Tuesday, 26. February 2008, 07:29:53
scholarships, IIPM, Study abroad, ranked among top and best colleges
...
Many ‘expert’ analysts think so; and we’re calling their bluff right out here!
We are back again to the good old days of crude oil at $75 a barrel (September 2007 light sweet crude oil futures were at $75.79 on July 20, 2007, on NYMEX). But many so called ‘expert’ analysts are calling this a temporary movement. Guess what, we decided to call the ridiculous bluff ...
The reason for our Sherlockian approach can be found in the simplest concept of Peak Oil – which says that the world has reached the peak of oil production (if not, it will soon happen in the near future) & the era of cheap oil is over. Well, if one sweeps a view across Ghawar in Saudi Arabia to Cantarell in Mexico, or even to Daqing in China – some of the largest oil fields in the world – a seeming symmetric depletion of oil goes on to prove the same. Let alone the demand-supply mismatch, this has quite some implication on the prices – not because of speculation, but due to a rise in the cost of production of oil. It’s in the nature of humans to go for things which are easily accessible. So, once we run out of these available supplies, we will have to move to less feasible & economical wells. More money will have to be spent to pump out the same barrel of oil & transport it to the market place, thereby, jacking up the prices further. This phenomenon is already taking place & can be substantiated by declining Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI), that measures the energy is generated by the amount of energy invested. It is to be noted that few oil wells at present are at an ERoEI of 5 as compared to an ERoEI of 200 in the past. Logically, & in true economic sense, this declining ERoEI can only be sustained if energy prices rise & rise higher than other items. Furthermore, ever increasing demand (see figure) will obviously push oil prices further upwards.
Michael Lewis, Global Head, Commodities Research, Deutsche Bank, confirms to B&E, “We believe the move from US$75/bb to US$60/bbl between August & September 2006 will not be repeated over the next few months.” Next few months? We suspect this range cannot be sustained more than for a short duration in the next few years too. Till alternative sources of energy explicitly become preferred usage sources, oil price is a bluff we’ll love to call again!RajitaChoudhuri.xml
Friday, 7. December 2007, 10:46:26
LSE, Leading education institutes in India, higher studies and education, IIPM Institute
...
This page lists out certain useful contacts and addresses. However, in case you do not find your contact listed below, please directly write to Info@IIPM.edu or write us at any of our office addresses for appropriate directions. Please note that communication by email is generally most appropriate. But in case you require immediate assistance, telephonic communication is advised.
* Note: Please DO NOT prefix 2 for Delhi & Mumbai phone numbers.
Visit Professor Arindam Chaudhuri's web pages.
Visit Planman Consulting's official web site.
Visit GroovyJobs, the official jobs site of IIPM & Planman Consulting.
Full time, Integrated, Fellowship Admissions in India
(Information on Admission Tests, Examination Centers, Selection Lists, Scholarships, Hostel Allocation, Retainer Fees Receipts etc)
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
Admissions Office
Base Level, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799993, 41799994.
Email: Admissions@IIPM.edu
Additional office:
IIPM Corporate Office, D-4
Level-4, Rectangle-1, Saket, (Behind Sheraton Hotel)
New Delhi: 110017 INDIA
Phone: 91-11-40514192, 40514193.
Executive Education, Training, Manpower Staffing & Other Personnel Consulting Services in Asia
Human Resource Intelligence Cell, IIPM
Level 0, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799917/18/19/20
Email: HRIC@IIPM.edu
Marketing Consulting, Industry Research & Market Research Projects in Asia
Indian Council of Marketing & Research, IIPM
Level 0, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799988, 91-11-41799989
Email: ICMR@IIPM.edu
Corporate Public Relations & Lobbying Support in Asia
Indian Center for Public Affairs & Relations, IIPM
Level 0, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799928, 91-11-41799927
Email: ICPAR@IIPM.edu
International Consulting Solutions
Center for Corporate Identity & Strategy Development , IIPM
Level 0, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-26529737, 91-11-26850199
Email: CCISD@IIPM.edu
Faculty Jobs at IIPM (Asia, Europe & Americas)
Faculty Recruitments Manager, IIPM
Level 5, IIPM Tower-II
C-10, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799900, 91-11-41799904
Email: Recruitments@IIPM.edu
Other Jobs at IIPM Asia (Administration, IT, Management etc)
General Recruitments Manager, IIPM
Level 5, IIPM Tower-II
C-10, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799900, 91-11-41799905
Email: Jobs@IIPM.edu
Copyright Infringement Protection Cell
Professor A. Sandeep
Level 0, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIAs
Email: A.Sandeep@IIPM.edu
Faculty Contact Addresses
Dean Academics, IIPM
Level 5, IIPM Tower-II
C-10, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799900, 91-11-41799905
Email: DeanAcademics@IIPM.edu
Course Content Queries
Dean Academics, IIPM
Level 5, IIPM Tower-II
C-10, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799900, 91-11-41799905
Email: DeanAcademics@IIPM.edu
Finance Department
General Manager - Finance, IIPM
Base Level, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799955
Email: FinanceDivision@IIPM.edu
Scholarships & Awards Details
Dean Academics, IIPM
Level 5, IIPM Tower-II
C-10, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799900, 91-11-41799905
Email: DeanAcademics@IIPM.edu
Examinations & Re-examinations (Full time, Integrated & Fellowship)
Examination Department, IIPM
Base Level, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799955, 91-11-26800931
Email: ExamQueries@IIPM.edu
Current Students & Alumni Support Cell
(Information on transcripts & mark sheets, re-exam marks, recommendation letters, convocation, degree requisition, provisional certificates, bonafide certificates)
Establishment In-charge, IIPM
Base Level, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799993, 91-11-41799994
Email (for Alumni): Alumni@IIPM.edu
Email (for Current Students): Query@IIPM.edu
Campus Placements Participation
Mr. Anirudh Sharma / Mr. Rajat Shukal
Strategic Management Group
The Indian Institute of Planning &Management
Level- 0, IIPM Campus
Satbari ,Chandan Haula,
Chattarpur Road , New Delhi-110074,
INDIA
Ph-91-11-42789814, 817, 867
Fax-91-11-42789999,
placements@iipm.edu , placement@iipm.edu
Press, IIPM News Releases & Support for Media
Indian Center for Public Affairs & Relations, IIPM
Level 0, IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799927, 91-11-41799928
Email: ICPAR@IIPM.edu
IIPM New Delhi (Tower-I) Qutab Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Tower-I
B-27, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-30923520
Email: InfoDelhi@IIPM.edu
IIPM New Delhi (Tower-II) Qutab Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Tower-II
C-10, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi: 110016
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-41799993, 91-11-41799994
Email: InfoDelhi@IIPM.edu
IIPM New Delhi Mandi Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Campus Estate
No.1, Dera Mandi, Mehrauli, New Delhi
INDIA
Phone: 91-11-26651931/242
Email: InfoDelhi@IIPM.edu
IIPM Gurgaon Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Campus Estate
Begumpur Khatola Road, Khandsa, Gurgaon
INDIA
Phone: 91-124-26371643
Email: InfoGurgaon@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Mumbai Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Tower
32, S.V. Road
Bandra West, Mumbai: 400050
INDIA
Phone: 91-22-56987878, 56988901, 5692681
Email: InfoMumbai@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Pune Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Tower
893/4, Bhandarkar Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Opp. Oakwood Hotel, Pune:4
Phone: 91-20-31031556
Email: InfoPune@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Bangalore Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Tower
419, 100 Feet Road, Next to Canara Bank, Koramangala, Bangalore
Phone: 91-80-41102427/28, 31885050
Email: Info.Bangalore@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Chennai Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Tower145, Marshall Road
Egmore, Chennai
Phone: 91-44-66223310/11/12
Email: InfoChennai@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Ahmedabad Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Tower
19, Inqulab Society
Opp. Sears Tower, Gulabi Tekra, Ahmedabad
Email: InfoAhmedabad@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Hyderabad Campus, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
IIPM Tower
6-3-252/2, Erramanzil
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad
Email: InfoHyderabad@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Kolkata Research Center, India
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
GC-18, Sector 3
Salt Lake City, Kolkata: 700091
INDIA
Phone: 91-33-23375327, 91-33-23210835
Email InfoKolkata@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Toronto Research Center, Canada
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
Suite 806
150 Cosburn Avenue, Toronto: M4J2L9
CANADA
Email: InfoToronto@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Contacts in Antwerp, Belgium
The International Management Institute
Jacob Jordaensstraat, 77, 2018, Antwerp
BELGIUM
Phone: +32-(0)3-218 54 31
Email: InfoAntwerp@IIPM.edu
IIPM's Contacts in Brussels, Belgium
The International Management Institute
PARC SENY
Rue Charles Lemaire,1 / Rue Du Moulin A' Papier,51
1160 Brussels
BELGIUM
Phone: +32-(0)2-648 67 81
Email: InfoBrussels@IIPM.edu
Website Feedback
Systems Manager, IIPM
Email: WebMaster@IIPM.edu
Tuesday, 7. August 2007, 05:01:50
global learning network, ranked among top and best colleges, lateral recuitment, Executive Education
...
