The Way Labor Policies are Managed in China and India
The way that labor policies were managed in China and India contributed to advancements and changes in work relations in both nations. Despite their commitment to raising worker quality, the two countries tackled the situation in quite different ways. This is particularly clear in the way they handle trade conflicts and labor unrest. The state's engagement in employment relations has led to their current state in both nations. Trade unions have a significant impact on how employees respond and how labor laws are formed. China basically relied on overall control of all labor regulations. They aspire to prioritize the interest of workers through complete control of trade unions and prevention of similar groups that can disrupt such authority over employment relations. On the other hand, India is similar in a way that trade unions are also controlled in a political sense. However, different politically inclined parties may have varied interests in the diverse groups. India's more flexible trade unions often cause disputes between workers and employers. The conflict sometimes leads to the development of labor regulations. Any reform is allowed as long as it is still governed by the country's existing laws. While both India and China are similar in their intentions of putting the interest of workers as a top priority, the two nations differ in their style of regulating trade unions whereas the former allows flexibility while the latter exercises monopolistic control.
China
China's socialist style of governance affects all aspects of the state. It includes the economy and how the labor regulations are created and applied. Thus, the nation's monopolistic style of leadership also applies to their employment relations. Political control has been established in all areas of their economy. The intention is to make sure that China's growth remains constant. Such belief also affects the treatment of their workers. The laborers' interest is always upheld by the country.
Through various political mechanisms, China has control over trade unions and their actions (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.506). As mentioned above, the country intends to make sure that their economy grows while making the interest of workers a priority. Unlike other countries with more than one trade union, China has a firm hold over a single one. This makes their employment relations system synonymous with a unitarist perspective. Monopoly allows them to maintain control over any kind of labor regulations and disputes. The official trade union in China is led by a specific party in the country (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.506). The group is actually considered as the majority in the nation. Any attempts to make unofficial trade unions are taken care of through their strict labor code. This system is actually akin to a Marxist theory application for China's employee relations.
The official trade union is required to serve dual functions that include being a part of the state apparatus and being able to represent the interest of workers (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.506). It could be noted that the former should be the main priority of the group. Thus, the trade union is required to function for the state first before representing the workers. It is understood that the nation is always acting in good faith for the interest of the laborers and the people of the republic.
The trade union is state-controlled and cannot resist any form of policy reforms in labor (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.507). Once a new regulation is created, it needs to be applied. It does not matter if there are resistances; actions related to disputes would be immediately stopped based on their existing laws. While some people may attempt to counter any reforms, the state would always have the last say for the matter.
Some proponents have criticized China's control over their employment relations and its related processes. The presence of a single controlled trade union is actually one of the major criticisms in the country. This kind of monopolistic approach was deemed by some as counterproductive to the economy of the nation. Current effects of such were actually felt recently. The absence of independent trade unions is affecting the development of related institutions (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.507). Some critics suggest that this is just the start. Others are blaming the current criticisms of those who are against the monopolistic approach.
China currently experiences collective disputes in labor despite the state's control and containment of trade unions (Wang, 2016, p.727). While the country has maintained close monitoring of regulations to prevent protests, it is bound to happen after years of suppressing worker complaints. This action took its toll over time. In the case of China, now is the current time for the people to finally come out in the open and complain. Worker protests have increasingly grown in recent years (Wang and Elfstrom, 2016, p.84). While the country held its ground by maintaining control through attempting suppression of any kind, current technology is not by their side. People are learning to communicate with each other regarding their complaints about the existence of a controlled trade union and the prevention of any disputes when labor reforms are enforced. They could use current technological advancements to disseminate various information against the current monopolistic approach of the government regarding trade unions.
Despite attempts of disputing current labor reforms and policies being enacted by China's official trade union, the country stands firm in its reiteration that the current approach would work and would benefit the many through economic growth. The nation has emphasized the advantages of their system while attempting to disregard the disadvantages. China's socialist economic position offers job security despite controlling various labor regulations and the trade union itself (Hasmath and Ho, 2015, p.24). This means that the country is emphasizing the fact that people who work without disputes would be rewarded an almost lifelong work offer. This emphasis reiterates China's initial intention of putting the interest of workers as a top priority.
India
In terms of numbers of workers, India is second only to China. Actual figures emphasize the fact that the workforce of both countries is a good gauge of employment relations. Thus, comparison of the two nations is inevitable not only by growth but also through how they deal with their respective laborers. A lot of workers in India belong to sectors that are unorganized or not incorporated. This kind of structure emphasizes the flexibility of employment relations that could be found in the country. Such a system brought about the state of trade unions in the country.
Most trade unions in India are affiliated with political parties in the country (Bhattacherjee and Ackers, 2010, p.106). This means that a lot of them may have the support of a specific politician. Some believe that such trade unions are being used to further the vested interest of a specific party. While this may have created doubts regarding the sincerity of such group, the efficiency of this setup can be found in its flexibility. The advantages are accurate to the concept of a pluralist theory as applied in employment relations.
Trade unions in India enjoy the right to form as long as it is under the country's regulations (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.499). Despite some early hindrances, trade unionism had been allowed to develop. A specific process and purpose are needed in order to undertake the creation of a group. Thus, most trade unions need the backing of a political party. This partisan system creates people who agree to join together for various mutual benefits. While the efficiency of the process is often challenged by critics, it creates more freedom for workers to express their complaints regarding their working conditions. While the laborers can voice out their concerns, they should do it within the bounds of the law. State interventions are usual strategies being employed to maintain discipline in the system (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.499). Thus, workers can't just complain without a valid reason or without going through proper due process first in their workplace.
