By Analyst
The Minister of Industrial Development wants to introduce ''productivity'' as a subject to the school curriculum. As a nation we are economically slapdash. We do not do our work with the proper care and attention. We do not plan our work or our time. This applies to our political leaders as well as bureaucrats. Now we have to refer to auspicious times before commencing work in the public sector. In developed countries the emphasis is on doing well, whatever one is engaged in doing, whether one is a street sweeper, a garbage collector or a worker in the production line of a factory. We are also a wasteful nation, wasting not only our time but also our resources. One has only to look at our weddings and funerals, to see how resources are wasted. Dignity of labour is not a value that our people treasure. Hard and honest work is not a value that our people are value either. Everybody is keen on making money but have no moral scruples on how they do it. But it is not knowledge of some subject called ''productivity'' but the inculcation of values of order and efficiency and the skills that are required to do so, that matter. It is the teachers that should be educated about how to increase the productivity of their teaching. We always confuse knowledge with skills development. Our Universities teach management as a subject but have done little to impart the skills of management among those who follow their courses. The very concept of management is rendered irrelevant in the public sector since all aspects of operations are politicised. Recruitment, promotion etc: are not on merit but on political patronage. So personnel management is irrelevant. Since purchases are not according to the cheapest price but motivated by political crimson, there is no place for purchase management either.

Lack of social cohesion
Our biggest weakness is the lack of social cohesion. We have failed to develop a national identity encompassing all communities. In almost all developed countries such a national identity has emerged over their long histories and their various communities are pulling together. Our communities are fighting each other. The majority community itself is divided according to religion and caste. Caste loyalty for example pulls together those of the same casts. They may build their own network and work together but at the expense of other castes. The same considerations apply to minority ethnic or religions communities who favour each other at the expense of those outside. Social envy is a prominent features of our society. The Sinhalese are characterised as pulling each other down rather than helping each other to come up in life. We are also too individualistic and neglect to come together for those tasks that still require collective action.

Growth versus welfare
For most of the years since Independence, our politicians gave priority to social improvement over economic growth, to the distribution of wealth rather than to the creation of wealth. Creation of wealth requires hard, honest, consistent work for a sustained period with a long term perspective. Distribution of wealth however doesn't promote growth altogether it may promote social stability which may assist growth. So we have introduced universal free education, free health for all and indiscriminate subsidies. We have given priority to the consumption of wealth rather than encouraging the producer and production. If the economy could afford to sustain such subsidies, the damage would have been less. But the state could not finance these welfare measures by taxation. It had to cut down on investment and during many years resorted to deficit financing which created inflation levels much higher than those prevailing in South Asia, not to speak of the developed countries. So living standards of the people have failed to improve as in South East Asia, although the physical quality of life has improved. But with the long drawn out war absorbing more and more resources, these gains have been eroded. The quality of the free services have been eroded owing to the lack of money to be spent on them. Whatever extra funds have been devoted to these welfare services have been absorbed as salaries and wages of teachers, doctors, nurses etc. The hospitals are short of drugs, linen and even basic things like bandages, cotton wool etc. in operating theatres. More and more people are turning to the private hospitals for health care. Spending money on education has not helped to make any improvement in education. In fact all indications are that the quality of education has deteriorated. More and more people are turning towards private fee levying international schools.

The I.M.F. has monitored the economy for the past decades and the governments in office have had to fall in line with their advice. They have insisted on cutting the budget deficits and privatising state owned enterprises. Privatisation under the former regime was a means of rewarding business cronies of the ruling politicians. State assets were sold to businessmen who had no funds of their own to buy them. They borrowed enormous funds from the state owned banks and defaulted on the loans. The present government has succeeded in getting rid of many of the loss-making enterprises even if it failed to get the best prices, a difficult task for any government. The flexible exchange rate policy has so far stood us in good stead, preventing the over-valuation of the Rupee through continuous inflation. The two state banks which have been captured by the politicians in power, have distributed loans to crony businessmen. The state owned banks have also been captured by the employees of the banks. They have helped themselves while disbursing loans and the result is a large volume of bad debts with little or no documentation of collateral. What can the public expect from a bank under the control of dishonest officials.

