\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Critical Analysis of Profile of Industrial Employees in Andhra Pradesh, India}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2013-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2013)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2013-01-15} \title{Critical Analysis of Profile of Industrial Employees in Andhra Pradesh, India} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{Gudivada Venakt Rao} \author[2]{Prof. P.Devaki Devi} \affil[1]{ Andhra University, Visakhapatnam.} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 12 December 2012 Accepted: 1 January 2013 Published: 15 January 2013} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The profile of the employees since globalization has undergone changes. The demographic studies show the influence of generation X in near future. The profile analysis of the workforce is useful in understanding the psychological, sociological and economic composition. The Human Resource processes and systems are influenced by the profile of the employees. A study was undertaken by administering a questionnaire on 570 female and 358 male employees who belong to 13 public sector and 5 private sector organizations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The sex and sector-wise analysis is presented on personal factors such as age, religion and caste, marital status, structure of the family, housing, migration, urbanization, education, job position and experience, income and unionization to know the profiles of the industrial female, male, public and private sector employees. \end{abstract} \keywords{} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \let\tabcellsep& \section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par he behavior of organization is viewed as the overall performance assessment on the basis of interaction between the individuals and groups in all fields of management, the key arena being human resource management. The managers are expected to understand the integrated systems, human resources profile and their activities and human resources processes as 'people systems' aiming at longevity of high performing individuals. In this process the factors at consideration may be said as (a) individual differences to recognize the diverse needs (b) perceptions that are built out of life time experiences and accumulated values (c) employee as a whole person being affected by job life (d) motivated personality being exhibited by the employee based on his profile as well by the profile of the organization (e) design of involvement for the employee self-efficacy and mutual benefit and (f) value of the person as people expect to be treated as humans differently from machines {\ref (Stahl, 1995: 279)}. The psychological framework of the employees plays a pivotal role in designing and continuously improving the organizational processes and systems, the essence of the total quality management \hyperref[b0]{(Bratton, J and Gold J. 1994}). The operating human resource management systems develop flexibility among the employees while adopting new work design, high product and process quality, high employee commitment and strategic integration which culminate and develop from the profile of the employees, both managers and operatives. All the more, it is presently expected that human resource management practices are based on 'unitarist' way of relationship between employer and the employed instead of 'pluralist' view of divergent interests between the 'two sides' {\ref (Cave, 1994,71 : 78)}. In the background of the preceding theoretical base, the analysis of the profile of the employees in the work organizations under the changing global industrial scenario is considered meaningful.\par The Personal factors among the socioeconomic characteristics treated under the employee profile are (1) age. \hyperref[b1]{(2)} religion and caste, (3) marital status, (4) structure of the family, (5) housing, \hyperref[b4]{(6)} migration, \hyperref[b5]{(7)} urbanization, \hyperref[b6]{(8)} educational level, (9) job position and experience, \hyperref[b8]{(10)} income and \hyperref[b9]{(11)} unionization. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{Method of the Study}]{Method of the Study}\par The profile of the industrial employees is analysed based on the data collected by administering a questionnaire on 570 female and 358 male employees by frequency matching who belong to 13 pubic sector and 5 private sector organizations in the State of Andhra Pradesh under the UGC Major Research Project {\ref (2002)}. The distribution of sample is shown in Annexure -I. The sex and sector-wise analysis is presented. The tabular data are presented in Annexure -II i.e., Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1} to Table \hyperref[tab_13]{13}. Some tables show the data of only those employees who revealed information and hence totals vary. \section[{a) Age}]{a) Age}\par As behavioral dimensions change along with age, any profile at the outset is evidenced by the age. The average age of the employees is 36.69 years. The employees are distributed almost evenly in the age groups of 25 to 60 years (Table \hyperref[tab_0]{-1}). Those who are aged below 40 years i.e., youth form 55.60 per cent and the rest 44.41 per cent are aged 40 years and above.\par The majority of the female employees (62.28\%) are associated with the age groups of below 40 years while the male employees in this category form only 44.98 per cent. The females under 30 years age come to 35.14 per cent and the male proportion in this category is 19.56 per cent. Male employees (53.92\%) are highly located in 40-55 years age group. The average age of the female and the male employees work out to 35.23 years and 39.03 years respectively and the mean difference is significant (t: 5.84).Sectorwise analysis indicates that the employee group who are under 40 years age forms 86.62 per cent in the private sector while this category in the public sector works out to only 40.86 per cent. The same trend is noticed even in the age groups of below 30 years (private sector: 59.53\%; public sector: 15.58\%). The average also shows that the mean age of the private sector employees is only 29.61 years while the same is 40.04 years in the case of the public sector employees and the mean difference is significant (t :17.51).