A Crucial Role in Employment Relations - Term Paper Example

Running Head: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Human Resource Management s Human Resource Management Introduction Tradeunions are developed to protect and promote the interests of their members. The ability of trade unions to exercise power and influence over users of that service depends on the relative demand for that service. Thus, when demand for skilled labour is high, trade unions are in a relatively powerful position to negotiate a high price for the use of that labour. When demand for labour is slack and unemployment begins to raise, the influence power of trade unions will diminish (Ken 1994 p25). The state (all levels of government) plays a crucial role in employment relations, both directly and indirectly. The roles undertaken by governments may be categorized into five components including maintaining protective standards; establishing rules for the interaction between the parties; ensuring that the results of such interaction were consistent with the apparent needs of economy; providing services for labour and management such as advice, conciliation, arbitration and training; and as a major employer. After World War II, it indicates that many governments adopt a more active role in regard to employment relations (Bamber et al. 2004 p 12). Theory and Concepts Bain and Clegg (1974) as well as Clegg (1976) state that dissimilarity in the dimensions of collective bargaining in various countries is the most important element in the shaping of union behaviour. This might represent a theory of trade union behaviour regarding collective bargaining however Clegg does not consider it a complete theory of trade unionism, because theory does not clarify the political actions of trade union. Even if the theory was comprehensive enough, it would not still not be considered as of theory of industrial relations. The dimensions of collective bargaining for Clegg are mostly affected by the structure as well as attitudes of employers’ relations and management. State involvement through legislation might also be a dominant influence if it takes place at an amply early stage during the development of collective bargaining. If it was a comprehensive theory of industrial relations it would take these factors into consideration as well. Hyman (1994) supports Clegg’s analysis of union behaviour, mainly due to the fact that the theory fails to describe the changes that take place in the trade union density and strike behaviour in the following years. He emphasizes on impact of factors of political-economic like global competition that is intensified, the capital and employment restructuring, as well as the fall of Keynesianism in a country. He states that, as national institutional arrangements surely assist in shaping the effect of these forces on industrial relations, he supports Shalev (1980) notion that ‘the organization of industrial relations ought to still occupy no more than the position of variables that are dominant in theories which are comparative in nature. A strong theory must emphasize on political economy. However we are left with no comprehensive account of national differences. Institutions can be known as symptoms , and not as causes, with differentiation in institutions among countries being mainly manifestation of the power distribution as well as the results of conflicts among different parties when these institutions start functioning (Shalev 1998 p.248). Institutions also replicate party’s collective strategic choices, as well as the choice of unions along with labour movements to follow a path which is political in nature. According to Poole (1984; 1986; 1993) the differences that are found in industrial relations institutions as well as practice in diverse countries have a strong foundation in the strategic choices of different parties to that of the employment relationship (Kochan, Katz and McKersie, 1984 p16). These parties are basically social ‘actors’ who form the arrangements of the institutions in which they function. The choices of these parties are manipulated via culture as well as political ideology, and also by means of economic, public and legal policies. They have a specific pattern which they follow and they are extremely limited in their formulation, performance and structure when it comes to financial, political as well as social structures, via organisational as well as institutional forces, and the sharing of power. Kelly’s (1997a; 1997b) theory is completely based on long effects, mobilisation of worker and employer along with the counter-mobilisation of the state regarding industrial relations makes us understand the historical fluctuations and key disruption in industrial relations variables globally, however again it is of little assistance in clarifying details regarding cross-national variations. To give details regarding cross-national distinction in trade union ‘s membership and degrees of density , Kelly takes the support of ( Kelly 1997a p18) an model which was given by Crouch (1993) which depends on the kind of and degree of, corporatism that is mainly determined by means of state religious as well as historical background. Similarly, the comparative study of Kendall’s (1975) can be used as an instance of how value analysis maybe utilized to ‘associate organization to behaviour in undergoing the differences among national industrial relations systems’. “The utilization of national culture in cross-national organisational theory, with culture being considered as an extra possibility ‘which