Impact of Globalization on Industrial Relation (India and Malaysia) - Assignment Example

 Industrial Relations Impact of Globalization on Industrial relation A comparative study of India and Malaysia Executive Summary Globalization is a motivating factor for economy and industrial relations. The paper analyses the past and present of two Third World economies; India and Malaysia. When comparing two nations, India and Malaysia, there are marked differences in how both countries have evolved in areas of labour relations, human resources, and the level to which government entities or policies regulate both foreign and domestic industry. India is much more developed and maintains a skilled labour force equipped with modern theories on cultural communications. Malaysia, on the other hand, is slowly developing and does not maintain the liberal opportunities provided to other workers in countries like India. This puts Malaysia at a larger competitive disadvantage to India in terms of capability in industrial relations. This report identifies the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the Indian and Malaysian industrial environment and offers recommendations to improve these problems in both countries. It has been recommended that both countries’ industrial leaders invest more time and financial investment into developing better human capital for business success and positive industrial relations. Diversification strategies for India are also recommended. Indian Industrial Relation According to Ramaswamy and Ramaswamy (1981), three important pieces of legislation have played a major role in shaping Indian industrial relation. They are: the Trade Union Act, 1926(TUA), the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946(IEA) and the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(IDA).These enactments are significant not merely in themselves, but also in the way they have interacted upon each other to produce a distinct Indian system(Gupta and Sett 2000,144).1 There are several state and federal laws beside these three acts which regulate industrial workers and setting. Central and state government are authoritative and responsible for monitoring and conformity of workers and their welfare. An established labour organisation system is currently working on both state and national level. Chief Labour Commissioner directs several regional Labour Commissioners and labour enforcement officers are implementing laws. The same system is enforced on state level by state labour commissioners, officers and inspectors who monitor and labour laws regarding local issues.2 During 70s Indian economy was shattered; global economic turmoil 1970, oil shocks of 1973 and 1978 knocked Indian economy and made it nearly impossible to achieve the growth target. It slowed down the industrial production process, increased inflation above 10 per cent and constrained labour markets. This scenario gave rise to economic insecurity which brought intense problems to union movement that made industrial disputes more complicated and frequent.3 Dissatisfaction with the Congress-led INTUC saw the formation of many new unions affiliated with more radical political organizations. Some aligned with the socialists who broke away from congress, others with the radicals who broke with the Communist Party of India. As unions proliferated there was also an increase in inter union rivalries. While unions struggled to negotiate the volatile economic condition, the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi called a National Emergency between 1975-7.This had significant implications for industrial relations. Under the terms of the Emergency the right to strike was suspended, wages were frozen, annual bonuses reduced and increments in the cost-of-living allowance were transferred to a compulsory saving scheme. As a populist measure, the government also amended the Industrial Dispute Act making it a requirement that enterprises employing more than 300 people receive government permission before retrenching workers. This amendment effectively politicized employment relations.4 The whole scenario caused independent fragmentation among unions that were not associated with mainstream politics. It happened due to disappointment by central bargaining regimes by unions that were not allied with INTUC. In 1982, amendment of Industrial Dispute Act made employment security more complicated for smaller firms. The moves to reconsider the limitation of this law also proved to be unfruitful. In 1984 after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, Rajiv Gandhi’s economic development model promoted export-oriented industrialization which exposed domestic business to international competitive challenges. This new India’s economy pressurized the old establishment of employment security and labour movement and introduced new dynamics. This progressive economy opened avenues for more market flexibility by means of sub-contracting, fixed term and temporary labour contracts. Big firms fragmented into smaller ones and freed themselves from government permission before laying-off employees. Sick Industries and Companies Act 1985 was introduced which legalize the closure of poor performing company; it destabilized employment security and shrank the employment growth.5 Political and economic turmoil continued in the late 1980’s and by 1990 the Indian government faced a macro-economic crisis. In 1991, India was forced to accept an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout package subject to a variety of neo-liberal reforms. The conditions of the IMF loan included the gradual removal of protectionist trade barriers, the promotion of foreign investment, financial sector restructuring...these conditions did little to rectify the low rates of employment growth registered in the 1980s as public sector employment was cut, organized manufacturing was forced to restructure in the face of competition, and secondary labour markets expanded offering