Executive Insight’s At the Rim alerts business leaders to breaking news and important developments in organizational strategy, globalization and talent management.

At the Rim alerts are posted on this website as the news breaks as well as emailed to a confidential subscriber list around the world. Subscribe >

The Wall Street Journal reported growing labor discontent in India, at times leading to bloodshed.

"Battle lines are being drawn in labor actions across India. Factory managers, amid the global economic downturn, want to pare labor costs and remove defiant workers. Unions are attempting to stop them, with slowdowns and strikes that have led at times to bloodshed.
The disputes are fueled by the discontent of workers, many of whom say they haven't partaken of the past decade's prosperity. Their passions are being whipped up, companies say, by labor leaders who want to add members to their unions and win votes for left-leaning political parties. Adding to the tensions are the country's decades-old labor codes, which workers and companies alike say require an overhaul.

The country's manufacturing sector, after growing about 7% annually for the past 16 years, logged 2.4% growth in the 12 months that ended in March. That has pressed manufacturers to make some unpopular cutbacks -- spurring labor actions that have slowed production further and suppressed growth.

For India to grow faster, economists say, manufacturing must grow more than GDP. Instead it now lags. Strikes at India's manufacturing and service companies rose 48% in 2008 from the year before, India's Ministry of Labor says. This year, labor actions have hit manufacturers from Indian automaker Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. to Finland's Nokia Corp. and Swiss food giant Nestle SA.

Indian manufacturers are governed by two old labor laws. The country's Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 requires companies to gain government permission before dismissing workers. The Contract Labor Law of 1970, meanwhile, prohibits employers from using temporary workers for long-term jobs. Both aim to encourage companies to protect workers by making them permanent.

Manufacturers have long complained that it can take years to dismiss their permanent employees, leading to bloated work forces and hampering companies' ability to respond quickly to changing business conditions. Executives and industry groups say relaxing the labor laws would allow companies to hire more workers and would attract more manufacturers to India, ultimately underpinning a rise in wages. Source: The Wall Street Journal; 11/20/09
 

During the past two proxy seasons, the SEC received a number of no-action requests from companies seeking to exclude proposals relating to CEO succession planning in reliance on Rule 14a-8(i)(7). These proposals generally requested that the companies adopt and disclose written and detailed CEO succession planning policies with specified features, including that the board develop criteria for the CEO position, identify and develop internal candidates, and use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates. The SEC judged that these proposals could be excluded in reliance on Rule 14a-8(i)(7) because the proposals related to the termination, hiring or promotion of employees.

The Commission had stated in a 1998 Release that proposals involving "the management of the workforce, such as the hiring, promotion, and termination of employees" relate to ordinary business matters. Its position to date with respect to CEO succession planning proposals was based on this guidance and the historical approach to proposals relating to employee hiring and promotion.

In an October 26th 2009 Release however it changed its position. Reiterating that one of the board's key functions is to provide for succession planning so that the company is not adversely affected due to a vacancy in leadership, the Release read, “Recent events have underscored the importance of this board function to the governance of the corporation. We now recognize that CEO succession planning raises a significant policy issue regarding the governance of the corporation that transcends the day-to-day business matter of managing the workforce. As such, we have reviewed our position on CEO succession planning proposals and have determined to modify our treatment of such proposals. Going forward, we will take the view that a company generally may not rely on Rule 14a-8(i)(7) to exclude a proposal that focuses on CEO succession planning.”

This change in position will most likely bring issues of CEO succession more prominently to the shareholder relations’ agenda and cause companies to more rigorously and transparently develop Succession Plans of consequence.