Aspect of Employment Relations in the Asia-Pacific - Essay Example

Compare and Contrast Essay

Needless to claim, that an increasing role of globalization significantly affects everyday aspects of the life and business in particular. Despite a number of advantages of the globalization process, a lot of organizations try to decrease its impact and, therefore, conduct the business in different ways. So, this leads to the fact, that there are different types of employment relations and ways of conducting the business in the different countries. The main objective of this paper is to compare and contrast aspects of employment relations in Japan and China, define, which of these two countries are more pro-labor and which is more pro-management.

Before conducting a comparative analysis with regard to the employee relations in Japan and China, it will be reasonable to provide the definition of what is considered to be employee relations. Therefore, according to the Business Dictionary, employee relations can be defined as “the communications between management and employees concerning workplace decisions, grievances, conflicts, problem resolutions, unions, as well as issues of collective bargaining” (NA, 2016).

Talking about employment relations in Japan, it needs to be pointed out, that “a number of changes have occurred in the management of employment relations practices as triggered by the changes in the Japanese national factors – national institutions, labor market, national culture, business, as well as economy” (Adhikari, 2005). The most prominent role in such changes has played the government rules and regulations, educational system, unions as well as the associations of the employees. To be more specific, the essence of the government’s role lies in deregulations of protectionism. The educational system in its turn “have played the role in providing cooperative, disciplined and committed manpower” (Adhikari, 2005). In addition to all the above-mentioned, significant role in changing the nature of employment relations in Japan play trade unions. Therefore, “the role of employers’ associations is highly regarded to strengthen relations with unions and government” (Adhikari, 2005).

Talking about the ways of influencing employment relations within the country, authority uses national cultural factors as the main tool. To be more specific, “Japanese society is recognized as one of the highly cultured societies” (Adhikari, 2005). As a result of this, the value systems of society have a notable impact on the custom, practice, as well as relations among the people in society and in its turn significantly influence the whole work system in Japan. In addition to this, the second factor, which has a notable impact on the employment relations, is the labor market. To be more specific, such features of Japanese labor market as “declining population growth rate, aging workforce, increasing unemployment rate, differences in the participation ratio of the male and the female workforce, as well as an increasing number of NEET (not in employment, education and training) people” (Suzuki, 2010).

All these factors have lead to the fact, that Japanese model of employment differs from the other countries. The essence of its model of employment is a lifetime employment, seniority and merit-based pay, as well as enterprise unionism. Apart from this, the key changes of employment relations in modern Japan include the development of non-standard employment as well as the introduction of performance-related pay. In comparison with a number of other countries, "contemporary Japanese employment relations are relatively stable, and relations between labor and management are generally cooperative“ (Suzuki, 2010). Interestingly, despite this fact, the number of individual labor disputes continues to grow. Talking about such trend in employment relations as the growth of non-regular employment, it is worth to be mentioned that an increasing inequality and poverty causes it.

The major changes in the employment relations were made during the post-WWII period. For instance, the working hours were reduced but not enough. Therefore, the long working time is still a major public concern. Under the prime ministership of Junichiro Koizumi, the emphasis on the employment relations was shifted from the government to a market-oriented approach. As it has been already mentioned in the previous paragraphs of this paper, the main model of Japanese employment is the lifetime employment. As a result of such tendency, the majority of regular employees are more concerned about the competitive advantage of an organization for which they work and its position in the market. Therefore, they have a significantly higher degree of commitment to the enterprise and more loyal to it. Talking about the corporations and advantages of lifetime employment for them, it is worth to be mentioned that the majority of companies “tend to employ new school leavers or graduates and train them with the expectation that they will conform to the company’s norms and remain committed to the enterprise” (Bamber, Lansbury & Wailes, 2010). Therefore, most of the performance management practices encourage long-term employment in one firm.

Despite the fact that employment relations in Japan seem to be immensely effective, there is a number of different issues, which are mainly solved by means of collective bargaining. Distinguishing features of collective bargaining in Japan lie in the fact that “collective bargaining takes place at the level of the enterprise only, in most unionized enterprises, there are elaborate joint consultation mechanisms in which unions participate, collective bargaining focuses on pay issues, pay agreements may be concluded separately from agreements on other issues) (Bamber, Lansbury & Wailes, 2010).

