final social security -...

101

CHAPTER - V

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LABOUR WELFARE MEASURES

AND SOCIAL SECURITY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

There may be a number of factors that influence the Labour Welfare

Measures and Social Security. Those factors that influence the level of Labour

Welfare Measures and Social Security are the subject matter of this chapter.

Thirteen factors were found to be influencing the Labour Welfare Measures

and Social Security. They are:

1. Selection and Training process

2. Performance Appraisal

3. Carrier Planning

4. Feedback and Counseling

5. Rewards, Labour Welfare and Work Life

6. Organizational Development

7. Employees Participation

8. Labour Management Relation

9. Commitment and Involvement

10. Skill and Knowledge

11. Motivation

12. Absenteeism

13. Labour Welfare Legislations

102

In order to measure the level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social

Security, 80 components were identified and they were given in the questionnaire.

The respondents were asked to give their opinion about how each of these

components influenced their Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security with

regard to their organization.. The components identified for this purpose are given

in Appendix II.

Accordingly, the buyer Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security has

been measured by applying a scoring scheme with a five point scale. Table 5.1 has

the scores given to each level of influence.

Table 5.1

Scores Given to Each Level of Influence

S. No Level of Influence Scores

1. Highly influenced 5

2. Fairly influenced 4

3. Influenced 3

4. Not much influenced 2

5. Not at all influenced 1

After allotting scores for each component, the total scores taken by each

respondent were computed for further processing.

103

5.2 INFLUENCING LEVEL

Based on the individual scores the respondents were classified into three

categories namely high, medium and low according to their organizations Labour

Welfare Measures and Social Security. Arithmetic Mean (x) and Standard

deviation scores for all the 600 respondents were computed. Those who have

secured scores above (x + σ ) classified as high level and those with scores below

(x - σ ) were classified as low level and those with scores in between (x + σ ) and

(x - σ) were classified as medium level of organizations Labour Welfare Measures

and Social Security. Accordingly, the respondents who scored 468 scores and

above were placed under high level of buying behaviour and those with 318 and

below were classified under the low level of buying behaviour. Those with scores

between 468 and 318 were classified under the medium level of buying behaviour.

The table 5.2 reveals the classification of respondents on the basis of level of

organizations Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security.

Table 5.2

Classification on the Basis of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security

S.No Category Number of Respondents Percentage

1. High 78 13

2. Medium 432 72

3. Low 90 15

Total 600 600

Source: Primary data

104

It is inferred from table 5.2 that out of 600 respondents, 78 respondents (13

percent) had high level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security, 432 of

them (72 percent) had medium-level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social

Security and 90 of them (15 percent) had low level of Labour Welfare Measures

and Social Security.

The significant relationship between dependent variables viz., level of

Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and independent variables like

selection and training process, Performance appraisal, Carrier planning, Feedback

and councelling, Rewards, Labour welfare and work life, Organizational

development, Employees participation, Labour management relation,

Commitment and involvement, Skill and knowledge, Motivation, Absenteeism

and Labour welfare legislations of the respondents have been studied by means

of Chi-square test. The following formula has been used.

(O – E) 2

Chi-square test = ------------

E

Where

O = Observed frequency

E = Expected frequency

DF = Degree of freedom ( r-1) (c-1)

r = Row

C = column

105

If the calculated value is greater than table value at 0.05 level, it is

concluded that there is a significant relationship between the level of Labour

Welfare Measures and Social Security and that of independent variables. If

calculated value is lesser than the table value, it is concluded that the independent

variables have no significant relationship in the level of Labour Welfare Measures

and Social Security of respondents.

5.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING

An attempt has been made to study the factors influencing the level of

Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security.

5.3.1 Gender of the Respondents

The sex of the readers has been identified as one of the most important

factors that influence the level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security.

The table 5.3 exhibits the Gender-wise classification of the respondents.

Table 5.3

Gender-Wise Classification of the Respondents

S.No Gender Number of Respondents Percentage

1. Male 388 64.66

2. Female 212 35.34

Total 600 100


The table 5.3 reveals that out of 600 respondents, 388 respondents (64.66

percent) are male and 212 respondents (35.34 percent) are female.

106

In order to find out whether there is any relationship between gender and

level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security, a two way table has been

prepared. The table 5.4 shows the gender-wise classification of readers and the

level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security.