workers only casual, low-paid and insecure employment. Self employment was increased. As the economy continued to open up to competitive pressures may aspects of prevailing systems of industrial relations were revealed to be out of date and unable to the dual needs of labour market flexibility and employment security.6 Impact of globalization on Indian IR Indian government’s concerns about India labour laws and industrial relation systems capability to meet the requirements of globalizing economy directed them to establish the second National Commission on Labour (NCL).The commission was asked to identify that how current labour laws are rationalized and what is lacking that can be included in new legislation for employment protection. But the commission became politicised due to the differences between stakeholders; government, unions and employer groups which means almost no implementation of the recommendations from commission. Consequently, since 2000, India’s effort for reforming labour law and industrial relation framework continue to stagger. On the other hand, challenges posed by globalization, privatization and liberalization continued to deepen.7 In spite of the broad consensus among politicians, industry and even parts of the labour movements that the existing system of industrial relation is in dire need of modernization, a string of fragile coalition governments, well organized resistance by the labour movement and political volatility at the national level, has meant the political context has not been robust enough for any government to implement the reform agenda. A frustrated BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government tried to use the 2001 Central budget as a vehicle to change labour law and promote economic flexibility. However, the unions labelled the reforms ‘anti-worker’ and the government never tabled the proposed legislation in the parliament. In 2002, when the final recommendations of the NCL were handed down, the union movement again resisted change. The NCL report suggested the existing legislative framework be rationalized into a single ‘Labour Management Relations Law’, which would consolidate that Trade Unions Act 1926, the Industrial Employment Act 1946, and the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 into a modern industrial framework. Part of reform package included liberalizing retrenchment procedures and reducing the conditions under which government approval had to be sought before closing an enterprise. The report argued for new industrial framework, including provisions for the appointment of approved ‘negotiating agents’ to bargain and settle disputes with management. Unhappy with the way report shifted the balance of power from labour to capital, the union movement again labelled the recommendations ‘anti-worker’ and passionately resisted the reforms. Persistent union agitation and the 2004 general election meant change was once again delayed.8 Indian Party, Unions, Organized and unorganized sector Gupta and Sett state, the most striking features of Indian industrial relations law are: absence of provisions on recognition of a trade union as a collective bargaining agent and the omnipresent role of the government in regulating the industrial relations. Mere registration of a union under the TUA does not entitle it to recognition by the employer as a legitimate representative of his workers, or to the bargaining relationship that would arise from such recognition. Under the IDA, the government enjoys full discretionary power whether or not, when, and how to intervene in an industrial dispute—actual or threatened. It may or may no decide to conciliate, it may refuse to send a dispute for adjudication or it may even decide not to implement the award of a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. While it may prohibit strikes or lock-outs, or it may refuse permission for a lay-off, retrenchment or closure, no court can take cognisance of an offence under the IDA, by way of an illegal strikes/lock-outs/lay-off/retrenchment/closure, unless the government formally notifies such an action as illegal and makes a complaint to the court. In total, in India, the government plays a vital role in shaping the industrial relation climate. Also, the adjudication system is so structured and manned that the state apparatus exercises substantial influence over its functioning.9 History and background In India industrial relation is controlled and dominated by government. The three mentioned industrial relation laws are a gift of Indian colonial era before independence.IDA is more or less the imitation of Defence of India Rules, section 81A.It was implemented to control the industry and to produce wartime products in 1942, for Second World War.10 After independence, when initial attempts to reform IDA and TUA were shelved, state was sought to be justified on the grounds of the need for industrial harmony in order to achieve speedy economic development. Intervention by the state was also required, it was argued, to ensure social and economic justice to the workers, who were perceived to be weaker. An ironic consequence of this like of reasoning, which could not later on be changed on populist political considerations, was that the emergency measures adopted by the British to fight the war, which bestowed upon the state an overwhelming interventionist role, continued to rule the industrial relations scene of an industrializing nation with a democratic political set-up.11 Highly synchronized and centralized economic development plan in a series of five years plan shaped a powerful industrial economy. In the beginning, this development was dependant on state centric industry and import substitution. Later on, this economic model developed a huge public sector in addition to the hundreds of public sector unions. During 1950-1 to 1961-2 the number of registered unions augmented to 11,614 from 4623.12 Indian state established itself as principal mediator of