cooperation in the matter. He further assured that neither he nor his colleagues would defend such workmen who are unwilling to give increased production.

As mentioned in my letter to you dated May 9, 1984, I am convening the Powai-Level productivity Committee meeting on 8th June 1984 at Powai, and would greatly appreciate if you could make it a point to attend this meeting and address the participants on improving productivity to achieve the agreed levels.

I would also request you to address a gate meeting preferably on the same day to tell the workmen to live upto the commitment made by the Union at the gate meeting held on 29th March 1984.

To make it convenient for you, I am shifting the meeting of the Powai level Productivity committee to 1.30 p.m. in the afternoon, so that you will be in a position to address the gate meeting immediately thereafter. I assume you will issue the circular regarding the gate meeting.

Around the 4th or 5th of June 1984, I would be sending to you statements showing productivity levels achieved during the currency of the 1979 Settlement and April-May 1984 for your advance information which would be screened to the participants on 8th June 1984 meeting.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

H.C. PAREKH

COMMUNICATION

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).

May 22, 1984

To:

Dear friend,

I am inspired to dialogue with you once again. In the months to come, you will hear from me and I do hope you will also talk to me. A dialogue is a two-way traffic !

If you are wondering why I was "silent" for the last one year or so, the obvious reason is that the Union office bearers kept me awfully busy  and you cannot blame them since they were merely following your wishes!

Coming back to what has inspired me again, someone asked me the other day in the worker Education Class.

"Sir, why have you stopped sending us "Japan Works O.K.","Britain Works O.K." etc ?"

I turned around and asked others what they thought of these write-ups.

There were several voices, all at one time, saying that they had enjoyed reading these articles  and that they really missed these! Yes, they would like me to share with them what is happening around the world in the matter of productivity and in the matter of industrial relations (to me, simply "human relations in the industrial context"). So here we go again !

This time it is a real-life report on the American car industry - all the way from the city of Detroit.

If you have an atlas at home, try this evening to locate Detroit on the map.

Way back in 1956, I spent one summer vacation in this city, working as a draftsman in a tractor manufacturing company. Every Sunday (Saturdays I used to work overtime!) I used to take a long walk on a road called "Grand River Avenue". Mile after mile after mile, on either side of this road, one could see yards filled with thousands of second hand cars -some of these hardly one or two year old models and none more than 5 years old !

The thought that used to pass my mind was - How cheaply are Americans able to manufacture brand-new cars so that they can afford to buy a new car every third year? Apparently they were able to produce them fast (in fewer man-hours than any other country) and produce them cheap (at a lesser cost than anyone else).

This was 28 years ago when many of you were not even born and I had not heard the word "Productivity".  In those old fashioned days, the Americans simply worked "hard" and worked as a "team". They just had to be "best" and the "first" and in this one matter there was no difference of opinion between the Unions and the managements.

From the enclosed article you will notice how the American car industry has completed one full circle in these 28 years - from excellent Union-Management cooperation of 1956 to total confrontation of 1970's and back to the cooperative mood of 1984.

But then it is natural to forget the internal differences and unite to protect yourself against an external enemy. Could it be that this recent show of unity and cooperation is only because the workers and the managers - both are equally concerned about saving their jobs ?

And if this is the reason, what would happen when the Japanese competition slackens? Will the Union and the Management resume their attitude of confrontation? Today, both the Union and the management regard Japan as "Enemy No. 1". When they have defeated Japan through increased productivity (brought about by increased cooperation), will they start fighting each other?

If this happens it would be indeed very sad.

Sad, because this repeating cycle (of hate and forced love) cannot go on very long before it completely destroys the industry. I hope the American managements and Unions realise this and learn to love each other naturally and permanently.

In L&T, our products are not facing any competition from abroad because imports are not allowed.

But competition from other Indian companies is getting fierce. If you wish to know how serious is this competition, request your production manager to invite the concerned Sales Manager to your next unit level Productivity Committee Meeting. He will tell you that the Indian customer today has many "options" - other than L&T.'

In L&T, can we take a lesson from Detroit, and learn to cooperate naturally while we still have time?

Hemen Parekh

THE TRUTH ON PAGE

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).

18 May 1984

To:

Dear Shop Rep

THE TRUTH ON PAGE 3, PARA 4

Productivity

Months of negotiations are over and a copy of the Settlement is already with you – except that this time it is a cyclostyled copy and the colour is light blue!

I assume that you have read the Settlement carefully. You are expected to study and understand the Agreement. When a worker approaches you with a problem, it is your privilege to explain to him the relevant clauses.

If you have some doubt yourself, feel free to seek an explanation from either the foreman or the manager of your department. And as far as consulting your unit Joint-Secretary is concerned, I don't think I even need to advise you on that !

But there is one clause in the Agreement which I personally wish to draw your attention to.

You have guessed it right; This is the clause on page 3, para 4.

By now, I suppose you have also guessed correctly what I am going to say next.

And do you know why you were able to guess correctly ?

Because you know the TRUTH;

-     the truth regarding page 3 para 4

-     the truth that it is a commitment for increasing productivity by 25% within 3 months of signing of the Agreement.

-     the truth that relatively there is very little improvement in the productivity-levels anywhere in Powai during the 5 weeks since we signed the Agreement.

-     the truth that an L&T worker is quite capable of  increasing productivity by not a mere 25% but may be even 50% (as I mentioned at the Gate-meeting) if only he made-up his mind to do so.

I have brought these facts to the notice of those who have made this commitment (see enclosed letter-translated for you from the original English version). I sent it because I think I owe them a feedback. I also furnished shopwise details at the Powai level Productivity Committee meeting held on 8th May 1984.

Now I am writing to you because I feel, you too, ought to know my grave concern at this alarming situation. I am sure your unit Joint-Secretary must have also. spoken to you regarding his concern - after all he has signed the agreement on your behalf.

The point is - if the union has bargained hard (and I should know how hard!) and delivered unprecedented fantastic benefits to the workmen, they have also committed, on behalf of the very same workmen, to deliver 25% productivity increase.

If they have done this on your behalf given their word of honour - staked their personal reputation - will you let them down?

But this is exactly what will happen if productivity does not go up, as promised, by 25% !

A feeling of let-down; And the Unit committee will not be alone in feeling this way. I too will feel the same way!

There is still time. Can we, for once, prove to ourselves that we are men and women - of honour ?

H.C. PAREKH