Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
R Shireesha PGP10102
Incorporated in 1981 as joint venture between government on India and Suzuki Motor Corporation(SMC)
SMC equity increased to 50% in 1992Installed capacity of 3,20,000 units per year
Major competitors included General Motors, Daewoo, Hyundai, Ford, Mitsubishi and
TELCO
So, far MUL enjoyed monopoly in the small car segments but was facing competition from
Hyundai and TELCO
The built in capacity of the industry was around 1million units whereas the demand was
only of half a million domestically
All the companied were reducing the production and the manpower
BUSINESS STRATEGY
Revised every
four years
Last schema lapsed in
March 1999
New scheme in negotiation since
September 2000
MUEU wanted productivity norms of 1988-
89(25 cars per employee)
MUL offered 1998-99 base year(70 cars per year)
• Effects of competition in automobile industry and this can be attributed as one of the
reason for attack on the workers
• Conflict between the Government and Suzuki may have been the cause of unrest
among employees
• Introduction of SCANLON type incentive scheme. The union demanded reinstatement
of the original incentive scheme which had been in place prior to 1995, according to
which 65% of all savings in labour-cost above the norm set
• Mandatory requirement of signing a ‘good conduct undertaking’
AGITATION AT MUL
Mathew called for strike on September 19, 2000
MUEU paid wages to suspended and dismissed workers from union fund
CONCLUSIONS
lack of collective bargaining and the absence of convincing response from the management.
The workers lacked the work ethics. Unlike the Japanese and Korean workers, Indian workers did not
care about the impact of their agitation on the viability of the company and the attitude of customers
management were more sensitive to labour and labour was equally concerned about the product
market development
A win-win situation would be based on the approach where management ceased to insist on good
conduct undertaking and let the workers go to work gracefully
The union took a long term view of the company’s viability and competitiveness, moderated its
scheme based on a composite criteria of productivity
Thank you