Trade Unions Are More Relevant Today Than at Any Time Since the 1970s - Essay Example

Trade Unions are More Relevant Today than at Any Time since the 1970s ID Number & Total Number of Words: 1,506 Introduction Sidney and Beatrice Webb defined trade union as “a continuous association wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their working lives” [cited in Sinha, Sinha and Shekha, 2009, p. 1]. Basically, the main purpose of estabilishing a trade union is to protect and improve the socio-economic and safety of the workers “through collective action, economic, and social status of its workers” (Sinha, Sinha and Shekha, 2009, p. 1). According to Blyton and Turnbull (2004, p. xi), employee relations aims to utilize human resources not only within the workplace but also within a wider society. This explains why trade union can take place within the private or public sectors. In almost all cases, the members of a trade union within the private sector are fighting for employees’ rights with regards to the rates of pay, overtime pay, bonus schemes, working hours, and holiday entitlement among others (Williams & Adam-Smith, 2009, p. 7; Rose, 2008, p. 4). Similar to the members of a trade union within the private sector, employees who are working as public sector workers are also actively fighting “over cuts and pension reforms” (Milmo & Shepherd, 2012; Robson, 2012). In U.K., the existence of trade union was at its peak during the 1970s (Colling and Terry, 2010). Over the years, a lot of changes that took place with regards to the existence of trade unions within the private and public sector. As compared to any time since the 1970s, this study will discuss why trade unions are becoming less relevant in the private sector but not in the public sector followed by discussing the differences between unitarism, pluralism, and marxism. As part of the study conclusion, reasons why the main function of trade unions within the public sectors are still relevant today will be provided in details. Trade Unions are Becoming Less Relevant in the Private Sector but not within the Public Sector As compared to the public sector, globalization has something to do with the significant decrease in the number of trade unions in private sector. Considering the on-going tight market competition within the global markets, large-scale manufacturing companies had to implement massive lay-offs to sustain its financial stability needed to maintain the daily operations of these companies (Williams & Adam-Smith, 2009, p. 4). Implementing massive lay-offs greatly affects the supply and demand for labour. Given that massive lay-offs increases the supply of available labour force in the market, employers can take advantage of a higher bargaining power as compared to the job applicants (Williams & Adam-Smith, 2009, p. 5). For instance, company A is willing to offer only a temporary employment to a large group of applicants. Therefore, job applicants who are desperate to have a job will be more than willing to grab the work opportunity even if it pays lesser than the amount of salary he or she used to receive during the time when the UK economy is doing good. Since the job applicant is willing to take the job, it is unlikely for this particular employee to join a trade union against his or her employer. The on-going financial crisis around the world has made more people understand the consequences of losing their job. Since a lot of multinational companies within the developed counties are at risk of filing bankruptcy, people are gradually acknowledging the need to support the top management’s decision. Examples of flexible work opportunity includes part-time jobs and casual employement such as a freelance work opportunities that offer no work no pay policy. Instead of forming trade unions to fight for employees’ rights over higher pay rates, better overtime pay, bonus schemes, working hours, holiday entitlement, health benefits, sick leaves, and pension schemes, a lot of people especially among the female workers have started to accept a more flexible work opportunity that can be beneficial to both employers and employees (Kessler & Balyliss, 1995, p. 157). Aside from the public acceptance of work flexibility, significant changes with regards to type of management approach can also be considered as another factor that can explain the declining trend in the trade union membership within the private sector. In line with this, Blyton and Turnbull (2004, p. 4) mentioned that the fact that most companies today are focused on promoting the importance of making each employee become self-reliant at work makes them stay focused on their individualism. By implementing a two-way communication between employers and employees, workers need not seek help from a trade union just to get their messages and personal concerns across (Bryson & Freeman, 2006, p. 3). Significant changes that is taking place within the labour market does not literally apply in the case of the public sector. Since people are paying taxes to the government, people have the instinct to demand a better quality of life or more job opportunities from the government. This explains why Milmo and Shepherd (2012) recently reported that “more than 400,000 staff including police officers, health workers, teachers and lecturers could be involved in the protests and walkout against the government’s austerity programme”. The size and structure of trade union also matters in the sense that the presence of a large trade union group against a company or the public sector could adversely affect the entire scenario. For instance, the on-going trade union against the UK government with regards to the public sector pensions is not only backed up by a single public sector unions but a total of four. In line with this, Robson (2012) mentioned that the four major public sector unions include not only the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union but also the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and