\par Sex and sector-wise analysis shows that among the males the private sector employees (50.73\%) are more associated with the lower age groups (below 30 years) than the males of the public sector (12.11\%). In case of the female employees also, the private sector females (62.18\%) are more associated with lower age groups (below 30 years) than the public sector females (18.53\%).\par The males are slightly more aged than the females in the private sector. About half of the male employees (50.73\%) in the private sector belong to less than 30 years age group while female employees in this category form 62.18 per cent. However, the mean difference is not significant (t: 1.01) between males and females in the private sector. In the public sector, the male employees category under 30 years age group works out to 12.11 per cent while the females form 18.53 per cent. Males higher than the females are located in the age groups of 40 years and above. The mean difference between the males and females in the public sector in significant (t: 2.69). \section[{b) Religion and Caste}]{b) Religion and Caste}\par The people in Andhra Pradesh internalize their religion and caste in their family and job life, which influence the functioning and performance of the organization. The data on religion indicate that most of the employees among those who revealed their religion are Hindus (88.38\%), next higher proportion (7.01\%) belongs to Islam, 3.40 per cent to Christianity and 1.20 per cent belongs to other religions. Those who do not like to reveal information form 1.62 per cent (Table {\ref -}2).\par The caste analysis (Table {\ref -}2) indicates that most of the employees (74.68\%) belong to the Forward castes, next proportion (18.53\%) to Backward castes, next in order are the Scheduled Castes (5.60\%) and the Scheduled Tribes {\ref (1.19\%)}.\par The female-male distribution reveals almost the similar trends. The public vs. private sector distribution shows that the Forward caste employees are in higher proportion in the Private sector (81.27\%) than in the public sector (71.54\%), hence reserved categories seem to be more in the public sector. \section[{III.}]{III.} \section[{Marital Status}]{Marital Status}\par Marital status is another factor which influences behaviour and forms one of the elements of the profile. The data on marital status (Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}) indicate that 97.84 per cent of the sample (908) reveals information. Among them 81.50 per cent are married, 18.39 per cent live alone as they are either separated, widowed or divorced from the spouse and 0.11 per cent are unmarried.\par The female-male distribution reveals that among the females 78.38 per cent are married, while this category in males is 86.40 per cent. A group of 21.62 per cent are either separated, widowed or divorced in case of the females and this group forms only 13.31 per cent among the males. Among this group, in case of both the males (95.74\%) and females (88.33\%), the separated are the highest. 'Others' category is higher in the private sector (34.50\%) than in the public sector (10.84\%). \section[{IV.}]{IV.} \section[{Structure of the Family}]{Structure of the Family}\par In contemporary times, the nuclear family structure is a sociological phenomenon. As the people move away from native places in search of employment, it is common that nuclear family structure exists in case of industrial employees.\par The analysis also depicts that 80.28 per cent of the responded employees have nuclear family. Of them, 65.34 per cent have complete family and the rest (14.95\%) have incomplete family. Those who live in joint family form 19.72 per cent and of them 12.24 per cent have the vertical family structure and the rest (7.47\%) has the lateral family structure (Table \hyperref[tab_3]{4}). The femalemale analysis reveals that in both the cases (82.17\%) females and 77.38\% males) nuclear family structure is common.\par Sector-wise analysis depicts that more number of the employees in the public sector have nuclear family set up (83.73\%) compared to the private sector (71,74\%). Sector and sex-wise analysis indicates that in the private sector no difference exists between males and females while in the public sector male employees (21.22\%) with joint-family set up are higher than the females (12.25\%). \section[{V.}]{V.} \section[{Housing}]{Housing}\par As to how the employees in the industries have housing facilities is a matter of analysis. A group of 78.23 per cent of the sampled employees (726) reveals their housing facility. Among them, a majority of the employees (56.61\%) own a house, the next higher proportion (38.98\%) has rented accommodation and the rest (4.41\%) reside in the company quarter (Table \hyperref[tab_5]{-5}). The female-male distribution depicts that 61.26 per cent of the males, more than females (53.30\%) have own house and more female employees ( 41.98\%) than the males (34.77\%) reside in rented house. The males (3.97\%) and females (4.72\%) who live in the company quarter are almost similar.\par Sector-wise analysis indicates that while majority of the public sector employees (60.07\%) have own house, majority of the private sector employees (53.51\%) live in rented house. It is a fact that only public sector employees reside in the company quarter (5.91\%).\par Sector and sex-wise analysis shows that in the public sector, a majority of males (63.11\%) and the females (57.58\%) have their own house; in case of the private sector, majority of males (53.45\%) have own house while majority of the females (56.69\%) reside in rented house. \section[{VI. Migration}]{VI. Migration}\par The employees' mobility is known from the migratory character. The data analysis reveals that 87.15 per cent belong to the native State and those from other States form 12.85 per cent (Table \hyperref[tab_6]{-6}). However, inter-district migration is found to be common.