To sum it up, it is safe to claim that “since the 1970s, employment relations have undergone a series of considerable changes reflecting macroeconomic development as well as developments in employment relations” (Bamber, Lansbury & Wailes, 2010). The economy has shifted toward the services and, as a result of this, have significantly changed the requirements for the employees and in its turn employment relations. As a serious economic competitor has emerged China, employment relations of which will be analyzed in the next paragraphs.

Talking with regard to China, it is worth to be mentioned that its population is approximately 1,5 billion people, which makes it an emerging superpower, which is able to compete “with highly developed countries on the global marketplace” (Dudovskiy, 2012). In addition to this, it needs to be pointed out that the “current dynamic of employment relationships in China somehow resemble the second industrial revolution in Europe that has commenced at the second half of the 19th century” (Dudovskiy, 2012). In comparison with its main competitor Japan, which has a more pro-management approach to employment, the common features of employment relations in China include harsh working conditions, poorly developed employment laws, a high level of a migrant labor, as well as immensely high employee turnover. It is worth to be mentioned that this current dynamic is mostly caused by an increasing role of the globalization process and its notable impact on all spheres of everyday life of people.

A notable impact on the employment relations in China has few factors. First of all, according to Bamber and Lansbury, approximately 42% of Chinese people are unemployment (Bamber, Lansbury & Wailes, 2010). Secondly, there is an uneven rate of economic development between urban as well as rural areas of the country. Thirdly, the long-term government policy promotes low wages and full-time employment, which is widely used in Japan. On the contrary, the characteristics of the Chinese labor laws significantly depend on the central government. For instance, the central government provides the broad framework of laws and regulations. Apart from this, “local government devises their own regulations, based on the central government framework, in order to suit local conditions” (Shih-wei, 2005).

Also, on the contrary to Japan, China has a number of problems with regard to the labor regulation. To be more specific, “the most problematic aspect of Chinese labor laws is the lack of effective enforcement” (Dudovskiy, 2012). Apart from this, there is a number of limitations on freedom of association, which is highly developed in Japan. The majority of the laws is mostly targeted at the formal employment sector but has nothing to do with the informal sector.

As it has been already mentioned in the previous paragraphs of this paper, on the contrary to Japan, the employer, as well as employee associations, are not well established. All the roles and responsibilities of trade unions are “set out in the Trade Union law (1950, amended 2001), the Labor Law (1955) and the Labor Contract Law (2008)” (Bamber, Lansbury & Wailes, 2010). In comparison with Japan, the main functions of trade unions in China are to organize social events, take care of workers’ welfare, help the management of the companies to implement operational decisions, organize skills training, as well as to provide some help in coordinating the relationship between the workers and employers.

In the same way as Japan, Chinese employer relations pay a notable attention to collective bargaining, which was “first introduced into Chinese ER after the Trade Union Law (1992) authorized unions at the enterprise level to conclude collective contracts with the employer” (Bamber, Lansbury & Wailes, 2010). Interestingly, in comparison with Japanese collective bargaining, collective contracts in China are mostly made without a direct involvement of workers or any real negotiations. Apart from the collective bargaining, there is also a number of worker’s representative's congresses, which are guided by the unions. The main objective of such unions is to facilitate the participation of workers in the decision-making process. At the same way as unions, the worker’s representative's congresses represent the management side and have “been ineffective in protecting worker’s rights” (Brooks & Tao, 2003). In addition to the congresses and trade unions, there is also a number of employment agencies established by local authorities.

To sum it up, on the basis of the above-analyzed information with regard to the employer relations in China and Japan, it can be concluded that Japan is more pro-management country and China is more pro-labor country. The explanation of this might lie in the fact in the harsh working conditions, poorly developed employment laws, a high level of a migrant labor, as well as immensely high employee turnover in China. Apart from this, inasmuch as approximately 48% of its population is unemployed, the economy of the country is more depended on the labor force instead of effective managerial approaches to work. In addition to this, the trade unions in Japan are more developed, which contributes to improving the managerial approaches to working conditions and workforce in general. Also, the Japanese market has become international earlier in comparison with the market of China and as a result of this has taken a lot from the Western countries, which can be characterized by the high popularity and usage of the pro-management approaches.