University and College Union (UCU) members (and only those in post-1992 universities), and the Educational Institute of Scotland. By joining forces, the member of these trade unions could increase their bargaining power against the UK government. Differences between Unitarism, Pluralism, and Marxism Aside from treating conflict as an abnormal behavior, unitarism is characterized by having a team of management and employees that share a common objective (Wilton, 2011, p. 35). Under the leadership of the managers, it means that a large group of employees are required to work for the organizational goals (p. 278). Since conflict is viewed as something that is not normal, unitarism considers trade union as an “unnecessary intrusion” that can disrupt the internal harmony of the business enterprise (Hyman and Mason, 1995, p. 12). Due to failure to address the main concerns of trade unions, management that follows unitarism often failed to maximize the overall performance of employees. Pluralism acknowledges that each organization is composed of different groups with different personal interests. Since pluralism acknowledges the difference between the interests of the management and group of employees, pluralism consider the presence of workplace conflict as something that is normal (Wilton, 2011, p. 35; Pizam, 2010, p. 501). This explains why employees are allowed to participate in determining the set of rules with regards to employment (Clegg, 1979). In the end, organizations that practice pluralism are the ones that can achieve a long-term sound relationship between the employers and employees (Pizam, 2010, p. 502). According to Farnham (2002, p. 373), marxism strongly believe that industrial conflicts are the end results of the “economic structures of a capitalist societies”. Similar to pluralism, marxism also acknowledges that industrial conflict in unavoidable and that developing a mutual relationship between employers and employees is close to impossible (p. 373). Therefore, marxists consider the presence of trade union as an effective intervention that can protect the working class employees from their abusive employers (p. 374). Conclusion and Recommendations The main function of trade unions within the public sector is still very much relevant today. As compared back in 1970s, trade unions are becoming less relevant in the private sector today but not in the public sector. Even though collective bargaining against a company does not occur much today as compared in 1970s, Blyton and Turnbull (2004, p. 4) mentioned that the presence of industrial conflicts between an employee and his or her employers can be noted with the increase in legal charges. It is not possible to totally eradicate conflicts or tension between employers and employees. Therefore, HR managers should not only be skillful in managing organizational disputes caused by trade unions but also when settling some legal charges filled its employees. Even though the presence of trade unions can disrupt the normal activities that takes place within the private and public organizations, there are still advantages out having trade unions in the public sectors. First of all, people can openly voice out their personal concerns to the government. Secondly, people can use trade unions in fighting against corrupt government officials. With regards to employment relations, differentiating the concept of unitarism from pluralism and marxism is necessary. To ensure that the government can effectively manage the trade unions’ concern “over cuts and pension reforms” (Milmo & Shepherd, 2012; Robson, 2012), the government should consider the concept of marxism when negotiating with the concerned citizens. References Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004). The Dynamics of Employee Relations. 3rd Edition. London: Macmillan. Bryson, A. and Freeman, R. (2006, July). What Voice Do British Workers Want? CEP Discussion Paper No 731. [Online] Available at: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp0731.pdf [Accessed 27 July 2012]. Clegg, H. (1979). The Changing System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain, chapter 3. (‘Employers and the Structure of Collective Bargaining outside the Plant’). From class lecture. Colling, T. and Terry, M. (2010). Industrial Relations 3rd edition. Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Farnham, D. (2002). Employee Relations in Context. 2nd Edition. London: CIPD. Hyman, J. and Mason, B. (1995). Managing Employee Involvement and Participation. 1st Edition. London: Sage Publication. Kessler, S. and Balyliss, F. (1995). Contemporary British Industrial Relations. In Kelly, J.E. (ed) "Industrial Relations: Approaches to industrial relations and trends" 2002. London: Routledge. Milmo, D. and Shepherd, J. (2012, May 9). Guardian. Public sector workers prepare to strike over cuts and pension reforms. More than 400,000 staff including police officers, health workers, teachers and lecturers could be involved in protests and walkout. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/09/public-sector-workers-strike-cuts [Accessed 27 July 2012]. Pizam, A. (2010). International Encyclopedia of Hospitality Management. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Robson, T. (2012, March 28). World Socialist Website. British trade unions call off national strike over public sector pensions. [Online] Available at: http://wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/unio-m28.shtml [Accessed 27 July 2012]. Rose, E. (2008). Employment Relations. 3rd Edition. London: Prentice Hall. Sinha, P., Sinha, I. and Shekha, S. (2009). Industrial Relations, Trade Unions, And Labour Legislation. 4th Edition. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley . Williams, S. and Adam-Smith, D. (2009). Contemporary Employment Relations: A Critical Introduction. 2nd Edition. NY: Oxford University Press. Wilton, N. (2011). An Introduction to Human Resource Management. 1st Edition. London: Sage Publication. Read More