Employment Relations Theories - Assignment Example

?Running head: Employment relations Lecturer Employment relations Introduction The relation between the management and employeein the workplace is a subject that attracts many people’s attention. Work is a part of people’s life and so a lot of time is spent dealing with work related issues. How the society views work today is different from the views of people from in the past due to the changing environments. Employment relation explains the management and regulation of the employment relationship between the worker and the employer. In three stages the paper will discuss the various employment theories, the overall changes in employment relations since the 1970’s and the role of different parties and the national and international influence on the employment relationship. Employment relations theories The study of employment relations has led to several theory perspectives that have helped explain the nature of employment relations. The following is some of the perspectives draw. The first is Unitarianism, a perspective based on workplace conflicts between the employees and the manager. This theory explains that conflicts at the workplace are inevitable, and they should be seen as a unifier and not a dissolvent (Lloyd and Newell, 2001: 357). In the organization, the employee carries the same interest as the manager and that is to see the organization thrive. In case of disagreement the two parties agree to disagree for the benefit of the organization. The main cause for conflicts according to Bryson (2005: 1111) is a clash of personality, promotion, lack of communication skills and dissidents deviation. This can be easily solved by the management through finding the problem and solving it. In Taylor’s scientific management theory (1974:44) he states that employees have limited ambitions and tend to act immature and avoid their responsibilities whenever they can. Companies that choose to subscribe to Taylor’s theory set clear roles and directives on assignments undertaken at work. The approach here gives management an upper hand because it has great authority on the workers (Taylor: 1974: 47). The other theory applicable in this case is the human relations theory where workers are viewed as individuals who are self motivated and have a sense of self-fulfillment in the organization. In this theory workers are granted the autonomy to operate in a manner that they feel the job satisfaction (Gennard and Judge, 2005: 76). Organizations that adopt this approach create a self-governing environment and allow employees to govern themselves. The second set of assumption is pluralism and unlike Unitarianism pluralism believes that work conflict is necessary and healthy for the organization. Businesses are made up of different complex groups with each group carrying different interests (Daniel, 2006: 36). The management and employees are considered been in different groups here. The assumption here is that there different forms of authority making conflict inevitable. The conflict is taken as a positive factor because it is this situation that sheds light on the employee’s grievances. Conflict also forces management to come up with innovative ways to handle the disagreements. Pluralists according to Daniel (2006: 36) agree with the two competing sides because it is believed to result to amicable solutions. This is because management not only comes up with conflict solutions but also fair solutions that keep their power balanced. Dunlop’s system theory is one of the greatest approaches used by most pluralists (Hollishead et al., 2003: 19). This theory states that employment relations are made up of a wide sub-system that determines how parties involved in the work environment can keep out conflicts at the workplace. There are four elements according to Hollishead et al. (2003: 23) that are important factors in employment relations, and that are the actors, the environment, set rules and ideologies that are binding. Another theory recently drawn is the strategic choice theory drawn by Kochan Katz and McKersie. The two borrowed and advanced Dunlop’s theory to create three changes that they believed have an impact on employment relations (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004:33). The three changes affected the trade union, collective bargaining outcomes and managerial concepts. The changes according to them have made employment relations more complex as compared to the past. The theory acknowledges the relationship the activities of the organization and decisions made by management. Its stress is on the impact on the organization as a result of decisions made based on the changes (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004:38). A similar frame of assumption is Marxism drawn from the works of Karl Marx whose argument was based on capitalism. According to this theory only a small concentration had wealth and power while the rest had almost nothing to sell apart from their labor (Mark, 1978: 111). Employment relations conflict is considered an outcome of capitalism at the work place. Braverman’s (1974: 43) labor process theory supports the Marxist assumption by asserting that, conflict is not just because of individual difference nor is it a competing factor as asserted by pluralist; instead it is a form of developed capitalism. Postmodernist theories explain work relationship in a different light. Chris and Edgar’ s ‘psychological contract’ is a theory of management and behavior that talks about fairness of balance between the employer and employee.How the