Where there is discord, let there be harmony by Thatcher - Essay Example

?"Where there is discord, let there be harmony" (Thatcher, 1979)  Critically discuss the power of the and its relevance to the Unitary perspective. Address this by analysing other frames of reference within Fox (1966) theory and other models, theories and legislation relating to the implications of how conflict and harmony are managed within organisations. Name Course Professor Date of Submission Introduction When Margaret Thatcher was elected as the Prime Minister in 1979 she quoted Saint Francis of Assissi in her conversation with reporters, “where there is discord, let there be harmony (Thatcher, 1979, p. 1).” Thatcher (1980) assumed her role as Prime Minister of Great Britain at an epoch when industrial trade unions (TU) actions heightened in a political-economic unrest. The labour policy was criticized as unclear in its settlement mechanism; companies had ill-defined performance criteria or uncertain human resource management roles; and suffer poor communication channels (Dundon, Grugulis, &Wilkinson, 1999). The collectivist members of trade unions, which authored labour unrests, saw the reflection of unitary management in companies as industries exercise one source of authority (ergo, limited the role for trade unions) (Salamon, 2000, p. 7). However, the labour conditions are also affected by other major national issues such as problems on European Union Budget, the need to advance agriculture, security, inflation of oil prices, among many others (p. 1). She was a libertarian and never an advocate of bargained corporatism, a theory that relies on tripartite body to resolve conflicts (Crouch, 2003, pp. 3-10). Employment Relations: Fox Purview and Thatcher alternatives Alan Fox (1966), who underwent scholarly investigation on employment relations under at the time of Thatcher’s administration, conducted serious study on industrial relations using his “frame of reference” as context in understanding attitudes and behaviours of labour organizations that is consistently influenced by contingent inter-subjective conceptual structures from workers socialization and their experiences at workplaces (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). He explicated that industrial relation was either aimed at satisfying common interest under a unitary frame of reference or it’s a negotiated contractual relation aimed at satisfying the interest of all stakeholders in an interdependent group under a pluralist frame of reference (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). However, considered that under some empirical contexts, industrial relation can also be based on radical frame of reference which considers the relation between employee and employer illegitimate because it solely aimed at satisfying the interest of the employer (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19 ) and is based on a tradition which attempts to transcend the inequalities of class-based society. It is helpless to labour within capitalism but its identifying agency role in transforming capitalism. Unitary frame of reference refers to assumptions, attitudes, values, and practices pertaining to membership and thus, workers must be considered must be loyal and the whole interest are considered (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). The latter means that the interest of the industry and the state should also be considered. The pluralist frame of reference, on the other hand, refers to powerful subgroupings of members with their respective leaders whom they’d profess their perspectives (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). The management in this reference must lean toward enforcing, controlling, influence, and coordination. Fox (1966) delved in to IR in UK and the effect of Thatcher’s labour reform law to collective bargaining and the industrial action or unions’ responses to established institutional prerogatives and positions (pp. 1-19). For him, the unitarist route to improve cooperation between workers and management was questioned based on scientific causes rather than on normative grounds (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). He also distinguished the structural determinants of behaviours from action-level determinants. The action-level determinants are internal which affect attitudes, socialization processes, and perceptions while others are subjective and inter-subjective means of employing the meaning to the world (p, 1-19) which affect attitudes, culture, socialisation, perceptions, definitions while others are subjective and inter-subjective means of employing meaning to the social world (p. 1-19 ). He explained that industrial behaviour and the relationships between them are shaped not only by their personhood but by the technology they used at work, the structure of authority, communications and status within which they are employed (Fox 1966, p. 1-19). Fox (1966) thought that trade unions are legal representations of employees and can be channelled to positive change if collective bargaining is appreciated a s means of dispute settlement. Workers at that epoch were demanding for more