Table 5.4

Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and The Level of Selection

Process

S.No Sex Level of Selection Process

High Medium Low Total

1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600

Source: Primary Data

Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influences the level of selection

process.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of selection process.

Degree of Freedom : 2

Calculated value : 12.746

Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991

Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at

5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be

concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of selection process.

107

Table 5.5

Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and

The Level of Training Process

S.No Sex Level of Training Process


1. Male 35 268 85 388

2 Female 30 169 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influences the level of training

process.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of training process.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of training process.

108

Table 5.6


The Level of Performance Appraisal

S.No Sex Level of Performance Appraisal


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of performance

appraisal.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of performance

appraisal.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of performance

appraisal.

109

Table 5.7


The Level of Career Planning

S.No Sex Level of Career Planning


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of career

planning.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of career planning.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of career planning.

110

Table 5.8


The Level of Feedback and Counseling

S.No Sex Level of Feedback and Counseling


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of feedback and

counseling.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of feedback and

counseling.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of feedback and

counseling.

111

Table 5.9


The Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and

Quality of Work Life

S.No Sex Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social

Security and Quality of Work Life


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influences the level of Rewards,

Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of rewards, Labour

Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of rewards, Labour


112

Table 5.10


The Level of Organizational Development

S.No Sex Level of Organizational Development


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of

Organizational development.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of organizational

development.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of organizational

development.

113

Table 5.11


The Level of Employee Participation

S.No Sex Level of Employee participation


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of employee

participation.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of employee

participation.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of employee

participation.

114

Table 5.12


The Level of Labour Management Relations

S.No Sex Level of Labour Management Relations


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of employee

participation.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of employee

participation.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of Labour

Management Relations.

115

Table 5.13


The Level of Commitment and Involvement

S.No Sex Level of Commitment and Involvement


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of commitment

and involvement.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of commitment and

involvement.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of commitment and

involvement.

116

Table 5.14


The Level of Skill and Knowledge

S.No Sex Level of Skill and Knowledge


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of skill and

knowledge.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of skill and knowledge.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of skill and

knowledge.

117

Table 5.15


The Level of Employee Motivation

S.No Sex Level of Motivation


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of motivation.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of motivation.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of motivation.

118

Table 5.16


The Level of Absenteeism

S.No Sex Level of Absenteeism


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of absenteeism.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of absenteeism.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of absenteeism.

119

Table 5.17


The Level of Labour Welfare Legislation

S.No Sex Level of Labour Welfare Legislation


1. Male 39 264 85 388

2 Female 38 161 13 212

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of labour welfare

legislation.

H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of labour welfare

legislation.






concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of labour welfare

legislation.

120

5.3.2 Age of the Respondents

Age is also identified as one of the variables that have significant

relationship with the level of selection process of the respondents. Generally,

young people will have higher level of selection process than the old people. Thus,

the age of respondents has a close relationship with the level of selection process.

The table 5.5 reveals the age of the respondents of the study.

In the present study the age of the respondents is classified into four

categories as mentioned in table 5.18.

Table 5.18

Age –wise Classification of the Respondents

S.No Age group Number of respondents Percentage

1. Below 30 189 31.5

2. 30 – 35 126 21

3. 35 – 40 134 22.33

4. Above 40 151 25.17

Total 600 100


The table 5.18 makes it clear that, 189 respondents, (31.5 percent) fall

under the category of up to 30 years, 126 respondents (21 percent) fall between

30-40 years, 134 respondents (22.33 percent) fall under 35-40 years and 151

(25.17 percent) respondents are above 61 years.

121

In order to find out whether there is any relationship between the age and

level of selection process, a two way table has been prepared. For the purpose of

applying Chi-square test, the age of the respondents is classified into three

categories viz. upto 30, 30-40, and above 40. The table 5.19 reveals the age-wise

classification of respondents and the level of selection process.

Table 5.19

Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and

The Level of Selection Process


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of selection process

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of selection process

Degree of freedom : 3



S.No Age Group Level of Selection Process


1. Upto 30 30 255 68 189

2. 30 -40 25 105 17 260

3. Above 40 22 65 13 151

Total 77 425 98 600

122

Since the calculated value of Chi-square (0.186) is greater than the table

value at 5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be

concluded that the age of the respondents influence the level of selection process

of the respondents.