capital labour relation to stimulate the economic development process. Government took control over labour by IDA 1947, TUA 1926, ruling Congress Party regulated union federation and the National Trade Union Congress (INTUC).IDA does not provide the procedures for determining any delegate union which can act as bargaining agent leaving government with no commitment to get into collective bargaining. TUA 1926 failed to recognize union which strengthen the government powers and authorized state to regulate working conditions and wage issues. Consequently, Indian state established itself as chief mediator at the expense of limitation on organized labour in addition to the firmly regulated INTUC in public sector. This scenario immediately after independence gave rise to an unpredictable phase for industrial relation system.13 Current Issues in Indian IR/globalization Indian industrial relation is facing some fundamental issues, for example, Indian labour market structure, huge unorganized workforce and its establishment outside the mainstream industrial system. Considering India’s demographic profile, it ought to be the top priority to develop a flexible system for all workers that can accommodate the expected increase in workforce in coming years. Union movement and industrial system malfunction and women worker experience are some of the other issues faced by Indian industrial relation in India. Labour market flexibility and social protection are important consideration but the system that copes with the globalizing economy is at embryonic stage and facing lot of hitches.14 Malaysian Economy Malaysian economy is a success story and one of the top growing economies of the world. Exports are 61 per cent of the gross national product (GNP) that shows Malaysian dependence on global economic climate. Continuous growth and diversification in last twenty years has lessened the economic dependence on tin and rubber. Beside being largest exporter of tin and rubber, now Malaysia export palm oil, timer, natural gas, semiconductors, electronics, electrical products and textiles. This booming growth was slowed 1982 and 1985-86 due to declining prices in commodities, but Malaysia continued great economic growth export trade determined by foreign investment.15 Industry has supplanted agriculture as the major contributor to gross domestic product, manufacturing accounts for about 48 percent of export earnings. In the last few years, Malaysia’s GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 8.7 percent, making it among the highest in the world, and manufacturing has grown at about 15 percent annually. National and per capita incomes are increasing at a rate of 7 percent annually, and the per capita income—about U.S. $2,000—is higher than the per capita incomes of most Third World countries.16 History of Malaysian IR In addition to political regimes and market pressures, industrialization is still regarded as central variable in explaining industrial relations policies or transformations in industrial relation systems. The argument that stages or levels of industrialization is correlated with certain patterns of industrial relations and trade union influence has received particular attention...In Malaysia, industrialization strategies were largely a function of the ethnic tensions and the economic results of policies introduced to manage these tensions. I argue that the shift from an import-substitution policy to an export-oriented policy resulted in an increasingly inflexible and government dominated industrial relation system. In assessing the dynamics of change in the industrial relation system, three factors appear important. These include the demands of the industrialization strategy itself(EOI, based on low-cost, labour intensive manufacturing),the state’ dependence on foreign investment to sustain this strategy, and the state’s need to increase the economic efficiency of state-run plants, all of which constituted pressures for change in industrial relations.17 Favourable economic policies, cheap, compliant and skilled labour and developed infrastructure are the most inviting attraction for foreign investments which continued to increase. Malaysia facilitated the economy by well established infrastructure of 30,000 kilometres of paved roads, low-priced and plentiful electricity, efficient telecommunication and transportation systems. Foreign industry was low-cost and labour intensive in past but now it is evident that Malaysia is attracting larger companies as well. Japan and Taiwan alone account to 25 percent of total foreign investment. Malaysian industrial relations has been highlighted as exploitive with very little contribution of unions in actual decision making resulting low level of control on their rights.18 Industrial relation policy under ISI, restricted pluralism described policy during the import-substitution period; from the 1950s to 1977.The central pieces of legislation in the industrial relations sphere included the Employment Act of 1955,the Trade Union Ordinance of 1959,and the Industrial Relations Act of 1967.The principle that the government followed was essentially one of pluralism, based on the belief that workers required some degree of fair and humane treatment but also reflecting the view that economic development goals has supremacy over unfettered trade union riots.19 Unions used to be controlled by registration process; however, industrial problems and issues are resolved through collective bargaining. Seven persons could register as union but due to the discretionary authority of registrar the situation could result in otherwise. It is due to the fact that he could cancel registration if there is more than one union from same sector or due to any other reason that determines the nature of bargaining unit. One union per industry should have strengthened the power but registrar had the authority to abstain anyone from union activity. Unions could associate big federations but again registrar