employer is treated by the employer affects the employee’s input in the organization. The two theorist believe the employer’s appreciation can change the nature of the employment relationship. This theory encourages employer’s to treat their employees with respect, compassion and trust and in return the employee’s will offer their loyalty to the company. Important drifts in UK employment relations There are many factors that have affected the nature of employment relations overtime in the UK.The external and internal factors have in the process influenced the nature of employment relations in organizations. In the 1970’s for example, Taylor’s scientific management approach was commonly used in the workplace. Today flexible hours, working in teams and specializations is been encouraged at the work place shifting the management approach (Hollishead et al., 2003: 20). Before it was believed that workers were more likely to increase productivity if promised certain incentives. This management approach however led to poor communication and dissatisfaction straining the employment relationship. In the long run employees left the organizations and it would incur more costs recruiting and training fresh employees into the company. Management overtime had to work towards improving the strained relationship (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004: 34). As a result several techniques such as open discussions, employee involvement in decision making were introduced. The organization’s culture is described as the common values, beliefs and practices as understood by the people in the organization. This factor drives employees to have a good relationship with their employers. Organizations have used this overtime to improve employment relations for both sides. Common cultures such as throwing end of year parties for the workers help strengthen the relationship and motivate them to deliver. The organization’s strategy does influence the employee relations. Today companies form their strategies based on competition, differentiation, costs and target market. The type of strategy has implications on whether the employees will be given full utilization of power or their power will be limited (Daniel, 2006: 38). A low cost strategy has in the past been considered as bad for employment relationships. Companies using this strategy to some extend have ruined their relationship due to poor working conditions. The working conditions develop negative attitude hence poor employment relations. Aside from the above internal factors there are external PEST factors that influence employment relations in an organization. The external factors that impact the organization are drawn from a political, economical, social and technological environment. The political status has contributed to the employment relationships context overtime (Gardner and Palmer, 1997:87). Trade unions in the UK are viewed as the greatest vehicle that ensured employee interests were catered for (Wilkinson et al., 2004:298). Trade unions used collective bargaining mechanism in the 80’s and 90’s to fight for the rights of employees. Change over time has seen employment relations change and the issue of workers’ management addressed differently (Dundon and Rollinson, 2011: 77). In the late 70’s trade unions were such significant bodies because they regulated the employment relationship. They fought for better pay, better working conditions and good work practices that in 1979, there were about 13.2million trade union members However as time went by the number started declining gradually in 2008 the figure was at 7.2million trade union members (Gennard and Judge, 2005: 74). Trade unions had a great impact in the 70’s and 80’s however the government weakened the trade unions powers by passing laws that restricted their activities for example the decision to ban ‘closed shops’. The government also balanced their power on employment relations by passing laws in favor of management. This move according to Wilkinson et al. (2004:299) gave back the management the power to manage the workers. The trade unions are currently used as an effective negotiator in order to maintain a good employment relationship.(Wilkinson et al., 2004:298). There are like 11 major trade unions among them T&G, AMICUS that represent many smaller unions today. The unions still face the great challenge of penetrating especially in the private sector. As a result, they come up with workable organization models that could benefit both employees and employers. The other strategy was to target minority groups that as observed by Wilkinson et al., (2004:301) were not represented in any way. The economic and social rapid change has affected the employment relationship. Downturn and recessions have hit the market since the industrial age forcing management to make a few adjustments in the organization. In the 70’s and 80’s employees easily achieved sales target and salaries were fixed and management availed bonuses to hardworking employees. With the current credit crises due to economic downturn the workers face layoffs, project shutdowns and voluntary redundancies. These events according to Blyton and Turnbull (2004: 35) bring a great sense of insecurity which breaks the relations between employees and the employers. Employment of technology in organizations today is inevitable because of the fast growing information communication technology. The technology adopted by an organization can affect the employment relationship if the employees are not well familiarized with the organization’s technology. Technology is