humane work conditions and greater representation in decision-making bodies in corporations, including those ran by the state (Fox, 1966, p. 1-16). They raised legitimate issues on unfair dismissal, maternity or paternity rights, leaves, protection of wages, and equal or redundancy pay (Fox, 1966, p. 1-16). Imagine the manifold cases filed at the employment tribunal and the time it entailed to complete the adjudication of these cases --- the decision of which is uncertain if it will be favourable to them (Fox, 1966, p. 1-16). Thatcher was on top of these concerns. She wanted to resolve industrial dispute but was liberal in her approach knowing that these industries are the state’s source of taxation. Though she came from a conservative party, Thatcher was a mixed of classic libertarian with populist tendencies although she was stringent in public expenditures control, and have vigorously promoted privatization in a free market. Under the theory of liberal individualism, an individual is recognized for being distinct from the rest of the whole population for maintaining an independent position. Salamon (1992, p. 252) opined that “... it is the elected government of the day which is the most active and important element within the state: it determines the direction, policies and actions of the state machinery”. Thatcher was a staunched advocate of reducing inflation and controlling unemployment. She resolved differently the concerns of trade unions by reducing the power of labour organization. She wade through these employment disputes by personally dialoguing with workers, imploring them to leave the barricades and to return back to work as she promised that taxation will be progressively reduced for low income earners and social services costs will be lowered to make all these services accessible for marginalized public. Experts opined that Thatcherite labour dispute settlement is consistent in sustaining fiscal adequacy, equitable taxation, and administrative feasibility (Blume, Rubinfeld, & Shapiro, 1984, pp. 71-92). It balanced labour rights and the interest of the state for industrial peace to sustain the generation of revenues (Adanu et al., 2012, pp. 187-194; Gennard & Judge, 2005, p. 7). British government and its unitary powers Thatcher led a British government with unitary system of governance. All governing power emanates from the bureaucracy as a political organization. The central government delegates authority to subnational units and channels policy decisions for enforcement. The nature of the decisions and how they strategize the country’s political-economy reflect how the government uses the power of the state in the dispensation of public duties (Cradden, 2005, p. 11; Fox, 1974, p. 10). Some of the functions of the government are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But notwithstanding the bureaucracy, Thatcher will always find ways to directly deal critical problems instead of leaving serious concerns to departments, like how she resolved the labour problem at UK’s mine site. Despite Thatcher’s contribution to maintain industrial peace, trade union have consistently criticized her administration as repressive of labour rights because policies discouraged workers’ association with trade unions; unions rights were reduced into ballots-based decision-making; undermining the essence of trade dispute; and has outlawed ‘closed shop’ or ‘secondary action.’ Instead of engaging them to reform labour relations and responding heads-up to their demands, the state regulated this in a way by imposing laws to rationalize the condition and to sustain corporate life to balance inflation with needs of taxation. Thus, labour demands to be part of corporate decision-making remains fluid as Thatcher and the industries remained closed to labour demands. Such is inconsistent to the Marxist perspective of the value of labour which viewed Thatcher ‘s resolve was inspired by a bourgeoisie and is therefore capitalists or is profit-driven; deft to the woes and conditions of the workers. Thatcher’s philosophy is therefore in conflict with trade unions which viewed capitalism as an unjust system that treat workers as mere commodity and instrument for production. Trade unions thought that Thatcher failed to consider the factors affecting workers experiences, ecology, and the actual condition within the industry. On the other hand, workers have disregarded the internal industrial conditions and the reasons why it’s driven for profit to sustain its operation. Fox (1966) asserted that the “behaviour of the organization and its relation to the government are conditioned by the contingent, inter-subjective conceptual structures from the processes of socialization and interrelations within workplaces (p. 4).” It asserted that beyond the offer of open discourse and of providing alternatives to resolve the pol-economic problems of workers, their issues should also be understood about how industrial management dealt labour laws and relations within the industry. The nature of employee and employer relations within the industry will determine the causes of workers dissents and behaviour (Fox, 1966, p. 4) due to obvious latent and