\par It is noticed that the females (15.54\%) more than the males (8.63\%) come from other States. Sectorwise analysis depicts that more public sector males (10.18\%) than the private sector males (1.54\%) come from other States and more females in the private sector (20.55\%) than the females in the public sector (12.20\%) move from other states. Male-female differences are glaring only in the private sector, the females (20.55\%) more than the men (1.54\%) come from other States. \section[{VII.}]{VII.} \section[{Urbanisation}]{Urbanisation}\par The most of the sampled industries are urban based. As to how the employees are associated with nativity, either urban or rural is analysed. The data reveal that majority of the employees (68.15\%) are urban by birth and about one-third (31.85\%) have rural background indicating that the second generation employees emerged in the cities (Table \hyperref[tab_7]{-7}).\par Female-male distribution shows that more females (71.80\%) than the males (62.61\%) have the urban background. Sector-wise analysis depicts that glaring difference does not exist between public (69.31\%) and the private sector (65.65\%) employees. However, in both the sectors, females with urban background and males with rural background are higher. \section[{VIII.}]{VIII.} \section[{Education}]{Education}\par Education is a key factor of the profile which influences the behaviour of the employees. The data on educational level reveal that most of the employees are highly educated, either up to collegiate (42.56\%) or post-graduate level (47.74\%) as they are urbanites . The average education level of the employees works out to 15.49 years.\par Female-male distribution indicates that there is no variation (t : 1.41) between the educational levels of the males ( X : 15.72 years ) and the females (X: 15.34 years).\par Sector-wise analysis shows that education of the public sector employees (X: 15.75 years) is higher than the private sector employees (X: 14.93 years) and the mean difference is significant (t : 2.91). There are no sex-wise glaring differences in between the sectors. \section[{IX.}]{IX.} \section[{Job Position}]{Job Position}\par The designation or the job position moulds the attitudinal and behavioral pattern of the employees and is another key element of the profile. The data indicate that the highest proportion of the employees (25.86\%) is in junior management cadre, next higher proportion (18.43\%) is workers (Table \hyperref[tab_9]{-9}). The middle management cadre forms 17.89 per cent and the clerical staff work out to 16.16 per cent. The supervisory staff forms 10.88 per cent. The doctors, pharmacists, nurses etc., come to 8.73 per cent, and the top management employers in the sample form 2.05 per cent. Overall, the management cadre works out to 45.80 per cent. The presence of more managerial personnel is attributed to the inclusion of the software companies.\par The female-male differences are not noticed. Sector-wise analysis indicates that the managers group is slightly higher in the private sector (50.84\%) than in the public sector (43.41\%). However, the workers category is more common in the private sector (34.75\%) than in the public sector (10.81\%). The clerical staff is in higher proportion in the public sector (22.42\%) compared to the private sector (3.01\%). The supervisory staff is found to be in higher proportion in the public sector (14.3\%) than in the private sector (3.68\%).\par The item-wise analysis on job position and caste depicts that 89.47 per cent of the senior managers belong to Forward castes. Among the Backward castes, the highest proportion (28.49\%) belongs to worker category and the next group (26.16\%) to junior level management (Table \hyperref[tab_11]{-10}). Among the Scheduled Castes, three-fifths (59.62\%) belong to either clerical (34.62\%) or worker cadre (25.00\%). About one-fifth of the Scheduled caste employees (21.15\%) are in managerial position. The Scheduled Tribe employees belong to either junior-management (45.45\%) or supervisory cadre (36.36\%). It is also true that among the managers, 81.41 per cent belong to Forward Castes while their presence in the sample is 74.68 per cent. {\ref -11)}. The average experience level is 13.26 years.\par The female-male analysis reveals that most of the females (88.95\%) and the males (82.96\%) have job experience of below 20 years. However, the females with job experience of below 10 years form 31.93 per cent while in male group it is only 15.64 per cent. The average experience of the males (15.56 years) and the females (12.70 years) vary significantly (t : 6.05).\par The sector-wise distribution indicates that while 85.62 per cent of the private sector employees have job experience of below 15 years, the group in the public sector forms only 33.86 per cent. The public sector employees (X: 13.82 years) and the private sector employees (X: 12.08 years) differ significantly in the job experience. It is also true that the males (X: 12.41 years) and the females (X: 11.98 years) of the private sector vary in case of job experience (t: 2.29) while no significant difference is noticed in the public sector (t: 1.01) between the males (X: 13.90 years) and the females (X : 13.82 years). \section[{X.}]{X.} \section[{Income}]{Income}\par The economic level of the employee has impact on formation of his attitudes and behavioral pattern. The average salaried income of the employee is Rs.9, 321. The details (Table {\ref -12)} indicate that most of the employees (79.85\%) receive salary between Rs.3, 000 and 15,000. The highest proportion of the employees (28.34\%) has income of Rs. 6,000 -9,000. The next highest proportion (20.26\%) gets monthly income of Rs. 12,000-15,000. Those who draw below Rs. 3,000 form only 6.79 per cent and Rs. 24,000 and above account to 0.86 per cent.