both imitates and is imitated in the social institutions in every country “ (Child 1981p. 335). Britain The British industrial relations system has a long history and has undergone much change in recent years. There are three phases in the evolution of employee relations since the end of the World War II, the third one being the partnership approach. Until 1979 (date of the election of the Conservative Party), work relations were based on collective bargaining and collective agreement aiming to determine and regulate, in varying degrees, the terms on which individuals will be employed (Flanders 1968 p35), with a strong voluntarism encouraged massively and informally. The trade unions (basically, it is an association of wage earners, totally independent of employers pressure, who struggle to improve work conditions) had a lot of power and everything was negotiated through deals. In fact, a Trade Union, through collective bargaining can force employers to deal with labour as a collective identity, rather than isolated individuals and so, secure better the terms and condition of employment. However, when the conservative party was elected in 1979, everything changed. The new government introduced a lot measures to limit the role of trade unions. In addition, it introduced an enterprise culture in which individuals and organisations, rather than government, were to be held responsible for economic performance. Thus, as well as rejecting the maintenance of full employment as a major policy objective, they in effect abandoned the commitment of their predecessors to voluntary collective bargaining as the most effective method of determining pay and conditions. Then, there was a total break with the old work patterns but an explanation of this will be the economical context. In fact, after the war, there was a period of reconstruction that engendered a lot of work; manufacturing was the backbone of the economy, it was a period of full employment. After that, there was a wave of privatisation, many companies became multinationals, and there was an internationalisation of business. Because Britain is the candle of industrialisation, the British employment relations system has a long history. It is extremely important as its the FIRST system in the modern sense and thus other ER systems such as Australias, has been modelled on it (Marchington et al. 2004 p36). For example, many present trade unions can trace their roots back to this mid-19th century or earlier in Britain. The legislations and rules of employment relations in many countries are also modelled on the Britains. As a result, studying the British employment relation system can help to know the history of the ER system and then can deeply understand the principle of the ER systems in other countries. Trade unions are the organizations which consist of workers and are formed in order to improve their economic as well as social conditions by means of a procedure of collective bargaining with their employer. Traditionally, TU have stood alone (having no employer or State involvement). Also, it has no direct role in collective bargaining (CB). In Britain, TU are predominately craft based in which the membership is restrictive based upon the persons skills. TU movement has always been a tradition of voluntarism. Only in certain employment sectors - is TU membership compulsory (in the form of legislation making it so).The trade unions are instrumental in establishing the Labour Party in 1906 to ensure TU kept their rights. However since mid 1980, the Party has distanced itself from the TU and policy making power as been reduced (Marchington etal 2004 p60). From 1980 to 1990, the new legislation limited the ability of TU to organise lawful industrial action. It also narrowed trade union’s immunity from legal action brought about by employers and/or trade union members for eg. TU could now be sued. This ensured TU were responsive to the wishes of its members. Moreover, new government outlawed secondary industrial action (e.g. organisation cant go out on strike in support of another industry) and made TU now liable for unauthorised / unofficial industrial action. Thus, Trade Union and Collective Bargaining had reduced. The Role of the State has been subjected to change, however has always been a crucial role in Britains ER either directly or indirectly. The government is responsible for the undertaking legal reforms of industrial relations; conducting the economic policies; ensuring the equity and discrimination at work; fixing legally enforceable minimum pay and conditions in industries; conciliating and arbitrating dispute. Also, the state is an important employer. In any analysis of the transformation of Britains employment relations system the changing nature of work cannot be neglected The Future of Work Research Programme indicates that a genuinely new kind of employment relations across a widening range of private sector companies based on principles of industrial partnership appears (Taylor 1998). The Future of Work Research Programme indicates that a genuinely new kind of employment relations across a widening range of private sector companies based on principles of industrial partnership appears (Taylor 1998) (https://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/fow_publication_1). The use of this term of partnership is a relatively recent political phenomenon. Some people affirm that it is just a term used by the Government to attract popular support because nobody can be against Partnership (Knell 1999 p34). Some others, more optimistic, see in