LIPC Integration Plc Payment System - Case Study Example

LIPC Integration Plc. Payment System Introduction The term employee relations has come to replace industrial relations over the last few years. Some people argue that each of these terms have a different meaning with others stating that the phenomena and concepts surrounding each can be used interchangeably. In reference to Blyton and Turnbull (2004), it is important for a management to adopt a strategy through which they spell out what it perceives to be purposeful in giving the employees a voice in the management. Also, concerning the type of employment relationship, Leat(2008)identified several frames of reference that are important in understanding the nature of a perspective. These frames of reference include the pluralist, the unitarist and the radical or otherwise referred to as the Marxist variant. The three frames of references are some of the perspectives concerning the fundamental nature of employee relationship. They do represent various viewpoints on issues of patriarchy and hence indicate the range of potential perspectives. The unitarist commonality and difference of interest indicates that every organisation hires individuals who have similar objectives, interests and values. As a result, these groups work in a harmonious and an integrated manner. The unitarist approach is characterised by a team approach. The perspective assumes that conflict between the management and the labour as not only being unnecessary but also avoidable. Whenever a conflict occurs, it is therefore considered to be as a result of poor communication as the involved individuals’ personalities coincide. The unitarist perspective assumes that conflict is irrational and it should be avoided at all costs. Also, the management has a right to manage and control labour whereas the employees owe loyalty to the management. This employment relationship is not characterised by conflict but by cooperation. The management, therefore, exercises its authority with cooperation between the interests of labour and capital remaining normal. The radical or Marxist organisation perspective views capitalism as an opportunity to make surplus profits or values from the inclusion of resources in the labour process. As a result, labour is exploited as the surplus profits accumulate to capital rather than accumulating to labour. Profits are made through employing cheaper labour at a price that is lower than the actual value of its product. Also, the radical perspective assumes that industrial organisations are microcosms of the larger society and, as a result, the frictions present in such a society can be reflected in the organisation. The Marxist perspective argues that power in a capitalist environment should be weighed in such a way that it favours the means of production, the owner of capital and not the sellers and owners of the labour resource. The radical perspective, therefore, predicts a fundamental conflict of interest between capital and labour and this antagonism is on who should be in control of the process of labour as well as the prices of labour. Such conflict is, therefore, inevitable and unlike in the perspective of a pluralist; the conflict cannot be resolved through certain mechanisms that put an emphasis on sharing and compromise of power. As a result, the nature of such endemic conflict is in such a way that compromise via peaceful efforts is not a realistic option. A resolution through negotiations results in a solution that is usually not satisfactory to either party. The pluralism approach argues that business organisations are composed of persons with different values, interests and objectives. Therefore, every party will look forward to developing its source of loyalty and form of leadership. The array of objectives and interests of one party are likely to go against those of other parties. While these conflicts include the capital interests against the interests of labour, such conflict is not wholly exclusive to these interests. For instance, there are conflicts in organisations between labour and capital, between various groups of employees and also between various management functions. In this perspective, the management might be confronted by employees who do not accept its right to control and manage. Such a workforce might be owing its loyalty to other sources or interests. In the pluralism context, the management has no unilateral right to manage but the emphasis is now directed to secure an agreement for these other interests. The solution involves representation and participation of the different interests involved. LIPC Integration Plc. departments The design department is dependent on the pluralism perspective where the management is not allowed to exercise its right to manage. The design department’s management team has embarked on a process of finding an amicable solution to the conflict in that department. The workers are therefore hired as consultants other than full-time workers. The fabrication department works on a unitarist perspective where the workers have accepted the new reward system without any conflict. As seen in the introduction part, this perspective assumes that workers and the management co-exist as a team and, therefore, no unnecessary conflict can arise. The management also listens to the worker’s request for additional training and promises to fulfil their request. The assembly department runs under a radical perspective where the workers are working for longer hours without frequent breaks. The Marxist perspective assumes that the labour is owned by the owner of capital, in this case, the management. As seen in this LIPC Integration Plc. Department, the management has turned down the workers’ request for a better working environment. The management is also adamant in increasing the salaries of the labourers. Recommendations 1.Design Department A pluralist type of employee relationship can diffuse power among each of the bargaining parties in such a way that no party can control the others (Bray, Waring& Cooper, 2011). A pluralism employment relationship is made up of individuals with different aspirations, interests and aims that distinguish them from one another. This form of relationship, therefore, protects the employees from oppression by their employers. A pluralist perspective is, therefore, suitable for the design department as the workers and the management come up with ideas on how to merge any conflicting opinions and goals. As a result, the conflicts such as the reward system do not in any way affect the achievement of the department’s goals. However, pluralism might result in some imbalance of power between the conflicting parties who have competing aspirations, aims or interests (Rose, 2008). The radical perspective argues that the power distribution can only be concentrated on one party and not on either party. The second disadvantage of a pluralist perspective is its emphasis on rational, effective and efficient conflict management within the departments (Rose, 2008). It is therefore assumed to be a complicated perspective of conflict management as it settles conflicts in a department within the supervisory framework. The emphasis of pluralism on negotiations, granting concessions and social stability is capable of failing to understand the processes and outcomes of a typical working environment. The pluralist perspective is inhibited by being open-minded and indeterminate (Bray, Waring& Cooper, 2011). Such a perspective, therefore, results in a casual structural resentment that can propagate more conflicts within the labour market and in the working environment. The open-minded trait of pluralism is as a result of the lack of total control amongst the management and the workforce. The trait, therefore, enables employees to present different interests that do not conform to the goals set by an organisational department. 2. Fabrication Department In this department, the unitarist employment relationship enables the workers and the management to existing harmoniously with a shared objective and a common aim (Rose, 2008). The unitarist relationship instils loyalty to the management as well as the goals set by the organisation. Second, a unitarist employee relationship involves conflicts that are not intrinsic to the working environment (Lewis, Thornbill& Saunders, 2003). A unitarist relationship, therefore, emphasises on proper communication and the workers adhere to the harmony of departmental interest. However, a unitarist perspective ignores key questions on conflicts over the status of labour, employment security and power issues. It is, therefore, an unrealistic perspective that does not pay attention to the sources of industrial conflict. 3. Assembly Department This department works on a radical employment relationship. Just like in a pluralist employment relationship, workers unions are allowed to challenge the management (Bray, Waring& Cooper, 2011). The unions formed by workers prevent suppression of the employee rights thus campaigning for better conditions of employment. However, a radical perspective is made up of elements that are frequently competing and also non-uniform (Rose, 2008). Conclusion For the design department where workers feel that they do not get a good pay for their creativity, a unitarist approach should be embraced. Due to the interdependence between the workers and the management, a unitarist relationship would ensure that workers and the management co-exist as a team where the interests of either party are well represented. In the fabrication department, the unitarist approach should be upheld to ensure better productivity as seen in the case study. The management respects the needs of its employees and works hard to maintain a positive working environment. In the assembly department, the workers feel oppressed by the management where they work for long hours without flexible coffee breaks. A unitarist approach would, therefore, ensure that the needs of the workers that the management is adamant to meet are provided without hesitation. A balance between labour and capital is important for better productivity in the assembly department. References Bray B., Waring P., & Cooper R., 2011. Employment Relations. New York: McGraw-Hill Australia. Leat M., 2008. Employee Relations. 1st ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Business School. Blyton P. and Turnbull P., 2004. The Dynamics of Employee Relations. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Lewis P., Thornhill A., & Saunders M., 2003. Employee Relations: Understanding The Employment Relationship. New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Rose E., 2008. Employment Relations. New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Read More