Managing Employee Relations in Today's Firms - Assignment Example

? Managing Employee Relations in Contemporary Organisations Lecturer: Address: Managing Employee Relations in Contemporary Organisations 1. Identify changes that have had impacted on the employment relationship in the last 30 years. You may find it useful to initially set these out in the following way: Political context Employee relations have experienced several changes with the rise, decline of unions and the implementation of other forms of management techniques. The unions in their rise were illegal and had unorthodox methods of communicating with the employers, mostly via violence. To gain political millage the unions were supported and integrated into legislation in the 1900s. Workers union were the largest change to impact employee relations, in the political excerpt, causing indulgence of employee employer relations into acts of governance to protect every party. Unions impacted on politics based on the collective power member had and the power therein in swinging the vote. The workers in the British society, as it is with other societies, have always influenced political ambitions. In politics, the aim involved is getting the majority vote and this can only be obtained by having favour with different groups. Different workers and their categories can easily influence the vote of a given region by aligning with a particular context that favours them. This is the case with governance in the UK with trade unions having been initially illegal, legalized and then instituted in the constitution such that workers favoured the governance that provided rights and better working terms and conditions. Economic context In the economic sense, managing employee relations experienced changes through the growth of the Human Resource Management programs. The unions were vessels in which the employees made their demands. At first, the unions were destructive and mostly were expensive to the economic sector, with destruction and looting of property. Legalizing the unions saw members initialize a standard under which employee relations were approached in groups as opposed to individuals. Adoption of different employee relation strategies in the twentieth century, abandoning of unions, allowed the employers to make bargains with individual employees based on their capacities and responsibilities (Hardy and Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998, p. 455). Economically, agreements with individuals are less costly compared to having to strike deals with unions. The working class is a fundamental group economically in the UK. The input by the workers in most cases determines the output or productivity of a region. The employee relations thus affect various economic concepts such as the GDP, GNP, Exports as well as Imports. Initially, before the industrial revolution, productivity was based on human resources and overworking was a common occurrence, but its increase came to be in the industrial revolution. During the era, the merchants and producers realized that by incorporating machine, productivity increased twofold and that meant more working hours for the employees. Employers introduced shifts and targets for every worker straining the relations as it was affected by the degree of comfort with the jobs. In the revolution, economic increases were recorded but it was soon followed by an outcry by the working forces, which led to unions to fight against oppression. Adopting new employee relation strategies after unions privatized the matters of employment as modern terms of work are negotiated based on personal responsibilities and performance. Social context Socially changes in employee relations have seen an increase in productivity. Changes from unionisation to HRM have seen employees take on more responsibilities within organisations. Socially allocation of responsibilities to workers has improved relations between employer and employee. Unions’ responsibilities included taking on blames by actions purported to have been by their members. Individual members in unions had little sense of responsibility due to the collective power of the unions. With declining unionisation and adoption of employee relation strategies by organisations the employees formed better communication bridges between themselves and their employers. This closeness created working relations that spread beyond the workplace to an interpersonal level. Technological context The element of technology in the work environment arose during the industrial revolution that is roughly the same era unions came about. Employee relations with the introduction of technology in the workplace were poor since employers sought to capitalize on the increased productivity through technology (Dundon and Rollinson, 2007, p. 23). Relations in the era saw employees overworked and misused thus the union appraisal. Automation of technology eased the pressures placed on the employees and thus the changes between tension between worker and employer. An increased technological advance has seen the employee relations improve with communication channels being established using strategic Human Resource Management strategies. Adoption of technology has eased relation between employer and employee in a number of ways. Technology in this concept may be defined according to major achievements such as the computers. One element associated with technology that affected employee relations is skill. Operations done with technological aid require a certain skill that may be acquired through schooling or practise. This concept created an elite group of workers specific for certain tasks. This differentiation of classes can be the source of modern day Human Resource Management strategies (Kersley, 2006, p. 201). The elite group of workers handling technology had the responsibility of maintenance of the implement, device or machine they work with which meant that it was essential for employers to treat the elite better to avoid losses. The introduction of technology thus affects the relations by introducing responsibility, which causes a change in how the wants and needs of employees and employers are met. In general, increased technological advances improved the terms of work with employers taking the initiative of securing their investments’ security. 2. What was/were the impact of these changes on the actors: Employers/management Revolution of employee relations has had impact on employers/management. The row between employer and employee is always based on unfair treatment, in monetary, responsibility or working capacities. Changes in the relations have seen the employer consider conditions and parameters of the workers. Employers begun addressing the needs asserted by their employees with unions and the legislature providing a platform for discussions between the employees and employers (Wilkinson, Dundon, Marchington and Ackers, 2004, p. 305). Through the changes in relations, employers have adopted better means of addressing problems of their employees. Changes in employee relations on the management are based on the profitability associated with the changes. The techniques that are used to increase productivity are the main concern to this group. Initially, the use of force and coercion was adopted as the most productive way to increase productivity, which was adopted from the slavery days. Other techniques of management such as the use of incentives based on performance were adopted together with the changes in employee relations as better means of increasing productivity. Some of the techniques based on productivity are still