\par The female-male analysis depicts that the most of the employees among the females (79.64\%) and the males (80.17\%) get salary between Rs. 3,000-15,000. The variations in individual groups between females and males are marginal. The average income shows that the males draw more (X = Rs.10, 160) than the females (x = Rs.8, 794/-) and the difference is significant (t : 3.34).\par The sector-wise details indicate that the highest proportion of the private sector employees (32.44\%) draw salary of Rs. 12,000 -15,000 and in case of the public sector, highest proportion (36.41\%) draw income of Rs. 6,000-9,000. It is also noticed that the private sector employees who draw salary below Rs. 3,000 are higher (13.71\%) than the public sector employees (3.50\%). However, the mean difference in salary of the public and private sector employees is not significant (t : 1.02). But the difference is noticed (t = 3.71) in between the males and females of the public sector employees. \section[{XI.}]{XI.} \section[{Unionisation}]{Unionisation}\par An attempt is made to find out the pattern of the employee unionisation. The data indicate that among the total sample, only 28.66 per cent accept that they have membership in a union and most of the employees (71.34\%) are not unionized (Table \hyperref[tab_13]{-13}).\par The male-female distribution depicts that slightly more males (3.40\%) than the females (26.82\%) are unionized. Sector-wise data show that higher proportion of the public sector employees (33.23\%) compared to the private sector employees (19.06\%) are unionized. It is also true that slightly more number of males (36.33\%) than the females (30.59\%) in the public sector and more number of females (20.00\%) than the males (15.94\%) in the private sector are unionized. \section[{XII.}]{XII.} \section[{Conclusions}]{Conclusions}\par The profile of the industrial employee of Andhra Pradesh is characterized by the following features: The average age of the employees is 36.69 years and the female lower age and the private sector employees with significantly differ from the male and public sector employees. Most of the employees (88.38\%) are Hindus and belong to Forward castes (74.68\%). Sex-wise variation is not found.\par However, Forward caste employees are noticed to be higher in the private sector (81.27\%) than in the public sector (71.54\%) as reserved categories find place more in the public sector. About four-fifths of the employees (81.50\%) are married, and more females (21.62\%) than the males (13.31\%) are living without spouse and this is more common in the private sector.\par The four-fifths of the employees live in nuclear family and no variation is found between the males and the females but more private sector employees compared to the public sector have nuclear family setup. Majority of employees (56.61\%) own a house. More males and the public sector employees have own house. Most of the employees belong to the native State, females in more number migrate and intra-district migration is common.\par About two-thirds of the employees are urban by birth indicating the second generation employees. More females than the males have urban background. The employees are highly educated with 15.49 years of average education with no variation between males and the females. However, public sector employees are more educated than the private sector employees.\par The employees highly belong to the management cadre which may be due to the inclusion of software professionals and flat structure is common. The sex and sector-wise differences are absent. It is also true that most of the senior managers belong to Forward castes, workers group to Backward castes, Scheduled castes to supervisory cadre and Scheduled Tribes to junior management cadre. It is true that worker cadre is highly found in the private sector while supervisory cadre is more common in the public sector.\par Most of the employees have below 20 years of job experience with average experience of 13.26 years and the males and females significantly differ in their experience as females have lower experience. The public sector employees with higher experience significantly differ from the private sector employees.\par The salary level is Rs. 9,321 and females draw significantly lesser salary than the male employees and variation is found based on sector distribution. Surprisingly only 28.66 per cent of employees accept that they have membership in a union and most of them (71.34\%) are not unionized. The males (32.40\%) slightly higher than the females (26.82\%) are unionized. The public sector employees are highly unionized (33.23\%) than the private sector employees (19.06\%). \section[{Global Journal of Management and}]{Global Journal of Management and}\begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png} \caption{\label{fig_0}A}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} 2013\\ ear\\ Y\\ Volume XIII Issue V Version I\\ ( ) A\\ Business Research\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.12676609105180534\textwidth}P{0.06538461538461539\textwidth}P{0.08406593406593406\textwidth}P{0.07472527472527472\textwidth}P{0.07739403453689168\textwidth}P{0.10541601255886969\textwidth}P{0.06004709576138148\textwidth}P{0.08540031397174254\textwidth}P{0.0880690737833595\textwidth}P{0.08273155416012559\textwidth}} Marital status Caste\tabcellsep Private Sector\tabcellsep Male Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Males\tabcellsep Private Sector\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Female Public Sector Females Total}\tabcellsep Total Private Sector\tabcellsep Total Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Employees\\ 1. Forward\tabcellsep 54\tabcellsep 206\tabcellsep 260\tabcellsep 189\tabcellsep 244\tabcellsep 433\tabcellsep 243\tabcellsep 450\tabcellsep 693\\ Castes\tabcellsep 78.26\%\tabcellsep 71.29\%\tabcellsep 