The case involves an electricity company that was privatized in the year 1999, and with a change in ownership, there was a change in policies. Initially, while under government control, it followed the government employment policy of providing workers with a change in grade every four years along with a salary bump. This change in grade and the salary increment was provided irrespective of the educational background and qualifications of the employees.
After the change in ownership, a new labor policy was brought into effect. This policy, named the 'Develop B Program', in order to improve the motivation levels at the workplace, proposed a change in grade and a salary bump every two years as compared to every four years under the old policy.
However, this new program was brought into effect in 1999 and is applicable to only those employees who joined the electricity company in 1999 or afterwards. Old employees are not eligible for this program.
The employees of the company that joined prior to the privatization are not eligible for this scheme. This has resulted in a situation where the newer employees of the company are being promoted and receive a salary increment twice as fast as the older employees of the company. This has led to disgruntled employees who feel that they are being discriminated against.
Some of the employees that joined the company before 1999 are suffering because of this discrimination and have attempted to discuss this fact with their managers. The managers, so far, have been unresponsive to their pleas and so, these employees want to know what possible course of actions they have in order to redress this matter.
1. Has the transition from public to private company been handled well?
2. Is it a differentiation in labor policy?
3. From the managerial point of view:
Is this discrimination due to the different educational backgrounds and qualifications of the workers hired prior to and after the privatization of the company?
4. From the employees point of view:
They have been working for the company for longer and have been more loyal to the company and deserve to be treated equally to the new employees, if not better
5. Points to ponder:
- Motivation - the purpose of the new policy, is it fulfilled?
- A disgruntled workforce - is it really conducive to a positive work environment and increased levels of productivity?
- Exposure - does this discrimination leave the company vulnerable to law suits?
- Managers - is ignoring the problem really the solution?
- Employees - what possible courses of action are open to them?
- A promotion policy based on a multitude of factors such as the employees' educational background, qualifications and performance might be more suitable in order to avoid discrimination on the basis of time spent.
7. Other motivational tactics to consider:
- Management should not only be fair, but should also appear to be fair to its employees in order to keep them satisfied and motivated.
1. No it has not. It has implemented policies that discriminate against workers who were hired before 1999. It does not take into account work performed or experience of individuals, hired prior to new policy.
2. In some cases, yes. Education can be a factor, specialization another. Also, one should always consider experience and knowledge.
3. Not according to what was presented here. There is just discrimination against those who were hired prior to the privatization.
4. This is true. In this ...
The solution discusses the case study evaluation.