IIPM & Planman Consulting, as a part of their Global Outreach Programme, regularly conduct & initiate compelling Chief-Executive forums across America, Europe & Asia, copartnering with faculties from the world’s foremost institutions and organizations like Harvard, MIT, Yale, Kellogg, Columbia GSB, Chicago GSB etc. Founded in 1996 by renowned economist Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri, Planman Consulting started its operations as an offshoot of 25 years of research of the global economy undertaken by leading researchers & academicians at IIPM. Planman is a management consulting group and hence, in all its business interests, Planman incorporates an extremely high level of consulting commitment for its clients. Wherever, whenever, however, Planman attempts to improve dramatically the process performance of global corporations through its consulting enterprise. IIPM is one of the leading and most respected business schools in India. Live case studies and industry examples of IIPM & Planman have been noted and honored at diverse institutions and organizations. The value that IIPM & Planman commit to bring to corporations is that of thrilling change and dynamic vision; and these programmes are a furtherance of such commitment.
If you are facing even one of the following challenges in your business, then the Chief-Executive Forum workshops by faculties from HBS, Yale, MIT, Columbia, Chicago GSB, Planman Consulting, IIPM etc would be extremely critical for you and your senior management.
. How to use techniques to scan the competitive environment and analyze multi-factor industries
. How to replicate strategic models and implementation techniques of industry leaders
. How to optimize .nancial investments & corporate venture funding
. How to strategically transform brands and dramatically re-focus multi-product & multi-service organizations
. How to maximize relevance of human resources in achieving growth targets
. How to leverage e-Business to radically alter competitive dynamics.
Being a part of the Chief-Executive Forum, these workshops by international faculties would utilize discrete and diverse training methodologies to educate, train, elucidate, debate and sometimes to demolish various business management perspectives & orientations. Case studies, research .ndings, questionnaires, group discussions, lecture sessions etc would form integral ingredients of the knowledge experience. Participants are informed that relevant pre-workshop preparation that is generally advised by international faculties needs to be necessarily completed before designated sessions of the respective workshops. Much of the contents that participants shall get exposed to during the workshops, are proprietary material of IIPM, Planman & international faculties. However, participants are encouraged to share various contents and material provided during the workshop with relevant team members after taking appropriate permission. Participants are also encouraged to directly contact their workshop faculties for any required consulting, guidance or clarification. On successful completion of the programme, participants shall be awarded a joint certificate from faculties undertaking the respective programme.
The Chief-Executive Forum is preferred by CEOs, Presidents and decision makers who have the power to decide the path their companies follow. Relevantly, many of these power managers also bring their team members & colleagues to this forum to share and analyze the implications of various strategic perspectives.
We do highly support this orientation; however, due to limited registration capacity, we encourage participants to register all group members as early as possible. Distinctively, participants are represented from the following:
- Chief Executive Officer
- President
- Chairman
- Board Member
- Independent Executive Director
- Managing Director
- Director
- Chief Operating Officer
- Chief Information Officer
- Chief
- Financial Officer
- Division/Unit Head
- General Manager
- Regional/Branch Manager
- Functional Head
- Vice President
The Chief-Executive Forum is designed to bring together leaders from across industries and geographies. It is a power-house for exchange of strategies, ideas, intellect and views to radically and dramatically alter business orientation and growth. In summary, it is an exercise that drives rudimentarily towards transforming perspectives & corporations.
Training & Development
Training & Development Division offers services and expertise to craft specialized solutions for our clients to accelerate performance. The core areas include:
1. The Arindam Chaudhuri Workshop
2. Customized In-house Programmes
3. Adventure for Achievements– An Outdoor Experiential Program
THE ARINDAM CHAUDHURI WORKSHOP
Professor Chaudhuri is an expert in the areas of Strategic Vision, Leadership, Social Sector Consulting, Comparative Management Techniques and Global Opportunities & Threat Analysis.
His contribution to the field of management in India can be found in the iconoclastic “Theory ‘i’ Management” which he has developed for India Inc.
Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri has conducted these programmes jointly with internationally renowned consultants and academicians from International Labour Organization at Geneve, Nestle (International Headquarters) at Vevey, Webster University, Geneva, INSEAD, France, and International Management Institute, Europe.
The workshop revolves around the People Power Philosophy, a patented module of Planman Consulting. It is focused mainly on the following four aspects of management and personality development:
Leadership
Motivation
Self-discovery
Strategic Economic Vision
IN-HOUSE PROGRAMMES
We combine expert instruction and finely crafted courseware to ensure that learning from the classroom is transferred to work effectively. Planman provides in house training in the following areas:
Communication
Public Speaking Skills
Creativity & Innovation
Team Building
Leadership Effectiveness
Stress Management
Time Management
The Art of Negotiation
Selling Skills
ADVENTURE FOR ACHIEVEMENT
We believe the key lies in strengthening the connections between people – ‘your people’ - by facilitating a group experience that incorporates all aspects critical to your organization's success: cooperation and communication, collaborative problem solving and decision making, commitment to common objectives, and perhaps most important, a willingness to change and to take risks.
