Understanding Employee Relations - Essay Example

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEE RELATIONS By: Introduction It has severally been said that satisfied employees will have a pivotal role in ensuring productivity in every organization. Conversely, unhappy staff could potentially cause adverse loss to a business since their motivation is imperative for the growth. It is for this reason that systems are put in place in different countries to ensure relations between employees and the management remain conducive. In simple terms, employee relations refer to the employer-employee relations. The essence of employee relations program is to ensure that both the employer and the employees work harmoniously with the employer ensuring employees are satisfied. Consequently, the employees’ output is increased which normally leads to an organization’s growth and subsequent profitability. Japan and United Kingdom (UK) are two distinct countries in various ways. This is a comparative report seeking to investigate the employee relations in these two countries. United Kingdom In the UK, the statistics reveal some interesting trends when it comes to employee relations but overall there have been some tremendous improvements. First, it is imperative to understand that employee relations are normally influenced by a couple of things contrary to a popular myth that remuneration is solely the cause. For instance, in UK, there was an improvement when it comes to engagement between the employees and the managers. Additionally, the number of people expressing job satisfaction was somehow higher than the previous years. The engagement index stood at 39% in comparison to 38% and 36 in the spring and winter respectively (CIPD 2012). Concerning job satisfaction, only 9% of the 39% were actively involved in looking for another job with the remaining portion stating their satisfaction with the current job. However, it is vital to understand that the highest number of people expressing job satisfaction was from the private sector. The private employees had a +49 compared to those working in the public sector whose figures stood at +38. Upon further interview, on the reason they found their jobs satisfying, many of the employees cited communication especially with their immediate managers as the major reason. However, the same was not portrayed when it came to dealing with other senior managers whom the employees expressed dissatisfaction with. For instance, many senior managers were found to be less appreciative of the employees (CIPD 2012). In addition to these factors, employees in the UK are affected by others including recognition for exemplary performance, advocacy and pressure at work. While the figures show that the number of employees complaining of pressure at work has slightly dropped, there is still a need to address it. For instance, in 2011, this number stood at 37% but dropped by only 1% to 36% in 2012. Many of the respondents stated that pressure was felt either daily or at least twice a week (Dundon and Rollinson 2011). Nevertheless, the pressure cannot solely be blamed on the management since there are other factors that catalyse the issue. It was reported that there is often a tendency for some employees to find somewhat hectic to adapt to change. Normally when a company wants to implement some changes fast, this is likely to cause dissatisfaction among some employees (Williams 2014) Even though the management may not always exonerate itself from some accusations, there are instances when employees are weak in adapting to the style of management. Many times, employees tend not realize that organizations work on targets that often require certain methods of supervision (Palokangas 2014). Gennard (2009), who stated that employees ought to focus on the goals a company has in order to remain focused, replicates these assertions. Whenever there is an allegation of pressure, the management is the only one to blame. This situation is seen in many parts of UK where another survey showed that 43% of the employees blamed their work for their pressure. While various reasons were given for this occurrence, the results showed there is still some work required to improve the relations between employees and employers. Having said that, the private sectors in UK tend to be stricter with employees concerning sharing of experiences. It was reported that the highest number of employees likely to report of pressure at work would come from the public sector. Only 15% from the private stated they would report. Sadly, the other portion of the private sectors feared victimization from the employers despite having unions. Some of these people in the private sector stated that though the unions have been helpful, they felt the employer would always have an upper hand (CIPD 2014). Japan A research on Japan’s employee relations is likely to offer mixed outcomes mainly for two reasons. First, the Japanese system’s tends to reward individuals based on their positions, productivity and level of education. Secondly, the different industries, where employees work, will most likely show one category of people as somewhat oppressed while another in a different way. It was reported that workers, who are permanently employed in big corporations, are highly remunerated in comparison with others. The people working in real estate, petroleum, publishing and finance have higher salaries but not the same as others. In contrast, those in the furniture, textile and leather related companies are lowly remunerated (Young 2014). Sadly, Japan’s approach by employers, when it comes to hiring young people, is disappointing. Most of the companies in Japan pay young people lesser amounts compared to the other workers irrespective of one’s qualifications. Since the number of young people applying for jobs is always ballooning, these companies tend to offer these jobs at an amazingly low wage. Ironically, the relations with these employees is actually amicable in most cases save for a few where misunderstanding may arise for various reasons (Young 2014) Satisfaction is not an issue reserved for the UK workers alone, as the rate seems to be a bit higher in Japan than in the UK. The greatest number of employees Japan expressed dissatisfaction attributing it to low remuneration. Whereas they are often viewed as ones earning higher salaries, many felt there was no equal rewarding of their expertise (Cockburn 2014). Since some of them work in industries