used today to ensure that productivity is kept on the high. Trade unions/employees Employees and trade unions are the major beneficiaries of the improved relations, though the latter is disadvantaged in this era. To the employees, emergence of trade unions was an advantage as their rights were expressed via this vessel (Charlwood and Terry, 2007, p. 6). The unions provided legal and bargaining power against employers, and were often where avenues through which members were employed. Prior to adoption of modern employee relation strategies trade unions were the only means by which employee grievances could be raised (Smith and Morton, 2006, p. 28). Adoption of interpersonal HRM strategies by organisations led to a decline in unionisation as organisations created a branch via which employee needs would be addressed. The main concern for employees, which led to the development of trade unions, is the fair treatment from employers. Changes in employee relations developed with changes in eras and concepts of what constituted employment (Rose, 2008, p. 192). Incorporation of humanity into working terms and conditions is the brainchild of unions and the outcry against unfair and oppressive treatment. Illegal unions used fear to instil changes in the employee relations, but after legalization, the trade unions made use of provisions through governance for its members such that employees had to join trade unions for the advantages associated with the groups. To employees, trade unions provided a platform through which their woes could be addressed, but it was not a perfect vessel. Pursuing other resource management strategies came about as a result of realizations that it was not equal within the unions (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004, p.21). Employers treated every worker as a unit of the unions and did not recognise any individual efforts, which was counterproductive (Smith and Morton, 2006, p. 2). Adoption of HRM strategies allowed employees and employers the facility to interact on an interpersonal level, which allowed for changes and benefits based on personal performance, which may be the perfect solution for individual workers. The State The state being the defender of its citizen reacted to the woes of employees through various enactments in governance. Initially unions were illegal, but were soon integrated into law and offered legal precedence through which they could address the concerns of the employees. Adoption of HRM strategies by organisations led to a decline in trade union activities as different corporations offered different Terms of Work, some better than others, which led to competition between organisations for, better performing employees, breaking the standard proposed by unions. The adoption of the strategies was the downfall of unions, with employees favouring terms of service per organisation. The move is however supported by legal acts that allow individual employees legal capabilities against their employers upon breach of contract or rights. Although the state is the defender to its citizens, it also has vested interests in economic growth and development. Various industries are essential for development in the countries and the working forces are a necessary part of the community. Changes in employee relations encompass productivity as well as the well-being of the workers. As the government, the state has to provide solutions to both terminals while ensuring that either party is not disgruntled (Blanchflower, Bryson, and Forth, 2007, p. 9). The upraise of unions saw the government adopt the system to minimize destruction associated with the amalgamation of workers, but with the employers opting for HRM strategies, it had to make provisions by which individual workers may have their matters addressed (Bryson, 2005, p. 33). 3. To what extent do the changes in employee relations in the last 30 years reflect the ‘strategic choice’ of each of the actors? Changes in employee relations have a great influence on choice made y both employees and management. The changes also affect the state as it is designated the role of protecting its citizens from oppression and abuse. The state is affected by changes in the employee relations by having to adopt acts that are internationally accepted for its workers as well as providing legal channels via which the workers can raise their issues without resulting to violence (Wilkinson, Dundon, Marchington and Ackers, 2004, p. 56). Employers and management are faced with the predicament of the choice of strategies used in addressing the workers. The transition from unionisation through to HRM has seen various influences to choice. Employers find it easier on the legal and interpersonal scale to deal with individual workers as opposed to unions, thus adopt HRM strategies to avoid the hassle by unions (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004, p. 56). Employees hold the ability of choosing the best employer and they do this by analysing the terms of service as well as pay, they are offered for their services. The employee’s strategic choice has been influenced such that decisions are made base on personal preferences as opposed to standards placed by unions, as it was the case soon after the registration of trade unions, which held the obligation of burgeoning for its members (Ackers, 2002, p. 4). Employees face dilemmas in their choices in that they have to ensure that their needs are met, they are not oppressed and their efforts are rewarded. Changes in employee relations have come to the point that personal contributions to productivity within the workplace reflects on payment, responsibility as well as positioning. Employees are no longer treated as a block resource to the industry reacting to different contexts and conditions, but as individuals with different contributions, roles and requirements (Kelly, 1990, p. 34). This is as a result of adopting HRM strategies that have been proven to work in various contexts of different industries that contribute to the whole being of the employee-employer sector. References Ackers, P. (2002) ‘Reframing employment relations: the case for neo-pluralism’, Industrial Relations Journal, 33 (1) Blanchflower, D., Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2007) ‘Workplace Industrial Relations in Britain, 1980 – 2004’, Industrial Relations Journal, 38 (4) Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004) The Dynamic Context of Employee Relations Basingstoke: Macmillan. Bryson, A. (2005) Union effects on employee relations in Britain, Human Relations, 58(11) 11–39. Charlwood, A., and Terry, M. (2007) 21st- Century models of employee representation: structures, processes and outcomes, Industrial Relations Journal, 38 (4) Dundon, T. and Rollinson, D. (2007) Understanding Employment Relations. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Hardy, C. and Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998) The power behind empowerment: Implications for research and practice, Human Relations, 51: 451–83. Kelly, J. (1990) `British Trade Unionism 1979-89: Change, Continuity and Contradictions’ Work Employment & Society 4 (5) Kersley, K. (2006) Inside the Workplace: Findings of the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS 2004) London: DTI Rose, E. (2008) Employment Relations London: Prentice Hall. Smith, P., and Morton, G. (2006) ‘Nine Years of New Labour: Neoliberalism and Workers’ Rights’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (3) Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004) Changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3): 298–322. Read More