The labor market in India is governed by the Trade Unions Act (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.499). Everyone needs to follow the proper process of doing things related to employment and employee relations. While there is more flexibility in the country and anyone can basically form a trade union, they should all follow the rules and regulations. Workers can't just form the group without proper due process. Thus, the need for political partners arises once again. Partnerships are usually taken advantage of to the detriment of the employers. Because of that, India has a lot of informal workers who are usually self-employed in unorganized sectors. Some employers would rather have this setup in order to avoid the powerful voice of the workers that are often represented by trade unions.
Some employers believe that they are at a disadvantage in terms of dealing with the possible impact of current regulations involving trade unions. They usually blame the labor regulations and the backing of a political party. They believe that their voice should be heard too. Employers complain about rigidity in labor regulations, but studies found out that trade unions are not the main reason for that (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.500). However, existing policies are still being pointed out by owners as a possible challenge for them. From this point of view, it is understandable why India's market economy is composed of unorganized sectors. By not formalizing their businesses, laborers cannot form a trade union. In the case that such a move is not possible, owners rely on other tactics to maintain their businesses. Employers control trade unions through job freezing and voluntary retirement schemes (Sundar and Ratnam, 2007, p.502). By doing these, they believe that they could offset the challenge they usually encounter in dealing with such a group of workers.
Similarities Between China and India
One of the main similarities between the employment relations of China and India is the fact that their respective governments claim that they only have the interest of their workers as the top priority. Both nations' leadership also intervenes in case such a move is needed. Through the establishment of a system that allows the existence of a trade union, China and India claim that such a move supports the growth of their respective economies.
Both China and India maintain a trade union system that is backed by a specific party. Such affiliation may discourage some business owners from further pursuing a venture that involves hard labor. For both countries, local entrepreneurs prefer casual workers with no permanent benefits in order to offset the demands of trade unions (Hasan, Mitra, and Ramaswamy, 2007, p.477). Since state intervention is involved, the employers would have a hard time implementing ways for them to save costs involving labor. This is the case in India wherein the emergence of the unorganized sector was triggered by the country's policies. For China, it is imperative that one has the backing of a political ally to the party that controls the trade union. If not, the business may not flourish because of worker disputes. A collective bargaining agreement is also present in both countries. This allows the workers to have a specific set of confirmations that they should follow.
Differences Between China and India
Both China and India are heavy on manpower, and thus, employee relations are a huge factor in their system. The two countries offer very different ways of adopting their various policies. Unlike China, India's trade unions have become a factor to avoid massive use of their manpower for foreign enterprises (Ahmad and Pages, 2009, p.65). This is especially evident in European or American countries that are international in nature. It is a known fact that China offers cheap labor for large enterprises. In order to save a lot of costs, global companies take advantage. On the other hand, India protects its workers from this kind of low wage treatment. This difference in adoption and implementation can be traced to how the two countries manage trade unions.
China believes in a monopolistic approach and would probably set labor policies that could benefit the government. They practice the principles of a unitarist employment relations theory. Disputes are also not allowed in the reforms. Thus, a lot of Chinese people just follow the regulations to avoid repercussions. On the other hand, India has a more flexible approach to trade unions. Thus, the voice of the workers has more weight in terms of decision-making compared to China.
While both countries enjoy political backing, the implementation is very different. China's trade union is ruled by a specific majority party. All decisions are to be implemented by politicians belonging to that group. On the other hand, India's trade unions are backed by various political parties. They follow the concepts of a pluralist theory in employment relations. However, some may have vested interests and are using such affiliation to pursue those motivations.
Another major difference is the existence of an official trade union. China only has one while India basically allows more than that as long as it is bound by the country's regulations. Such difference can actually be traced by the very nature of their markets. While China has an organized structure, India has unorganized sectors.
Conclusion
China and India are the two most prominent countries in terms of the number of workers. Thus, it is interesting to take note of their various employment policies, especially those that affect their respective trade unions. Some proponents argue that India may have had the upper hand because of a more flexible system in place. However, this is not the case. Employment increase has noticeably been stronger in China despite relatively stronger restrictions in the country as compared to India (Herd and Dougherty, 2007, p.69). One may argue that cheap labor may have been the real explanation for this success. However, any country could actually do that, but they still have a low employment rate. While India and China differ in their styles of treating labor unions and worker complaints, both believe that they are putting the interest of their laborers as the top priority.
References
Ahmad, A. and Pages, C. (2009). Are All Labor Regulations Equal? Evidence from Indian Manufacturing. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1): 62- 75.
Bhattacherjee, D., and Ackers, P. (2010). Introduction: employment relations in India - old narratives and new perspectives. Industrial Relations Journal. 41(2): 104- 121.
Hasan, R., Mitra, D., and Ramaswamy, K.V. (2007). Trade Reforms, Labor Regulations, and Labor-Demand Elasticities: Empirical Evidence from India. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3): 466- 481.
Hasmath, R., and Ho, B. (2015). Job Acquisition, Retention, and Outcomes for Ethnic Minorities in urban China. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 56(1): 24.
Herd, R., and Dougherty, S. (2007). Growth Prospects in China and India Compared. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 4(1): 65- 89.
Sundar, K.R.S., and Ratnam, C.S.V. (2007). Labour Reforms in China and India: Reform Aggression (China) Versus Reform Allergy (India)! The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 50(3): 497- 512.
Wang, K. (2016). Labour Resistance and Worker Attitudes towards trade union reform in China. Employee Relations, 38(5): 724- 740.
Wang, K., and Elfstrom, M. (2016). Worker Unrest and Institutional Change: Perceptions of Local Trade Union Leaders in China. China Information, 31(1): 84- 106.