nascent character of variegated needs and issues. Kandola and Fullerton (1998) contended that harnessing these differences will create productive environment where all employers felt that they are valued, their talents utilized and organizational goals are achieved (p. 8). Industries therefor need to adopt the principles of equal opportunity and business management diversity. While there are goals must be achieved through reasonable performance management, but administrators should likewise use pluralism to deal with employees differences (Maxwell, Blair, & McDougall, 2001, pp. 468-482). The state and the society advance its powers and are constantly in dynamic redefinition its relation to its constituents. This is because the social structure is fundamentally about exercising power in accord to social contract of social relations. It binds rules to enjoy a democratic state, to claim identity of, to subscribe to some codes of conduct, co-create log-frames of developmental programs. For a nation to be stable and working under the rule of law, the state must control properties, tax peoples or industries, and exercises its eminent domain sustainable development agenda although these must be exercised in a most compassionate fashion. Like how Thatcher binds herself to rules, the state activities must therefore undertake the following duties for its people: a. The state, through its constitution and its laws must protect the people from arbitrary usurpation of power from any interest groups aside from the supposed partner of the state (Storey & Sisson, 1993, p . 8; Habermas, 1984) The state will also secure the peoples’ property relations and those people blessed with properties, own commerce and industries. b. Provision of military defence for national security (Adanu et al., 2012, pp. 187-194); c. Maintain open and transparent communication, transportation, infrastructure developments, and social services (Habermas, 1987, p. 12; Habermas, 1996 p. 9; Pugh & Hickson, 1989, p. 10); d. Redistribution of economic resources and develop internal and trade policy with other nations to respond to grievances raised by human resources for industrial and commercial institutions as well as offer conciliation management (Hollingshead, 2003, p. 7). This will also include variety of issues which includes discrimination, harassment, and other labour relation concerns (Kerr, 1964, p. 5; Leat, 3001, p. 3; Lewis, 2003, p. 12). It also includes policy implications for commercial and industries to motivate employees by offering incentives commensurate to the efforts of those with better performance (Kaufman, 2004, p. 6; Myhill & Quinton, 2011, pp. 8; Murphy, Tyler, & Curtis, 2009, pp. 1-26). Government, industries, and decision-makings The operation of the bureaucracy requires peoples’ competence, skills, and passion for public service (Rose, 2001, pp. 431-443). Certainly, the salaries, incentives, fringe benefits and the necessary environment required for workers to produce quality works need to be considered too by authorities (Rose, 2001, pp. 431-443; Salamon, 1998, p. 8). In consideration to their welfare, their salaries are also among the many priorities in the national budget to maintain peace and avoid unnecessary dissent within the bureaucracy (Sisson & Storey, 1988, pp. 4-18). Elected and appointed officials, though they serve in prescribed term of office, are also considered as employees of the government. Laws also bar them to enjoy unjust compensation (especially at a time of national crisis). Transparency of programs and its implementation is indeed subject to national scrutiny to ensure that no money from the national coffer is put into waste (Elliot, Thomas, Ogloff & James, 2011, p. 596). The administration and operation of the state is therefore regulated by law specially that any increased public spending needs to be supported by taxation or by loans which could sacrifice the government to more payment of interests (Thatcher, 198, p .1). The state look upon human resource management as essential in preserving industrial peace, too (Towers, 1992, p. 3). Authorities therefore have to come up with diverse levels of interpersonal relations among participants in governmental management and operations, balance taxation with social context, and practice its power with compassion to the physical, technological, cultural and social circumstances of its taxpayers (Murphy & Chermey, 2012, pp. 181-201; Kaufman, 2004, p. 8; Famham, 2000, p. 6; Flanders, 1975, p. 6). This will define the durability, sustainability, reliability and accountability of public officials in all decision-making bodies being an organization with interdependent systems and resources constantly involved in political activities and shifting coalitions for continuing interactions within the environment they operate (Cradden, 2005, p. 6; Edwards, 1995, p. 6). Fox (1966) further pointed that outside governmental structures, a better industrial relation happens only industrial relation are contextualized to social’s structural changes (p. 1-19). He criticized the roles defined by work organization which excluded the empirical realities where workers down the industrial zones are powerless. Some conditions denied them of labour power and obliterated their identity as nation’s human resources (Fox, 1966, p. 9; Blyton & Tumbill. 