Table 5.20


The Level of Training Process

S.No Sex Level of Training Process


1. Upto 30 30 255 68 189

2 30 – 40 25 105 17 260

3. Above 40 22 65 13 151

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of training process

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of training process




Since the calculated value of Chi-square is greater than the table value at 5

percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded

123

that the age of the respondents influence the level of training process of the

respondents.

Table 5.21


The Level of Performance Appraisal (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F p- value

Between

Groups

4.401 3 1.467 0.366 0.777

Within

Groups

2385.839 596 4.003

Total 2390.240 599


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of performance

appraisal.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of performance appraisal.

Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level

of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age

of the respondents influence the level of performance appraisal of the respondents.

124

Table 5.22


The Level of Career Planning (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

178.504 3 59.501 22.404 0.000

Within

Groups

1582.894 596 2.656

Total 1761.398 599


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of career planning.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of career planning.



of the respondents influence the level of career planning of the respondents.

125

Table 5.23


The Level of Feedback and Counseling (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

35.100 3 11.700 3.724 0.011

Within

Groups

1872.685 596 3.142

Total 1907.785 599


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of feedback and

counseling.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of feedback and counseling.



of the respondents influence the level of training process of the respondents.

126

Table 5.24


The Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and

Quality of Work Life (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

127.173 3 42.391 6.549 .000

Within

Groups

3857.745 596 6.473

Total 3984.918 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of rewards, Labour


H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of rewards, Labour Welfare

Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.



of the respondents influence the level of rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and

Social Security and quality of work life of the respondents.

127

Table 5.25


The Level of Organisational Development (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

22.063 3 37.354 2.458 0.062

Within

Groups

1783.122 596 2.992

Total 1805.185 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of organizational

development.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of organizational

development.



of the respondents influence the level of organizational development.

128

Table 5.26


The Level of Employee Participation (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

65.763 3 21.921 7.351 0.000

Within

Groups

1777.277 596 2.982

Total 1843.040 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of employee

participation.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of employee participation.



of the respondents influence the level of employee participation.

129

Table 5.27


The Level of Labour Management Relations (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

32.249 3 10.750 3.302 0.020

Within

Groups

1940.336 596 3.256

Total 172.585 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of labour

management relations.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of labour management

relations.



of the respondents influence the level of labour management relations.

130

Table 5.28


The Level of Commitment and Involvement (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

65.763 3 21.921 7.351 0.000

Within

Groups

1777.277 596 2.982

Total 1843.040 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of commitment and

involvement.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of commitment and

involvement.



of the respondents influence the level of commitment and involvement.

131

Table 5.29


The Level of Skill and Knowledge (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

87.128 3 29.043 9.980 0.000

Within

Groups

1734.457 596 2.910

Total 1821.585 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of skill and

knowledge.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of skill and knowledge.



of the respondents influence the level of employee participation.

132

Table 5.30


The Level of Motivation (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

26.968 3 8.989 3.636 0.013

Within

Groups

1473.406 596 2.472

Total 1500.373 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of Motivation.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of Motivation.



of the respondents influence the level of motivation.

133

Table 5.31


The Level of Absenteeism (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

72.439 3 24.146 17.932 0.000

Within

Groups

802.546 596 1.347

Total 874.985 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of absenteeism.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of absenteeism.



of the respondents influence the level of absenteeism.

134

Table 5.32


The Level of Labour Welfare Legislation (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

637.242 3 212.414 8.403 0.000

Within

Groups

15066.556 596 25.279

Total 15703.798 596


Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of labour welfare

legislation.

H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of labour welfare

legislation.



of the respondents influence the level of labour welfare legislation.

5.3.4 Educational Status of the Respondents

Education is an important factor which influences the level of understands

the organizations Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security of respondents.

The table 5.33 exhibits the educational qualification of respondents.

135

Table 5.33

Educational Qualification of the respondents

S. NO Education Number of Respondents Percentage

1. UG 107 17.83

2. Post Graduate 307 51.16

3. Others 186 31.01

Total 600 100


It is inferred from 5.33 that, 107 respondents (17.83 percent) have studied

only upto under graduation, 307 respondents (51.16 percent) are post graduates

and 186 respondents (31.01 percent) are others.