employed to help employees in the organization to be more effective and efficient. Technology improves the employee’s working methods and this helps improve the working relationship between employees and employers. Overtime employees have fought to have their ‘say’ in the place of work this is because the decisions made affect them directly.The ‘voice’ of the employee plays a great role in how employment relations are handled. The voice is all about management’s degree of influence on managing workers and the ability to influence the decisions made by management. The ‘voice’ here is a term that translates to systems and structures that affect the employee’s ability directly or indirectly in participating in any managerial decision making (Bryson, 2005:1119). The pressure to be heard is exerted by employees directly or indirectly and they use certain techniques to express themselves. The extent to which an employee has in influencing management decision is analyzed through four angles which include level, form, scope and depth. Take the depth and the scope of employee voice for example can tell the extent of the employee’s influence by how the management relates to the employees (Calas and Smircich, 1996: 67). The employee’s ‘voice is shallow and narrow if management tells the workers on changes already made. The employee’s voice on the other hand is strong if the management consults, codetermines and joins ideas with the employee’s before reaching a conclusion. Employment relations are clearly evolving today with management encouraging worker’s involvement (Bryson, 2005: 1123). Employee involvement is defined as an act which allows and welcomes employee contribution and suggestions to meet organizational goals. The decline of unions brought about this direct mechanism which birthed team work, suggestions, self-managed work groups and schemes in the workplace. Representation as stated by Bryson as (2005:1124) gradually improved in the workplace and as per the Workplace Employment Relations Survey in 2004 the no union members’ number rose from 54% to 64% in a span of six years (Bryson, 2005: 1127). Employee participation increases the employment relation because decisions are made jointly. Negotiations become easy where the employees have a high level of influencing decisions. Collective bargaining was as a joint regulation mostly in the 1980’ and 1990’s where employers could agree with trade unions or worker’s representatives on certain employment relationship mostly pay (Dundon and Rollinson, 2011: 73). Collective agreements in the UK diminished as a result of modern negotiating forms and approaches introduced at the workplace. Conflicts are easier solved and turned as a channel that resolute to effective solutions. Employees who choose to have representatives today pass on the power to influence decisions made on their account. Employment relation is a serious concern in politics today and many reforms have been made to ensure that an employer takes the needs of employee’s seriously. The European works council directive 1994 for example was passed in the UK in 1999 established an employee forum to allow sharing of information between employees and employers (Gennard and Judge, 2005: 75). The parties in employment relations The role of parties in employment relations vary from one state to another. The parties play a vital role because the decisions they make touch on public and private interests. The parties all have the role to protect both society values and the organization of work. The state has a major role to play in employment relations because it can hinder or foster the relationship between employer and employees. The state establishes their relationship through legislation touching on both parties (Lloyd and Newell, 2001:360). How the organization functions can be determined by this party and that is why the state often comes up with new reforms. The government sets policies that ensure both the worker and employer are protected. An intention to favor one can cause an imbalance in the labor market because one has the upper hand in the relationship. The state also provides a platform where the two parties can settle their differences. Special tribunals and administrative bodies are created to settle employment problems making sure that no one’s rights are violated (Wilkinson et al., et al, 2004: 300). The state has no right to interfere or outright control the employment relationship. Its main role is to provide the necessary legislation to give the people freedom to solve their problems. The state provides mediation service in cases where negotiations are needed in the private sector (Wilkinson et al., et al, 2004: 300). Most time private sectors would not want the state interfering with their affairs and so the state appoints independent representatives to help employment issues. The other most important player in employment relations and a big determining factor are the employers (Bryson, 2005: 1131). The employer in private and public sector is in charge of providing work. The employer influences the labor relation based on what approach they choose to manage employees. Employers in the past were rigid and conservative and as a result trade unions and collective bargaining were common channels of communication. Employer’s today are liberal and flexible introducing employee involvement and joint partnerships with the workers (Bryson, 2005: 1131). Employers vary from one country to another; countries that are mainly capitalist attract independent organization of employers as compared to the countries that still hold