this term a new pluralist approach to industrial relations. This concept comes from the idea that enterprises should recognise the interests of each stakeholder, namely employees, employers and their representatives, in order to satisfy each party. The aim of this approach is to find a common interest of management and labour, through trust and mutual participation which would bring a feeling of belonging as well as involvement. The Involvement and Participation Association (IPA) identifies six key principles: a shared commitment to the success of enterprise, including support for flexibility and the replacement of adversarial relations; a recognition that interests of the partners may legitimately differ; employment security, including measures to improve the employability of staff as well as limit the use of compulsory redundancy; a focus on the quality of working life; a commitment to transparency, including a real sharing of hard, unvarnished information, an openness to discussing plans for the future, genuine consultation and preparedness to listen to the business case for alternative strategies; adding value - the hallmark of an effective partnership is that it taps into sources of commitment and / or resources that were not accessed by previous arrangement (Knell 1999) (www.leeds.ac.uk/learning-in-partnership/files/english/publication1). For the New Labour government, partnership at work becomes an important objective. The partnership is between individual employer and individual employee and their representatives but the latter partner is weak in the new work relation. The partnership approach is more focused on individual relationships than a collective one, like in the past. Indeed, New Labour insists on individual choice. For them, it is not an obligation to integrate a working union. It emphasises that individuals are the best judges of their own individual interests. That is to say that the individual has the choice of whether or not to join a trade union and whether or not to take part in the coverage by collective agreement. It might mean the government is not really in favour of the trade unions. In fact, some people think that a trade union would be an enemy of the partnership approach in the sense that trade unions defend the workers interests and they always have a confrontational relationship with the employers. Singapore Singapores industrial relations did not begin until after the 1997 Asian economic crisis. The immediate reply to the Asian financial crisis of 1997 was exactly like what started the 1985 to 1986 financial crises (Guzda 1995 p 4). A series of cost-cutting measures were implemented to sustain the competitiveness of local invested corporations. On the other-hand, the Government realised the need to adopt a long term strategy in response to the internationalisation of markets, increased workforce diversity and technological innovations. In the year 1998, the Singapores Government changed Singapores Ministry of Labour into the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Ministry of Manpower was formed to develop a workforce which was globally competitive and promote "an extremely positive workplace to attain sustainable economic growth meant for the of Singaporean’s well being (Anantaraman 1990 p34) . The Singaporean model of industrial relations is a tripartite arrangement whereby Peoples Action Party (PAP) government, National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and employers work together, presumably for the benefit of all. Some would argue that the consensual IR climate might be viewed as forced and restrictive. Begin (1995) argues that the current Singapore IR system is not ideally positioned to serve the future interests of the nation as globalisation and improvement in educational standards in Singapore progresses. He states the current position of the IR system does not support the development of flexibility and productiveness to perform complex work. However, Begin fails to knowledge that the system is not as rigid as it seems. Singapores IR policies have been quickly changed and modified to meet future needs and to adapt to Singapores economic development policies. The trade union working closely with the government can be taken in two ways. The first sees it as something positive. By working closely with the government, the trade union is able to influence the government on important industrial reforms. The second view sees it as the government who dictates to the trade union. It is evident that the second view is more comprehensive as it has been the government who has led the four industrial relations transformations over the years. This outlook worries some as the industrial system might encourages economic growth at the common citizens expense. However, looking at the situation more closely, the goals of employees, employers and the government are very similar. The people in Singapore are mainly dominated by a corporatist view in an elitist society. The employees seek to get ahead in terms of work and the employers look for opportunities to stay competitive in a labour intensive environment. The government adopting an economic development focused vision might not be a bad thing in this case (Chew & Chew 1996 p263). The changes made by the government have all involved strategies concerning the improvement and modifications to the industrial relations policies. In addition, given the nature of Singaporeans, they are more likely to accept changes from the government. However, in a more democratic society where a Marxist approach to industrial