72.63\%\tabcellsep 82.17\%\tabcellsep 71.76\%\tabcellsep 75.96\%\tabcellsep 81.27\%\tabcellsep 71.54\%\tabcellsep 74.68\%\\ 2. Backward\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 64\tabcellsep 77\tabcellsep 38\tabcellsep 57\tabcellsep 95\tabcellsep 51\tabcellsep 121\tabcellsep 172\\ Castes\tabcellsep 18.84\%\tabcellsep 22.15\%\tabcellsep 21.51\%\tabcellsep 16.52\%\tabcellsep 16.76\%\tabcellsep 16.67\%\tabcellsep 17.06\%\tabcellsep 19.24\%\tabcellsep 18.53\%\\ 3. Scheduled\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 19\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 31\tabcellsep 33\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 48\tabcellsep 52\\ Castes\tabcellsep 2.90\%\tabcellsep 5.88\%\tabcellsep 5.31\%\tabcellsep 0.87\%\tabcellsep 9.12\%\tabcellsep 5.79\%\tabcellsep 1.34\%\tabcellsep 7.63\%\tabcellsep 5.60\%\\ 4. Scheduled Tribes\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 2 0.69\%\tabcellsep 1 0.56\%\tabcellsep 1 0.43\%\tabcellsep 8 2.35\%\tabcellsep 9 1.58\%\tabcellsep 1 0.33\%\tabcellsep 10 1.59\%\tabcellsep 11 1.19\%\\ Total\tabcellsep 69 100.00\tabcellsep 289 100.00\tabcellsep 358 100.00\tabcellsep 230 100.00\tabcellsep 340 100.00\tabcellsep 570 100.00\tabcellsep 299 100.00\tabcellsep 629 100.00\tabcellsep 928 100.00\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{3} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.11373239436619717\textwidth}P{0.12809859154929576\textwidth}P{0.06704225352112676\textwidth}P{0.0682394366197183\textwidth}P{0.07422535211267604\textwidth}P{0.05985915492957747\textwidth}P{0.06943661971830986\textwidth}P{0.08859154929577465\textwidth}P{0.08380281690140844\textwidth}P{0.0969718309859155\textwidth}} Marital\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Public Sector}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Private Sector}\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Total\\ Status\tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{Males Females Total Males Females Total}\tabcellsep Males\tabcellsep Females\tabcellsep Employees\\ 1. Married\tabcellsep 264 91.99\%\tabcellsep 287 89.71\%\tabcellsep 551 89.16\%\tabcellsep 41 62.12\%\tabcellsep 148 66.07\%\tabcellsep 189 65.17\%\tabcellsep 305 86.40\%\tabcellsep 435 78.38\%\tabcellsep 740 81.50\%\\ 2. Unmarried\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 1 1.52\%\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 1 0.34\%\tabcellsep 1 0.28\%\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 1 0.11\%\\ 3. Others a. Divorces\tabcellsep 1 0.35\%\tabcellsep 3 0.91\%\tabcellsep 4 0.65\%\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 1 0.28\%\tabcellsep 3 0.54\%\tabcellsep 4 0.44\%\\ b. Widowed\tabcellsep 1 0.35\%\tabcellsep 9 2.72\%\tabcellsep 10 1.62\%\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 2 0.89\%\tabcellsep 2 0.69\%\tabcellsep 1 0.28\%\tabcellsep 3 0.54\%\tabcellsep 12 1.32\%\\ c. Separated\tabcellsep 21 7.32\%\tabcellsep 32 9.67\%\tabcellsep 53 8.58\%\tabcellsep 24 36.36\%\tabcellsep 74 33.04\%\tabcellsep 98 33.79\%\tabcellsep 45 12.75\%\tabcellsep 106 19.1\%\tabcellsep 151 16.63\%\\ Others Total\tabcellsep 23 8.01\%\tabcellsep 44 13.29\%\tabcellsep 67 10.84\%\tabcellsep 24 36.36\%\tabcellsep 76 33.93\%\tabcellsep 100 34.48\%\tabcellsep 47 13.31\%\tabcellsep 120 21.62\%\tabcellsep 167 18.39\%\\ Total\tabcellsep 287 100\%\tabcellsep 331 100\%\tabcellsep 618 100\%\tabcellsep 66 100\%\tabcellsep 224 100\%\tabcellsep 290 100\%\tabcellsep 353 100\%\tabcellsep 555 100\%\tabcellsep 908 100\%\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{4} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} © 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.12126514131897712\textwidth}P{0.12812920592193808\textwidth}P{0.06864064602960969\textwidth}P{0.06978465679676986\textwidth}P{0.08122476446837147\textwidth}P{0.06978465679676986\textwidth}P{0.07092866756393001\textwidth}P{0.08122476446837147\textwidth}P{0.08351278600269178\textwidth}P{0.07550471063257067\textwidth}} Structure of\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Public Sector}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Private Sector}\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Total\\ the family\tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{Males Females Total Males Females Total}\tabcellsep Males\tabcellsep Females\tabcellsep Employees\\ Nuclear\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Family\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ a) Complete\tabcellsep 156 63.67\%\tabcellsep 217 71.85\%\tabcellsep 373 68.19\%\tabcellsep 39 65.00\%\tabcellsep 95 55.88\%\tabcellsep 134 58.26\%\tabcellsep 195 63.93\%\tabcellsep 312 66.24\%\tabcellsep 507 65.34\%\\ b) Incomplete\tabcellsep 37 15.1\%\tabcellsep 48 15.89\%\tabcellsep 85 15.54\%\tabcellsep 4 6.67\%\tabcellsep 27 15.88\%\tabcellsep 31 13.48\%\tabcellsep 42 13.44\%\tabcellsep 75 15.92\%\tabcellsep 116 14.95\%\\ Total A\tabcellsep 193 78.78\%\tabcellsep 265 87.75\%\tabcellsep 458 83.73\%\tabcellsep 43 71.67\%\tabcellsep 122 71.76\%\tabcellsep 165 71.74\%\tabcellsep 236 77.38\%\tabcellsep 387 82.17\%\tabcellsep 623 80.28\%\\ Joint Family\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ a) Vertical\tabcellsep 32 13.06\%\tabcellsep 27 8.94\%\tabcellsep 59 10.79\%\tabcellsep 10 16.67\%\tabcellsep 27 15.88\%\tabcellsep 37 16.09\%\tabcellsep 42 13.77\%\tabcellsep 53 11.25\%\tabcellsep 95 12.24\%\\ b) Lateral\tabcellsep 20 8.16\%\tabcellsep 10 3.31\%\tabcellsep 30 5.48\%\tabcellsep 7 11.67\%\tabcellsep 21 12.35\%\tabcellsep 28 12.17\%\tabcellsep 27 8.85\%\tabcellsep 31 6.58\%\tabcellsep 58 7.47\%\\ Total B\tabcellsep 52 21.22\%\tabcellsep 37 12.25\%\tabcellsep 89 16.27\%\tabcellsep 17 28.33\%\tabcellsep 48 28.24\%\tabcellsep 65 28.26\%\tabcellsep 69 22.62\%\tabcellsep 84 17.83\%\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_4}A}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{5} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} : Housing\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_5}Table 