NOTICE

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 Nov 1979

To:

Dear Friends

                                                              NOTICE

It  is reported  that the  Bharatiya Kamgar Sena at a Gate Meeting held on Friday, the  23rd November 1979, directed the workers to resort to  'Go slow' in work to secure the demands of reinstatement of  8 workers, full wages for  the period of suspension  of  operations  & subsequent  strike,  additional ex-gratia  bonus,  etc.    in  response  to  this  direction, workers, particularly  key personnel, have  started absenting from  work, work to  rule,  go  slow, refusing  overtime etc. Which  have  disrupted  the  essential services  in  canteen, transport etc.  The  shop floor workers have also slowed down their performance in work  and are resorting to sporadic work stoppages  under the pretext  of  non-availability of canteen services on time.

Employees are  aware  that the  issue of  reinstatement  of 8 workers  has been  referred to  industrial  Tribunal for  its adjudication and the  issue of payment of full  wages for the period of suspension  of operations and strike  is before the Arbitrator in accordance with  the Settlement dated March 17, 1978. In this Settlement the Union/workmen   have categorically  agreed  not  to  resort  to  strike,  go  slow tactics and  any other type of agitation on these two issues and  that  they shall  cooperate  with  the Management  in maintaining   discipline and improving production and productivity.

The actions on  the part of workmen, described above, amount to  serious  misconducts  under  the  Standing  Orders, and illegal strike/unfair labour practices in  contravention of the provisions of  the industrial Disputes Act and Maharashtra Recognition  of  Trade  Unions &  prevention  of Unfair Labour Practices  Act.  These acts are also in breach of the terms of the binding Settlements dated March 17, 1978 and January 12, 1979.

All workers are hereby advised not to indulge in such indisciplined and illegal acts and to restore normalcy forthwith.

Although, the issues/demands raised by the BKS Union are subjudice, it would have been more natural for  the Union to discuss these  matters with the  Management across  the table in a peaceful and congenial working atmosphere, rather than resorting to unjustified direct action.

H.C. PAREKH

PRODUCTIVITY - "PRODUCT" OF THE BRAIN BY THE BRAWN

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).

1 Nov 1979

To:

Article Published in Powai Pageant

PRODUCTIVITY - "PRODUCT" OF THE BRAIN BY THE BRAWN

Someone said recently that productivity is yet another name for hard work. The  definition   is  elegant   for  its simplicity. It is a  simple statement of an otherwise complex subject.  It  is also a brief statement.   It has, therefore, both  the key  attributes  of  mathematics  - simplicity  and brevity.

Looking beyond this  simple definition, the word  'productive' makes  us think  of  the manner  in which  this  hard work-or effort-was applied.   Was all that  hard work effective?   The cause  and  effect   relationship is  brought  into  picture. Obviously,  effort   is the   "cause".  But  was   the  effort "effective"?   Did it produce  the desired result?  Or did  it produce any result at all?

Now we  see the light!   No matter how  "hard" the effort,  it is  no good  - not  productive -  unless  it produces  certain "effects" - the results.

Long before  man invented  the circle,  he used square  wheels on stone-age carts.   You can imagine the effect?   (Those who drive on Bombay  roads do not have to stretch their  imaginations).   It called for applying  a lot of effort  but did  not take  one  very  far!   It  also  took  a  long  time  to  get anywhere.   Although time was not  important, the effort  was, so when  the stone-age cart Mark II, with circular  wheels was test-marketed, it was an  instant success!

Someone  had finally  hit the  key  - how  to multiply  muscle power  by brainpower  -  the "product"  of  the brain  by  the brawn.   From this "product" came  "productivity".   This then is  the more  involved definition  of productivity.   Life  on earth was never  going to be the  same again!  Let us  look at the change the definition underwent.

From,

                                  effect =F  (effort)         

                                  (i.e. effect is a function of effort)

we moved into      

                     effect = F (effort x brain)

So we  learned how to enhance  the effect for  the same given effort through  application of  intelligence.  Alternatively, for the  same given  effect, we could  use much  less effort, using mental skills.

Productivity, therefore, means using both body and  mind simultaneously, for easier attainment of a given end-result.

Although  there is a  limit 'beyond which the  body cannot  be prodded  to greater  effort,  there does  not seem  to be  any such limit  to mental  powers.  When  the two are  multiplied, the  results can  be fantastic.   The history  of mankind  has proved  this again  &  again.  Depressingly, more  often  than not, this  multiplication has  been used  for the self  rather than for the benefit of mankind.

In so far  as productivity means producing  more for the  same effort or  producing the  same quantity  for less  effort,  no one would  have any quarrel.   This was  particularly so  when it  concerned  one's  own   efforts  to  gain  an   individual advantage.   Such a situation,  however, did not  last  beyond the days of the caveman who hunted alone for food.

