Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have become the darlings of corporate

India. Bankers pursue them with loan offers, I vendors sa! that their real market
lies with them, stock market anal!sts search among them for the ne"t Infos!s,
and consultants make presentations about them.
here are good reasons for the optimism. In the past five !ears, small companies
have performed better than their larger counterparts. Between #$$% and #$$&,
companies with net turnover of 's % crore()$ crore saw a rise of *$% per cent in
net profit, compared to %&+ per cent for large companies with turnover of over 's
%,$$$ crore. ,ompanies with a turnover of 's )$ crore(%$$ crore did even better,
raking in profit growth of +&% per cent over the five !ears. Smaller companies
have also outperformed larger ones in the growth of net sales and operating
profits. -perating and net profit margins of smaller companies, too, have
e"panded more than those of the larger ones. (.lthough there is no agreement
on what constitutes an SME, private and foreign banks define SMEs as
companies with turnover between 's %$ crore and 's *$$ crore.)
/et, it wasn0t ver! long ago that the small(scale sector was written off as a
casualt! of economic liberalisation. he consensus was that the sector0s under(
capitalised, technolog!(deficient, skill(starved companies would drop like flies in
the face of global competition. 1or a while, these dire prophecies seemed to be
coming true. SME production, which had reached a high of 's %,2+,+$$ crore in
%+2+(+$, dropped dramaticall! the following !ear (see 34erformance -f SSI
Sector0). It was onl! in #$$%($# that the %+2+(+$ level of production was
surpassed (although data revisions also led to the decline). But the SME sector
has grown b! leaps and bounds since then.
.s the Economic Surve! points out, 56uring #$$$($% to #$$7($), the SSI sector
registered continuous growth in the number of units, production, emplo!ment and
even e"ports. he average annual growth in the number of units was around 7.%
per cent, while emplo!ment grew at 7.7 per cent. 1urther, the average annual
growth in production, at current and constant prices, was %$.& per cent and *.&
per cent, respectivel!.8 'emarkabl!, this growth was achieved over a period that
has seen a stead! dismantling of reservations for the sector.
oda!0s SMEs are a different breed. he! have ac9uired companies abroad,
become part and parcel of global suppl! chains and are even convincing foreign
manufacturers to outsource patented design work to them. wo main trends :
ancillarisation and e"port(orientation : have been responsible for the change.
Small and medium vendors have adapted themselves to the needs of large local
manufacturers and have also become suppliers to global manufacturers, the auto
ancillaries industr! being a prime e"ample.
;loball!, changes in technolog! and lower transport costs have led to a wave of
outsourcing both in manufacturing and services. ,onsultants 6un < Bradstreet
have identified auto components, te"tiles, food processing, pharma, engineering
and chemicals as sectors in which Indian SMEs could become globall!
competitive. .ccording to 6un < Bradstreet, SMEs in the te"tile sector, for
instance, e"pect an average growth rate of =# per cent over the ne"t two !ears.
2
3
4
5
. booming econom! has spelt success for a host of SMEs. Besides auto, SMEs
in sectors such as te"tiles, food processing and construction have also been
growing. Big retail stores such as 'eliance 'etail and Big Ba>aar source their
commodities from smaller businesses. Moreover, the banking sector has seen a
sea change in recent !ears. ,ompetition has increased with the entr! of
aggressive, new private banks. his has led to a rush for assets and has driven
down the returns from lending to prime corporate customers. he trend towards
disintermediation, with big corporates having multiple financing options from the
capital markets or from private e9uit! at home or abroad, has led to wafer(thin
margins for banks on prime business. hus, banks have started looking at the
lower rungs of the corporate ladder for higher returns. he spurt in lending to
SMEs is being propelled b! the pull e"erted b! the rapid e"pansion of these
companies on the one hand and the push on banks to improve their margins on
the other.
6espite the h!pe about lending to SMEs, however, loans to the SSI sector (as
defined b! 'BI) haven0t kept pace with lending to other segments. rue,
outstandings on account of lending to the SSI sector grew b! &+ per cent
between #$$$($% and #$$)($&. But in the past five !ears, SSI loan outstandings
as a proportion of loan outstanding to small, medium and large industries fell
from #).& per cent at the end of March #$$% to %&.7 per cent b! end(March #$$&.