We offer solutions for:
. Outbound Training Programmes
. AGMs, Sales Meets & Conferences
IIPM Home| About IIPM| IIPM Programes| IIPM Placement| IIPM Alumni| IIPM Alliances| IIPM Ranking| IIPM Director’s Desk| IIPM Dean’s Message|History of IIPM| IIPM Mission| IIPM Curriculum| IIPM Project Based Learning| IIPM GOTA| IIPM Dual Specialisation| IIPM Faculty| IIPM GOP| IIPM Campus Resources| IIPM Campus Events| IIPM Sports Club| IIPM Support Services| IIPM Campus| IIPM Libraries| IIPM Cafeteria| IIPM Academic Centres| IIPM Wilton Park Reports| IIPM Feedback| IIPM Links| IIPM Sitemap| Contact IIPM|
Saturday, 23. June 2007, 10:14:38
global learning network, lateral recuitment, Executive Education, CAT
...
"IIPM's efforts in bringing students to Europe is Superb..." (Prof. Guy B. Knapton, IMI Europe)
"My interactions with IIPM have good..." (Prof.Miles Dodd, INSEAD France)
All IIPM students spend 2 to 3 weeks (Free of cost) in various parts of Europe and other developed countries doing their academic and corporate training under a special paper called Global Opportunities & Threat Analysis (GOTA) thanks to IIPM’s Global Outreach initiative which organizes numerous exchange programmes in typical tradition of World-Class B-schools. GOTA is designed to give students a first hand exposure to International Faculty, organizations & economies. The idea is to make the students aware of how a truly global economy works and also to bring a fresh outlook to life conducive to entrepreneurial learning. Students would be sent in study groups of minimum 15. The students should note that they do not have the choice to decide which country to visit. The institute’s faculty members would decide the same.
During the course of GOTA programme, 7/10 days are reserved exclusively for studies while on the other days students are taken around the city for sight seeing as well as industry visits. When all the students come back after their visits to various countries they share their experiences and the knowledge gained from the interactions with the other students of the institute. This creates an intellectually stimulating and exciting environment in the campus and students get a first hand experience of how things work in other countries. During the GOTA visits IIPM has conducted seminars and lectures in association with organizations /institutions like : IMD, Lausanne ; The United Nations ; ILO ; The World Bank ; Geneve Financial Centre ; Credit Suisse ; Nestle ; Insead ; IMI, Europe etc.
Faculties/Representatives from leading organizations who have taken sessions for our students in the GOTA programme
- Dr. Khalil A. Hamdani (UNCTAD Chief, National Innovation & Investment Policies)
- Mr. Marc Berthoud (Vice President, Geneva Financial Center)
- Dr. Luc Van Mele (Dean, International Management Institute, Belgium)
- Professor Hans Hanegreef (Professor, IMI, Belgium)
- Professor Guy Knaption (Professor Strategy, IMI Belgium)
- Dr. Nicholas Bates (Professor, Webster University)
- Dr. Robert Spencer (General Director, European Campuses, Webster University)
- Mr. Thien Luong Van My (Issues Manager, Nestle Worldwide)
- Mr. Philippe Pegoraro (Economics Statistics Head, Federation of Swiss Watch Industry)
- Mr. Max Hool (Legal Head, Federation of Swiss Watch Industry)
- Mr. Abrar Farshori (Manager, Amas Bank, Switzerland)
- Mr. Alexander P. Spirk (Client Relationship Manager, Amas Bank, Switzerland)
- Dr. J. Prokopenko (I.L.O Head, Productivity & Management Development Program)
- Dr. Miles Dodd (Senior Advisor, INSEAD, France)
- Mr. Roland Diethelm (President, Sulzer Hexis, Winterthur, Europe)
- Dr. Bruno Walser (President & Member Executive Committee, Sulzer)
- Mr. Niels Christiansen (Director, Public Affairs, Nestle Worldwide)
- Mr. Thomas Schelling (Head, Asia-Oceania-Africa, Nestle Worldwide)
- Mr. Ernest J. Pope (former MD, Nestle Australia, Senior VP, Nestle Worldwide)
- Ms. Jane Quillet (Corporate Communications, Nestle S.A, Vevey)
- Mr. Ajay Hinduja (Hinduja Group, Amas Bank, Geneva, Switzerland)
- Mr. Jean-Daniel Pasche (President, Federation of Swiss Watch Industry, Bienne)
- Ms. Chantal Garbani (Economist, Federation of Swiss Watch Industry, Bienne)
- Dr. H. Oberhansli (Chief Economic Advisor to the Chief Executive, Nestle S.A., Vevey)
- Ms. Preeta Banerjee (Palais des Nations, United Nations)
- Mr. Kim (Vice President, Marketing, Nestle S.A., Asia-Oceania-Africa)
- Mr. Roland H. Baumberger (Vice-President & Head HR, Sulzer, Europe)
- Dr. Sfeir Younis (World Bank, Geneva, Switzerland)
- Mr. Didier Wacker (Senior Manager, Credit Suisse)
- G.S Jaiya, Director-Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Division, WIPO
- Prof. Nick Bates , Webster faculty of Business, Webster University
- Prof. Ellan Wallace, Webster faculty of Business, Webster University
- Ms. Tullika Kumar, Director-Banking and Financial Services, Michael Page
- Mr. Shishir Priyadarshini, Sr. Councellor, WTO
- Mr. Kuna, Chairman, HSS Engineering
- Mr. C. Mac, Head of Harvard Alumini Executive Association, Harvard Business School
- Mr. Ganalingam, Chairman, Westport
- Bonnie Chung, Alan Flora
- Sunway University
- Ms. Toh Lee May, Manager, Newater
- Mr. Denise Gilliot, Deputy GM, ING
- Mr. Joginder Singh Sr. Vice President –ING
- Ms. Samantha Keck, Sr. Manager Corporate Communication, Westport
- Ms. Norharyanti bt. Mohkeri, Chairman, Teknion Furniture Systems( Malaysia)sdn Bhd
- Suvek Nambiar, Manager IBG Bank, ICICI
- Arvind Aggarwalla, Chairman & CEO, FACT Singapore
- Dr. Ravi Sharma, H.O.D International Relations and Director India Strategy, Nanyang Technolies University
- Mr. Kancharayan, Manager – South east and Africa, Singapore Enterprise International
- Mr. Vishwamohan, Media Manager, Arabian Radio Network
- Mr. Hari Karan Mishra, Director- Business Promotion and Control Abu Dhabi Commercial bank
- Mr. Sumit Malik, Head – Relationship Management, National Bank of Fujairah
- Mr. M.N. Chaturvedi, President, IT People Consulting:- IT-People (India) Ltd
- Mr. Sudesh K. Aggarwal, Chairman & CEO, Giant group
- Mr. Rohit Valrani, Managing Director, Seven seas Group of Companies
- Mr. Thomas, Secretary, Seven seas Group of Companies
- Mr. P.N.Prasad, senior Vice President – Finance, Seven seas Group of Companies
- Mr. D. Krishnamurthy and Mr. Trivikram Jayacham, Manager – Human Resource & Policies and Regulation, ACER
- Mr. Atul Jain, Head of Business Development, Emirates Bank
- Mr. Pratiman Kumar, Brand Head of Europe & Africa for over the counter drugs, Novartis
- Mr. Badrinath, Director DTSS, ITC
- UNOG
- Arabian Radio Network
- Abu Dhabi Commercial bank
- Tim Jones, Managing Director, Lamcy Plaza
- Malcom Joseph, Secretary, Lamcy Plaza
- IT People Consulting
- Mr. Sudesh K. Aggarwal, Chairman & CEO, Giant group
- Seven seas Group of Companies
- SIYA Group of Co
- Novartis
- Thomas Brotel, Managing Director, ENPC School of Management
- Ms. Jeanne Robert, Marketing Head of Asia, South East Asia and Africa, SAFRAN
- Mr. Francis Dore, President – Indo French Chamber of Commerce –France Chamber of Commerce
- Mr. Phillipe Advani, CEO, EADS
- Mr. Rick Doyle, Business Development Manager Asia, HEC Eurasia
Saturday, 2. June 2007, 05:32:11
, MANAGEMENT GURU PROF. ARINDAM CHAUDHURI, IIPM, MBA
...
