Employee Relations, Voluntarism and Pluralism - Essay Example

Employee Relations Historically, voluntarism has been considered to be an integral part of employee relations in the United Kingdom. This type of system is based on the abstention of the state from direct interference in workplace related affairs. (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2007) The practice of abstention can be seen prominently in legal industrial relations. The state primarily focuses on making workplace regulations and their implementations on working hours, part-time work and parental leave. Voluntary action by employers heralded positive changes in many cases without state’s intervention. In the United Kingdom, the basic areas of focus for the state have been on information dispersion and providing financial support and incentives for management action. (University of Bath, 2008) Now in the wake of numerous debates regarding the efficacy of the concept of indirect employee involvement and participation, voluntarism has not been promoted in certain cases in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, we see in some cases that the new trade union models are set to encourage voluntary cooperation. This essay is going to critically evaluate both scenarios with specific case studies. Nonunion employee representation (NER) and its independency from the governing authority typify the employee relations structure in the United Kingdom. (Kaufman et al, 2000:410) With the growth and development of service sectors in the country during the last 25 years or so, traditional industries became less operative, resulting in a steady decline in British union membership from 13 million in the early 1980s to 8 million in the late 1990s. Consequently, the need to introduce human relations and new wings of work organization was felt acutely as employers wanted to include dynamic business initiatives that would benefit both their interests as well as employee welfare. Looking into the context that preceded the provisions made in the 1999 Employee Relations Bill, one can clearly get an idea of the changing scenario in the late 1990s arising from the Trade Union Congress’ recommendation of a broad spectrum of individual and corporate rights at work into lawmaking. The concept of voluntarism is not essentially circumscribed to state or legal interference in the union and management dealings, but should be expanded to take into consideration the relative freedom of employees and employers to improve the interrelationship. (Sisson, 1999) In relation with the thesis question, one might look into the fact that how numerous UK organizations are bringing in various forms of employee references in order to manage workplace affairs in an integrated manner through mutual cooperation. Beardwell observes that this introduction of employee consultation goes a long way to strengthen the employee relations model and improved business operations. (Beardwell, 1996) Many times in the past, especially in the 1980s, questions pertaining to the necessity of voluntarism have been put to the test. Experts argued over the viability of voluntarism in British context of employee and industrial relations. The situation, however, was different in the 70s when unions, state as well as permanent employees supported the cause citing that voluntary practice in a laissez-faire business model could only produce favorable results. The workplace culture in the United Kingdom back in the 1960s and early 70s was infamously noted for employee-employer conflicts and frequent strikes. Resultantly the production used to get hampered enormously, creating problems both within and outside the government. Weak management and adamant unionism led to utter industrial chaos and distraction, weakening the country’s economic development. The situation seemed to have assumed a stagnant dimension until the decade of 1980s arrived. Even though the advocators of voluntarism cast doubts in the beginning, it was at least clear that the role of unions was made to be less potent especially in the wake of economic recessions, restrictive legislation, New Right politics and large scale restructuring of employees. (HRM Guide, 1997-2007) It might be noted in this regard that the uncertainties in modern job market constantly pose challenges to the employees to keep pace with the prevalent competitive trend. Human Resource Management, Human Capital Management and other employer wings strive to formulate innovative strategies to outperform global competitors. By following employee relations model, leading companies try to use their human resources to its full potential. This was not the case in the olden days when bulk of the manpower used to be wasted due to faulty approaches and lack of farsightedness on employers’ part. Aversion to change was another problem in the United Kingdom during the 60s and 70s. Unlike these days, knowledge management and allocation of work according to individual task orientation were missing from the repertoire of UK organizations. (Bryson, 2001) Unitarian and pluralism are among the two fundamental economic-managerial models that need to be addressed with regards to the primacy of voluntarism in union-based organizational setup. The Unitarian model encourages the employer to perform the role of a professional manager who can strike a balanced chord in terms of meeting the requirements of the employees with that of the company. This is very important since neither party can afford to lose track of the responsibilities asked of them. Both parties must work in agreement of long-term mutual benefits. However, the Unitarian model also makes it clear that no employer can confirm a lifetime job security in today’s global recession market characterized by frequent downsizing and reconstituting. Trade unionism in this model does not play a significant role in that the organization has to interact individually with its employees. Collective communication though unions is not possible in this model. (Howell, 1998) However, it might be noted that the model itself does not become a means to implement its intended goals. It is the practical outcome which has led to contriving the theoretical premises. On the contrary, the pluralism model, as suggested by the Donovan Report in 1968, stresses on collective operational procedures to reach a point of agreement among opposing unions. Its main objective is to generate an environment of teamwork to avoid recurring disputes. The decade of the 1990s saw a remarkable change in union statistics in the United Kingdom from blue collar to white collar. Hence, public sector membership was granted more often than it was the case in earlier times. As a result of this change, more voluntary workers were recruited to keep the mechanism running smoothly. (Guest and Hoque, 1996) So we can see that the pluralistic model supports the activities of trade unions with regards to bringing the employee