had the power to stop it. Consequently, we can assume that the main principle was that if registrar is satisfied about non-affiliation of trade union of affiliate then the permission will be granted. Big federations were integrated in the system as societies not as unions, for example, Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC).The policy is adopted to ensure government watch and control over development and nature of labour movement.20 Consistent with the notion of the supremacy of economic development goals, the subjects of collective bargaining were restricted. Unions were not permitted to bargain on issues relating to management decisions with respect to recruitment, promotions, transfers, job assignments, or termination of employment on account of dismissals or retrenchment. To encourage foreign investment, under the Pioneer Industries Ordinance, the state guaranteed that the terms and conditions negotiated with unions were not more favourable than the provisions of the Employment Act of 1955.Strikes were allowed, subject to various restrictions: notice to be registered with the registrar within seven days. The registrar then had ninety days to check the validity of the ballot results. In addition, under the Industrial Relation Act of 1967, strikes were prohibited once the dispute had been referred to arbitration by the minister of labour...if conciliation was not reached, the dispute could be referred to binding arbitration by the minister of labour in the Industrial Court, after a joint application was submitted from the parties or on the minister’s own initiative...Furthermore, all collective bargaining agreements had to be “cognized” (certified) by the Industrial Court. The court had the power to refuse to cognise if the agreement contained provisions that were deemed not to be in the national interest. 21 Industrial relations can be observed shifting after the implementation of policy under EOI that safeguard the interests of foreign investors and state. Skilled labour is still provided on cheap rates to keep the investors intact. On the other hand, state took more control and increased its influence circle which is moving from pluralism to oppression. It indicates the state is needed to improve the efficiency and productivity level of its owned enterprise and sustain EOI. The changed industrial policy of Malaysia led to crucial consequences; structure and institutional consequences and industrial relation practices of firms. Impact of these changes is clearly seen on industrial sector. Economy and plantation sector are not directly affected as they had a strong past of bargaining and well established union. However, this rapidly booming economy it is the manufacturing sector which decides the future trends.22 Comparison of India and Malaysia The existence of such a high volume of skilled labourers in India can actually serve to be a competitive disadvantage if a high volume of its domestic workers, such as those in software industries, bring high turnover rates to businesses as they seek other, competitive employment. Businesses, in order to succeed in today’s globalised economies, must be able to have diverse, skilled workers with knowledge of both internal process and the external, competitive environment. High turnover rates detract from human capital and thus can decrease productivity and business efficiency. The highly mobile environment offered by new mobile technologies and Internet-based services also gives these workers flexibility to explore foreign expatriate work because of their well-skilled educational backgrounds. Industrial relations in this region, from the labour perspective, could be negatively impacted as businesses struggle to retain their more valuable workforce members. Malaysia, on the other hand, offers its workers much less job security thus turnover rates are likely not an issue and businesses can continue to rely on their workers’ expertise for long periods until the business decides to downsize in the event of cost reduction needs. Malaysian industries can likely rely on their human capital in areas of negotiation or even labour bargaining more than the Indian industrial environment. The potential for positive industrial relations is also higher in India due to the type of foreign investment which has flooded this region, in comparison to its less developed counterpart, Malaysia. Outsourcing is a common business practice in developed nations (Tapiola 2002). India received a great deal of modern technology infrastructure development and support from Western companies which outsourced their areas of customer service and technology support to Indian businesses. This has given the existing workforce in India much more experience when dealing with foreign cultures. Historically, India has maintained a very collectivist culture, which tends to value the perspectives of the group rather than the individual and builds their beliefs and values based on what drives the social norm (Mathis and Jackson 2005). This type of social structure had governed India until just recent years with exposure to Western values in a variety of domestic Indian workforces. This brought new interest in consumerism and marketing using principles of promotion which appeal to lifestyle and interest, while being linked to the product itself. Indian consumers are now driven by new and modern principles of business, such as motivational strategy and theories of organizational culture, thus this collectivist attitude seems to be replaced with a more individualistic culture. This makes their labour and managerial forces well-suited to handle negotiations and business bargaining in a variety of industrial scenarios. Malaysia, on the other hand, does not have this type of trained workforce used to dealing with multi-cultural colleagues and business leaders. Internally, at the domestic level, there is enough difficulty attempting to loosen governmental restrictions and regulations and also achieve continued