5}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{6} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} : Migration\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_6}Table 6}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{7} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.048631840796019905\textwidth}P{0.2072139303482587\textwidth}P{0.06343283582089551\textwidth}P{0.06554726368159204\textwidth}P{0.059203980099502486\textwidth}P{0.06343283582089551\textwidth}P{0.06343283582089551\textwidth}P{0.08880597014925373\textwidth}P{0.09303482587064676\textwidth}P{0.09726368159203981\textwidth}} Category\tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{Public Sector Males Females Total Males Females Total Private Sector}\tabcellsep Total Males\tabcellsep Total Females\tabcellsep Total Employees\\ Urban\tabcellsep 172 64.18\%\tabcellsep 221 73.91\%\tabcellsep 393 69.31\%\tabcellsep 34 55.74\%\tabcellsep 138 65.66\%\tabcellsep 172 65.65\%\tabcellsep 206 62.61\%\tabcellsep 359 71.80\%\tabcellsep 565 68.15\%\\ Rural\tabcellsep 96 35.82\%\tabcellsep 78 26.09\%\tabcellsep 174 30.69\%\tabcellsep 27 44.26\%\tabcellsep 90 34.34\%\tabcellsep 90 34.35\%\tabcellsep 123 37.39\%\tabcellsep 141 28.20\%\tabcellsep 264 31.85\%\\ Total\tabcellsep 268 100\%\tabcellsep 299 100\%\tabcellsep 567 100\%\tabcellsep 61 100\%\tabcellsep 201 100\%\tabcellsep 262 100\%\tabcellsep 329 100\%\tabcellsep 500 100\%\tabcellsep 829 100\%\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_7}Table 7 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{8} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.16313131313131313\textwidth}P{0.07113997113997114\textwidth}P{0.0784992784992785\textwidth}P{0.06991341991341991\textwidth}P{0.07359307359307359\textwidth}P{0.09812409812409813\textwidth}P{0.05764790764790765\textwidth}P{0.08217893217893218\textwidth}P{0.07972582972582973\textwidth}P{0.07604617604617604\textwidth}} Education\tabcellsep Private Sector\tabcellsep Male Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Males\tabcellsep Private Sector\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Female Public Sector Females Total}\tabcellsep Total Private Sector\tabcellsep Total Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Employees\\ 1. Primary (5 years and below)\tabcellsep 4 5.80\%\tabcellsep 1 0.35\%\tabcellsep 5 1.40\%\tabcellsep 10 4.35\%\tabcellsep 1 0.29\%\tabcellsep 11 1.93\%\tabcellsep 14 4.68\%\tabcellsep 2 0.32\%\tabcellsep 16 1.72\%\\ 2. Secondary\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 27\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 26\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 31\tabcellsep 43\tabcellsep 74\\ (6 -10 years)\tabcellsep 14.49\%\tabcellsep 5.88\%\tabcellsep 7.54\%\tabcellsep 9.13\%\tabcellsep 7.65\%\tabcellsep 8.25\%\tabcellsep 10.37\%\tabcellsep 6.84\%\tabcellsep 7.97\%\\ 3. Collegiate\tabcellsep 28\tabcellsep 137\tabcellsep 165\tabcellsep 64\tabcellsep 166\tabcellsep 230\tabcellsep 92\tabcellsep 303\tabcellsep 395\\ (11 -15 years)\tabcellsep 48.58\%\tabcellsep 47.40\%\tabcellsep 46.09\%\tabcellsep 27.83\%\tabcellsep 48.82\%\tabcellsep 40.35\%\tabcellsep 30.77\%\tabcellsep 48.17\%\tabcellsep 42.56\%\\ 4. Post-\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ graduation\tabcellsep 27\tabcellsep 134\tabcellsep 161\tabcellsep 135\tabcellsep 147\tabcellsep 282\tabcellsep 162\tabcellsep 281\tabcellsep 443\\ (16 years and\tabcellsep 39.13\%\tabcellsep 46.37\%\tabcellsep 44.97\%\tabcellsep 58.70\%\tabcellsep 43.24\%\tabcellsep 49.47\%\tabcellsep 54.18\%\tabcellsep 44.67\%\tabcellsep 47.74\%\\ above)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Total\tabcellsep 69 100.00\tabcellsep 289 100.00\tabcellsep 358 100.00\tabcellsep 230 100.00\tabcellsep 340 100.00\tabcellsep 570 100.00\tabcellsep 299 100.00\tabcellsep 629 100.00\tabcellsep 928 100.00\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_8}Table 8 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{9} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.1380710659898477\textwidth}P{0.07421319796954313\textwidth}P{0.08111675126903553\textwidth}P{0.07507614213197969\textwidth}P{0.06817258883248731\textwidth}P{0.09578680203045685\textwidth}P{0.06730964467005075\textwidth}P{0.08111675126903553\textwidth}P{0.08543147208121828\textwidth}P{0.08370558375634517\textwidth}} Job position\tabcellsep Private Sector\tabcellsep Male Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Males\tabcellsep Private Sector\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Female Public Sector Females Total}\tabcellsep Total Private Sector\tabcellsep Total Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Employees\\ 1. Senior manager\tabcellsep 4 5.80\%\tabcellsep 4 1.38\%\tabcellsep 8 2.23\%\tabcellsep 4 1.74\%\tabcellsep 7 2.06\%\tabcellsep 11 1.93\%\tabcellsep 8 2.68\%\tabcellsep 11 1.75\%\tabcellsep 19 2.05\%\\ 2. Middle manager\tabcellsep 11 15.94\%\tabcellsep 57 19.72\%\tabcellsep 68 18.99\%\tabcellsep 52 22.61\%\tabcellsep 46 13.53\%\tabcellsep 98 17.19\%\tabcellsep 63 21.07\%\tabcellsep 103 16.38\%\tabcellsep 166 17.89\%\\ 3. Junior manager\tabcellsep 9 13.04\%\tabcellsep 79 27.34\%\tabcellsep 88 24.58\%\tabcellsep 72 31.30\%\tabcellsep 80 23.53\%\tabcellsep 152 26.67\%\tabcellsep 81 27.09\%\tabcellsep 159 25.28\%\tabcellsep 240 25.86\%\\ 4. Supervisory staff\tabcellsep 7 10.14\%\tabcellsep 45 15.57\%\tabcellsep 52 14.53\%\tabcellsep 4 1.74\%\tabcellsep 45 13.24\%\tabcellsep 49 8.60\%\tabcellsep 11 3.68\%\tabcellsep 90 14.31\%\tabcellsep 101 10.88\%\\ 5. Worker\tabcellsep 22 31.88\%\tabcellsep 34 11.76\%\tabcellsep 56 15.64\%\tabcellsep 81 35.22\%\tabcellsep 34 10.00\%\tabcellsep 115 20.18\%\tabcellsep 103 34.45\%\tabcellsep 68 10.81\%\tabcellsep 171 18.43\%\\ 6. Clerical staff\tabcellsep 9 13.04\%\tabcellsep 47 16.26\%\tabcellsep 56 15.64\%\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 94 27.65\%\tabcellsep 94 16.49\%\tabcellsep 9 3.01\%\tabcellsep 141 22.42\%\tabcellsep 150 16.16\%\\ 7. Others (Doctors, Pharmacists, nurses, etc.)