communism. The international employer’s organization is also part of the employment relations actor. The international organization of employers’ based in Geneva was formed to represent the rights of employers globally (Wilkinson et al., et al, 2004: 301). It is an independent organ that stands for employers and ensures their voice is heard. It is one of the two organizations set to represent the employer’s needs globally. It takes up matters at a global level whenever economic and social matters in relation to employment arise. A trade union is defined as an association of wage earners representatives whose main aim is to seek continuously for improved working condition (Dundon and Rollinson, 2011: 66). This association has been around since the start of the industrial revolution to date. The trade union was formed to fight for the right of workers with the belief that it is only through sticking together that their livelihoods will improve. The unions in the industrial days fought for better pay, improved working conditions and a chance to contribute in decision making. After the decline, the trade unions came back with a more modern approach on how to represent workers. Trade unions today act as partners in the organization whose main aim is to improve economic globalization and encourage innovative ideas. Trade unions also protect the marginalized groups in the workplace (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004:33). The international federation is a movement that consists of national trade unions, commonly known as Trade Union International TUIs (Wilkinson et al., et al, 2004: 301). This body concentrates on issues affecting the employees in the different work sectors. The body was formed to address health safety issues, and recommend international safety standards that employers need to consider in the different field of work. The organization represents the many unions in several countries in regional and international forums. There, many other parties coming up with the aim of improving employment relationship in the future. Conclusion Employment relation plays in managing the employment relationship in its economic, legal and social context. The issue of labor relations has changed overtime with the end of an industrial age. The trade union is a significant vehicle in improving employment relationship in the 70’s and 80’s. Its major role in fighting for the employee’s right and better working conditions has led to today’s major reforms. Marxism argument on capitalism creating the conflict at the workplace explains how the society today has developed political and social structures in the work place that cause a struggle in the workplace. The management and employee struggle to reach an agreement that seemingly leaves both parties contented. The functional activities used to manipulate the employment relations apply to today’s workplace setting. Human resource managers have devised various techniques that have managed to reduce conflict between employees and employers. Globalization has brought about new developments that have enabled the human resource managers negotiate up to the firm’s level. There is a growing need to address the internal and external PEST factors that influence the employment relations. The main actors in this case play a big role because they influence directly or indirectly the nature of employment relations. Their decision can hinder or foster the employment relation. Human resources managers therefore need to assess the practical systems that can assist them hold the employment relationship together. In order for a manger to balance employment relations they must understand the technique that achieves the symmetry in managing employees. Achieving this balance is fundamental in building a lasting employment relationship. Bibliography Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004) The dynamics of employee relations, (3rd Ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Bryson, A. (2005) Union effects on employee relations in Britain. Human Relations, 58: 1111–39. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.43-55. Clegg, H. (1975), ‘Pluralism and Industrial Relations’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 309-16. Daniel, K. (2006). Employee relations in an organizational context. CIPD Dundon, T and Rollinson, D. (2011) Understanding employment relations, (2nd Ed.) Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. Gardner, M. & Palmer, G. (1997). Employment Relations: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management in Australia, (2nd Ed.). South Melbourne: Macmillan publishers Gennard, J and Judge, G. (2005) Employment relations (4th Ed.). London: Chartered Institute of personnel and development Hollishead, G., Nicholls, P. and Tailby, S. (2003). Employee relations (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Financial Times prentice hall. Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetoric and Realities. London: Macmillan Business.30-66. Lloyd, C. and Newell, H. (2001). Changing management–union relations: Consultation in the UK pharmaceutical industry, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22(3): 357–82. Marx, K. (1978), ‘Wages, Labor and Capital’ in R. Tucker (Ed), the Marx and Engles Reader, London: Penguin.111-154 Taylor, F. (1974), Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Row.44-52. Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004). Changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland, The Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3): 298–322. Read More