2004, p. 3). Fox (1966) proposed that economic and labour condition could only be improved if the industrial structures are redesigned and reengineered based on a serious objective assessment of the contemporary society and its values (p. 1-19). Managements should openly communicate the condition of the company to its workers to engage them in a socially acceptable employee-employer relation (Fox, 1966, p. 9). Indeed, a lot of things to do to bridge the industrial divide between emergent social reality and the unitary outlook (Fox, 1966, p. 9; Gennard & Judge, 2005, p. 7; Brennan & Boyd, 2006, p. 8). Anent to this, Fox (1996) proposed that industrial conflicts can be resolved through pluralism which is based on the belief that cooperation by workers can only be attained through structural change in the industry (p. 1-19) coupled with pluralism to maintain a neutral state that can express a role of an impartial mediator that promotes social order through genuine consensus. References Brennan, T. J. & Boyd, J. (2006). Political Economy and the Efficiency of Compensation for Takings. Contemporary Economic Policy, January 2006, vol. 24 (1), pp. 188–202. Blyton, P. & Turnbull, P. (2004). The Dynamics of Employee Relations, 3rd edn., Macmillan, London, United Kingdom. Cradden, C. (2005). Repoliticizing Management: A Theory of Corporate Legitimacy, Ashgate,Guildford, UK. Crouch C. (2003). The State: Economic Management and Incomes Policy’, in Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, 2nd Edition, P. Edwards (ed), Oxford, Blackwell, London. Dundon. T., Grugulis, I. & Wilkinson, A. (1999). Looking out of the black hole: Non-union relations in an SME”, Employee Relations, 21(3): 251-266. Dundon T & Rollinson D, (2011), Understanding Employment Relations, McGraw Hill, Bershire, UK, pp. Edwards, P. (1995) . Industrial Relations, Theory and Practice. Blackwell, London, United Kingdom, pp. 1-404 Elliott, I., Thomas, S. D., Ogloff, M. & James, R. P. (2011). Procedural justice in contacts with the police: Testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 592–610. Farnham, D. (2000). Employee Relations in Context 2nd ed. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London, UK, Flanders, A. (1975). Management and Unions, Faber & Faber, London, UK. Fox, A. (1966). Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, HMSO, London. Fullerton, J. and Kandola, R. (1998). Diversity in action: Managing the Mosaic ), 2nd Ed. Institute for Personnel Development, London, UK. Fox, A. (1974). Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations, Faber & Faber, London, UK. Gennard, J. & Judge, G. (2005). Employee Relations, 4rth edition, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London, UK. Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (trans. T. McCarthy), Polity, Cambridge, MA. Habermas, J. (1987), The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2: Lifeworld and System — A Critique of Functionalist Reason (trans. T. McCarthy), Polity, Cambridge, MA. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms (trans. W. Rehg), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hollingshead, G. (2003). Employee Relations, 2nd ed. Pearson Education Ltd, London, United Kingdom. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., and Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why Do People Comply With the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions. British Journal Of Criminology, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1051-1071. Innes, R, (2001). The Economics of “Takings” in aMultiparcel Model with a Powerful Government, in J. Shogren and J. Tschirhart, eds., Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK. Kaufman, B. (2004). The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas and the IIRA, International Labour Office, Geneva. Kerr, C. (1964). Labour and Management in Industrial Society, Doubleday, Garden City NY. Larson, A. (2004). What is eminent domain. Expert Law, Michigan, U.S. p. 1. Leat, M (2001). Exploring Employee Relations, Butterworth Heinemann, UK. Lewis, P. (2003). Employee Relations, Pearson Education Ltd., London, UK. Mastrofski, S., Reisig, M. D. and McCluskey, J. D (2002). Police disrespect toward the public: an encounter-based analysis. Criminology, vol. 39, pp. 519–52. Maxwell, G.A, Sharon Blair, Marilyn McDougall, (2001). Edging towards managing diversity in practice. Employee Relations, Vol. 23 Iss: 5, pp.468 – 482 McCluskey, J. D. (2003). Police requests for compliance: coercive and procedurally just tactics. LFB, New York, NY Miceli, T. J. & Segerson, K. (1994). Regulatory Takings: When Should Compensation Be Paid?. The Journal of Legal Studies, June 1994, vol. 23 (2), pp. 749–776. Myhill, A. and Quinton, P. (2011). It’s a Fair Cop? Police Legitimacy, Public Cooperation, and Crime Reduction. An Interpretative Evidence Commentary.National Policing Improvement Agency, London, UK. p. 8-9. Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R. and Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law?’, Regulation and Governance. vol. 3 (1), pp. 1–26. Murphy, K. and Cherney, A. (2012) . Understanding Cooperation with Police in a Diverse Society. British Journal of Criminology, vol. 52, pp. 181–201. Rose, E.. (2001). Employment Relations, Pearson Education Ltd., London, United Kingdom. Pugh, D. and Hickson, D. (1989), Writers on Organizations, 4th edn., Harmondsworth, Penguin, London, UK. Storey, J. and Sisson, K. (1993). Managing Human Resources and Industrial Relations, OUP, Oxford, UK. Salamon, M. (1998). Industrial Relations, Theory & Practice, 3rd ed, Prentice Hall, London, United Kingdom. Salamon, M. (2000), Industrial Relations- Theory and Practice, FT Prentice Hall, London, UK. p 286. Sisson, K, and Storey, J (1988). Developing effective managers', Personnel Review, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 4-18. Skogan, W. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with the police. Policing and Society. vol. 162, pp. 99-126. Thatcher, M. (1979). Remarks on becoming Prime Minister (St. Franci’s Prayer). Margaret Thatcher Foundation, London, UK, Web < http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104078 > Accessed: 23 Nov. 2012. Thatcher, M. (1980). House of Commons PQs. Margaret Thatcher Foundation, London, UK, Web < http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104328> Accessed: 24 Nov. 2012. Thatcher, M. (1981). House of Commons PQs. Margaret Thatcher Foundation, London. < http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104726> Accessed: 24 Nov. 2012. Towers, B. (1992). A Handbook of Industrial Relations Practice, Kogan Page, London, United Kingdom. Appendix 1: Fox Theory Alan Fox (1966) theory is anchored on the “frame of reference” approach to industrial relations. He contended that attitudes and behaviours in economic and organizational context are influenced by contingent inter-subjective conceptual structures from socialization and from workers experiences at the workplaces. In his book Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). he pointed that industrial relation is either a relationship aimed at satisfying common interest under a unitary frame of reference or it’s a negotiated contractual relation aimed at satisfying the interest of all stakeholders in an interdependent groups under a pluralist frame of reference (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). The third interpretation of industrial relation is based on radical frame of reference which considers the relation between employee and employer illegitimate because it is solely aimed at satisfying the interest of one party (Fox, 1966). Fox (1966) argued that subjective conceptual structures condition attitudes and behaviour in economic and organizational contexts – remains valid. In his work, he opined that first, there is a need to add to the categorisation of ‘ways of seeing’ economic and organizational phenomena (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). Second, there is a need to better understand how social learning processes lead to the adoption or rejection of different frames of reference (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). These learning processes include the analyses of the functional efficacy of conceptual models and the evaluation of the outcomes of social action against normative standards (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). His ideation about IR is technically a reaction to labour unrest at the time when Thatcher was the prime minister of Britain (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). His analyses were all anchored on worker and employer organization and collective behaviour; about conflicts in workplaces and about the need to regulate the formal employment relationship through collective bargaining and legal ways (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). To cite an example, Fox (1966) conducted a study in 1980s about IR in UK about the effect of Thatcher’s labour reform law pertaining to collective bargaining and the industrial action or unions’ responses to established institutional prerogatives and positions. He explained why the unitarist route to improve cooperation between workers and management was objected in scientific causes instead of normative grounds (Fox, 1966, p. 1-19). He also distinguished the structural determinants of behaviours as against the action-level determinants. He argued that the former is a set of factors external to the individual actor, constraining his or her choices of action in a rather  concrete way (Fox, 1966).The latter is internal, affecting behaviour via attitudes, culture, socialisation, perceptions, definitions while the other is subjective and inter-subjective means of employing meaning to the social world (p. 1-19 ). He explained that industrial behaviour  and the relationships between them are shaped not only by their very personhood but by the technology  they used at work, the structure  of  authority, communications  and  status within which they are located, and the system of rewards, punishments, management control, and other structural aspect of the situation. (Fox 1966, p. 1-19). Read More