For  an end  objective, (in  this case  food  - shall  we  say survival?)  - co-operative  effort  emerged as  early  as  the caveman-hunter  era.  Co-operative  effort was synergetic  and certainly  more  productive.   The  co-operative  effort   was problem-solving in so much  as it was an answer (solution)  to the  question of  survival.   Co-operation also  improved  the chances of attaining the desired solution.

One does not know for sure,  but at this stage one or more of the following things happened:

1.  Some persons with a  greater sense of survival     desired  greater  (than  equal)  share of  the     end-result.

2.  Some persons  with  greater mental  or greater     physical abilities  desired a greater  share -    a share  out of  proportion to  their physical     effort contribution.

(This  was  a couple  of  million  years  before  man  stopped working for  himself and  started working  for the  Income Tax Department;).

Anyway, we see  here at once, the roots of Marx-Lenin's  class struggle  as   also  Lord  Mahavira's   Asteya  principle   of desirability  of minimum  wants.   As  long as  an  individual desired  to take more  out of  the Society  than  what he  was prepared  to give  to the society  by  way of  his effort,  no societal  wealth could  be created.   In such  a situation  an individual   could  amass   wealth  only   at   the  cost   of impoverishment  of  some  other  individuals,  the  sum  total remaining the same.

It is only  when every member of  the society gave more  to it than  what  he took  away,  could  societal  wealth  increase. Create  more,  consume  less.   Contribute   more, distribute less.  This, then is the principle of  the Wealth of Nations.

Now you  will notice  the relevance of  the earlier  remarks. Productivity  became  a  dirty  word  only  when   it  became synonymous with exploitation of the efforts of  the others to gain personal advantage for a few.  This  was particularly so in  a cooperative  venture  like an  industrial  organisation where  necessary  persons  of  varying  physical  and  mental skills must work together towards a common goal.

Even in an indealistic situation where  nobody took advantage of  nobody,  the question  of  establishing an  equation  (or rather an inequation - mathematically  speaking.' ) between the contributions of thousands  of employees, each  possessing an unique  combination of physical  and  mental  skills, remains intractable.   Although  some   norms  of  overall  Corporate Productivity  can  be established  for  a  given venture  and could prove  to be a  useful yardstick  if used consistently, the enormous complexity of  a modern business venture renders all but  impossible any attempt at measuring  an individual's contribution to that overall productivity gain.

Any overall productivity index tends to mix up the  effect of several resource inputs in the denominator of  the simplified formula.

Productivity  =  Output

                                                                                 input

The same is true  of the selection of any numerator,  such as sales, cost of production, profit, etc.  Therefore, the only true measure of labour productivity can be equated as

Labour productivity  =  Physical output

                                                                               Labour manhours

The foregoing  equation  is particularly true  for a  diversified  operation,   considering   that,  at  macro-level,  no single  index   can  be  found   which  can   isolate  labour productivity,   it   appears   inescapable   that   all   the manufacturing units  must establish  work standards  in terms of  the standard  hours for  the production  to be  achieved. The ratio  of the  standard hours to  the actual  hours would then indicate an  individual's or a group's performance index or productivity level.   Output as measured by  the number of physical units  for a given  unit of time is  something which is easily  understood by all concerned.  This  brings us back to  where we started,  namely hard  work -  for what  is hard work other than doing more in the same period of time?

H.C. PAREKH

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).

11 SEP 1979

To:

Dear friends

PRODUCTIVITY

In  joint discussions  between the  Management  and Bharatiya Kamgar  Sena  Union   representatives  held  during  last  few months  immediately following the  wage settlement,  both the parties  have expressed  their  firm  commitment to  increase productivity, to keep our products competitive.

During  the  review  it  was  found   that  the  productivity increases, as  stipulated in the  Settlement, have  not taken place  in large  areas of  operations  although these  should have been achieved within three months of the Settlement.

This has become an area of major concern and we  have jointly drawn  up  action  plan  to  identify  specific  productivity targets and make efforts to achieve them.

It  is  recognized  that the  targeted  increases  in  Labour Productivity can mainly  come from the  collective efforts of all the workmen and the Supervisory staff.

It  is  agreed  to implement  the  following  with  immediate effect:

1.   Maximum  utilization of  working time  on the  machines/ jobs thereby eliminating unproductive time.

2.   Full  cooperation  in ensuring  adherence  to  specified  work timings and maintaining discipline.

3.   Cooperation  in  implementing agreed  job-classification  as provided in the recent Settlement.

4.   4.   For  areas   already  covered by  productivity  indices,  efforts   at   individual    level   to   increase   the  Productivity indices to the level as per the Settlement.

5.   5.   For  areas   with  no  Productivity   Indices  coverage,  increase, the  Productivity level by  25 points over the December 78 performance level.

6.   Holding of structured 3-tiered meetings at

     -  Shop floor level

     -  Unit level

     -  Powai level

on  a regular  basis, to  review and  improve productive performance.