Common ground across continents
By Kester Eddy
Published: October 16 2006
Siddharth Nambiar, of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management in Bangalore, India, used to give little thought to business schools in the former communist Europe.
At least, not until he attended a conference in Paris this year. There, Prof Nambiar, as head of IIPM's global outreach programme, found himself at a round-table discussion listening to Danica Purg, president of the Central and East European Management Development Association (Ceeman), and nodding in agreement.
The two were soon enthusiastically comparing notes on various aspects of management education.
Prof Purg, dean of IEDC Bled School of Management, based in Bled, Slovenia, set up Ceeman in 1993 to address the particular needs of business schools in the former communist countries, which were then all in the early stages of transition to free market democracies.
On discovering that his Bangalore school, in spite of its vastly different heritage, had much in common with schools in Prague and St Petersburg, it seemed a natural move to Prof Nambiar for IIPM to apply for Ceeman membership.
"Ceeman represents business schools from a partof the world going through rapid economic growth and the resulting enormous changes," says Prof Nambiar. "India is goingthrough much the same process. Thus Ceeman's vision, created for business schools which are a part of that change, is applicable to us as well."
IIPM is the first member from India to join Ceeman, but it is only one of a growing number of schools and institutions from outside the association's traditional core area that are signing up.
"Many schools in developing economies face challenges similar to those we face, and they appreciate Ceeman's efforts to find solutions. Ceeman is moving away from being a regional-based to an issue-based association," says Milenko Gudic, Ceeman director of research.
The result is that today, 37 of the association's 101 school members now hail from beyond central and eastern Europe, including institutions from as far afield as Mexico, North America and even Australia.
Prof Gudic has also found that the way Ceeman tackles issues - whether it be faculty development, accreditation or even the management of schools themselves - attracts universal interest.
Hence the association had immediate appeal to Sabanci University's Faculty of Management, Istanbul, Turkey, which only started classes in 1999, says Nakiye Boyacigiller, the school's dean.
"Just look at Ceeman's activities - educating educators, strengthening managerial and leadership capabilities in business schools, [promoting] international research and case writing. We believe these activities and goals are important for all schools, especially young ones," says Prof Boyacigiller.
Ceeman also offers excellent access to a region that is often overlooked by international business schools, says Chin Tiong Tan, provost and deputy president of Singapore Management University. "We believe we can learn more about the region by getting our faculty involved there. I anticipate stronger economic relationships between Asia and central and eastern Europe," says Prof Tan.
He is also a believer in broadening his school's outlook. "Our faculty can't be global if they only restrict their learning and research to Asia and the developed world. We encourage diversity," he says.
These efforts to establish ties to the region have already born fruit, with a contingent of Russians, including a minister, businessmen and academics, visiting Singapore Management University as a direct result of attending last year's Ceeman annual conference.
Nor is it only schools from exotic, developing countries that find value in the tiny Bled-based association.
"Ceeman is an excellent forum through which to understand the issues in the region. Personally, I've been keeping track since 1989 and it is terrific to see growth and development," says Kai Peters, chief executive of Ashridge management school in the UK.
He finds Ceeman programmes, though designed to develop schools in the former communist bloc, are still of value to Ashridge. More value, in fact, than expensively hobnobbing with some of the great and the good in the US.
"There is very little that is not applicable [in Ceeman programmes]. Issues concerning the strategy and market positioning of schools is relevant world-wide.
"Interestingly, there is more commonality with schools that have 'to earn their living' than I feel with schools that have endowments of billions of dollars which I meet when in the US," Prof Peters says.
And while he believesthat established schools have a "moral obligation" to contribute to the development of business and business school communities around the world, the bottom line is that there is a real business imperative for Ashridge in Ceeman membership.
"We have worked and are working on projects which have come through the broad Ceeman network. Understanding the market and building brand among colleague schools leads to business," Prof Peters says.
Visit :- IIPM , B&E , Management Guru , Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri, 4Ps
Wednesday, 1. November 2006, 06:24:31
time & Integrated Programme, MBA institute India, BBA institute India, IIPM International Business management Institute I
...
Dean's Message
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri, renowned management guru & economist; Dean, Center for Economic Research & Advanced Studies
We need to understand that sustainable growth can be achieved only by committing ourselves to macro level growth strategies that would encompass the bottom 80% of the population and not just the top 20%. This conscientious approach would make a growth rate of 12% per capita per annum possible. In the light of globalization of the Indian economy and capitulation of Indian brands, it is imperative for tomorrow's leaders to be aware of the above mentioned facts, so that they can face the emerging global challenges of international markets with confidence, while remaining committed to remove massive poverty of Indian masses within a generation. While some wealthy nations enjoy the luxury of material of plenty, the fact remains that more than twice the number of people killed in the 2nd world war die every year of hunger and curable diseases. And yet we fail to realize that unrestricted satisfaction of all desires is not conducive to human well being! Nor is it the way to happiness, or for that matter, even maximum pleasure!! When the wealthy nations today talk of 'being one' with the rest of the world, and of concepts of global village, their talks simply border on hypocrisy. The time has come for India to lead the way in showing that this carnage can be stopped with the help of determined leadership and long term committed vision. The Indian managers need to develop a strong vision for their companies, and most importantly, for the people who work for them, apart from having a terrific sense of commitment for the country, great motivational skills and leadership qualities. A growth rate of 12% per capita per annum would imply that India can beat U.S.A. in terms of purchasing power parity within the next 25 to 30 years and become economically the strongest country in the world. For this, the Government of India needs to support the Indian organizations with suitable pro-people & pro-India policies, which would help Indian organizations in becoming stronger to compete in the world market successfully. Future leaders must be aware of this and not remain intellectually handicapped. IIPM strives for these commitments and continuously endeavours to educate its students and clients on these issues with the belief that sooner than later, structured economic independence can be achieved through a coordinated effort...
Monday, 25. September 2006, 10:34:57
time & Integrated Programme, National Economic Planning and Entrepreneurship, programs in India, Business Management Institute India
...
The American labor force has changed profoundly during the nation's evolution from an agrarian society into a modern industrial state.