The state creams off a large part of the country's savings and uses them mainly for state consumption rather than for wealth creating investment. Whatever capital investment that takes place is financed from foreign aid, which is falling off, although its still more than the capacity of the administration to absorb. Appalling mistakes are made in project planning and funding as evidenced in the case of the Galle Port Development project, the Colombo Katunayake Expressway. Some feel the Colombo Port Development project will be a sell-out to foreign interests. In short, the government is committing enormous economic blunders.

Democracy or the caricature of it we have had since the 1970's is itself threatened with all the strains on the economy caused by the war. A supplementary estimate is to be presented in parliament to vote more funds for the war. The Jayasikuru campaign is yet to show any positive signs of success. Numerous deadlines given by the Deputy Minister of Defence have come and gone.

The past severely limits the governments' policy making freedom since the free welfare services cannot be touched. The government pins its hopes on foreign capital inflows and proclaims from the roof tops that FDI is increasing although there is no such evidence on the ground. With the economic recession in Japan and Korea it is a vain hope indeed. The stock market has crashed to the ground. There is no hope of its revival in the short term.

Productivity
The government must realise that mouthing productivity as a slogan will not bring about an increase in productivity. It is necessary to make it a drive, a sustained all encompassing campaign. Examples must be set at the highest levels of the government. Punctuality is an essential element in any such drive . What is equally important is to remove the macro-economic obstacles to productivity. There are many such obstacles beginning with the excessive number of government mandated holidays. The attitudes of the trade unions and the excessive protection given to workers is another major obstacle.

How people are used, how skilful they are, how they are paid, are among the most vital elements of competition. It is on this measure, namely the use of people, that business will stand or fall in the years ahead.

Much is made of Japanese methods to promote productivity. There are radio talks on the subject. There are no doubt important lessons to be learnt from the Japanese. A Japanese worker whether in an office or a factory basically believes he is a member of the same team as his company boss. He may like it or hate it, but he sees that there are returns from his co-operation. It is not that the Japanese firm is an egalitarian commune as some seem to say. Far from it; they are rigidly hierarchical with every individual knowing his place, with people entering the company according to his educational background, being promoted according to age. But there is only one hierarchy, unlike our own organisations which are riddled with intrigne and backbiting with the Chief Executive having his own favourites and practising divide and rule policies, to ensure his own continuance in office. Administrative skills are very short, be it in the public or private sectors, both among the Ministers as well as among the bureaucrats. There is also too much servility among the subordinates in the hierarchy which is manifested in flattery of the Chief Executive by his immediate subordinates. Just read how the Ministers give credit for every little achievement to the great leader just as the North Koreans did with Kim Il Sung.

Although status is important in the organisation, in Japan it is not accentuated by other symbols such as the wearing of different clothes or having separate canteens for the managers and the workers. Even some British firms have adopted this practice, with Rolls Royce introducing a single spunky new canteen for all its staff, managers and employees.

Another characteristic of Japanese management is that the managers hold regular briefings of their workers to tell them what is going on and managerial personnel are seen quite often on the factory shop floor. Even some British companies have adopted Japanese methods of informing their workers about what is going on in their companies. Every six months Rolls Royce is reported to hold meetings for all its employees in its ballroom to give a video presentation about the firm's performance and about what its competitors are upto. In our local scene there should be much more inter-action between the workers and the management both in the public and private sectors. How many Heads of departments or agencies meet their operating staff regularly and brief them on what the public expects of them and how the work of the department can be improved. They have hardly any inter-action with the public, their customers. They do not know how the public their customers are being treated by their subordinates. In U.S.A. some Chief Executives of very large companies, took a turn working at counters serving their customers to find out first hand how to improve their service. Our Chief Executives have little contact with their customers. As for interaction with workers, they reserve their appearances to crisis situations often provoking jeering of the workers rather than inspiring confidence. Trust and confidence with subordinates cannot be established in a day.