In order to test the relationship between educational qualification and the

level of understands the organizations Labour Welfare Measures and Social

Security, a two way table has been framed. For the purpose of applying ANOVA

test, the educational status of the respondents has been classified into four

categories viz. UG & Diploma level, graduation and post professional. The table

5.33 reveals the educational qualification and the level of selection process.

136

Table 5.34

Education Qualification of the Respondents and

The Level of Selection Process (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

27.816 2 13.908 6.740 0.001

Within

Groups

1231.982 597 2.064

Total 1259.798 599


Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level

of selection process.

H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of

selection process.


of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the

education qualification of the respondents influence the level of selection process.

137

Table 5.35


The Level of Training Process (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

56.395 2 28.198 3.697 0.025

Within

Groups

4554.003 597 7.628

Total 4610.398 599



of training process.


training process.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of training process.

138

Table 5.36


The Level of Performance Appraisal (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

43.854 2 21.927 5.579 0.004

Within

Groups

2346.386 597 3.930

Total 2390.240 599



of performance appraisal.


performance appraisal.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of performance

appraisal.

139

Table 5.37


The Level of Career Planning (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

15.787 2 7.893 2.700 0.068

Within

Groups

1745.611 597 2.924

Total 1761.398 599



of career planning.

H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of career

planning.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of career planning.

140

Table 5.38


The Level of Feedback and Counseling (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

0.115 2 0.057 0.018 0.982

Within

Groups

1907.670 597 3.195

Total 1907.785 599



of feedback and counseling.


feedback and counseling.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of feedback an

counseling.

141

Table 5.39


The Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Quality of Work Life

(ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

209.312 2 104.656 16.548 0.000

Within

Groups

3775.606 597 6.324

Total 3984.918 599


of rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.


rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of rewards, Labour


142

Table 5.40


The Level of Organizational Development (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

24.727 2 12.363 4.146 0.016

Within

Groups

1780.458 597 2.982

Total 1805.185 599


of organizational development.


organizational development.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of organizational

development.

143

Table 5.41


The Level of Employee Participation (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

16.263 2 8.132 2.657 0.071

Within

Groups

1826.777 597 3.060

Total 1843.040 599


of employee participation.


employee participation.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of employee

participation.

144

Table 5.42


The Level of Labour Management Relations (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

41.992 2 20.996 6.493 0.002

Within

Groups

1930.593 597 3.234

Total 1972.585 599


of labour management relations.

H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of labour




education qualification of the respondents influence the level of labour


145

Table 5.43


The Level of Commitment and Involvement (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

17.285 2 8.643 4.640 0.010

Within

Groups

1112.075 597 1.863

Total 1129.360 599


of commitment and involvement.


commitment and involvement.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of commitment and

involvement.

146

Table 5.44


The Level of Skill and Knowledge (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

62.968 2 31.484 10.688 0.000

Within

Groups

1758.617 597 2.946

Total 1821.585 599


of skill and knowledge.

H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of skill

and knowledge.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of skill and

knowledge.

147

Table 5.45


The Level of Motivations (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

16.211 2 8.105 3.260 0.702

Within

Groups

1484.163 597 2.486

Total 1500.373 599


of motivations.


motivations.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of motivations.

148

Table 5.46


The Level of Absenteeism (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

6.261 2 3.131 2.151 0.117

Within

Groups

868.724 597 1.455

Total 874.985 599


of absenteeism.


absenteeism.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of absenteeism.

149

Table 5.47


The Level of Labour Welfare Legislation (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

549.690 2 274.845 10.828 0.000

Within

Groups

15154.108 597 25.384

Total 15703.798 599


labour welfare legislations.

H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of labour

welfare legislations.



education qualification of the respondents influence the level of labour welfare

legislations.

150

5.3.7 Income of the Respondents

Income is one of the important factors that influence the level of Labour

Welfare Measures and Social Security. The table 5.48 exhibits the monthly

income of the respondents.

Table 5.48

Monthly Income of the Respondents

S.No Monthly Income Number of Respondents Percentage

1. Below Rs.30000 253 42.16

2. Rs.30000 to Rs.50000 178 29.67

3. Above Rs.50000 169 28.17

Total 600 600


It is inferred from the table 5.47 that, 42.16 percent of the respondents are

having less than Rs.30000 as their monthly income, 29.67percent of them are

having their monthly income between Rs.30001 to Rs.50000 and only 28.17

percent are earning more than Rs.50001 a month.