,learl!, loans to bigger companies, including larger companies in the SME
segment, are growing at a faster pace than loans to the SSI sector. hat0s not
surprising, considering that net ?4.s (non(performing assets) for public and
6
private sector banks in the SSI sector stood at %&.*# per cent and %$.=% per cent
of total ?4.s, respectivel!, at the end of March #$$&, although the proportion of
SSI loans to total loans was much smaller at &.7 per cent.
he current approach to lending is ver! different from the approach of the public
sector banks in the past. Earlier, these banks funded SMEs mainl! to meet their
priorit! sector targets. Sanction as well as follow(up and control rested with bank
personnel at the branch level, leading to immense scope for corruption. @oans
were made hapha>ardl!, often without a proper stud! of the environment in which
the SME operated. Bankers in the sector often had no e"pertise in handling small
loans.
here has been a marked change in lending practices, with private banks
adopting novel and innovative approaches. 1or instance, Aotak Mahindra Bank,
which terms SMEs as emerging corporate business, 5applies parametrics to
grade SME performance. I,I,I Bank, which boasts 2$$,$$$ SME customers,
operates on the scorecard methodolog! for SMEs in the manufacturing and
construction sectors, and 2) per cent of its business comes from parameterised,
cluster(based trade financing. he bank also finances standalone SMEs and
believes that financing is moving towards invoice discounting, where there is no
legal recourse on the corporate to pa! the bank. he bank classifies its SME
business in the retail segment, where apart from corporate loans, SME
entrepreneurs are given services such as auto and housing loans.
7
Even public sector banks have become savvier. he State Bank of India (SBI),
for instance, has several branches dedicated to SME lending. ?ew wa!s are
being devised to ensure that SSIs repa! their loans. Banks prefer to fund SMEs
that are dedicated suppliers of raw materials or components to larger -EMs,
since the! would have alread! passed the due diligence process of a large
corporate.
8
9
10
SURVEY ANALYSIS
A total of 272 questionnaires were administered in Faridabad region.
ne !undred and fort" #140$ men and 132 women too% &art in t!e sur'e"( w!i)!
translates into 51(5* and 48(5* res&e)ti'el". ne !undred and fort"+two #142 or 52.4*$
of t!e res&ondents were 25 , 34 "ears old w!ile 81 #29.9*$ of res&ondents were between
t!e ages of 16 , 24 "ears. nl" 48 res&ondents were between t!e age of 35 , 64 "ears.
-!is indi)ates t!at most &eo&le #o'er 80*$ em&lo"ed in ./0s are "ounger t!an 35 "ears
of age.
2% #+.+ #+.+
%7# )#.7 2#.=
## 2.% +$.7
#% *.* +2.#
) %.2 %$$.$
271 100.0
%&(#7
#)(=7
=)(7$
7%(7+
)$(&7
Total
Age
1re9uenc! 4ercent
,umulative
4ercent
Table: Age distribution
-!e largest sam&le #29.4*$ was drawn from t!e retail and w!olesale se)tor w!i)! is t!e
dominant industr" in t!e ./0 se)tor. t!er ser'i)es a))ounted for 16.9* of t!e sam&le.
t!er im&ortant se)tors )o'ered b" t!e stud" are wood &ro)essing #10.3*$( maintenan)e
#9.9*$( trans&ort and )ommuni)ation #8.8*$( and )atering #7.4*$.
11
%$ =.*
# .*
& #.#
#2 %$.=
%= 7.2
* #.&
2$ #+.7
#$ *.7
#7 2.2
#* +.+
= %.%
& #.#
7& %&.+
#*# %$$.$
.gro(processing
Mineral(processing
Metal(processing
Bood processing
e"tile < @eather
processing
-ther processing
'etail < wholesale
,atering
ransport <
communication
Maintenance
Cospitalit! < tourism
,onstruction
-ther services
otal
Cluster
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: Business cluster coverage
.elling and administrati'e wor% were t!e main t"&es of wor% )arried out b" 60.2* of t!e
res&ondents. /anual1&!"si)al wor% was &erformed b" 33.8* of wor%ers in t!e small
business se)tor. /ost #90.8*$ of t!e res&ondents were em&lo"ed on a full+time basis
w!ilst onl" 18 #6.6*$ wor%ers were em&lo"ed &art+time. -!e remaining 7 #2.6*$
wor%ers were em&lo"ed on a tem&orar"( )asual( )ontra)t or seasonal basis. ur stud"
found t!at onl" 14.8* #40 &eo&le$ were on em&lo"ment )ontra)ts wit! t!eir em&lo"ers.
-!e ma2orit" of res&ondents #85.2*$ !ad no em&lo"ment )ontra)t.