growth through current exportation and future expansion objectives. Western and European cultures are skilled negotiators used to working with different cultural values and beliefs when determining what kind of business strategy to approach and how to deal with clients and partners in foreign environments, much like the Indian industrial leader. Malaysia would certainly maintain a competitive disadvantage with bordering countries, such as China, which has a much more sustainable industrial environment that is well-developed if its labour force was not trained or developed on modern cross-cultural diversity theories. Successful adaptation of globalised environment requires, “flexibility through decentralization on firm-level structures needed to be present” (Bamber, Lansbury and Wailes 2004, 23). The highly regulated industrial environment, along with the lack of job security, speaks of a hierarchical structure that is very centralized in most businesses in Malaysia, which could be part of cultural views regarding the constitutional monarchy in this country. Malaysia and India are substantially different in terms of cross-cultural awareness and training in foreign industrial relations. Recommendation The Malaysian government should recognise that it is losing competitive advantage over more developed countries and is slow in taking an active role in a globalised business environment. Lack of job security comes from being unable to reach bargaining outcomes in similar proportion to that of other countries with a more progressive, people-focused work environment. Lack of job security can have any number of psychological outcomes, including anxiety, frustration or fatigue (Weiten and Lloyd 2005). Though Malaysia is pursuing a better globalised reputation by 2020, these changes are necessary today in order to build a more talented workforce and one which is prepared to handle the challenges of cross-cultural communications with a variety of clients and demographics. “Globalisation influences organisations that compete for customers with high expectations for performance, quality, and cost” (Friedman 2007, 158). These demands are creating a new linkage with human resources and the strategic planner in the organisation, giving them more interdependent roles regarding how to help the business achieve growth and profitability by maximising human capital. Human resources and a strong focus on people development is a very common theme in contemporary industry today which is something that both India and Malaysia should be focused on in order to improve their competitive standing in the globalised economy. Malaysia, however, clearly has more problems in this area than its counterpart, India. Interesting to this report, an organisation’s prestige as perceived by others significantly impacts motivation to perform and enhances organisational culture to augment industrial relations (Carmeli 2004). As a recommended strategy for both India and Malaysia, issues of business prestige, company reputation, and reinforcing the employees’ valued contribution to the business model should be highlighted to improve productivity in workers. Studies have found that these improvements in employee relations by creating a culture of prestige have positive impact on a firm’s financial performance and ability to conduct worthwhile industrial relations (Friedman). The Malaysian industrial environment would most benefit from this type of internal marketing, such as the construction of an employee self-serve intranet or other print publication which reinforces new concepts of potential job security through performance. Motivation when job security is low is fundamentally challenged, which slows industry success and even local economic growth. India should also look to find new opportunities to diversify its economy from being so strongly rooted in finance and stock investment. It was previously identified that global investors believe this a slow growth area in the near future. This expectation which foreign investors have about India has driven them out of investing in favour of new opportunities, which impacts the growth rate of the country. It is recommended that the government begin seeking out new industrial relations with different consumer-oriented manufacturers to diversify the product variety offered to a strengthening buying audience in India. This can give further education to its many citizens in areas of food preservation techniques, agriculture and farming, and other aspects of the industrialised economy. In turn this would create new jobs to keep the workforce from being so tightly wound around the technology sector and give the country new opportunities to compete in multiple industries. Advances in agricultural technologies, as well, have improved farming conditions and soil usability which could improve the domestic supply chain in the process. Maintaining positive domestic industrial relations with local commercial business is still quality business even in a globalised world. Finally, it is recommended that India be more proactive in adjusting to pressures from other foreign, globalised partners in industry. The changes to their accounting system took decades to incorporate into the business landscape in India which caused many business professionals to avoid this environment because of the inter-linked dependencies on currency value and financial reporting per quarter in the industrial environment. India has also been slow to respond to issues of labour management in terms of job provision and availability (by providing new training), which could have been driven by its historical collectivist culture. Indian industrial leaders and governments seem to operate under a crisis management view which handles issues as they arise, rather than conducting strategic analyses of the external environment to recognise trends in different industry sectors. Part of becoming a global player is to recognise upcoming opportunities and then to