The United States remained a largely agricultural nation until late in the 19th century. Unskilled workers fared poorly in the early U.S. economy, receiving as little as half the pay of skilled craftsmen, artisans, and mechanics. About 40 percent of the workers in the cities were low-wage laborers and seamstresses in clothing factories, often living in dismal circumstances. With the rise of factories, children, women, and poor immigrants were commonly employed to run machines.
The late 19th century and the 20th century brought substantial industrial growth. Many Americans left farms and small towns to work in factories, which were organized for mass production and characterized by steep hierarchy, a reliance on relatively unskilled labor, and low wages. In this environment, labor unions gradually developed clout. Eventually, they won substantial improvements in working conditions. They also changed American politics; often aligned with the Democratic Party, unions represented a key constituency for much of the social legislation enacted from the time of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s through the Kennedy and Johnson administrations of the 1960s.
Organized labor continues to be an important political and economic force today, but its influence has waned markedly. Manufacturing has declined in relative importance, and the service sector has grown. More and more workers hold white-collar office jobs rather than unskilled, blue-collar factory jobs. Newer industries, meanwhile, have sought highly skilled workers who can adapt to continuous changes produced by computers and other new technologies. A growing emphasis on customization and a need to change products frequently in response to market demands has prompted some employers to reduce hierarchy and to rely instead on self-directed, interdisciplinary teams of workers.
Organized labor, rooted in industries such as steel and heavy machinery, has had trouble responding to these changes. Unions prospered in the years immediately following World War II, but in later years, as the number of workers employed in the traditional manufacturing industries has declined, union membership has dropped. Employers, facing mounting challenges from low-wage, foreign competitors, have begun seeking greater flexibility in their employment policies, making more use of temporary and part-time employees and putting less emphasis on pay and benefit plans designed to cultivate long-term relationships with employees. They also have fought union organizing campaigns and strikes more aggressively. Politicians, once reluctant to buck union power, have passed legislation that cut further into the unions' base. Meanwhile, many younger, skilled workers have come to see unions as anachronisms that restrict their independence. Only in sectors that essentially function as monopolies -- such as government and public schools -- have unions continued to make gains.
Despite the diminished power of unions, skilled workers in successful industries have benefited from many of the recent changes in the workplace. But unskilled workers in more traditional industries often have encountered difficulties. The 1980s and 1990s saw a growing gap in the wages paid to skilled and unskilled workers. While American workers at the end of the 1990s thus could look back on a decade of growing prosperity born of strong economic growth and low unemployment, many felt uncertain about what the future would bring.
Labor Standards
Economists attribute some of America's economic success to the flexibility of its labor markets. Employers say that their ability to compete depends in part on having the freedom to hire or lay off workers as market conditions change. American workers, meanwhile, traditionally have been mobile themselves; many see job changes as a means of improving their lives. On the other hand, employers also traditionally have recognized that workers are more productive if they believe their jobs offer them long-term opportunities for advancement, and workers rate job security among their most important economic objectives.
The history of American labor involves a tension between these two sets of values -- flexibility and long-term commitment. Since the mid-1980s, many analysts agree, employers have put more emphasis on flexibility. Perhaps as a result, the bonds between employers and employees have become weaker. Still, a wide range of state and federal laws protect the rights of workers. Some of the most important federal labor laws include the following.
- The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 sets national minimum wages and maximum hours individuals can be required to work. It also sets rules for overtime pay and standards to prevent child-labor abuses. In 1963, the act was amended to prohibit wage discrimination against women. Congress adjusts the minimum wage periodically, although the issue often is politically contentious. In 1999, it stood at $5.15 per hour, although the demand for workers was so great at the time that many employers -- even those who hired low-skilled workers -- were paying wages above the minimum. Some individual states set higher wage floors.
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 establishes that employers cannot discriminate in hiring or employment practices on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin (the law also prohibits discrimination in voting and housing).
- The Age and Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects older workers against job discrimination.
- The Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1971 requires employers to maintain safe working conditions. Under this law, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) develops workplace standards, conducts inspections to assess compliance with them, and issues citations and imposes penalties for noncompliance.
- The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, sets standards for pension plans established by businesses or other nonpublic organizations. It was enacted in 1974.
- The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 guarantees employees unpaid time off for childbirth, for adoption, or for caring for seriously-ill relatives.
- The Americans With Disabilities Act, passed in 1990, assures job rights for handicapped persons.
Pensions and Unemployment Insurance
In the United States, employers play a key role in helping workers save for retirement. About half of all privately employed people and most government employees are covered by some type of pension plan. Employers are not required to sponsor pension plans, but the government encourages them to do so by offering generous tax breaks if they establish and contribute to employee pensions.
The federal government's tax collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service, sets most rules governing pension plans, and a Labor Department agency regulates plans to prevent abuses. Another federal agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, insures retiree benefits under traditional private pensions; a series of laws enacted in the 1980s and 1990s boosted premium payments for this insurance and stiffened requirements holding employers responsible for keeping their plans financially healthy.
The nature of employer-sponsored pensions changed substantially during the final three decades of the 20th century. Many employers -- especially small employers -- stopped offering traditional "defined benefit" plans, which provide guaranteed monthly payments to retirees based on years of service and salary. Instead, employers increasingly offer "defined contribution" plans. In a defined contribution plan, the employer is not responsible for how pension money is invested and does not guarantee a certain benefit. Instead, employees control their own pension savings (many employers also contribute, although they are not required to do so), and workers can hold onto the savings even if they change jobs every few years. The amount of money available to employees upon retirement, then, depends on how much has been contributed and how successfully the employees invest their own the funds.
The number of private defined benefit plans declined from 170,000 in 1965 to 53,000 in 1997, while the number of defined contribution plans rose from 461,000 to 647,000 -- a shift that many people believe reflects a workplace in which employers and employees are less likely to form long-term bonds.
The federal government administers several types of pension plans for its employees, including members of the military and civil service as well as disabled war veterans. But the most important pension system run by the government is the Social Security program, which provides full benefits to working people who retire and apply for benefits at age 65 or older, or reduced benefits to those retiring and applying for benefits between the ages of 62 and 65. Although the program is run by a federal agency, the Social Security Administration, its funds come from employers and employees through payroll taxes. While Social Security is regarded as a valuable "safety net" for retirees, most find that it provides only a portion of their income needs when they stop working. Moreover, with the post-war baby-boom generation due to retire early in the 21st century, politicians grew concerned in the 1990s that the government would not be able to pay all of its Social Security obligations without either reducing benefits or raising payroll taxes. Many Americans considered ensuring the financial health of Social Security to be one of the most important domestic policy issues at the turn of the century.
Many people -- generally those who are self-employed, those whose employers do not provide a pension, and those who believe their pension plans inadequate -- also can save part of their income in special tax-favored accounts known as Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and Keogh plans.
Unlike Social Security, unemployment insurance, also established by the Social Security Act of 1935, is organized as a federal-state system and provides basic income support for unemployed workers. Wage-earners who are laid off or otherwise involuntarily become unemployed (for reasons other than misconduct) receive a partial replacement of their pay for specified periods.