relations is adapted, the Singaporean industrial system would fail (Tan 2004 p 45). Trade unions at national level in Singapore play an important role in decision-making. At the local level, the enterprise union structure, together with the restrictions on the ability of trade unions to bargain and strike, management-labour relations are cordial. Due to globalisation, a few years need to be addressed by the Government and trade union. Less skilled workers are fired by companies which have moved or restructured their operations are. The only way to solve this problem is by retraining as well as upgrading the skills of workers. As union leaders in collective agreements are forcing employers for a training clause, employers now sense the pressure to agree with their requirements. In practice, issues regarding employers having the flexibility to redeploy older workers need to be looked at (Chew 1992 p 30). Finally, as most unskilled job vacancies are now filled by foreign workers, the government has to maintain a balance between the demand by employers for more workers and a manageable migrant population. Imposing high levies might have a negative effect as it can create social and cultural problems such as employers hiring illegal immigrants. Conclusion Keeping in mind, the above discussion of industrial relations, employee relations and trade unions it can be concluded that Trade unions have devoted resources and energy to reshaping its outlook and structure in many areas to increase membership. However, there are key issues such as government and employer opposition, structural changes in the economy, shifts of trends in the workforce, amalgamation, government rule and regulations etc. it would be utterly impossible to eliminate the very existence so long as there are people who support and are willing to join unions References Anantaraman, V. (1990), Singapore Industrial Relations System, Singapore Institute of Management, Singapore, p34 Bamber, GJ, Lansbury, RD & Wailes, N (eds) 2004, International and comparative employment relations: globalisation and the developed market economics, 4th edn, Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, p12 Begin, J. P. (1995), Is Singapore’s IR system congruent with its second phase of industrialisation? New York: Cornell University Press. Chew, S.B., Chew, R. (1996), "Industrial relations: issues and prospects", in Chew, S.B., Chew, R. (Eds),Industrial Relations in Singapore Industry, Addison-Wesley, Singapore, pp.263-74.. Chew Soon Beng (1992), Trade Unionism in Singapore, Singapore: McGraw- Hill Book, p30 Child, J. (1981) ‘Culture, Contingency and Capitalism in the Cross-National Study of Organisations’. Chapter in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (eds.), Research in Organisational Behaviour. Vol. 3. Connecticut : JAI Press. 303-56 Clegg, H.A. (1976) Trade Unionism under Collective Bargaining A Theory based on Comparisons of Six Countries. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Clegg, H.A. (1979), The Changing System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain, Oxford: Basil Blackwell press Crouch, C. (1993), Industrial Relations and European State Traditions. Oxford: Clarendon Press Flanders A (1968), Collective bargaining: a theoretical analysis, British journal of industrial relations, vol 6, iss 3, and pp 35-41 Guzda P. Henry (1995), Workplace Industrial Relations and the Global Challenge. Monthly Labor Review, p 4 Hyman, R. (1975), Industrial Relations A Marxist Introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan Kelly, J. (1997a), ‘Long Waves in Industrial Relations: Mobilisation and Counter mobilisation in Historical Perspective’, Historical Studies in Industrial Relations. Vol 4 3-36 Kelly, J. (1997b), Rethinking Industrial Relations Mobilisation, Collectivism And Long Waves. London: Routledge. Ken, H (1994), Trade Union Recognition, Health Manpower Management, vol. 20, pp. 25-30. Knell, J (1999), The Partnership At Work: Employment relations research series 7, Department of Trade and Industry, London. p34 Kochan, T.A., Katz, H.C. and McKersie R.B. (1984), ‘Strategic Choice and Industrial Relations Theory’, Industrial Relations. 23:1. pp16-39. Marchington, M, Goodman, J & Berridge, J (2004), Employment relationship in Britain in GJ Bamber, RD Lansbury & N Wailes (eds), International and comparative employment relations: globalisation and the developed market economics, 4th edn, Allen & Unwin, Crown Nest, pp. 36-66. Poole, M. (1984), Theories of Trade Unionism, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (rev. ed.) Poole, M (1986), Industrial Relations: Origins and Patterns of National Diversity. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul. Poole, M (1993) ‘Industrial Relations: Theorising for a Global Perspective’. In Adams, R. and Meltz, N. (eds.) Industrial Relations Theory, Institute of Management and Labor , Metuchan, New Jersey : Relations Press. Shalev, M. (1980), Industrial Relations Theory and the Comparative Study of Industrial Relations and Industrial Conflict . British Journal of Industrial Relations. 18:1. 26-43. Shalev, M (1981), ‘Theoretical Dilemmas and Value Analysis in Comparative Industrial Relations’, In Dlugos, G. et. al. (eds.) Management Under Different Value Systems. Berlin: De Gruyter Tan, C. H. (2004), Employment Relations in Singapore, Singapore, Prentice Hall, p45 . Taylor, R (1998), Future of Work Commentary Series: The Future of Employment Relations, Esrc taken from https://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/fow_publication_1 Read More