<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01649pab a2200181 454500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="008">180718b200O   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">hal, ManoranjanS</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">rade unionism: perceptions and attitudes of workers, managers and leadersD</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">200O</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">.177-98.T</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="362" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">ct3</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">his study, based on a questionnaire survey in South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, examined the perceptions and attitudes of actors of the industrial relations system.  Workers were found to be satisfied with the approach of the management but not with union leaders.  Managers were also trying to adopt people building strategies and gain the confidence of workers through establishing direct channels of communication with them and bypassing the union.  They considered union leaders as obstacles, not willing to maintain good relationships. Union leaders succumbed to pressure due to the loss of membership and lack of participation of workers in union activities.  They were satisfied with the prevailing union-management relationships but considered management as an opposing force, as they were working towards decreasing the membership, and creating multiplicity for their own interests.  Thus, union leaders had to bear the responsibility to increase membership, work for the success of the union as well as maintain a favourable union-management relationship.  Implications of the findings for the management and union leaders are briefly discussed. - Reproduced. </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Managersp</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">rade unions</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">rivastava, B.L.T</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Indian Journal of Industrial Relations</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">54756</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">54756</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">54756</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">Volume no: 82, Issue no: T</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR55201</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