#7* +$.2
%2 &.&
& #.#
% .7
272 100.0
1ull(time
4art(time
emporar!Dcasu
alDcontract
Seasonal worker
Total
Responses
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: Type o e!ploy!ent
12
+ % 10
=.&E ).&E 3.7%
% % 2
.7E ).&E .7%
& 6
#.7E 2.2%
#7 7 28
+.*E ##.#E 10.3%
%# % 13
7.+E ).&E 4.8%
7 = 7
%.&E %&.*E 2.6%
*) 7 % 80
=$.7E ##.#E %&.*E 29.4%
%+ % 20
*.*E %&.*E 7.4%
#= % 24
+.=E %&.*E 8.8%
#& % 27
%$.)E %&.*E 9.9%
# % 3
.2E %&.*E 1.1%
= # % 6
%.#E %%.%E %&.*E 2.2%
7= # % 46
%*.7E %%.%E %$$E 16.9%
247 18 6 1 272
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
.gro(processing
Mineral(processing
Metal(processing
Bood processing
e"tile < @eather
processing
-ther processing
'etail < wholesale
,atering
ransport <
communication
Maintenance
Cospitalit! < tourism
,onstruction
-ther services
Cluster
type
Total
1ull(tim
e
4art(tim
e
empo
rar!Dca
sualDc
ontract
Seaso
nal
worke
r
Employment type
Total
Table: Type o e!ploy!ent and cluster
13
"or#ing conditions
28.7
25.8
2.2
21.1
20.7
1.1
0.4
$
%$
#$
=$
%
Public
sector
Private
sector
Another
SME
Current
employer
!n
enterprise
"armin# $one
Grap 1! Type o" employment opt#on
$rap% &: "or#ers' preerred e!ploy!ent option
3!en as%ed if t!e" !ad been self+em&lo"ed before 2oining t!e ./0 se)tor( 14.4*
answered in t!e affirmati'e. -!e ma2orit" #85.6*$ of res&ondents did not )laim an"
e4&erien)e wit! running t!eir own small businesses before ta%ing on t!eir )urrent
em&lo"ment. 3!en as%ed w!ere t!e" would want to wor% if t!e" !ad a )!oi)e( 28.7*
indi)ated t!at t!e" would &refer to wor% for t!e &ubli) se)tor. Anot!er 25.8* of
res&ondents would &refer to ta%e u& em&lo"ment wit! a large &ri'ate )om&an". n t!e
ot!er !and( 21.1* of sur'e"ed wor%ers said t!at t!e" would want to %ee& t!eir &resent
2obs w!ile 57 #20.7*$ wor%ers would &refer to start t!eir own small business. 5er" few
res&ondents wanted to ta%e u& em&lo"ment wit! anot!er small business #2.2*$ or go into
farming #1.1*$.
-!e retail and w!olesale se)tor does not onl" &ro'ide most 2obs but also &ro'ides t!e
largest number of &ermanent 2obs #30.4* of &ermanent 2obs$. -!is is followed b"
maintenan)e #10.5*$( wood &ro)essing #9.7*$( and trans&ort and )ommuni)ation #9.3*$.
-!e retail and w!olesale( )atering( trans&ort and )ommuni)ation( maintenan)e(
!os&italit" and tourism( and )onstru)tion se)tors( all s!are an equal 16.7* em&lo"ment
of wor%ers as tem&orar" 1 )asual 1 )ontra)t wor%ers. 6o real gender ga& e4ists in t!e t"&e
of em&lo"ment as 89.3* of men )om&ared to 92.4* women are on full+time )ontra)ts.
14
7& %&.+
#= 2.)
=# %%.2
27 =$.+
)$ %2.7
#7 2.2
= %.%
%$ =.*
272 100.0
#(= months
7(& months
*(%% months
%(# !rs
=() !rs
&(2 !rs
+(%# !rs
%= !rs < more
Total
Responses
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: E!ploy!ent duration
7lose to a t!ird #30.9*$ of res&ondents !a'e %e&t t!eir &resent em&lo"ment for t!e &ast 1
+ 2 "ears. Almost one fift! #18.4*$ of res&ondents were in t!eir )urrent em&lo"ment for 3
, 5 "ears w!ile 16.9* !eld t!eir )urrent 2obs for onl" for 2 , 3 mont!s. nl" 13 #4.0*$
res&ondents were in t!eir 2obs for 9 "ears and longer.
-!ere is no large gender differen)e regarding duration of em&lo"ment wit! 51 men and
50 women wor%ing in t!eir )urrent 2obs for less t!an a "ear. .i4t"+si4 #66$ men and 68
women were in t!eir )urrent 2obs for t!e &ast 1 + 5 "ears. 8owe'er( 23 men were in t!eir
2obs for 6 "ears or more )om&ared to onl" 14 women.
