Key Differences Between Unitarist, Pluralist, and Radical Views of the Employment Relationship - Coursework Example

Key Differences Between Unitarist, Pluralist, and Radical Views of the Employment Relationship 1. Introduction The term ‘labour relations’ are commonly used in connection with different forms of worker’s participation and they can also encompass individual employment relations between an employer and a worker. Employment relationship are a critical element in the experience of life in industrialised societies because it involves developing social ties between an individual and an organisation. Moreover, employment relationship varies considerably among different employers and workers as there are different conceptions on what approach actually contributes to good management and workers well-being. For this reason, there is a need to analyse different theories and find the key differences between the unitarist, pluralist, and radicalist view of employment relationships. The following section discusses the difference in conception of labour, equity, decision-making power, governance and conflict in an employment relationship. a. Difference in Conceptions of Labour, Equity, and Decision-making Power Unitarism discard the narrow conceptions of labour as product and workers as perfectly rational agents and instead adopt a psychological conception of the human agent. Thus, equity and voice, predominantly in the form of distributive and procedural justice, are basically seen in terms of individual perceptions of fairness, justice, and contribution in decision-making. The pluralist however, has an enhanced idea of labour by also considering them as human beings with rights in a democratic society. By itself, equity goes beyond perceptions of individual justice to include minimum standards such a living wages that human beings should be entitled. In addition, voice goes beyond narrow task-related contribution to include industrial democracy or the right of human beings to play a role broadly in informed decision-making (Whalen 2008, p.53). The radicalist on the other hand made a distinction between’ labour’, the activity to do the work, and ‘labour-power’, the capacity to do work (Arestis & Sawyer 1994, p.123). For the radicals, it is the labour-power that is being acquired by the capitalist employer and the quantity of labour performed is basically under the capitalist control. The radical version of labour is oppositional and seeking to replace capitalism with worker control (Budd 2006, p.138). b. Difference in Governance and Conception of Conflict Within the framework of collective bargaining, a pluralist organisation supports the reality of various groups and coalitions with conflicting concern. Pluralist believed that group conflicts could give way to teamwork and cooperation when it is regulated through bargaining and negotiations that follow established rules. In other words, the workplace is regarded as a showground for several competing groups (Burawoy 1982, p.10). This perception disagrees from the unitarist standpoint, a “management ideology” (Lucas 2004, p.15) where workplace policies and practices that originates from a nonunionised system. They assume of the communality of interest between management and labour and although they do not reject the actuality of labour-management divergence, they believe that conflicts are needless, detrimental, and can be prevented as soon as both parties know that they contribute to common goals (Kaufman & Taras 2000, p. 178; Stellman 1998, p.21.). In other words, there would be no major problem to appear if every person submits voluntarily to tenet of the given authority (Pinnington et al. 2007, p.24). However, if a conflict indeed occurs, it is claimed that it is not because it is intrinsic to the capitalist system or even because groups have reasonable difference between their goals and welfare but because of inferior communication and lack of understanding to the extent to which their interests are coincident (Leat 2007, p.17). According to Edwards (2003), any conflict arising from the unitarist view is the consequence of confusion or misbehaviour which can be viewed as pathological in nature (p.10). Unitarist believed that employment relationship is unified by purpose and ideology between employers and their individual employees within a hierarchically controlled organisation. In these organisations, the goals of management and workers are thought to unite and employment relationships are built on the basis of methodical assessing and rewarding of individual employee contributions to the shared goals through personalised compensation and evaluation systems. Moreover, the management has unquestioned authority, since they can be either “authoritarian or paternalistic” (Gennard & Judge p.208), as even without implied employee’s permission, the management decides upon what made up a fair pay, fair treatment, and suitable job for all employee (Bendix p.328). Unitarist supports the development and preservation of confidential relations between individual employees and their employers thus trade unions are opposed and regarded as a pointless imposition that could upset the internal harmony of the organisation (Hyman & Mason 1995, p.12; Lucas 2004, p.15). In other words, collective bargaining and unions are not required and the state is being disheartened from interfering (Hunt & Provis 1995, p.19). According to Kaufman (2006), unitarist view draws theoretical inspiration from fields such as human relations and envisions the business organisation as a team led by management and united by a common purpose (p.393). Business organisations are social entities where “unity, objectives, and values are natural” (Erasmus et al. 2005, p.107). In contrast, the pluralist who “embraces collective relationships” (Gennard & Judge p.208), draws inspiration from political science and envisions the firm as a coalition of interest kept in equilibrium through joint governance where conflict is inherent and natural (Erasmus 2005, p.107). It recognises the existence within the organisations of several legitimate sources of authority with conflicting interests (Gospel & Palmer 1993, p.8) and argues that the unitary perspective was a naive and unrealistic frame of reference distorting reality (Lucas 2004, p.15). It is widely accepted in the pluralistic community that plural interest in social organisations would make interpersonal conflict inevitable because management and employees have similar varying interest and parties in this relationship have different bases of authority (Rainbird et al. 2004, p.39). Thus, conflict