\tabcellsep 7 10.14\%\tabcellsep 23 7.96\%\tabcellsep 30 8.38\%\tabcellsep 17 7.39\%\tabcellsep 34 10.00\%\tabcellsep 51 8.95\%\tabcellsep 24 8.03\%\tabcellsep 57 9.06\%\tabcellsep 81 8.73\%\\ Total\tabcellsep 69 100\%\tabcellsep 289 100\%\tabcellsep 358 100\%\tabcellsep 230 100\%\tabcellsep 340 100\%\tabcellsep 570 100\%\tabcellsep 299 100\%\tabcellsep 629 100\%\tabcellsep 928 100\%\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_9}Table 9 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{} \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_10}A}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{10} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.13538587848932676\textwidth}P{0.10467980295566502\textwidth}P{0.1367816091954023\textwidth}P{0.12980295566502464\textwidth}P{0.11444991789819375\textwidth}P{0.08932676518883415\textwidth}P{0.13957307060755336\textwidth}} S.No.\tabcellsep Designation/Job position\tabcellsep Forward Castes\tabcellsep Backward Castes\tabcellsep Scheduled Castes\tabcellsep Scheduled Tribes\tabcellsep Total Employees\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{1 Senior Manager}\tabcellsep 17 2.45\%\tabcellsep 2 1.16\%\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 19 2.05\%\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{2 Middle Manager}\tabcellsep 144 20.78\%\tabcellsep 16 9.30\%\tabcellsep 6 11.54\%\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 166 17.89\%\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{3 Junior Manager}\tabcellsep 185 26.70\%\tabcellsep 45 26.16\%\tabcellsep 5 9.62\%\tabcellsep 5 45.45\%\tabcellsep 240 25.86\%\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{4 Supervisory staff}\tabcellsep 75 10.82\%\tabcellsep 19 11.05\%\tabcellsep 6 11.54\%\tabcellsep 1 9.09\%\tabcellsep 101 10.88\%\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{5 Worker}\tabcellsep 108 15.58\%\tabcellsep 49 28.49\%\tabcellsep 13 25.00\%\tabcellsep 1 9.09\%\tabcellsep 171 18.43\%\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{6 Clerical Staff}\tabcellsep 104 15.01\%\tabcellsep 24 13.95\%\tabcellsep 18 34.62\%\tabcellsep 4 36.36\%\tabcellsep 150 16.16\%\\ 7\tabcellsep Others (Doctors, Pharmacists, Nurses and etc.)\tabcellsep 60 8.66\%\tabcellsep 17 9.88\%\tabcellsep 4 7.69\%\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 81 8.73\%\\ \tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 693 100.00\%\tabcellsep 172 100.00\%\tabcellsep 52 100.00\%\tabcellsep 11 100.00\%\tabcellsep 928 100.00\%\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_11}Table 10 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{11} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.001681503461918892\textwidth}P{0.116864490603363\textwidth}P{0.06810089020771513\textwidth}P{0.07818991097922848\textwidth}P{0.07398615232443126\textwidth}P{0.08071216617210683\textwidth}P{0.08659742828882294\textwidth}P{0.08323442136498516\textwidth}P{0.08659742828882294\textwidth}P{0.08827893175074185\textwidth}P{0.0857566765578635\textwidth}} \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Male\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Female}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep Job Experience\tabcellsep Private Sector\tabcellsep Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Males\tabcellsep Private Sector\tabcellsep Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Females\tabcellsep Total Private Sector\tabcellsep Total Public Sector\tabcellsep Total Employees\\ \tabcellsep 1. Below 5 years\tabcellsep 20 28.29\%\tabcellsep 7 2.42\%\tabcellsep 27 7.54\%\tabcellsep 131 56.96\%\tabcellsep 11 3.24\%\tabcellsep 142 24.91\%\tabcellsep 151 50.50\%\tabcellsep 18 2.86\%\tabcellsep 169 18.21\%\\ \tabcellsep 2. 5 -10 years\tabcellsep 18 26.09\%\tabcellsep 11 3.81\%\tabcellsep 29 8.10\%\tabcellsep 26 11.30\%\tabcellsep 14 4.12\%\tabcellsep 40 7.02\%\tabcellsep 44 14.72\%\tabcellsep 25 3.97\%\tabcellsep 69 7.44\%\\ \tabcellsep 3. 10 -15 years\tabcellsep 18 26.09\%\tabcellsep 75 25.95\%\tabcellsep 93 25.98\%\tabcellsep 43 18.70\%\tabcellsep 95 27.94\%\tabcellsep 138 24.21\%\tabcellsep 61 20.40\%\tabcellsep 170 27.03\%\tabcellsep 231 24.89\%\\ \tabcellsep 4. 15 -20 years\tabcellsep 11 15.94\%\tabcellsep 137 47.90\%\tabcellsep 148 41.34\%\tabcellsep 19 8.26\%\tabcellsep 168 49.41\%\tabcellsep 187 32.81\%\tabcellsep 30 10.03\%\tabcellsep 305 48.49\%\tabcellsep 335 36.10\%\\ \tabcellsep 5. 20 -25 years\tabcellsep 1 1.45\%\tabcellsep 37 12.80\%\tabcellsep 38 10.61\%\tabcellsep 4 1.74\%\tabcellsep 37 10.88\%\tabcellsep 41 7.19\%\tabcellsep 5 1.67\%\tabcellsep 74 11.76\%\tabcellsep 79 8.51\%\\ \tabcellsep 6. 25 -30 years\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 14 4.84\%\tabcellsep 14 3.91\%\tabcellsep 3 1.30\%\tabcellsep 10 2.94\%\tabcellsep 13 2.28\%\tabcellsep 3 1.00\%\tabcellsep 24 3.82\%\tabcellsep 27 2.91\%\\ 62\tabcellsep 7. 30 -35 years\tabcellsep 1.45\% 1\tabcellsep 2.77\% 8\tabcellsep 2.51\% 9\tabcellsep 1.30\% 3\tabcellsep 0.88\% 3\tabcellsep 1.05\% 6\tabcellsep 1.34\% 4\tabcellsep 1.75\% 11\tabcellsep 1.62\% 15\\ \tabcellsep 8. 