Search

Labor everywhere is assumed to be under pressure as a result of shifts under way in the global economy. This pressure is manifested in the political marginalization of trade unions, the decline of union density, the significant reduction in job and income security, and changes in labor legislation intended to facilitate greater ?flexibility? in labor markets and social pacts. This paper is predicated on the assumption that the extent of, and responses to, these challenges vary significantly for organized labor in the North and South, with the more accelerated shrinking of the manufacturing base creating special problems for union recruitment in the North and the more accelerated growth of informal labor markets creating special difficulties for collective action in the South. The paper offers a paired comparison of the evolution of labor politics in two Asian economies, one of which, Japan, represents the North, and one of which, India, represents the South. Both societies have established formally democratic political institutions with some legal protection for trade union rights and labor standards. Both have made efforts to employ job security and generous enterprise-centered welfare benefits to reward the more privileged components of the workforce and thus maintain some semblance of labor peace in critical sectors (public sector employees in India and regular male workers in large corporations in Japan). Since the mid-1980s, unions in both countries have been facing mounting difficulties in rallying their members and applying meaningful political pressure, as laws and practices have steadily evolved in a direction that favors greater flexibility for business in terms of employment practices. Given the position of their constituencies within the national polity and the global economy, however, unions in the two countries have been responding to the challenges in quite different ways. In Japan, unions have sought to unite under a single umbrella organization (Rengo) with more militant unions left on the margins. Although internal splits have appeared, unification has permitted Rengo a chance to devise new strategies by reaching out to part-timers and temporary workers in order to regain the interest of the working classes. In India, unions remain deeply divided, with the two largest unions being more cooperative with a government committed to liberalization and the leftist unions steadfastly resisting further liberalization. With privatization occurring relatively slowly, there has been little incentive for unions to branch out into new sectors and recruit new categories of workers. However, while Japanese unions seem to be taking a more proactive approach to transforming their organizational structure and grassroots strategies, these changes also point to a fundamental difference in the overall perception of the legitimacy and power of organized labor in the two countries. Although representing a smaller segment of the workforce, India?s unions are better organized, retain ties to political parties that can make or break governing coalitions, remain capable of paralyzing the economy by virtue of their influence in crucial sectors such as the railroads, and still adhere to a discourse of labor relations that evinces clear consciousness of separate working class interests. In Japan, while leftist elements among the unions remain vocal about class interests, the steady shrinking of the manufacturing sector has had the effect of turning Rengo into more of a consultative body that orchestrates largely symbolic acts on the ground while accomodating demands for wage restraint. Thus, the relatively less fundamental transformation of Indian trade unionism reveals not resistance to change but somewhat greater political clout sustained by a still robust conception of class interest in an economy where the public sector and manufacturing still matter significantly. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]