Is Enterprise Bargaining Still a Better Way of Working by Townsend, Burgess, and Wilkinson - Article Example

IS ENTERPRISE BARGAINING STILL A BETTER WAY OF WORKING? Name Institution Professor Course Date Townsend, K., Burgess J., Wilkinson, A 2013, ‘Is enterprise bargaining still a better way of working?’ Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(1), pp.100-117. Introduction Enterprise bargaining (EB) entails the procedure of negotiation amid employers, workers and their bargaining representatives. The main objective of enterprise bargaining is to make an enterprise conformity. According to Loundes, Tseng & Wooden (2003, p.245), enterprise bargaining enhances productivity, but scores of academics argue that the relationship amid workplace productivity and bargaining structure is a contentious issues and research has not been able to identify the relationship. Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) examines the efficiency of enterprise bargaining. The authors assert that decentralization is not efficient in numerous levels given that the bargaining process calls for expertise, time and resources. Secondly, enterprise bargaining shows little differences across enterprises. In addition, bargaining prompts disruption, reduced trust and conflict thereby challenging the efficiency of the process in terms of meeting the requirements of the actors. Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) employs a case study approach to explore the advantages and limitations of enterprise bargaining. The two authors assess whether procedures of enterprise bargaining contributes to productivity improvement and organizational efficiency and the implications of enterprise bargaining in workplace. Summary of the Argument Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p.101) assert that Australia has passed through decades of far-reaching reform to regulations of industrial reforms, institutions and processes. Through reference from previous studies, Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) confirm that the rationale behind establishment of enterprise bargaining in 1991 include labor flexibility and deployment, organizational and economic reasons. Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p.101) assert that enterprise bargaining was viewed as a strategy of enhancing labor productivity, promoting managerial prerogatives besides; lowering the influence of trade unions and commission. Enterprise bargaining was also viewed as a strategy of permitting some unions to dissolve the controls of wages employed via Prices and Income Accord. According to Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p.101), decentralized bargaining aimed at promoting high-performance work systems. The two authors ascertain that enterprise bargaining has been applicable in diverse perspectives and taken diverse meanings at dissimilar times. Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p.102), assert that there is an extensive debate surrounding the relationship amid economic performance and trade unions, and economic performance and systems of industrial relations. Productivity is a clear-cut concept with definite estimates that are accessible and can be enhanced via decentralized bargaining process. Enterprise bargaining could augment productivity through following procedures, being capable of operating efficiently as well as via workplace linking being more competitive. However, whether enterprise bargaining increases productivity is debatable and if there are advantages achievable through bargaining arrangements. Decentralized bargaining is a crucial element of modernizing the industrial relations systems and portioning more accountability to organizational agents in the bargaining process. However, concern over time costs, lack of expertise and resource have been identified by unions and employers. According to Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p.106), trade unions underestimated the infrastructure and facilities needed for productive bargaining, and bargaining became an employer-instigated exercise that lowers labor costs. Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p.106), claim that bargaining blueprints promotes managerial prerogatives and compels unions to defend conditions instead of building up inventive employment conditions. Through selective cases employed by the authors where semi-structured interviews that involved middle managers, senior managers, operational-level employees and union delegates were conducted. Both managers and employees in the two cases confirmed trusting and good links amid the parties on an ongoing basis, but there was a trust breakdown and disruption in workplace links throughout the bargaining process. This view is supported by a study carried out by Foster, Rasmussen, Murrie and Laird, (2011) where employees argued that union agents involved in collective bargaining offer diminutive real advantage to employment and workplace relationships (p.192). Enterprise bargaining from the two cases studied by Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) is considered an inevitable and crucial process, but it is costly and time-consuming in the workplaces. However, enterprise bargaining is linked to augmented participation in workplace and trade unions are viewed as active and very engrossed around the bargaining time. Critical Analysis The Central Argument According to Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p.110), enterprise bargaining does not increase productivity in workplace. Cases of leave and absenteeism augment during the bargaining process. However, the authors ascertained that enterprise bargaining increases participation and consultation in the workplace. Their assertion is supported by Grant (2012, p.308) who claim that enterprise bargaining is a magical potion of productivity growth. Grant (2012) asserts that cooperation is critical in enhancing workplace productivity. As a result, the determination of shared objectives and interests amid capital and labor is paramount (Grant 2012, p.314). Enterprise bargaining also increases employees’ cooperation and engagement. However, Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p.107) confirms