The Trade Unions
The excessive number of trade unions in each work place is another pernicious feature of the local scene. Not only are there too many trade unions, they are also organised on political party basis and affiliation. The demand among unionists is for the recognition of trade unions by employers irrespective of the numbers in their ranks. This apparently is one of the features in the so-called workers Charter. In several countries in the developed world the proportion of the employed labour force that belongs to trade unions has fallen. A similar tendency is noticeable locally although it is much less marked than in say Britain where it has fallen from 54% in 1974 to about 42% in 1988. Of course, Union membership by itself is not a problem if trade union leaders act with responsibility. Militant and obstructive trade unions however pose a problem for productivity and industrial peace. What is required is to make trade unions democratic organisations where the leaders are guided by the interests of the general membership, where the general membership is heard before strike decisions are taken and strike decisions are taken only on a majority vote of the membership. As it is, professional trade union leaders act autocratically, imposing their will on the general membership who have to pay the price if their decisions turn out to be failures.

These trade union leaders have for many years been schooled in the Marxist creed of class war. They look upon the employer as the class enemy. Any weapon including violence, abuse, intimidation of the management officials is regarded as acceptable. A strike takes on the appearance of war. Similar factors prevails in Britain in the sixties and seventies and the term British disease was coined to describe the labour environment. Margaret Thatcher changed all that she passed laws which made trade union leaders accountable to the membership and subject to the civil law. If trade unions are to function as responsible organisations protecting the interests of their members, similar legislation is needed here. Her most significant laws were to ban sympathy strikes or industrial action in firms unrelated to the dispute in question; to make parent unions liable for the actions of their branches, to require full ballots of the members before strike action is taken and the election of all trade union officials. The courts in Britain have taken action to seize the assets of trade unions in case they resort to illegal actions. None of those laws have been changed by the new labour government of Tony Blair. Direct elections of office bearers and democratic ballots for strike action have made it harder for trade unions in Britain to the exploited for political purposes. Trade Unions have had to fall in line with the law and have held ballots before strikes.

Our government have so far made no moves to make the autocratic trade union leaders accountable to their membership. Instead they have resorted to violence and arbitrary action against trade union leaders. Remember the assault on strikers by bicycle chain waving gangs. Its time the government addressed its mind to the militaries of trade unions by enforcing the law, amending it where necessary. A Minister of Labour who is unable to clear up the backlog of cases in the Labour Tribunals or to ensure speedy refund of workers dues from the Employees Provident Fund prefers to talk about the Labour Charter, playing to the gallery rather than resolving the problems faced by the economy and the public.

Our trade union leaders have failed to understand the change in the environment caused by globalisation. They don't seem to understand the threat to their jobs in the new environment unless their firms are competitive. They blindly resort to strikes without taking into account the likely outcome. They prefer to cut their noses in spite, as we saw in the case of the strike in the privatised Tyre Corporation and in Pure Beverages. They have preferred to push their employers to drastic action rather than accept what is affordable to the employers. They have stubbornly resisted change whether it be a change in their location of employment or a change in working practices, required by the employer to make his firm more competitive and profitable.

The general membership of these firms must be regretting the decision of their leaders who have caused loss of their jobs although they received compensation.

So without changes in trade union laws and the attitudes of their leaders, industrial relations will continue to be dogged by autagonism if not hostility. The workers and their leaders have failed to realise that they have a state in the success of their firm. Their Marxist oriented thinking has put blinkers on their actions. The government needs to face up to these problems without waiting for the next wave of strikes. Invoking Emergency Regulations to break strikes is not democratic. It is better to put in place laws which strengthen democracy within trade unions so that they will act with the consensus of the general membership. The usual argument the government puts forward against strikers in the public sector is that they are politically motivated and inspired by the opposition. Nobody believes such arguments but the government feels it gives them a right to break the strike. The right to strike is recognised if not explicitly at least implicitly. A proper legal basis for a strike is better than the present situation. If there is to be a Labour Charter, such a chance should find its place.