#) #% 46
%*.+E %).+E 16.9%
%% %# 23
*.+E +.%E 8.$%
%) %* 32
%$.*E %#.+E 11.8%
=* 7* 84
#&.7E =).&E 30.9%
#+ #% $0
#$.*E %).+E 18.4%
%& 2 24
%%.7E &.%E 8.8%
% # 3
.*E %.)E 1.1%
& 7 10
7.=E =.$E 3.7%
140 132 272
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
#(= months
7(& months
*(%% months
%(# !rs
=() !rs
&(2 !rs
+(%# !rs
%= !rs < more
Employment
%urat#on
Total
Male 1emale
Gen%er
Total
Table: E!ploy!ent duration and gender
15
Staff retention in the SME sector
A total of 144 #52.9*$ res&ondents were em&lo"ed #not self+em&lo"ed$ before 2oining t!e
small business se)tor. -!irt"+four #34$ &er)ent of t!ese wor%ers said t!at t!e" were
dismissed1retren)!ed from t!eir &re'ious 2obs. 16.7* of t!e wor%ers left t!eir former 2obs
as a result of dissatisfa)tion wit! t!eir 2obs and or managers w!ile 15(4 * left t!eir
&re'ious 2obs for better 2ob offers elsew!ere.
$rap%: Reasons or c%ange o (ob
16
%=$ 7*.2
%7# )#.#
272 100.0
/es
?o
Total
Response
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: Salary increase ) pro!otion
7lose to !alf #47.8*$ of t!e res&ondents inter'iewed said t!at t!e" re)ei'ed a salar"
in)rease and1or &romotion. -!e ma2orit" #71.0*$ of t!ose were women. 9romotions
and1or salar" in)reases seem to ta%e &la)e regularl" in t!e ./0 se)tor. :n t!e last 2 , 3
mont!s &rior to t!e inter'iews( about 31.5* of our res&ondents were eit!er &romoted
and1or re)ei'ed a salar" in)rease. t!ers #28.5*$ re)ei'ed t!eir &romotion1 salar"
in)reases 7 , 11 mont!s before t!e inter'iews w!ile 19.2* re)ei'ed t!eir &romotion1
salar" in)reases during t!e &ast 1+2 "ears. As )an be seen from table 13 below t!ere is no
signifi)ant differen)e in t!e last salar" in)rease1 &romotion between men and women.
= #.=
7% =%.)
#% %&.#
=* #2.)
#) %+.#
= #.=
130 100.0
6uring this month
#(= months ago
7(& months ago
*(%% months ago
%(# !rs ago
F# !rs ago
Total
Response
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: Date of last salary increase
17
% # 3
%.*E #.2E 2.3%
%) #& 41
#).7E =&.&E 31.$%
%= 2 21
##.$E %%.=E 16.2%
%& #% 37
#*.%E #+.&E 28.$%
%% %7 2$
%2.&E %+.*E 19.2%
= 3
).%E 2.3%
$9 71 130
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
6uring this month
#(= months ago
7(& months ago
*(%% months ago
%(# !rs ago
F# !rs ago
&en
'as
salary
#n(rease
Total
Male 1emale
Gen%er
Total
Table: *ate o last salary increase and gender
#$$ *).#
7+ %2.7
+ =.7
% .7
& #.=
% .7
266 100.0
.greed dateDpuntuall!
%(* da!s after pa! da!
2(%7 da!s after pa! da!
%)(=$ da!s after pa! da!
-nl! when thereGs profit
-ther
Total
Response
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: "or#ers' pay!ent date
;enerall"( ./0 wor%ers were wor%ing for a fi4ed mont!l" salar". -!is was indi)ated b"
94.5* of res&ondents )om&ared to onl" 5.1* w!o were &aid in %ind or re)ei'ed a
flu)tuating salar".
/ost res&ondents #75.2*$ re)ei'ed t!eir &a"ments b" t!e agreed date w!ile 18.4* !ad
t!eir &a" dela"ed b" 1 + 7 da"s after t!e agreed date. A furt!er 3.4* of res&ondents
re&orted to re)ei'e t!eir salaries 8 , 14 da"s after t!e agreed date. .i4 wor%ers #2.3*$
onl" re)ei'ed t!eir salaries w!en t!ere was mone". -!ere was no signifi)ant gender
differen)e regarding t!e &un)tualit" of &a"ment.
18
%$% ++ 200
*=.*E *&.*E 7$.2%
#+ #$ 49
#%.#E %).)E 18.4%
= & 9
#.#E 7.*E 3.4%
% 1
.2E .4%
7 # 6
#.+E %.&E 2.3%
% 1
.2E .4%
137 129 266
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
.greed dateDpuntuall!
%(* da!s after pa! da!
2(%7 da!s after pa! da!
%)(=$ da!s after pa! da!