The  BKS Union has  reaffirmed  its concern for  the need  to raise productivity and has 'agreed to extend full cooperation in the matter.   This can be achieved only with  the positive attitudes,  the  recognition of  the  motto 'Productivity  or Perish  and the whole-hearted  acceptance that  productivity is  the  concern  of  every   individual  employee.   We  are convinced that this is the major way  to ensure sustained and successful operations, resulting in growth of  the company in which all of us have. joint stake.

We are sure,  as in the past, all the  employees will rise to the  occasion,  with  an all-out  effort  to  achieve  higher levels of  Productivity and not allow  individual problems to interfere with the attainment of the common goals.

H.C. PAREKH

5-DAY WORK-WEEK IN CITY OFFICES

 

5-DAY WORK-WEEK IN CITY OFFICES

 

August 14, 1979

Work-Week

 

 

 

To,

Mr. S. R. Subramaniam

Vice-President,

Larsen & Toubro

 

 

I have examined this from 2 view-points:

 

1. Disadvantages to the city office staff/ city office operations:

 

1. Longer working hours as a result of spreading 38 ½ hours in 5 days.

 

2. Late-coming / Early-leaving will further go-up.

 

3. If 5 day working is introduced in the Bombay city offices, it would be difficult to resist introduction in regional / branch offices. With differing regional holidays, this would reduce the effective “interaction” days between various offices.

 

4. Customer visits will crowd the 5 days and thereby reduce effective hours for other work.

 

5. Sales staff will want to return to the home-base for the long week-end and restrict traveling / outstation visits to 5 days only.

 

2. IMPACT AT POWAI-WORKS:

 

Any decision to implement a 5 day week at city offices would result in a similar demand from Powai works employees.

 

It is quite likely that the union may let the Supervisors and the Managers of Powai to initiate such a demand. It would be to their advantage in 2 ways:

 

1. To embarrass the Management
2. To keep their options open.

 

If the Management were to accede to any such demand, it can only be with the con-currence of the Union. If it can be made to appear as a “Management – Requirement” to change the no. of working days at Powai, the Union would be in a position to submit its own “conditions” – two of which will be most prominent viz.

 

-         38 ½ working hours for all

-         no reduction of wages.

 

In the enclosed chart, I have tried to illustrate 6 different situations, which show the most likely combinations of the working-hours for different category of employees. Of these situation #1 and situation #2 are the most likely and the two-ends of the spectrum.

 

Whereas, the major obvious dis-advantages have been shown on the chart itself, I would like to list below some of the general problems, that could result from 5 day working.

 

The General Problems :-

 

1. Overloading of:

 

-Canteen Services

-Transport Services

-Medical Services

 

2. Holidays falling on long-week-end :-

 

    There could be a demand for substituting these on “Working “ days.

 

3. Since a good number of maintenance workmen work on the “Weekly –off” and get a       compensatory “Off ” on a working day, a long (2 day) week-end would pose problems.

 

4. One day’s absenteeism, instead of being (16%) 1/6^th of a week, would become (20%)1/5^th of the week.

 

 

5. Impact of a general power cut would be much more sever than at present.

 

6. There could be some un-anticipated problems with regard to PL/SL/CL.

 

7. Prefixing-Suffixing of a Single-day SL/CL to the long week-end may go up.

 

8. Reduced contact with the outside world in general.

 

9. There could be an increased tendency for “outdoor visits” to customers/ suppliers at the beginning and at the end of the working day.

 

10. COST will certainly go-up due to

 

1. Delay in dispatched of Finished Goods and higher FG inventory

 

2. Delayed arrival of raw materials / components from suppliers leading to assy. line hold-ups and higher WIP inventory – also a tendency to hold higher stocks of critical components.

 

3. Working Capital requirement going up due to higher WIP / FG / inventory.

 

4. Overtime working on long week-end may go up steeply.

 

5. If man-hours and / or machine-hours available in a year, are reduced, the “hourly-rate” will go up by the same extent. This would have the effect of pushing-up all cost-estimates. If on the other hand, the physical output per hour does not go up by the same extent, profitability will seriously go-down.

 

6. It must be remembered that even if the 47 working hours are not reduced but equally spread over 5 days, the physical output will go down due to the over-lap of shifts.

 

DIAGRAM

 

11. GENERAL

 

Supervisory / Managerial staff at the factory, who put in extra working hours, will no more be able to do so.

 

Trade Apprentice training will suffer (Quantity & Quality-wise)

 

For want of time, I have not been able to summarize the foregoing comments into “compartments” of

 

1. Impact on Production – Quantity

-         Quality

-         Cost

 

2. Impact on productivity

 

3. Impact on Discipline & Morale

 

4. Use of Leisure hours & Quality of Life.

 

5. Impact on Services & Infrastructure.

 

6. Long – term Future implications.