invest or divest as needed to remain competitive in the years to come. India did not seem to recognise that its strongest industry sectors were having problems with growth declines and did not have a diversification strategy in place to continue its competitiveness in foreign markets. Acting proactively in terms of strategy will give India more investment opportunities from foreign investors and help the country expand its globalisation efforts. Conclusion Both India and Malaysia have made significant changes in both culture and industry which has changed the pattern of work in both nations. Clearly, India is much better equipped to handle a multi-cultural role in a variety of diverse industry environments and maintains the well-trained staff necessary to engage international business leaders to create positive outcomes for the company. Malaysia requires a more tightly-focused strategy for improving worker skills development and to create an environment more rewarding for foreign investment in multiple industries. Offering incentives to different industrial players in the global environment will bring new opportunities for cross-cultural awareness and also improve Malaysia’s reputation as a growth catalyst, much like that of India during the last two decades. Changes in labour have not fully improved Malaysia’s competitive position, even losing ground with bordering countries, therefore internal and external strategic analysis is required. The process of globalisation brings together many different viewpoints, strategies, opportunities and risks to a nation, however the end result is usually a more well-skilled workforce equipped with modern philosophy of multi-demographic workplace interaction and successful negotiation strategies. This process also merges industry practice and process, giving new opportunities to develop better and more innovative technologies, consumer products and agriculture, amongst countless other benefits. India and Malaysia still require internal changes to their domestic labour and education policies in order to improve competitiveness through human capital. Reference Ramaswamy, Uma.1981. Industry and Labour: An Introduction. Calcutta: Oxford University Press. in Gupta, Anil, K. & P.K.Sett. (2000).Industrial Relation law, employment security and collective bargaining in India: myths, realities and hopes. Industrial Relation Journal 31:144. Hill, Elizabeth.(2006).The Indian Industrial Relations System: Struggling to Address the Dynamics of a Globalizing Economy. Journal of Industrial Relation 51, no.3 (2006):395-396, http://jir.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/3/395 Bhattacherjee, Debashish.2006.Organized Labour and Economic Liberalization in India: Past, Present AND Future 105. Discussion paper presented at Labour and Society Programme, International Labour Organization in Geneva. Bhattacherjee, Debashish. (2006). The Evolution of Indian Industrial Relations: A comparative Perspective. Journal of Industrial Relation32, no.3:244-63. in Hill, Elizabeth. (2006).The Indian Industrial Relations System: Struggling to Address the Dynamics of a Globalizing Economy. Journal of Industrial Relation 51, no.3:395-410. Kuruvilla, S. (1995). Industrialization strategy and industrial relations policy in Malaysia [Electronic version]. In S. Frenkel and J. Harrod (Eds.), Industrial and labor relations: Contemporary research in seven countries (pp. 37-63). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/39. Bamber, G., Lansbury, R. and Wailes, N. 2004. International and comparative employment relations. Globalisation and the developed market economies. 4th ed. Singapore: Southwind Production. Benson, J. and Ying, Z. 2008. Trade Unions in Asia, Routledge Studies in the Growth Economies of Asia Series, No. 84. London: Taylor & Francis Routledge. Carmeli, Abraham. 2004. The Link Between Organizational Elements, Perceived External Prestige and Performance. Corporate Reputation Review, London. Vol. 6, Iss. 4, pp.314-332. Commander, S., Chanda, R., Kangasniemi, L. and Winters, A. 2008. The Consequences of Globalisation: India’s Software Industry and Cross-broder Labour Mobility. The World Economy, Oxford. Vol. 31, Iss. 2, p.187. Friedman, barry A. 2007. Globalization implications for human resource management roles. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 19, Iss. 3, pp.157-172. Gennard, John. 2009. The financial crisis and employee relations. Employee Relations, Bradford. Vol. 31 Iss. 5, p.451. Giuseppe, D. and Walgenbach, P. 2005. Mastering techniques or brokering knowledge? Middle managers in Germany, Great Britain, and Italy. Organization Studies, Berlin. Vol. 26, Iss. 2, p.197. Haribhakti, Shailesh. 2008. Financial accounting standards: Convergence of Indian standards with the global standards. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, London. Vol. 5, Iss. 3, pp.272-284. Lange, Thomas. 2009. Attitudes, attributes, and institutions; Determining job satisfaction in Central and Eastern Europe. Employee Relations, Bradford. Vol. 31, Iss. 1, p.81. Mathis, R. and Jackson, J. 2005. Human Resource Management, 10th ed. Thomson South-Western. Merchant, Khozem. 2006. Collapse underscores downside of integration markets: In the past month, India’s relationship with the outside world has sent shares into a tailspin. Financial Times, London. 28 Jun, p.2. Omar, Z., Chan, K. and Joned, R. 2009. Knowledge concerning employee’s legal rights at work among banking employees in Malaysia. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, New York. Vol.21, Iss. 4, p.343. Accessed 4 Oct 2009 from www.proquest.com. Tapiola, Kari. 2002. Core Labour Standards and Globalization. Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. International Labour Office, Geneva. Todd, P. and Peetz, D. 2001. Malaysian industrial relations at century’s turn: Vision 2020 or a spectre of the past? International Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 12, Iss. 8, pp.1365-1382. Read More