Himalayan Times (1955)

Ten

'iStmutatmu J.tmt

October 2, 1965

For, though a new
Government was born,
though management
changed hands and policies
were altered the labourers,
in most instances, were
treated merely as a part
of the gardens, bought
and sold like a commo-
dity even as the tea
bushes. Even as before
the employer was conten-
ted to know his labour
casually, if at all—to
know their faces and
names perhaps, but not
their weaknesses and their
strengths, their interests
and ambitions, their
fortunes, follies and hob-
bies, faotors vitally in-
fluencing industrial peace
and social well being Con-
cessions seemed to be
granted reluctantly, not
because 1 the employer
desired the welfare of the
workers, but because he
was bound by the laws
of a Democratic Govern-
ment. This failure on the
part of many higher exe-
cutives to appreciate the
workers' reactions ciused
wholesale policies, however
oonsciously adopted, to be
misunderstood and their
usefulness to be nullified.
Thus, in many cases, the
very welfare-moves them-
selves were accepted with
suspicion. Welfare Officers
and visiting nurses were
looked on as spies, bulle-
tin boards were interpreted
as devices of propaganda,
and first-aid facilities
ridiculed as mere fussing

over the minor injuries
of 'He-men'.

And the social diffe-
rence between the mana-
gement and workers re-
mained the gulf it was.
Communications between
them broke down either
through deliberate intent
or beoause of some weak
and undesirable links in the
length of the chain. Mis-
understandings followed
and the worker's mind
turned to self-protection
and even retaliation. He
believed he was being
exploited and dep/ived of
his legitimate rights, so
Le took recourse in de-
fensive measures—organi-
sations, unions, demands
and strikes. The need for
employee representation
was born. It was unfor-
tunate that in some cases
the leaders chosen should
have been motivated by
wrong ideals or ignorant
of the true functions and
principles of a Labour
Union. It was still more
u-nfortunate that some
employers should have
adopted a prejudiced and
antagonistic attitude to-
wards the unions frcm
the start.

There is no set for-
mula for industrial co-ope-
ration and peace, but
whatever the approach it
must have as its source
sincerity and a desire to
seek an equitable solution.
A Labour Union serves
a much more socially de-

sirable purpose when it
recognises mutuality of
interests than when it
magnifies differences. Em-
ployee representation plans
should be so designed to
bring the employer and
his workers closer together
for the benefit of both.
To the extent that this
is accomplished such a
programme actually pays.
If the representation plan
arises out of a feeling on
the part of the employees
that it fills a need in
their work situation, it
will expand. It is foolish,
ness in an employer to
resent or combat it. In
fact, if used intelligently,
the organisation will faci-
litate industrial peace.
_This of course does not
imply that the employer
should take the demands'
of labour organisers lying
down nor that union lea-
ders should adopt belli-
gerent attitudes in making
demands for demand's
sake or merely to create
an impression among the
workers. There should be
a sound social and eco-
nomic philosophy which
should be adhered to
with due regard for mu-
tual rights. Suspicion on
the part of either will
breed suspicion in tha
other; mutual trust and
respect in one will tend
to command the same
qualities in the other.

The success or failure
of a Labour Union de-
(Continucd on page 12)