-nl! when thereGs profit
-ther
)ayment
%ate
Total
Male 1emale
Gen%er
Total
Table: +ay!ent date and gender
14.%
7.%
2.8
2.5
5
1%
&.%
7
%.%
12.5
25.5
0.5
$ %$ #$ =$
Annual leave
(onus
Me)ical ai)
Pension
Sta* loan + Cre)it
Meals
,ransport
Accommo)ation
Clothes
Assist. in )i-culties
$o bene.ts
thers
$rap%: Beneits received by S,E -or#ers
3or%ers in t!e ./0 se)tor re)ei'ed some benefits from t!eir em&lo"ers alt!oug! t!e
monetar" 'alue of su)! benefits is diffi)ult to determine. Annual lea'e was en2o"ed b"
onl" 14.3* of t!e res&ondents alt!oug! it is a legal obligation in terms of t!e <abour A)t
#1992$. /eal allowan)es were gi'en to 13.0* of res&ondents w!ile assistan)e in times of
diffi)ult" was t!e t!ird most im&ortant benefit w!i)! 12.5* of wor%ers )laimed to en2o".
About a t!ird of res&ondents #25.5*$ indi)ated t!at t!e" did not re)ei'e an" benefits
from t!eir em&lo"ers.
19
%.&
7.1
88.2
0.4 0.4
$
#$
7$
&$
2$
%$$
Me)ical ai) Pension + /i0e
insurance
$o covera#e $ot sure thers
$rap%: Insurance coverage
<ife insuran)e( &ension( medi)al aid )o'ers and ot!er so)ial &rote)tions are im&ortant
benefits for wor%ers and t!eir de&endants. 8owe'er( onl" 7.1* of our res&ondents were
&art of a &ension and1 or life insuran)e s)!eme and t!e 'ast ma2orit" #88.2*$ were not
)o'ered b" an" insuran)e s)!eme. 5er" few wor%ers #3.6*$ were )o'ered b" a medi)al
aid s)!eme.
Table: +rivate insurance coverage
#$ &#.)
%$ =%.=
# &.=
32 100.0
4ersonalD own cover
Spouse
-thers
Total
Responses
1re9uenc! 4ercent
-!irt"+two #32$ of our res&ondents were )o'ered b" &ri'ate insuran)e s)!emes to ma%e
u& for t!e la)% of )o'erage at t!e wor%&la)e. /ost of t!ose wit! &ri'ate s)!emes #60.6*$
were )o'ered t!roug! t!eir own s)!emes w!ile t!e ot!ers #30.3*$ were )o'ered t!roug!
t!eir s&ouse or &artners.
20
Other sources of income
3e wanted to establis! if ./0 wor%ers !ad ot!er sour)es of in)ome or w!et!er t!e" !ad
to rel" solel" on t!eir meagre salaries as s!own in -able abo'e. nl" 15* of res&ondents
!ad ot!er sour)es of in)ome. -!e ma2orit" #84.5*$ of res&ondents !ad to rel" e4)lusi'el"
on t!eir salaries. /ore women #24.2*$ t!an men #7.2*$ !ad ot!er sour)es of in)ome.
8usbands1 wi'es 1 &artners were t!e main sour)e of se)ondar" in)ome a))ounting for
38.1* w!ile ot!ers #28.6*$ relied on t!eir own small enter&rises as a sour)e of
se)ondar" in)ome. /aintenan)e( mostl" to women( was re)ei'ed b" about 13.3* of
res&ondents.
7# %).)
##+ 27.)
271 100.0
/es
?o
Total
Responses
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: .t%er sources o inco!e
0 $ 10 1$ 20 2$ 30 3$ 40
!n SME
Spouse+partner
Male in house
"emale in house
Pension
/ivestoc1
Maintenance
ther
$rap%: Secondary inco!es
21
Hours of work
-!e dail" !ours of wor% for most res&ondents #61.8*$ ranged from 4 , 8 !ours. f t!e
total of 168 res&ondents w!o wor%ed between 4 , 8 !ours( !alf were men and !alf were
women. -!ose w!o wor%ed between 9 , 11 !ours a))ounted for 26.1*. <ong wor%ing
da"s of 12 !ours and more were e4&erien)ed b" 12.1* of t!e res&ondents. /ore men
#29.3*$ t!an women #22.7*$ wor%ed between 9 , 11 !ours &er da".
.lig!tl" more t!an !alf #52.4*$ of res&ondents wor%ed between 41 + 55 !ours a wee%.
About 15* of res&ondents )laimed t!at t!e" wor%ed for 71 !ours or more &er wee%. -!e
ma2orit" of t!em were in t!e trans&ort and )ommuni)ation se)tor.