Each state operates its own program but must follow certain federal rules. The amount and duration of the weekly unemployment benefits are based on a worker's prior wages and length of employment. Employers pay taxes into a special fund based on the unemployment and benefits-payment experience of their own work force. The federal government also assesses an unemployment insurance tax of its own on employers. States hope that surplus funds built up during prosperous times can carry them through economic downturns, but they can borrow from the federal government or boost tax rates if their funds run low. States must lengthen the duration of benefits when unemployment rises and remains above a set "trigger" level. The federal government may also permit a further extension of the benefits payment period when unemployment climbs during a recession, paying for the extension out of general federal revenues or levying a special tax on employers. Whether to extend jobless-pay benefits frequently becomes a political issue since any extension boosts federal spending and may lead to tax increases.
The Labor Movement's Early Years
Many laws and programs designed to enhance the lives of working people in America came during several decades beginning in the 1930s, when the American labor movement gained and consolidated its political influence. Labor's rise did not come easily; the movement had to struggle for more than a century and a half to establish its place in the American economy.
Unlike labor groups in some other countries, U.S. unions sought to operate within the existing free enterprise system -- a strategy that made it the despair of socialists. There was no history of feudalism in the United States, and few working people believed they were involved in a class struggle. Instead, most workers simply saw themselves as asserting the same rights to advancement as others. Another factor that helped reduce class antagonism is the fact that U.S. workers -- at least white male workers -- were granted the right to vote sooner than workers in other countries.
Since the early labor movement was largely industrial, union organizers had a limited pool of potential recruits. The first significant national labor organization was the Knights of Labor, founded among garment cutters in 1869 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and dedicated to organizing all workers for their general welfare. By 1886, the Knights had about 700,000 members, including blacks, women, wage-earners, merchants, and farmers alike. But the interests of these groups were often in conflict, so members had little sense of identity with the movement. The Knights won a strike against railroads owned by American millionaire Jay Gould in the mid-1880s, but they lost a second strike against those railroads in 1886. Membership soon declined rapidly.
In 1881, Samuel Gompers, a Dutch immigrant cigar-maker, and other craftsmen organized a federation of trade unions that five years later became the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Its members included only wage-earners, and they were organized along craft lines. Gompers was its first president. He followed a practical strategy of seeking higher wages and better working conditions -- priorities subsequently picked up by the entire union movement.
AFL labor organizers faced staunch employer opposition. Management preferred to discuss wages and other issues with each worker, and they often fired or blacklisted (agreeing with other companies not to hire) workers who favored unions. Sometimes they signed workers to what were known as yellow-dog contracts, prohibiting them from joining unions. Between 1880 and 1932, the government and the courts were generally sympathetic to management or, at best, neutral. The government, in the name of public order, often provided federal troops to put down strikes. Violent strikes during this era resulted in numerous deaths, as persons hired by management and unions fought.
The labor movement suffered a setback in 1905, when the Supreme Court said the government could not limit the number of hours a laborer worked (the court said such a regulation restricted a worker's right to contract for employment). The principle of the "open shop," the right of a worker not to be forced to join a union, also caused great conflict.
The AFL's membership stood at 5 million when World War I ended. The 1920s were not productive years for organizers, however. Times were good, jobs were plentiful, and wages were rising. Workers felt secure without unions and were often receptive to management claims that generous personnel policies provided a good alternative to unionism. The good times came to an end in 1929, however, when the Great Depression hit.
Depression and Post-War Victories
The Great Depression of the 1930s changed Americans' view of unions. Although AFL membership fell to fewer than 3 million amidst large-scale unemployment, widespread economic hardship created sympathy for working people. At the depths of the Depression, about one-third of the American work force was unemployed, a staggering figure for a country that, in the decade before, had enjoyed full employment. With the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, government -- and eventually the courts -- began to look more favorably on the pleas of labor. In 1932, Congress passed one of the first pro-labor laws, the Norris-La Guardia Act, which made yellow-dog contracts unenforceable. The law also limited the power of federal courts to stop strikes and other job actions.
When Roosevelt took office, he sought a number of important laws that advanced labor's cause. One of these, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also known as the Wagner Act) gave workers the right to join unions and to bargain collectively through union representatives. The act established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to punish unfair labor practices and to organize elections when employees wanted to form unions. The NLRB could force employers to provide back pay if they unjustly discharged employees for engaging in union activities.
With such support, trade union membership jumped to almost 9 million by 1940. Larger membership rolls did not come without growing pains, however. In 1935, eight unions within the AFL created the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) to organize workers in such mass-production industries as automobiles and steel. Its supporters wanted to organize all workers at a company -- skilled and unskilled alike -- at the same time. The craft unions that controlled the AFL opposed efforts to unionize unskilled and semiskilled workers, preferring that workers remain organized by craft across industries. The CIO's aggressive drives succeeded in unionizing many plants, however. In 1938, the AFL expelled the unions that had formed the CIO. The CIO quickly established its own federation using a new name, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which became a full competitor with the AFL.
After the United States entered World War II, key labor leaders promised not to interrupt the nation's defense production with strikes. The government also put controls on wages, stalling wage gains. But workers won significant improvements in fringe benefits -- notably in the area of health insurance. Union membership soared.
When the war ended in 1945, the promise not to strike ended as well, and pent-up demand for higher wages exploded. Strikes erupted in many industries, with the number of work stoppages reaching a peak in 1946. The public reacted strongly to these disruptions and to what many viewed as excessive power of unions allowed by the Wagner Act. In 1947, Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, over President Harry Truman's veto. The law prescribed standards of conduct for unions as well as for employers. It banned "closed shops," which required workers to join unions before starting work; it permitted employers to sue unions for damages inflicted during strikes; it required unions to abide by a 60-day "cooling-off" period before striking; and it created other special rules for handling strikes that endangered the nation's health or safety. Taft-Hartley also required unions to disclose their finances. In light of this swing against labor, the AFL and CIO moved away from their feuding and finally merged in 1955, forming the AFL-CIO. George Meany, who was president of the AFL, became president of the new organization.
Unions gained a new measure of power in 1962, when President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order giving federal employees the right to organize and to bargain collectively (but not to strike). States passed similar legislation, and a few even allowed state government workers to strike. Public employee unions grew rapidly at the federal, state, and local levels. Police, teachers, and other government employees organized strikes in many states and cities during the 1970s, when high inflation threatened significant erosion of wages.
Union membership among blacks, Mexican-Americans, and women increased in the 1960s and 1970s. Labor leaders helped these groups, who often held the lowest-wage jobs, to obtain higher wages. Cesar E. Chavez, a Mexican-American labor leader, for example, worked to organize farm laborers, many of them Mexican-Americans, in California, creating what is now the United Farm Workers of America.
The 1980s and 1990s: The End of Paternalism
Despite occasional clashes and strikes, companies and unions generally developed stable relationships during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Workers typically could count on employers to provide them jobs as long as needed, to pay wages that reflected the general cost of living, and to offer comfortable health and retirement benefits.
Such stable relationships depended on a stable economy -- one where skills and products changed little, or at least changed slowly enough that employers and employees could adapt relatively easily. But relations between unions and their employees grew testy during the 1960s and 1970s. American dominance of the world's industrial economy began to diminish. When cheaper -- and sometimes better -- imports began to flood into the United States, American companies had trouble responding quickly to improve their own products. Their top-down managerial structures did not reward innovation, and they sometimes were stymied when they tried to reduce labor costs by increasing efficiency or reducing wages to match what laborers were being paid in some foreign countries.