In order to test the relationship between monthly income and the level of

Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security, ANOVA test has been used.. A

two way table prepared for this purpose is given in table 5.49.

151

Table 5.49

Income of the Respondents and Career Planning (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

76.093 2 38.046 13.477 0.000

Within

Groups

1685.306 597 2.823

Total 1761.398 599

Ho: Income of the respondents does not influence the level of career

planning.

H1: Income of the respondents influences the level of career planning.



income of the respondents influence the level of career planning.

152

Table 5.50

Income of the Respondents and Organizational Development (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

9.133 2 4.566 1.518 0.220

Within

Groups

1796.052 597 3.008

Total 1805.185 599

Ho: Income of the respondents does not influence the level of organizational

development.

H1: Income of the respondents influences the level of organizational

development.



income of the respondents influence the level of organizational development.

153

Table 5.51

Income of the Respondents and Employee Participation (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

56.235 2 28.117 9.394 0.000

Within

Groups

1786.805 597 2.993

Total 1843.040 599

Ho: Income of the respondents does not influence the level of employee

participation.

H1: Income of the respondents influences the level of employee

participation.



income of the respondents influence the level of employee participation.

154

Table 5.52

Income of the Respondents and Skill and Knowledge (ANOVA)

Groups Sum of

Squares


Between

Groups

21.510 2 10.755 7.523 0.001

Within

Groups

853.475 597 1.430

Total 874.985 599

Ho: Income of the respondents does not influence the level of skill and

knowledge.

H1: Income of the respondents influences the level of skill and knowledge.



income of the respondents influence the level of skill and knowledge.

5.3.3 Marital Status of the Respondents:

Marital status of the respondents has been identified as one of the factors

influencing the level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security. The table

5.53 shows the classification of respondents according to the marital status.

155

Table 5.53

Marital Status of the Respondents

S.NO Marital Status Number of Respondents Percentage

1. Married 432 72

2. Single 168 28

Total 600 600


The table 5.53 exhibits that, 432respondents (72 percent) are married and

168 (28 percent) respondents are single in the sample respondents.

In order to find out the relationship between the marital status and the level

Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security, a two way table has been prepared.

The table 5.54 reveals the marital status of the respondents and the level of

selection process.

Table 5.54

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Selection Process

S.No Status Level of Training Process


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600


156

Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of

selection process.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of selection

process.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of selection process of

the respondents.

Table 5.55

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Training Process

S.No Status Level of Training Process


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of training

process.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of training

process.

157






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of training process of

the respondents.

Table 5.56

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Performance Appraisal

S.No Status Level of Performance Appraisal


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600



performance appraisal.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of performance

appraisal.




158

Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5

percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded

that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of performance

appraisal of the respondents.

Table 5.57

Marital status of the Respondents and the 0Level of Career Planning

S.No Status Level of Career Planning


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of career

planning.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of career planning.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of career planning of

the respondents.

159

Table 5.58

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Feedback and Counseling

S.No Status Level of Feedback and Counseling


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600



feedback and counseling.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of feedback and

counseling.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of feedback and

counseling of the respondents.

160

Table 5.59

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare

Measures and Social Security and Quality of Work Life

S.No

Status

Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social

Security and Quality of Work Life


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600



rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of rewards, Labour







that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of rewards, Labour

Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life of the respondents.

161

Table 5.60

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Organizational

Development

S.No Status Level of Organisational Development


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600



organizational development.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of organizational

development.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of organizational

development.

162

Table 5.61

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Employee Participation

S.No Status Level of Employee Participation


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600



employee participation.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of employee

participation.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of employee

participation of the respondents.

163

Table 5.62

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Labour Management

Relation

S.No Status Level of Labour Management Relation


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of labour

management relation.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of labour

management relation.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of labour management

relation.

164

Table 5.63

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Commitment and

Involvement

S.No Status Level of Commitment and Involvement


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600



commitment and involvement.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of commitment

and involvement.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of commitment and

involvement.

165

Table 5.64

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Skill and Knowledge

S.No Status Level of Skill and Knowledge


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of skill

and knowledge.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of skill and

knowledge.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of skill and knowledge

of the respondents.

166

Table 5.65

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Motivation

S.No Status Level of Motivation


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600



motivation.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of motivation.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of motivation of the

respondents.