%&2 &%.2
*% #&.%
== %#.%
272 100.0
7(2 hrs
+(%% hrs
%#hrs < more
Total
Response
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: *aily %ours o -or#
% .7
# .*
= %.%
)# %+.%
%)= )&.=
&% ##.7
272 100.0
#
=
7
)
&
*
Total
&or*#ng
%ays per
'ee*
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: "ee#ly days o -or#
/ore t!an !alf #56.3*$ of our res&ondents wor%ed for 6 da"s a wee% w!ile 22.4*
wor%ed e'er" da". ne in fi'e #19.1*$ wor%ed for fi'e da"s a wee% and onl" 6
res&ondents #2(2*$ wor%ed for less t!an fi'e da"s in a wee%.
22
Workplace safety
/ore t!an two+t!irds of res&ondents t!oug!t t!at t!eir wor%&la)e was safe w!ilst 21.7*
indi)ated t!e o&&osite. About one in four wor%ers #26.8*$ were &ro'ided wit! safet"
equi&ment b" t!eir em&lo"ers. About !alf #51.8*$ did not re)ei'e safet" equi&ment from
t!eir em&lo"ers w!ile 21.3* did not see an" need for safet" equi&ment at t!eir
wor%&la)e. /ore men #25.7*$ t!an women #17.6*$ 'iewed t!eir &la)es of wor% as
unsafe.
#$+ **.%
)+ #%.2
= %.%
271 100.0
/es
?o
?ot sure
Total
Responses
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table : +erception on -or#place saety
23

Job satisfaction
Almost !alf #45.2*$ of our res&ondents said t!at t!e" were satisfied wit! t!eir 2obs and
13.2* indi)ated t!at t!e" were !ig!l" satisfied. nl" 15.4* #42$ of our res&ondents said
t!at t!e" were not satisfied wit! t!eir 2obs. =ob satisfa)tion between men and women was
fairl" e'en as 19 men )om&ared to 17 women were !ig!l" satisfied wit! t!eir 2obs w!ile
64 men and 59 women were satisfied wit! t!eir 2obs. 8owe'er more men #26 or 18.6*$
t!an women #16 or 12.1*$ were not satisfied wit! t!eir 2obs.
Table &/: 0ob satisaction
=& %=.#
%#= 7).#
*% #&.%
7# %).7
272 100.0
Her! satisfied
Satisfied
1air
?ot satisfied
Total
Responses
1re9uenc! 4ercent
%+ %* 36
%=.&E %#.+E 13.2%
&7 )+ 123
7).*E 77.*E 4$.2%
=% 7$ 71
##.%E =$.=E 26.1%
#& %& 42
%2.&E %#.%E 1$.4%
140 132 272
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Her! satisfied
Satisfied
1air
?ot satisfied
+o, sat#s"a(t#on
rat#ng
Total
Male 1emale
Gen%er
Total
Table: 0ob satisaction and gender
24
1ualiications and Training
-!e ./0 se)tor &redominantl" #45.6*$ em&lo"s wor%ers w!o !a'e grade 8 , 10 as t!eir
!ig!est formal qualifi)ation. nl" 12 #4.4*$ wor%ers said t!at t!e" did not !a'e an"
s)!ooling and t!e" were all men.. 3or%ers wit! grade 11 , 12 edu)ation a))ounted for
25.4* of our sam&le( followed b" 24.6* w!o !ad 1 , 7 "ears of s)!ooling.
9rimar" edu)ation #grade 1+ 7$ as t!e !ig!est le'el of edu)ation amongst men was almost
double #31.4*$ as !ig! as amongst women #17(4*$. =unior se)ondar" s)!ool edu)ation
#grade 8 , 9$ was almost e'enl" s&read between men and women in t!e se)tor wit!
43.6* and 47.7* res&e)ti'el". 3omen dominated in t!e )ategor" of t!ose wit! senior
se)ondar" s)!ool edu)ation #grade 11 , 12$( a))ounting for 34.8* )om&ared to onl"
16.4* of men.
0ig!t" #80$ &er)ent of res&ondents did not &osses an" &ost+s)!ool qualifi)ation. A degree
or di&loma qualifi)ation was !eld b" 4 #1.5*$ res&ondents. All of t!em were women.
<ess t!an one fift! #17.7*$ of our res&ondents !ad 'o)ational training )ertifi)ates again
wit! more women #20.5*$ t!an men #15.1*$. 3omen t!us tended to !a'e !ig!er le'els
of qualifi)ations but were still )on)entrated in t!e lower salaries #see table 11$.