issues before the consideration of the management The collective bargaining principle suggested by the Donovan Commission provides a lead to understanding this more clearly and logically. While the state organizational mechanism was greatly troubled by disruptive industrial actions in the 60s, it was this model that stood the ground for voluntarism on the basis of its power to settle disputes by means of communication across the table. It can never be denied that the trade union mechanism, notwithstanding its hostile nature, is a proven tool to mediate conflicts in both industrial and corporate setups. As argued by Bert Clough, unions in the UK have traditionally performed the role of ‘supply-side’ so that the employees can meet the target set by the management. With the introduction of collective bargaining mechanism in the 1990s, employees rose to a level higher and could push their demands. (Unionlearn, 2009) Issues related to health and security of the employees as well as protection of particular groups of workers in a big organization has been solved primarily because of the legal interference into company matters. Any discussion pertaining to the relevance of trade unionism is bound to take into account the legal controls enforced by state legislative assemblies on employee behavior and activities in terms of walkouts and work disruption. Now when the employees are recruited on a voluntary basis, it goes without saying that nonunion employee representation (NER) is advocated. The NER structure, if analyzed from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives, concentrates on six interlinked themes: their presence, level, structure, process, agenda and outcomes. The structure and level may take the form of work councils, safety committees or joint consultative committees. The decision making capabilities of the structure depends largely on the efficiency of any of these forms. The principle for a representative agency function in the workplace can be divided according to productivity and transparency parameters. Based on this research, it can be stated that the nonunion employee representation may act as a potent tool for dispute resolution as well as just decision making. Now previously we have discussed how unionism can carry out the same task of settling conflicts and bargaining key issues with the management. So which measure is more applicable in the context of the United Kingdom employee relations? Freeman and Medoff have opined that while trade unions can ensure an effectual remedy of voicing employee grievances collectively, it is the employers who may resort to some kind of alternative methods in case there is weak or no union in a given workplace. Extensive field research works have unearthed the fact that the presence of a strong and collaborative union at any workplace is like an incentive for the employees when it comes to expressing their dissatisfactions or issues without worrying about hostile reaction from the management. But in situations where there is no union, the effectiveness of the existent NER forms is associated with the generic work culture of the concerned organization. The NER mechanism can only be as good as the employee-employer relationship. If there are ongoing tensions between the employees and the management, the NER is unlikely to function successfully. (Kaufman et al, 2000: 411) UK Steel is one of the major steel manufacturers in the United Kingdom that are run by voluntary employee relations. The core issue in contention for this premier steel manufacturer is the introduction of a legal right to training time offs. Being a private sector company, UK Steel is liable to pay the required amount to its employees for conducting the training procedures. However, the company management continues to argue that employees should undergo the required training on voluntary basis. To lure the employees into voluntary training, the management has decided to waive off the tax credits. But at the same time this organization also wants to make sure that the training does not get compulsive for its employees. (EEF, 1992) Voluntary initiatives have also been undertaken by companies such as Insala. It focuses primarily on the proper utilization of the government’s role in promoting corporate responsibility among the employees. Talking of corporate responsibilities and the question of collective bargaining comes to the fore. Many other leading corporate giants including 3i, IBM and Marks have also stepped ahead in the mission of the government to advocate voluntarism in private sector organizations. Contrary to this, Blackwell Synergy has withdrawn the voluntary mechanisms for the benefit of the organization. This company banks more on formulating a Unitarian model where the employers can settle scores in one-to-one basis with the employees. To sum it up, it is quite apparent that employee relations in the United Kingdom have undergone drastic changes in last 40 years or so. Once stuck in the evils of deadlock strikes and ugly walkouts, the UK companies could find a way out in the 80s by virtue of trade unionism and voluntarism. The role of trade unions has been worth mentioning in the context of developing a schematic and full-proof approach towards making a healthy working environment in the UK workplaces. The rejuvenation of union participation in the 90s heralded a new era in British employee relations. Bibliography European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2007) United Kingdom: Voluntarism [online] available from [20 February 2009] Sisson, K. (1999). “The “New” European Social Model.” Employee Relations. Volume 21, 5. Beardwell, I. (1996). Contemporary Industrial Relations: A Critical Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bryson, A. (2001). “The Foundation of Partnership? Union Effects on Employee Trust in Management.” National Institute Economic Review. London. EEF (1992) Issue Brief – Compulsion vs. Voluntarism [online] available from [20 February 2009] Howell, C. (1998). “Restructuring British Public Sector Industrial Relations: State Policies and Trade Union Responses.” Policy Studies Journal. Volume 26, 2. HRM Guide (1997-2007) Employee Relations – UK and Europe [online] available from [20 February 2009] Guest, D. and Hoque, K. (1996). “Human Resource Management and the New Industrial Relations” in Beardsell, I. (Eds) Contemporary Industrial Relations: A Critical Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kaufman, Bruce E. (2000) Nonunion Employee Representation: History, Contemporary Practice, and Policy. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. University of Bath (2008) Governing Family-friendliness: regulation or voluntarism? [online] available from < http://www.bath.ac.uk/eri/events/EVENT05-ESPANET/ESPAnet%20school/Bath%20YRW%20Warth.pdf > [20 February 2009] Unionlearn (2009). From Voluntarism to Post-voluntarism [online] available from [20 February 2009] Read More