167

Table 5.66

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Absenteeism

S.No Status Level of Absenteeism


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600



absenteeism.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of absenteeism.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of absenteeism of the

respondents.

168

Table 5.67

Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Labour Welfare

Legislation

S.No Status Level of Labour Welfare Legislation


1. Married 39 308 85 432

2 Single 38 117 13 168

Total 77 425 98 600


Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of labour

welfare legislation.

H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of labour welfare

legislation.






that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of Labour Welfare

Measures and Social Security.

169

5.4 ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Organizational Development is the one of the most vital part of the

company’s growth. In this context so many constraints influences the

development of organization. A multiple Regression Analysis is conducted by

taking organizational development as dependent variable and Training,

Performance Appraisal, Career Planning, Feedback and Counseling, Rewards,

Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life, Employee

Participation, Labour management relations, Commitment and Involvement, Skill

and Knowledge, Motivation and Absenteeism were taken as independent

variables. The table 5.68 exhibits the relationship of Organizational Development

(dependent) and then variables (independent).

Table 5.68

Relationship between Dependent and Independent Variables

Variables R2 Beta F (5% level) p-value

Employee Participation 0.623 0.078 12.36 <0.001

Motivation 0.623 0.065 12.36 <0.001

Feedback &

Counseling

0.623 0.058 12.36 <0.001

Training 0.623 0.051 12.36 0.021

Commitment &

Involvement

0.623 0.049 12.36 0.012

Performance Appraisal 0.623 0.045 12.36 0.011

Career Planning 0.623 0.041 12.36 0.042

170

Independent variables are mostly helpful to development of organization.

Employee Participation, Motivation, Feedback & Counseling, Training,

Commitment & Involvement, Performance Appraisal and Career Planning are the

vital part of this situation. The above table 5.68 clearly explains the calculated

value is less the table value.

5.5 PRODUCTION:

Production of the vital part of the companies’ reputation, hence the so many

variables are related to the production such as Commitment & Involvement, Skill

and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling, Organizational development and

Employee Participation. The production has been taken as dependent variables and

Commitment & Involvement, Skill and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling,

Organizational development and Employee Participation are taken as independent

variables. The table 5.69 exhibits the relationship of Production (dependent) and

then variables (independent).

Table 5.69



Commitment & Involvement 0.629 0.089 11.16 <0.001

Skill and Knowledge 0.629 0.075 11.16 <0.001

Feedback & Counseling 0.629 0.063 11.16 0.031

Organizational Development 0.629 0.061 11.16 0.005

Employee Participation 0.629 0.058 11.16 0.002

171

Independent variables are mostly helpful to organization’s production.


Organizational development and Employee Participation are the vital part of this

situation. The above table 5.69 clearly explains the calculated value is less the

table value. Hence the independent variables will serve as significant role to arise

up the production.

5.6 TURNOVER:

Turnover of the vital part of the companies’ reputation, hence the so many

variables are related to the production such as Commitment & Involvement, Skill

and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling, Organizational development, Rewards,

labour welfare and quality of working life and Employee Participation. The

turnover has been taken as dependent variables and Commitment & Involvement,

Skill and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling, Organizational development and

Employee Participation are taken as independent variables. The table 5.70 exhibits

the relationship of Production (dependent) and then variables (independent).

172

Table 5.70



Commitment & Involvement 0.652 0.083 11.02 <0.001

Skill and Knowledge 0.652 0.078 11.02 <0.001

Feedback & Counseling 0.652 0.071 11.02 0.001

Organizational Development 0.652 0.064 11.02 0.032

Rewards, labour welfare and

quality of working life

0.652 0.052

11.02 0.003

Training 0.652 0.041 11.02 0.012

Independent variables are mostly helpful to organization’s turnover.


Organizational development and Rewards, labour welfare and quality of working

life are the vital part of this situation. The above table 5.70 clearly explains the

calculated value is less the table value. Hence the independent variables will serve

as significant role to arise up the turnover.

173

5.7 SUMMARY

In this chapter the Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security in the IT

Industries labour has been measured in Chennai based Units.

Ten personal factors and their relationship with welfare measures have been

studied.

It has been inferred that the thirteen personal factors are influenced towards

with the employees’ welfare measures.

final social security -...

Documents