Table: "or#ers' level o sc%ooling
%# 7.7
&* #7.&
%#7 7).&
&+ #).7
272 100.0
?o shooling
;rade%(*
;rade2(%$
;rade%%(%#
Total
Responses
1re9uenc! 4ercent
25
%# 12
2.&E 4.4%
77 #= 67
=%.7E %*.7E 24.6%
&% &= 124
7=.&E 7*.*E 4$.6%
#= 7& 69
%&.7E =7.2E 2$.4%
140 132 272
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
?o shooling
;rade%(*
;rade2(%$
;rade%%(%#
-#gest
s(ool
le.el
Total
Male 1emale
Gen%er
Total
Table: "or#ers' level o sc%ooling and gender
.ome 54.4* of res&ondents said t!at t!e" !a'e re)ei'ed training from t!eir em&lo"ers.
f t!e 148 wor%ers w!o were trained( 80 were women and 68 men. -raining was most
frequent in agro+&ro)essing #80*$( te4tile and leat!er &ro)essing #69(2*$( !os&italit" and
tourism #66(7*$( and wood &ro)essing #64(3*$. 7onstru)tion as well as trans&ort and
)ommuni)ations were t!e )lusters wit! t!e lowest le'els of training #33(3*$.
26
%72 )7.7
%#7 7).&
272 100.0
/es
?o
Total
Responses
1re9uenc! 4ercent
Table: Training at -or#
/ore t!an 9 out of 10 wor%ers #91.6*$ w!o re)ei'ed training were trained on t!e 2ob and
onl" 'er" few #2.6*$ were send elsew!ere for training. t!ers #3.9*$ were trained
t!roug! s%ills s!aring wit! ot!er wor%ers.
+%.&
#.&
=.+
$.& %.#
$
%$
#$
=$
7$
)$
&$
*$
2$
+$
%$$
Iob training In(house
training
raining
elsewhere
Skillshare -thers
$rap%: Type o training
-!e ma2orit" #14.7*$ of t!ose w!o were trained re)ei'ed t!eir training wit!in a few
!ours w!ilst 10.3* re)ei'ed training for t!e duration of one to two da"s. 7.7* of trained
wor%ers re)ei'ed t!eir training lasting for one to two wee%s followed b" 6.6* w!o were
trained in 3 , 6 da"s.
27
2onclusion and Reco!!endations
>e'elo&ing a definition t!at will be a))e&table to all sta%e!olders in t!e ./0 se)tor and
t!en de'elo&ing a re&li)able assessment tool based on su)! a definition is almost an
im&ossible tas%. -!is stud" ado&ted t!e number of em&lo"ees as a definitional )riterion
and disregarded ot!er equall" im&ortant definitional )riteria su)! as )a&ital em&lo"ment
and turno'er. -!is sim&le definitional a&&roa)! !as &ro'ed to be &ra)ti)al and useful for
t!e &ur&ose of t!is stud"( namel" t!e de'elo&ing of an assessment tool( but we would
)aution against using a similar definitional a&&roa)! for ot!er &ur&oses. ?nless t!e
re&li)abilit" of t!e stud" o'er time is t!e main ob2e)ti'e of an" intended stud" into t!e
./0 se)tor( t!e in)lusion of )a&ital em&lo"ment and turno'er in to t!e definition of t!e
se)tor is re)ommended.
-!e results of t!is stud" ma" not gi'e a )om&lete &i)ture of t!e entire ./0 se)tor but it
&ro'ides an indi)ation of )urrent salaries and em&lo"ment )onditions. -!is assessment
)an be re&eated o'er time t!us enabling t!e measurement of trends w!i)! will be useful
for &oli)" &lanning and inter'ention.
3e did not e4&erien)e an" diffi)ult" in a&&roa)!ing res&ondents or obtaining information
from t!em. -!erefore( t!e )ontinued random sele)tion of res&ondents in t!e field is
re)ommended.
-!e establis!ment of a trend regarding growt! or de)line of ./0 em&lo"ment is )ru)ial
to an assessment of t!e ./0 se)tor. -!is stud" did not su))eed in establis!ing an" su)!
trend and it is t!erefore &ro&osed t!at su)! a tas% be in)luded in future assessments.
-!e ./0 se)tor seems to &ro'ide a signifi)ant number of 2obs( mostl" on a full+time
basis. -!e se)urit" of su)! fulltime 2obs )an be formalised and strengt!ened b"
en)ouraging em&lo"ers in t!e se)tor to e4tent em&lo"ment )ontra)ts to t!eir em&lo"ees.
