Union experience of social dialogue and collective participation in India

The labor regulatory framework in India provides a conducive environment for social dialogue and collective participation in the organizational decision-making process (Venkata Ratnam, 2009). Using data from a survey of workplace union representatives in the federal state of Maharashtra, India, this paper examines union experiences of social dialogue and collective participation in public services, private manufacturing, and private services sector. Findings indicate that collective worker participation and voice is at best modest in the public services but weak in the private manufacturing and private services. There is evidence of growing employer hostility to unions and employer refusal to engage in a meaningful social dialogue with unions. These findings are discussed within the political economy framework of employment relations in India examining the role of the state and judiciary in employment relations and, the links between political parties and trade unions in India.

Do labour laws protect labour in India? Union experiences of workplace employment regulations in Maharashtra India

The debate over labour market regulations in India is highly polarised. Advocates of labour market deregulation suggest that the labour law framework in the country confers disproportionate powers on workers and trade unions in the formal sector of the economy, resulting in industrial conflicts and poor productivity. Using workplace union survey data from the state of Maharashtra, this paper examines the veracity of these claims. Maharashtra is recognised as a state with a broadly pro-worker labour law framework. We find that even pro-worker labour laws at best offer only weak protection to workers and unions in the formal sector establishments. Unions find themselves increasingly vulnerable to employer hostility. We discuss these findings in the context of the role of state and judiciary in employment relations and of union links with political parties.

Survey of General Optical Council disciplinary and fitness to practise hearings:2001-2011

The aim of this survey was to review 187 transcripts from the United Kingdom’s General Optical Council (GOC) Disciplinary and Fitness To Practise (FTP) Committee hearings from 2001 to 2011 in order to identify common themes and thereby help practitioners to avoid the more frequently occurring pitfalls that were recorded during this period. The study covered changes in GOC FTP regulations in 2005, which involved a change from a disciplinary to a fitness to practise process. The number of cases was very small compared to the total number of optometrist and dispensing optician registrants, which was 13709 in 2001-02 rising to 18582 in 2010-11. The main findings indicated that between 2001 and 2011 there was a three times greater likelihood that male registrants versus female registrants would be brought in front of a GOC Disciplinary or FTP Committee. In terms of erasures from the GOC registers between 2001 and 2011, male registrants were also more likely to be erased than females. The male: female split for erasures between 2001 and 2011 was five: one, increasing to seven: one when considering the situation post the 2005 GOC FTP rule change. Of the cases brought before the Disciplinary and FTP Committees between 2001 and 2011, it was noted that cases implicating theft and fraud were most frequent representing 27% of hearings examined (17% involving NHS fraud and 10% theft or fraud from an employer). The examination of transcripts revealed other hearings were more complex. These hearings often had a primary reason for the investigation that highlighted further secondary concerns that also required investigation.

Managing the multiplicities of graduate level education! Are Master’s students’ expectations matched by their experiences?

With rapid increases in student fees reflecting moves towards a QUASI Market model of Higher Education in the UK and across much of the Western World[1], many universities find themselves having to meet progressively higher levels of student expectations[2]. This is particularly the case at undergraduate level, where increases in fees over the past decade have far exceeded inflation. Yet with so much attention on ‘consumer savvy’ undergraduates, the question of whether Master’s level students’ expectations are matched by their experiences is one which remains largely unanswered. Grounded in an empirically grounded approach to learning and teaching developed by the paper authors[3], this paper sets out to being to answer this question. In doing so it makes a distinctive contribution to debates about graduate level engineering education and concludes with a number of recommendations. Discussion: The ‘MSc: Managing Expectations’ Project analyses the expectations and experiences of Graduate level Engineering Management Students over a two year period. Focusingon the ‘student experience’, three main concepts are identified as being particular relevant to enhancing learning [3]: Relationships: Variety: Synergy. Relationships: Based on empirical research, the significance of Relationships within the academic environment is discussed with particular attention being paid to the value of students’ social and academic support networks, including academic tutoring. Variety: Grounded in a statistical analysis of ‘engagement data’ together with survey and interview findings, the concept of variety critically examines students’ perspectives and experiencesof different approaches to learning and teaching. Synergy: Possibly the most important concept discussed within this paper, the need for constructively aligned curriculum is extended to reflect the students’ apriori knowledge and experienceas well as employer and societal demands and expectations. The conclusion brings the different concepts within the discussion together, providing a set of practical recommendations for colleagues working both at graduate and undergraduate level. References 1.Gibbs, P. (2001) "Higher education as a market: a problem or solution?." Studies in Higher Education 26. 1. pp. 85-94. 2.Tricker, T., (2005) Student Expectations-How do we measure up. University of Sheffield. Available from: http://www.persons.org.uk/tricker%20paper.pdf Accessed 9/10/14 3.Clark, R. & Andrews, J. (2014). Relationships, Variety & Synergy [RVS]: The Vital Ingredients for Scholarship in Engineering Education? A Case-Study. European Journal of Engineering Education. 39.6. pp. 585-600.