35 -40 years\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 1 0.43\%\tabcellsep 2 0.59\%\tabcellsep 3 0.53\%\tabcellsep 1 0.33\%\tabcellsep 2 0.32\%\tabcellsep 3 0.32\%\\ \tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 69 100.00\tabcellsep 289 100.00\tabcellsep 358 100.00\tabcellsep 230 100.00\tabcellsep 340 100.00\tabcellsep 570 100.00\tabcellsep 299 100.00\tabcellsep 629 100.00\tabcellsep 928 100.00\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_12}Table 11 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{13} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.07048780487804879\textwidth}P{0.17207317073170733\textwidth}P{0.06426829268292683\textwidth}P{0.06426829268292683\textwidth}P{0.08707317073170731\textwidth}P{0.062195121951219505\textwidth}P{0.062195121951219505\textwidth}P{0.085\textwidth}P{0.08914634146341463\textwidth}P{0.09329268292682927\textwidth}} Membership in\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Public Sector}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Private Sector}\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Total\\ union\tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{Males Females Total Males Females Total}\tabcellsep Males\tabcellsep Females\tabcellsep Employees\\ 1. Yes\tabcellsep 105 36.33\%\tabcellsep 104 30.59\%\tabcellsep 209 32.23\%\tabcellsep 11 15.94\%\tabcellsep 46 20.00\%\tabcellsep 57 19.06\%\tabcellsep 116 32.40\%\tabcellsep 150 26.32\%\tabcellsep 266 28.66\%\\ 2. No\tabcellsep 184 63.67\%\tabcellsep 236 69.41\%\tabcellsep 420 66.77\%\tabcellsep 58 84.06\%\tabcellsep 184 80.00\%\tabcellsep 242 80.94\%\tabcellsep 242 67.60\%\tabcellsep 420 73.68\%\tabcellsep 662 71.34\%\\ Total\tabcellsep 289 100\%\tabcellsep 340 100\%\tabcellsep 629 100\%\tabcellsep 69 100\%\tabcellsep 230 100\%\tabcellsep 299 100\%\tabcellsep 358 100\%\tabcellsep 570 100\%\tabcellsep 928 100\%\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_13}Table 13 :}\end{figure} \footnote{© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)} \footnote{© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)Critical Analysis of Profile of Industrial Employees in Andhra Pradesh, India} \footnote{19.72\% Total A \& B 245 100\% 302 100\% 547 100\% 60 100\% 170 100\% 230 100\% 305 100\% 471 100\% 776 100\%} \backmatter \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[Korman et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} \textit{}, A K Korman , Behaviour , N J Engle Wood Cliffs , Printice Hall . 1977. p. . \bibitem[ Human Development Report ()]{b22}\label{b22} \textit{}, \textit{Human Development Report} 1993. Oxford University Press. (UNDP) \bibitem[Government Of ()]{b3}\label{b3} \textit{}, India Government Of . \textit{Annual Survey of Industries} 2011. 2. (Labour Bureau) \bibitem[Priyanka]{b16}\label{b16} ‘A comparative study of Job Stress and Organizational Commitment among Managers, Supervisors in a Private Sector Organization’. G Priyanka . \textit{Indian Psychologist} 7 p. . \bibitem[Udai ()]{b13}\label{b13} ‘A Concepteral Model of Work Motivation’. Pareek Udai . \textit{Indian Journal of Industrial Relations} 1974. 10 p. . \bibitem[Hall ()]{b4}\label{b4} \textit{Dimensions of Work}, Richard Hall , H . 1956. Sage Publications. p. 12. \bibitem[Mouldy ()]{b11}\label{b11} \textit{Employee Organisation Linkages}, Mouldy . 1982. New York: Academic Press. \bibitem[Mitra and Sen (1993)]{b9}\label{b9} ‘Executives Under Stress: A comparison between Men and Women’. A S Mitra , A Sen . \textit{Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology} January -July, 1993. 19 (1-2) p. . \bibitem[Montouri and Conti ()]{b10}\label{b10} \textit{From Power to Partnership}, A Montouri , I Conti . 1993. Harper San Francisco. p. . \bibitem[Jagdish (1993)]{b6}\label{b6} ‘Group Oriented Altitude as a Moderator variable of Intrinsic Job Satisfaction Occupational Relationship’. Srivatsava Jagdish . \textit{Indian Journal of Behaviour} May 1993. 17 (3) p. . \bibitem[Duxbury et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} ‘Head-nurse Leadership Style with Staff-nurse Burnout and Job Satisfaction in Neonatal Intensive Care Units’. M Duxbury , G D Armstrong , D G Drew , S J Henley . \textit{Nursing Research} 1984. 33 (2) p. . \bibitem[Bratton and Gold ()]{b0}\label{b0} \textit{Human Resource Management}, Bratton , J Gold . 1994. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. \bibitem[Pradhan and Mishra ()]{b15}\label{b15} ‘Life Stress and Burnout Among Couples in Medical Profession’. M Pradhan , P K Mishra . \textit{Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology} 1995. 22 (2) p. . \bibitem[Pareek ()]{b14}\label{b14} \textit{Making Organisational Roles Effective, TMH}, U Pareek . 1993. New Delhi. \bibitem[Mishra and Somani ()]{b8}\label{b8} ‘Occupational Stress in Relation to Mental Health of Supervisors’. P C Mishra , H R Somani . \textit{Indian Journal of Behaviour} 1993. 17 (4) p. . \bibitem[Wisdom ()]{b23}\label{b23} ‘Primary Sources of Hospital Administrator Stress’. B Wisdom . \textit{Journal of Occupational Behaviour} 1984. 5 (3) p. . \bibitem[Dijkhuizen and Reiche ()]{b1}\label{b1} ‘Psychosocial Stress in Industry. A Heartache for Middle Management?’. N V Dijkhuizen , H Reiche . \textit{Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics} 1980. 34 (2-3) p. . \bibitem[Singh and Dillan (2003)]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Role Effectiveness: A comparative study of Male and Female Newspaper Reporters’. S K Singh , P K Dillan . \textit{Indian Journal of Industrial Relations} July, 2003. 39 (1) p. . \bibitem[Sayeed ()]{b17}\label{b17} ‘Role Making Behaviour, Organisational Priorities, and Managerial Situational Control’. O B Sayeed . \textit{Indian journal of Industrial Relations} 1992. (4) p. 27. \bibitem[Singh and Mohanty ()]{b18}\label{b18} P Singh , M Mohanty . \textit{Role Efficacy in Relation to Job Anxiety and Job Status}, 1996. 26 p. . \bibitem[Surti ()]{b20}\label{b20} \textit{Some Psychological Correlates of Role Stress and Coping Styles in Working Women}, K Surti . 1982. Ahmedabad. Gujarat University (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation) \bibitem[Hay and Oken ()]{b5}\label{b5} ‘The Psychological Stresses of Intensive Care Nursing’. D Hay , D Oken . \textit{Psychosomatic Medicine} 1972. 34 p. . \bibitem[Rosenthal ()]{b21}\label{b21} ‘The Relationship Between Work Environment Attributes and Burnout’. D Rosenthal . \textit{Journal of Leisure Research} 1983. 15 (2) p. . \bibitem[Orpen ()]{b12}\label{b12} ‘Type A Personality as a Moderator for the Effects of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity and Role Overload on Individual Strain’. C Orpen . \textit{Journal of Human Stress} 1982. 8 (2) p. . \bibitem[Vroom ()]{b24}\label{b24} \textit{Work and Motivation}, V Vroom . 1964. New York: Wiley. p. 17. \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}