.&e)ial targeting strategies s!ould be de'ised w!i)! for instan)e ta%e )ognisan)e of
wor%ers@ inse)urit" due to t!e la)% of em&lo"ment )ontra)ts( low edu)ational le'els( and
t!e rat!er informal labour relations atmos&!ere t!at &re'ails in t!is se)tor. -!e targeting
and ser'i)ing of wor%ers in t!is se)tor s!ould not 2ust be turned into one of t!e man"
28
union a)ti'ities but t!ere s!ould be s&e)iall" designed &rogrammes w!ose &rogress )an
be re'iewed regularl".
>es&ite wor%ersA satisfa)tion wit! t!eir 2obs and bosses( most ./0 wor%ers would want
to wor% in t!e &ubli) se)tor or in a large &ri'ate firm. :n ot!er words( :ndian ./0
wor%ers are in t!e se)tor be)ause of a la)% of alternati'e em&lo"ment.
Begarding gender( our stud" re'ealed t!at no real differen)e between men and women
e4isted regarding t!e t"&e of em&lo"ment #i.e. full+time$( t!e duration of em&lo"ment( 2ob
satisfa)tion( salar" in)reases and &romotions( &a"ment &un)tualit" and number of
de&endants.
0m&lo"ment in t!e ./0 se)tor seems to be of a s!ort to medium term duration as more
t!an !alf of t!e res&ondents !a'e been wit! t!eir em&lo"ers for a few mont!s to two
"ears. -wo reasons )an &ossibl" e4&lain t!is. First( most of t!e inter'iewed wor%ers are
relati'el" "oung and seem not to !a'e wor%ed elsew!ere before ta%ing on t!eir )urrent
2obs in t!e ./0 se)tor. A se)ond &ossible e4&lanation is t!at &eo&le onl" ta%e 2obs in t!e
./0 se)tor as an interim measure and lea'e as soon as t!e" find 2obs in t!e &ubli) or
&ri'ate se)tor in line wit! wor%ersA &referred o&tion of em&lo"ment. 3!ate'er t!e
reasons mig!t be( t!ere are a number of &ositi'e trends and &ra)ti)es w!i)! if )ulti'ated
)an ensure staff retention in t!e se)tor. ne su)! trend( w!i)! )an form t!e &illar of staff
retention( is t!e friendl" and )ondu)i'e em&lo"er , em&lo"ee relations!i& t!at &re'ails in
t!e se)tor. :f )!allenges su)! as low salaries and la)% of benefits are attended to( t!e
&ositi'e relations!i& is li%el" to grow and it )an ser'e as an in)enti'e for wor%ers to %ee&
t!eir 2obs in t!e se)tor. -!e regular salar" in)rements and &romotions in t!e se)tor )an be
anot!er in)enti'e if &ro&er salar" s)ales and in)rement guides )an be de'elo&ed. .u)!
salar" s)ales s!ould ta%e into a))ount t!e 'alue of womenAs 2obs as women seem to
re)ei'e most &romotions )om&ared to men but ironi)all" )ontinue to re)ei'e salaries t!at
are lower t!an t!ose of t!eir male )ounter&arts. A t!ird im&ortant &illar to build on is t!e
training of wor%ers in t!e se)tor. :t mig!t be wort!w!ile e4&loring t!e lin% between more
s"stemati) training for ./0 wor%ers and in)reased out&ut1better wor%ing )onditions
w!i)! in turn would en)ourage wor%ers to %ee& t!eir 2obs.
29
-!e findings of our stud" indi)ate t!at t!e earnings of wor%ers in t!e ./0 se)tor are low
and &ose t!e biggest )on)ern for ./0 wor%ers( es&e)iall" if t!e" are 'iewed in lig!t of
t!e de&enden)" ratio &er wor%er in t!is se)tor. -!is is e4a)erbated b" t!e fa)t t!at t!e
ma2orit" of wor%ers in t!e se)tor do not !a'e an" ot!er sour)e of se)ondar" in)ome.
;enerall" wor%ers in t!e ./0 se)tor seem not to !a'e real )on)erns about t!eir
wor%&la)e safet". 8owe'er( t!e few business )lusters or industries su)! as )onstru)tion
and t!e trans&ort and )ommuni)ation se)tors in w!i)! wor%&la)e safet" was a )on)ern
s!ould not be ignored. -!ese se)tors are male dominated and t!is e4&lains w!" men(
more t!an women !a'e wor%&la)e safet" )on)erns. -!e &ro'ision of safet" equi&ment at
t!e wor%&la)e is found to be inadequate and t!e stud" re)ommends t!at labour ins&e)tors
and t!e !ealt! and safet" de&artments of unions &a" &arti)ular attention to t!is issue.
<abour ins&e)tors and ot!er go'ernment offi)ials s!ould &la" an a)ti'e role in ensuring
ad!eren)e to basi) !ealt! and safet" standards as well as t!e basi) &ro'isions of t!e
<abour A)t.
30