viewed as less profitable, the workers often have to withstand poor pay despite having qualifications. Recently, many firms in Japan have been accused of undermining employees with their shareholder approach. Unlike in the past when the affairs of employees were prioritised, this approach has seen many firms hire staff on non-regular basis, subcontract arrangements and adopt an individual performance based pay scheme. Consequently, the unions in this country have been under intense pressure to negotiate for the improvement of the workers’ affairs (Young 2014). Before the adoption of this model by many firms, the unions in Japan were credited for having repulsed efforts by some firms whose approach was blatantly oppressive in the late 50s (McCann, Hassard and Morris 2010). Due to these factors, the number of trade unions in the country has dwindled for a number of reasons. Firs there is the issue of the number of permanent employees that has significantly decreased compared to the early 90s. Currently, 23% of the employees in Japan are non-regular which has increased from 16% in the early 2000s. In a bid to ensure the unions did not become extinct and employees are always addressed, there was an agreement on the need for trade unions to merge. When all unions agreed, one body was formed under the name of Japanese federation of metal industry Unions (McCann et al., 2010). Comparison Right from the onset it is vitally important to point out that Japan’s approach to issues surrounding employees is non-confrontational. While the UK may use confrontation at times, Japan’s workers’ unions are always solution-oriented. Interestingly, even individual employees practice this dialogue approach where differences are resolved with attention to the benefit of both parties (McCann et al., 2010). Even though the unions are actively involved in the discussion surrounding employees’ concerns, their way of approach is purely friendly. Conversely, the UK’s unions tend to apply an approach that will eventually yield results including one that could not be said to be similar to Japan’s. While it is not being implied here that UK’s approach is violent, it clear that industrial actions are common. For instance, in 2014 several organizations and governmental departments had their workers go on strike (Barber 2014). Unions As portrayed so far in this paper, unions play an important role in enhancing working relations in various sectors. Comparing the Japanese and UK’s union there is one apparent similarity, and that changing in numbers. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) currently has other 54 affiliations and represents approximately 6.2 million members. However, there are 95 other certified unions not under TUC, but whose role is adequately felt (Barber 2014). Despite this seemingly large number of unions, the UK prides itself on having one of the most stable workforce. Even though the unions are not always able to resolve the issue of strikes, the discussions with the relevant bodies are always fruitful and done promptly. A comparison with Japan shows a closer relationship in the sense that many of the country’s unions have since merged. As stated elsewhere, the Japan’s unions had to merge after realizing the number of permanently employed staff was reducing (McCann et al., 2010). The importance of unions in both countries cannot be overlooked as evidenced by the aforementioned benefits. For instance, it was stated earlier that upon the merger, the Japanese unions helped in increasing the number of part-time workers. With the same token, the UK’s unions have been accredited for a number of improvements in the employment. While there is a tendency by many to view these unions as always employee-oriented, factually speaking, they play a balanced role. Historically, the UK unions were banned sometimes in 1870 as they were viewed as biased toward employers. However, upon further scrutiny they were legalized since they proved that their concern was solely to ensure the two parties- employers and employees – were satisfied with each other. In fact, these unions are often seen as mediators between the two groups (Batnitzky and McDowell 2011). In addition, the UK’s employers tend to engage employees directly as opposed to always employing the help of the unions. It was found that whenever misunderstandings arise most U employers prefer having a discussion with the staff before seeking the unions’ assistance. These bodies are involved when the issue seems too complex, or discussions (Batnitzky and McDowell 2011). Similar, the Japanese have a similar approach whereby unless it is extremely important or unavoidable, the firms engage their employees. According to Gennard (2009), this approach is quite beneficial to both parties as it enhances cohesion as well as boosting working relations, which will inevitably lead increased growth. When it comes to the issue of joining unions, it is an individual choice to enrol in one in both countries. In a 2012 survey, close to 45% of the employed did not have any union membership; in total, 29.6 million were working. On the other hand, in Japan, the figure stood at 36% with many expressing dissatisfaction with the unions. In Japan, many reported that the impact of the unions was not felt since they were unable to discuss improved remunerations with the firms (Cockburn 2014). Labour laws Japan and UK may not necessarily have precise laws in terms of their friendliness, but there is still a similarity when it comes to some labour laws and practices. For UK, all labourers have minimal employment rights charter and have occupational pension. While the some laws and practices in UK are not similar to the European Union’s (EU) which are much better, there are some friendly terms. First, the employers in the UK are allowed to choose the legal system to apply in governing the agreements. If there is no choice made, the laws of the country in which the employer operates apply. Employers in the UK are obligated to present an agreement to employees stipulating the terms of engagement within two months after hiring. Some of the contents the agreement has to include the normal working hours, pension, title and duties of the employee, salary or wage amount and interval, and grievances procedures (Barber 2014). Other laws require employers to provide the minimum wage cannot go below the current rate, which stands at £6.19. Additionally, employees’ working hours are normally set at 48 hours