that there is proof of deteriorating links amid employees and proof of enhanced employee involvement. On the other hand, Loundes, Tseng & Wooden (2003, p.245) confirm that bargaining stimulates increased levels of efficiency in workplace. Loundes, Tseng & Wooden (2003, p.245) claim that enterprise bargaining facilitates workplace agreements that enhances productivity and the living standards of employees. Enterprise bargaining generates more appealing and monetarily rewarding jobs through stimulating greater employee engagement in workplace operations. As a result, enterprise bargaining instigate enterprise reform besides enhancing productivity levels in organizations. According Loundes, Tseng & Wooden (2003, p.245), there are two avenues where a change from centralized conditions and wage determination towards enterprise bargaining can augment productivity in workplace. Enterprise bargaining can assist firms that are ineffective to move closer to practice via improving the incentives required to establish more productive management practices and efficient work. On the contrary Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p. 108) assert that enterprise bargaining destroys relationship amid employees and employers, but there are also constructive factors of bargaining that include communication, participation and involvement. However, Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) do not offer a conclusive evidence of positive effects of enterprise bargaining but they instead claim that further investigation is needed to clearly confirm the positive upshots of enterprise bargaining in workplace. From the two cases, The Hotel and The Manufacturer Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) concluded that enterprise bargaining hold both advantages and disadvantages in workplace. Their findings however, call for further studies because they fail to identify which of the benefits of enterprise bargaining remain after negotiation of agreement. Trade unions bargaining offers presence and relevance, but this relevance and presence disappear between the bargaining rounds. Legislative shifts provide employers with increased options over their wage fixing policies and unions face augmenting pressures on their bargaining facilities (Briggs 2001, p.27). While enterprise bargaining processes increases employees’ involvement, participation and communication, it takes a lot of time and resources. Moreover, enterprise bargaining is beneficial only during the bargaining procedure, but its advantages are not evident after the bargaining process. There would be increased flexibility with workplace bargaining contracts which mirror the individual characteristics of each organization. This is evidenced from the two cases assessed by Townsend and Wilkinson (2013). Enterprise bargaining engenders shifts in workplace mind-sets with employees and employers coming together in the spirit of cooperation to guarantee enterprise improvement. The cooperative spirit lowers industrial disputes while decentralized mechanism inspires reward for workers and individual effort. Enterprise bargaining enhances organizational performance through inspiring communication amid employees and their employers. When enterprise bargaining enhances cooperative relations in an organization, it potentially inspires innovation besides facilitating development of skills that increases productivity in an organization. According to Loundes, Tseng & Wooden (2003, p.248), the fundamental determinants of growth and productivity depend on the effective participation and cooperation of employees. However, such participation and cooperation are forthcoming where employment links are categorized through trust where employees feel they hold a secure role in the long-run success of their organization. Productivity effects of bargaining structure rely crucially on how bargaining influences the conducts of employees. Structures that support rivalry and competitive conduct among employees in a firm hinder productivity growth. Improved communication instigates realization of disputes leading to quick resolutions. However, wage relativities can be lost with employees performing similar tasks in different enterprises making employees to obtain diverse conditions and wages, an aspect that instigates increased conflict. On the contrary, lower skilled employees received reduced wages while skilled workers bargain for increased wages leading to income inequality hence reduced performance from unskilled workers and may in turn affect the entire productivity of an enterprise. According to a research carried out by Peetz (2012), arbitration hold differential impacts in employees and workplace. Therefore, enterprise bargaining benefit some unions and disadvantage others (Peetz 2012, p. 238). Moreover, in absence of arbitration and conciliation, disputes take long to solve an aspect that lead to losses. Methodology The research conducted by Townsend and Wilkinson (2013), is a qualitative research with a case study approach. The research paradigm is appropriate for the research as qualitative research entails a naturalist approach that assesses how behaviors of human beings are affected by their instantaneous environment. Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) conducted their research in a natural setting where they involved live sample and collected their data from empirical materials such as interviews and observations. Through semi-structured interviews, the researchers explored enterprise bargaining process and the upshots of the process. To supplement the semi-structured interviews, the researchers also acted as observers in numerous meeting that took place within the workplaces. Meetings, team briefs and focus groups were involved in the data collection process while different corporate records and documents were offered by the management of The Manufacturer and The Hotel to enhance collection and analysis of data. The interviews took between 50 and 60 minutes and were recorded, transcribed and coded. The case studies of the two firms allowed the researchers to collect data connected to the experience, opinions and interpretations of enterprise bargaining by the main actors. Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) explored the consequences and process of enterprise bargaining, an aspect that offered a prospect to consider concerns around the procedure leading to and after an agreement. In this regard, the case studies did not rely on available statistics but rather on detailed evaluation of enterprise bargaining in the involved workplaces. A case study approach in research is apposite when gathering research information as well as when carrying out thematic assessment amid different cases. The cases studies research ensured a detailed contextual evaluation of the processes and upshot of enterprise bargaining. The approach employed by Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) is appropriate because case studies entail a pragmatic inquiry that examines a real-life occurrence in a situation where the link between an occurrence and the perspective are not apparent; the link between enterprise bargaining and productivity is not clear. Case studies in research are useful strategies when investigators hold modest or no directive over incidences, and when the inquest subject entails convoluted new phenomena characterized through some real-life perspective. However, to handle the theoretical issue of the validity of the cases, the researchers strived for good comprehension of why and how the productivity in an enterprise is influenced by enterprise bargaining. While the qualitative case study perspective is appropriate for the study, case study research design present bias findings since analysis of data is based on the views of the researcher. In addition, this perspective is prone to changes thereby leading to provision of a high level of unreliable results. Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) included middle managers, senior managers, operational-level employees and union delegates, and conducted 18 interviews at The Hotel ,and 19 interviews at The Manufacturer. However, the researchers did not indicate the exact sample size. The researchers allowed the respondents to give their views and experiences with enterprise bargaining. The design used for this study could probably offer valid results, but on the other hand, the technique provides no ground for introducing oversimplification or dependability of results. In addition, the fact that the study included multiple sources of data such interviews, briefs, focus groups and observation, case study approach involved large levels of information that took long to evaluate. The research questions are appropriate for qualitative research, but the researchers did not adequately answer their research questions. This is because of the study limitations that left the researcher asking some questions at the end of their study. For instance, in the end of the research, the researchers asked whether adequate resources and training are available to prepare the personnel involved in enterprise bargaining. This implies that the benefits of enterprise bargaining in terms of increasing productivity in workplace and the sustainability of the process are not evident. According to Grant (2012, p.307), there has been inadequate investigation into the conditions in which productivity benefits workplaces. However, the first research question reveal that enterprise bargaining is costly and long, hence not efficient enough to increase productivity in organizations. As regards the second research question, the researchers cite contradictions in the two case studies involved where both positive and negative aspects of enterprise bargaining are realized. As a result, the researchers suggested further research as they could not adequately answer the second research question through the two case studies. Perhaps quantitative researcher or mixed research methods could help adequately answer the research questions. Conclusion The question of whether enterprise bargaining increases productivity in organizations is not adequately answered by the several studies included in this analysis. The evidence provided in the article by Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) is far from accommodating. The proof accessible in the enterprise-level and workplace level studies does not lead to powerful conclusions. The possible link amid productivity and enterprise bargaining is not apparent. The main reason behind this gap is absence of quality data. While the case studies involved in Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) illustrated the probability for enterprises bargaining to enhance workplace productivity, their findings cannot be generalized. Even if enterprise bargaining leads to positive effects in workplace such as improved communication, participation and involvement of employees, nothing is understandable as regards the mechanisms in which the positive effects of EB are transmitted and whether the effects remain even after the bargaining process. In this regard, I concur with Townsend and Wilkinson (2013) that further investigation is needed to comprehend whether sufficient resources and training are included in enterprise bargaining and the role skill development and training can play in promoting the benefits of enterprise bargaining in workplace. Reference List Briggs, C 2001, 'Australian exceptionalism: the role of trade unions in the emergence of enterprise bargaining’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 43, 1, pp. 27-43. Foster, B, Rasmussen, E, Murrie, J & Laird, I 2011, 'Supportive legislation, unsupportive employers and collective bargaining in New Zealand,' Relations Industries, 66, 2, pp. 192-212. Grant, B 2012, ‘The future of enterprise bargaining’, Labor & Industry, 22, 3, pp.307-315. Loundes, J., Tseng, Y., Wooden, M 2003,’ Enterprise bargaining and productivity in Australia: What do we know?’ The Economic Record, 79, 245, pp.245-258. Peetz, D 2012, ‘The impacts and non-impact on unions of enterprise bargaining’, Labor & Industry, 22, 3, pp.237-254. Townsend, K., Burgess J., Wilkinson, A 2013, ‘Is enterprise bargaining still a better way of working? Journal of Industrial Relations, 55, 1, pp.100-117. Read More