In a few cases, American companies reacted by simply shutting down and moving their factories elsewhere -- an option that became increasingly easy as trade and tax laws changed in the 1980s and 1990s. Many others continued to operate, but the paternalistic system began to fray. Employers felt they could no longer make lifetime commitments to their workers. To boost flexibility and reduce costs, they made greater use of temporary and part-time workers. Temporary-help firms supplied 417,000 employees, or 0.5 percent of non-farm payroll employment, in 1982; by 1998, they provided 2.8 million workers, or 2.1 percent of the non-farm work force. Changes came in hours worked, too. Workers sometimes sought shorter work weeks, but often companies set out to reduce hours worked in order to cut both payroll and benefits costs. In 1968, 14 percent of employees worked less than 35 hours a week; in 1994, that figure was 18.9 percent.
As noted, many employers shifted to pension arrangements that placed more responsibility in the hands of employees. Some workers welcomed these changes and the increased flexibility they allowed. Still, for many other workers, the changes brought only insecurity about their long-term future. Labor unions could do little to restore the former paternalistic relationship between employer and employee. They were left to helping members try to adapt to them.
Union membership generally declined through the 1980s and 1990s, with unions achieving only modest success in organizing new workplaces. Organizers complained that labor laws were stacked against them, giving employers too much leeway to stall or fight off union elections. With union membership and political power declining, dissident leader John Sweeney, president of the Service Employees International Union, challenged incumbent Lane Kirkland for the AFL-CIO presidency in 1995 and won. Kirkland was widely criticized within the labor movement as being too engrossed in union activities abroad and too passive about challenges facing unions at home. Sweeney, the federation's third president in its 40-plus years, sought to revive the lagging movement by beefing up organizing and getting local unions to help each other's organizing drives. The task proved difficult, however.
The New Work Force
Between 1950 and late 1999, total U.S. non-farm employment grew from 45 million workers to 129.5 million workers. Most of the increase was in computer, health, and other service sectors, as information technology assumed an ever-growing role in the U.S. economy. In the 1980s and 1990s, jobs in the service-producing sector -- which includes services, transportation, utilities, wholesale and retail trade, finance, insurance, real estate, and government -- rose by 35 million, accounting for the entire net gain in jobs during those two decades. The growth in service sector employment absorbed labor resources freed by rising manufacturing productivity.
Service-related industries accounted for 24.4 million jobs, or 59 percent of non-farm employment, in 1946. By late 1999, that sector had grown to 104.3 million jobs, or 81 percent of non-farm employment. Conversely, the goods-producing sector -- which includes manufacturing, construction, and mining -- provided 17.2 million jobs, or 41 percent of non-farm employment in 1946, but grew to just 25.2 million, or 19 percent of non-farm employment, in late 1999. But many of the new service jobs did not pay as highly, nor did they carry the many benefits, as manufacturing jobs. The resulting financial squeeze on many families encouraged large numbers of women to enter the work force.
In the 1980s and 1990s, many employers developed new ways to organize their work forces. In some companies, employees were grouped into small teams and given considerable autonomy to accomplish tasks assigned them. While management set the goals for the work teams and monitored their progress and results, team members decided among themselves how to do their work and how to adjust strategies as customer needs and conditions changed. Many other employers balked at abandoning traditional management-directed work, however, and others found the transition difficult. Rulings by the National Labor Relations Board that many work teams used by nonunion employers were illegal management-dominated "unions" were often a deterrent to change.
Employers also had to manage increasingly diverse work forces in the 1980s and 1990s. New ethnic groups -- especially Hispanics and immigrants from various Asian countries -- joined the labor force in growing numbers, and more and more women entered traditionally male-dominated jobs. A growing number of employees filed lawsuits charging that employers discriminated against them on the basis of race, gender, age, or physical disability. The caseload at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where such allegations are first lodged, climbed to more than 16,000 in 1998 from some 6,900 in 1991, and lawsuits clogged the courts. The legal actions had a mixed track record in court. Many cases were rebuffed as frivolous, but courts also recognized a wide range of legal protections against hiring, promotion, demotion, and firing abuses. In 1998, for example, U.S. Supreme Court rulings held that employers must ensure that managers are trained to avoid sexual harassment of workers and to inform workers of their rights.
The issue of "equal pay for equal work" continued to dog the American workplace. While federal and state laws prohibit different pay rates based on sex, American women historically have been paid less than men. In part, this differential arises because relatively more women work in jobs -- many of them in the service sector -- that traditionally have paid less than other jobs. But union and women's rights organizations say it also reflects outright discrimination. Complicating the issue is a phenomenon in the white-collar workplace called the glass ceiling, an invisible barrier that some women say holds them back from promotion to male-dominated executive or professional ranks. In recent years, women have obtained such jobs in growing numbers, but they still lag significantly considering their proportion of the population.
Similar issues arise with the pay and positions earned by members of various ethnic and racial groups, often referred to as "minorities" since they make up a minority of the general population. (At the end of the 20th century, the majority of Americans were Caucasians of European descent, although their percentage of the population was dropping.) In addition to nondiscrimination laws, the federal government and many states adopted "affirmative action" laws in the 1960s and 1970s that required employers to give a preference in hiring to minorities in certain circumstances. Advocates said minorities should be favored in order to rectify years of past discrimination against them. But the idea proved a contentious way of addressing racial and ethnic problems. Critics complained that "reverse discrimination" was both unfair and counterproductive. Some states, notably California, abandoned affirmative action policies in the 1990s. Still, pay gaps and widely varying unemployment rates between whites and minorities persist. Along with issues about a woman's place in the work force, they remain some of the most troublesome issues facing American employers and workers.
Exacerbating pay gaps between people of different sexes, race, or ethnic backgrounds was the general tension created in the 1980s and 1990s by cost-cutting measures at many companies. Sizable wage increases were no longer considered a given; in fact, workers and their unions at some large, struggling firms felt they had to make wage concessions -- limited increases or even pay cuts -- in hopes of increasing their job security or even saving their employers. Two-tier wage scales, with new workers getting lower pay than older ones for the same kind of work, appeared for a while at some airlines and other companies. Increasingly, salaries were no longer set to reward employees equally but rather to attract and retain types of workers who were in short supply, such as computer software experts. This helped contribute even more to the widening gap in pay between highly skilled and unskilled workers. No direct measurement of this gap exists, but U.S. Labor Department statistics offer a good indirect gauge. In 1979, median weekly earnings ranged from $215 for workers with less than a secondary school education to $348 for college graduates. In 1998, that range was $337 to $821.
Even as this gap widened, many employers fought increases in the federally imposed minimum wage. They contended that the wage floor actually hurt workers by increasing labor costs and thereby making it harder for small businesses to hire new people. While the minimum wage had increased almost annually in the 1970s, there were few increases during the 1980s and 1990s. As a result, the minimum wage did not keep pace with the cost of living; from 1970 to late 1999, the minimum wage rose 255 percent (from $1.45 per hour to $5.15 per hour), while consumer prices rose 334 percent. Employers also turned increasingly to "pay-for-performance" compensation, basing workers' pay increases on how particular individuals or their units performed rather than providing uniform increases for everyone. One survey in 1999 showed that 51 percent of employers used a pay-for-performance formula, usually to determine wage hikes on top of minimal basic wage increases, for at least some of their workers.