per week but employers are not necessarily compelled to pay for overtime. Holiday entitlement is a requirement for the employers to offer their staff where the period ranges between 5 to 6 weeks annually. Discrimination is strictly prohibited in the Equality Act 2010, which is applied as per the European Union Directive in various circles of life. For instance, no one is discriminated due to their age, race or ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, marriage, pregnancy or religion among other factors (Barber 2014). Japan’s labour laws are almost the same as those of UK albeit a variance in the specifications especially in minimum wage exists. Whereas the UK has a specified minimum wage, the Japan’s wage is not specified, as it is dependent on the cost of living. Normally, the minimum wage is not uniform for all people as it is the case with the UK system (Batnitzky and McDowell 2011). The payments in Japan have to be made in cash without fail after every thirty days except for bonuses that can be paid on the agreed date. When an agreement is provided to an employee, it must contain all the terms clearly stipulated. One specification is the term one intends to engage the employee where a fixed term may have a limitation of one though some exceptions exist. As for other permanently employed staff, the agreement has to state the retirement age. Any attempt by an employer to unreasonably or irrationally sack an employee may lead to a court case where the former will mostly lose (Labour Dept 2015). Dismissal is strictly forbidden for employees who are on maternity leave or ones hospitalised after a job-related injury. The allowed working hours for Japanese workers are six to eight where anyone working for this period is legally entitled to a 45-minute break. Anyone working for eight hours is entitled to a full-hour break. Furthermore, it is the right of every employee to have one day as a holiday every week in addition to having all overtime hours paid for. It is a requirement of the law that employees get 25% of the daily earnings as the overtime pay. When overtime is requested on a holiday the employees, get a further 35% of the day’s earnings. Any late night work attracts a 25% pay for the worker, and is considered night if one works between 10pm and 5am (Labour Dept 2015. Just like in UK, discrimination in Japan’s labour force is prohibited where no employer is allowed to discriminate anybody based on their gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality and so on. Incidentally, some Japan’s firms had a tendency of discriminating women with regard to their pay or employment opportunities (Young 2014). However, upon this legislation coupled with other economic factors, these cases dropped significantly. The unions in Japan play a pivotal role in arbitrating cases related to labour laws unless the parties are adamant on taking legal actions. Globalization and international trade Notwithstanding the roles played by the unions, other factors have been instrumental in orchestrating the changes in the employee relations. For instance, the UK’s labour laws are somewhat connected to the EU’s. Furthermore, the fact that both the UK and Japan are normally involved in international means there would be a commitment to have motivated employees. Normally, when employees are dissatisfied, they tend to change jobs (Palokangas 2014). This would have a negative impact on any country thus the need for these two to ensure employee relation is always improved . Conclusion To sum it up, it is no doubt that employee relation is a fundamental issue that goes beyond the employee and the employer. All countries invite investors seeking to improve its economic status, but this can be hindered if there is no cohesion between the employer and the employees. Since this is not always the case, having laws and unions is imperative as it helps in arbitration. Japan’s system is very much the same as the UK’s albeit a few exceptions. While Japan’s laws do not categorically state the minimum wage there are guidelines to follow. UK’s system is clear where the minimum wage one could earn is £6.19. Away from remunerations, employee relations are affected by other factors including communication in the organization. Moreover, employee recognition and handling pressure and interaction with the management are all vital. Notwithstanding the systems in both UK and Japan, it is apparent more improvements are needed as evidenced by the portion of dissatisfied employees. Bibliography Barber, C. (2014). Disability discrimination (2): four UK laws to be aware of. British Journal of Healthcare Assistants, 8(7), pp.352-355 Batnitzky, A. and McDowell, L. (2011). Migration, nursing, institutional discrimination and emotional/affective labour: ethnicity and labour stratification in the UK National Health Service. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(2), pp.181-201. Cockburn, D., 2014. Annual report of the certification officer 2013-2014. (Accessed Jan 20 2015) retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/345486/2901758_Certification_complete.pdf CIPD. 2012. Employee Outlook. (Accessed Jan 20 2015) retrieved from cipd.co.uk/employeeoutlook Dundon and Rollinson. 2011.Annual Report of the Certification Officer. (Accessed Jan 20 2015) retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-report-of-the-certification-officer-2013-2014 Gennard, J. (2009). The financial crisis and employee relations. Employee Relations, 31(5), pp.451-454. Lewis, D. (2006). The contents of whistle blowing/confidential reporting procedures in the UK. Employee Relations, 28(1), pp.76-86 McCann, L., Hassard, J. and Morris, J. (2010). Restructuring Managerial Labour in the USA, the UK and Japan: Challenging the Salience of ‘Varieties of Capitalism’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(2), pp.347-374. Palokangas, T. (2014). Optimal Capital Taxation, Labour Unions, and the Hold-Up Problem. Labour, 28(4), pp.359-365. Williams, S., 2014. Introducing employment relations: a critical approach. Oxford; Oxford University Press, “Working Holiday Scheme”.2015. Labour Department - Policy Support. [online] Available at: http://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/plan/whs.htm#2v [Accessed 20 Jan. 2015]. Young, Y., 2014. A comparative study on industrial relations and collective bargaining in East Asian countries. Accessed Jan 20 2014 from www.ilo.org/.../wcms_158351.pdwww.ilo.org/.../wcms_158351.pdf Read More