should be expected because they can make people consider complex issues, adjust to market realities, and work through mutually acceptable accommodations (Pinnington et al. 1995, p.25). The pluralist believed in the existence of effective mechanism for conflict resolution as evidence of good employee relations. For this reason, mechanisms of employment must be joint and demonstrating the management’s recognition and willing to resolve conflict through shared decision making and compromise (Leat 2007, p.23). On the other hand, the supporters of radical frame of preference however dismissed the unitarist view as fatally flawed intellectual construct and the pluralist as intellectual sinners for ignoring the roles of class in the employment relationships. Radicalist opposed the exploitative nature of the labour process, the systematic power imbalance between employers and individual workers, and the co-optation of unions by employer and the state for the sake of preserving order over the advancement of worker’s collective interests (Kaufman 2006, p.393). Moreover, the radical supporter’s points out those employees enjoy no significant formal influence at work (Hyman & Mason 1995, p.8) and actually losing their human dignity because their skills become commodities in the capitalist’s accumulation of personal wealth (Pinnington et al. 1995, p.25). In other words, the radicalist are concerned with issues of control of the labour process and believed shared decision making through agreed procedures is not an acceptable evidence of good employee relations (Leat 2007, p.24). This is because they believed that there are major differences between workers and managers and failing to acknowledge the differences would weaken an institution (Edwards 2003, p.11). However, the radicalist perspective accepts the legitimate interest of trade union as long as they are confined within orderly and reasonable limits and that they ultimately share in the objectives of the organisation. With the radicalist, conflict and exploitation are put at the heart of the employment relationship, and the task of trade union is to organise workers to both protect their interests and further their demands (Ironside & Seifert p.6). This is because worker behaviour was perceived as a reaction against exploitative and oppressive employers whose sole was to maximise profit. Consequently, conflict is viewed as a product of economic disparity of society as a whole, with the principal disparity between capital and labour (Lucas 2004, p.16). It is assumed that the workplace mirrors society and incorporates all of its inequities, contradictions, and potential for conflicts of interest. Thus the radical perspective sees the conflict between management and workers as irreconcilable (Blyton & Jenkins p.169) which set the pluralist away from the unitary and pluralist perspectives. Although, the radicalist condemns the pluralist of neglecting the central issue of whether the existing structure of ownership and control in industry is an inevitable source of conflict (Blyton & Jenkins p.170), the difference between the radical and pluralist perspectives seems to relate more to the attitude towards conflict rather than the fundamental acknowledgement that it exists. 2. Conclusion The key differences between the unitarist, pluralist, and radicalist view of employment relationship are their idea of labour, equity, worker’s role in decision-making, conflict, and business governance. The unitarist view labour as a free and purposeful humans agents while the pluralist see them also as a human beings but with rights in a democratic society. The radicalist separates labour and labour-power which is generally oppositional and seeking to more worker control over the enterprise. In the context of the employment relationships, the unitarist theory supports shared interests between employers and employees while the pluralist perspective rests on combination of shared interest and conflicts of interest limited to the employment relationship. The radicalist however, believed generally in societal conflicts between labour and capital. They see management as an exploitation of the labour process where skills are commodities for the capitalist and conflict is the result of economic disparity of society. 3. Reference List Arestis P. & Sawyer M. C. (1994). The Elgar companion to radical political economy. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Bendix R. (2001). Work and authority in industry: managerial ideologies in the course of industrialization, US: Transaction Publishers Blyton P. & Jenkins J. (2007). Key Concepts in Work, UK: SAGE Budd J. W. (2006). Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice, US: Cornell University Press, 2006 Burawoy M. (1982). Manufacturing consent: changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. US: University of Chicago Press Edwards P. K. (2003). Industrial relations: theory and practice, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Erasmus B. , Swanepoel B. , Schenk H. , Westhuize E. J.V, & Wessels J. S. (2005). South African Human Resource Management for the Public Sector, South Africa: Juta and Company Limited Gennard J. & Graham J. (2002). Employee relations. UK: CIPD Publishing Gospel H. F. & Palmer G. (1993). British industrial relations. UK: Routledge Hunt I. & Provis C. (1995). The new industrial relations in Australia. Australia: Federation Press, 1995 Hyman J. & Mason B. (1995). Managing Employee Involvement and Participation, UK: SAGE Ironside M. & Seifert R. V. (1995). Industrial relations in schools, US: Routledge Kaufman B. E. & Taras D. G. (2000).Nonunion Employee Representation: History, Contemporary Practice, and Policy, US: M.E. Sharpe Kaufman B. E. (2006). The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations Events, Ideas and the IIRA, UK: Academic Foundation, 2006 Leat M. (2007). Exploring employee relations. UK: Butterworth-Heinemann Lucas R. (2004). Employment relations in the hospitality and tourism industries, UK: Routledge Pinnington A., Macklin R., & Campbell T. (2007). Human resource management: ethics and employment. UK: Oxford University Press Rainbird H., Fuller A., & Munro A. (2004). Workplace learning in context. UK: Routledge Stellman J. M. (1998). Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety: The body, health care, management and policy, tools and approaches, US: International Labour Organization Whalen C. J. (2008). New Directions in the Study of Work and Employment: Revitalizing Industrial Relations As an Academic Enterprise., UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Read More