As the skilled-worker shortage continued to mount, employers devoted more time and money to training employees. They also pushed for improvements in education programs in schools to prepare graduates better for modern high-technology workplaces. Regional groups of employers formed to address training needs, working with community and technical colleges to offer courses. The federal government, meanwhile, enacted the Workplace Investment Act in 1998, which consolidated more than 100 training programs involving federal, state, and business entities. It attempted to link training programs to actual employer needs and give employers more say over how the programs are run.
Meanwhile, employers also sought to respond to workers' desires to reduce conflicts between the demands of their jobs and their personal lives. "Flex-time," which gives employees greater control over the exact hours they work, became more prevalent. Advances in communications technology enabled a growing number of workers to "telecommute" -- that is, to work at home at least part of the time, using computers connected to their workplaces. In response to demands from working mothers and others interested in working less than full time, employers introduced such innovations as job-sharing. The government joined the trend, enacting the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993, which requires employers to grant employees leaves of absence to attend to family emergencies.
The Decline of Union Power
The changing conditions of the 1980s and 1990s undermined the position of organized labor, which now represented a shrinking share of the work force. While more than one-third of employed people belonged to unions in 1945, union membership fell to 24.1 percent of the U.S. work force in 1979 and to 13.9 percent in 1998. Dues increases, continuing union contributions to political campaigns, and union members' diligent voter-turnout efforts kept unions' political power from ebbing as much as their membership. But court decisions and National Labor Relations Board rulings allowing workers to withhold the portion of their union dues used to back, or oppose, political candidates, undercut unions' influence.
Management, feeling the heat of foreign and domestic competition, is today less willing to accede to union demands for higher wages and benefits than in earlier decades. It also is much more aggressive about fighting unions' attempts to organize workers. Strikes were infrequent in the 1980s and 1990s, as employers became more willing to hire strikebreakers when unions walk out and to keep them on the job when the strike was over. (They were emboldened in that stance when President Ronald Reagan in 1981 fired illegally striking air traffic controllers employed by the Federal Aviation Administration.)
Automation is a continuing challenge for union members. Many older factories have introduced labor-saving automated machinery to perform tasks previously handled by workers. Unions have sought, with limited success, a variety of measures to protect jobs and incomes: free retraining, shorter workweeks to share the available work among employees, and guaranteed annual incomes.
The shift to service industry employment, where unions traditionally have been weaker, also has been a serious problem for labor unions. Women, young people, temporary and part-time workers -- all less receptive to union membership -- hold a large proportion of the new jobs created in recent years. And much American industry has migrated to the southern and western parts of the United States, regions that have a weaker union tradition than do the northern or the eastern regions.
As if these difficulties were not enough, years of negative publicity about corruption in the big Teamsters Union and other unions have hurt the labor movement. Even unions' past successes in boosting wages and benefits and improving the work environment have worked against further gains by making newer, younger workers conclude they no longer need unions to press their causes. Union arguments that they give workers a voice in almost all aspects of their jobs, including work-site safety and work grievances, are often ignored. The kind of independent-minded young workers who sparked the dramatic rise of high-technology computer firms have little interest in belonging to organizations that they believe quash independence.
Perhaps the biggest reason unions faced trouble in recruiting new members in the late 1990s, however, was the surprising strength of the economy. In October and November 1999, the unemployment rate had fallen to 4.1 percent. Economists said only people who were between jobs or chronically unemployed were out of work. For all the uncertainties economic changes had produced, the abundance of jobs restored confidence that America was still a land of opportunity.
Saturday, 26. August 2006, 05:17:55
time & Integrated Programme, National Economic Planning and Entrepreneurship, programs in India, Business Management Institute India
...
Poland outlook :- A News by IIPM Publication & Business & Economy
Overview: Polish economy
The GDP of Poland has been constantly growing at a much faster pace than the Euro area. Poland, which is a $300 billion economy expanded by 3.2% in 2005, as against Euro area’s 1.3%. The economy is expected to remain upbeat. Total domestic demand is expected to expand by 4.4% in 2006, as against 2.1% in 2005. Unemployment is expected to fall in 2006, but still remains a cause of concern.
Foreign trade: Exports & imports
Merchandise exports touched $96 billion in 2005; which was 32% of GDP. Imports were at $98.5 billion, resulting in a negative goods balance of $2.5 billion. The services balance stood at a positive of $2 billion in 2005. EU countries accounted for around 78% of Polish exports and 62% of Polish imports in the first quarter of 2006.
Balance of payments: Deficits
Polish international investment position has improved from last year. Current account deficit fell from $10 billion in 2004 to $4.3 billion in 2005. As percentage of GDP, it declined to 1.4% in 2005. Income balance continuous to remain in the red territory and slipped to a negative of $10.5 billion in 2005, as compared to a deficit of $11.5 billion last year. Reserve assets jumped to $8 billion in 2005 from $790 million in 2004.
CPI: Cost of living
Inflation in Poland has remained relatively stable and has declined over the years. Consumer prices as measured by CPI increased by 0.80% as on June-06, taken on a year-on-year basis. The economy also felt the heat of increasing crude oil prices quite severely. While the prices for administered products saw a decline, food and fuel prices witnessed the maximum amount of changes.
Visit also:- IIPM PUBLICATIONS,PLANMAN CONSULTING, BUSINESS & ECONOMY, ARINDAM CHAUDHURI, PLANMAN TECHNOLIGIES, IIPM, PLANMAN Ites, PLANMAN LIFE, GREAT INDIAN DREAM FOUNDATION
Friday, 18. August 2006, 05:15:55
iipm+google=a news channel, time & Integrated Programme, National Economic Planning and Entrepreneurship, programs in India
...
If Shakespeare was to describe the meaning of his statement, ‘If music be the food of love, play on,’ he would perhaps cite Google’s attraction to MTV’s music as an illustration, albeit in the corporate sense. The two giants have entered into an advertisement revenue sharing deal that allows MTV to share its videos with Google and in return share the revenues that come from advertisements. Also, the website owners and bloggers would be allowed to post the MTV videos and will get a share of the revenue every time a person clicks to watch the videos. Through this deal, MTV would be able to expand its online audience and Google, on the other hand would benefit through increase in flow of traffic to its website.
This move is largely appropriate as this would provide a clear edge to the search engine giant as its competition with many other search engines (like Yahoo, MSN and AOL) gets more intense by the day, and will position it better to fight competition in the online video market. But Google still withholds the information regarding the number of websites that will be allowed to host the MTV videos. Taking a broader perspective, the revenue sharing model between Google and MTV is poised to become popular because apart from benefiting the two entities, the new model also provides revenues to small website owners who will post the MTV videos. So if you are a Google maniac, its time to check out some video compilations as well. And if the doctor has prescribed a strict adherence to MTV music, and if you cannot carry your TV set around, don’t you worry – just walk into an internet cafe and watch the videos on Google!
News Center:- IIPM Publication and B&E
1 2 3 Next »
Showing posts 1 -
10 of 24.
WIDGETIZE