From Industry Relations to Employment-Based Relation - Assignment Example

From Industry Relations to Employment Based Relation From Industry Relations to Employment Based Relation Many research have been done on how different countries have changed with regards to dynamism in management of their labor from the age of industrial revolution to this age when most countries tend to move away to services production with more emphasis on proper human resource management. This seems to be a strategic policy to move away from the initial labor unions that characterized industrialization days to a more tolerant employee employer relations. This article examines how different countries have transformed their traditional industrial relations system to a contemporary employment relations system with special attention to UK and Japan. Literatures will be analyzed comparatively to ascertain the reasons towards the shift while trying to explain the benefits that has been derived from such decisions. Before proceeding to discuss more on the topic, it is important to explain the industrial relation’s view of employment relationship. Sisson defines employment relationship as a process of exchange where employees get rewarded with physical and untouchable benefits for offering their services which can be in form of manual work or skills for the benefit of the employer. This package comes with pay, autonomy, working conditions, training and development, appraisal and others (Sisson, 2008). The term human resource management on the other hand, is referred to by some scholars as including everything from, employee’s role in an organization’s operation plans through formal employment with trainings for skilled workforce and employees participating in decision making meetings of the company (Cowell, 2000). This research and other research of this kind should provide accurate and precise information with regards to the historical shift in the work situation of these countries (Almond, 2004). Around the year 1965, Britain’s workforce was characterized with male industrial workers with industry-wide bargaining of the interest of workers especially within areas that concerned wages, working conditions and other related factors (Almond, 2004). The issue was that, the process was being conducted by bureaucratic labor unions or informal arrangements between workers and the employers (Almond, 2004). However, many researchers point to the fact that labor unions and the management of British companies interacted almost on a voluntary basis. This put obstacle to implementation of labor law by government that expert claimed had claimed had many utility problems to break this relationship (Gallie, 1994). Some of the factors that lead to welcoming of the labor union relationship were the fact that the immediate needs of workers were inseparable from their trade union leaders and the fact that women were not properly represented in these industries. British industrial relations also showed political influence as a factor that played part in influencing the latter and at varied levels (Kimmel, 2000). This however, attracted an outcry for the independence of the public relations. This was also common in France although that is not our major concern for now. The pattern of this revolution in the industrial relation, though was not very consistent, was subject to a number of factors like political influence, relationship with the management and many others (Almond, 2004). The British had a mistrust of the government intervention plans. The most outstanding period marking the beginning of dynamism in the area employee management in UK, was the crisis of 1980s. This is the point when modern day human resource management was born and was to move through different stages including; Fordism, Taylorism, to team based work organization evidenced in the modern societies. During this time, there were presence of labor movement headed by leaders who were not very radical in championing their interest in active manner but was linked to the making of informal arrangements with employers. Then there was the anti-union legislation in the year 1997which led to inevitable alienation of the trade unionists rights within the companies by the government of Tharcher. The partial abolition was to give room for adoption of the then emerging human resource management. The early development of employment management, witnessed a lot of resistance and tensions since it was not clear what it really meant to be professional their roles and the most basic required skill set. Proponents of this new phenomenon struggled to prevail upon pertinent issues of defining proper roles of the new professionals and the basic needed skills. This was to make them able to identify the effects of politics and other different institutions on their decisions (Kimmel, 2000). By the end of World War I, researchers of this “new personnel management” were still struggling to come up with what could be universally accepted as a management centered. They therefore put themselves between employers and workers to negotiate a common stand that could help stop the labor unrest that was already being witnessed. This was therefore going to be like an oversight kind of task (Almond, 2004). The effect of the new personnel management was to respond to the industrial democracy demands by workers as well as the other demand by workers to be given a chance to also participate in the management of the industries. This they reacted to, by recommending the initiation of a work environment that could have given each party open space where they could develop with a lot of respect for who they are. This was in line with objectivity which managers should embrace. By 20th century, neither industrial relations nor human resource management had attained a strategic role in most organizations. In fact, within this century, Fordist mass production had been replaced with models like just in-time production, total quality management and team work management (Maryanne, 1994; Cowell, 2000). The overall effect of this British management revolution, was a situation where one person did not have majority of power. In fact, the standard modern human resource practices in UK economy permits the management by objective where the managers of most companies will allow the contribution of employees to also count in the management of the corporations they lead. Besides, manager is judged by how best he or she performs. This performance requires team work which also require corporation of employees. It is only satisfied employees that will contribute their best to the organization in question. This is something that managers of today aims to achieve with a lot of emphasis on employee management good relationships. Japan Japan on the other hand traces its management evolution to the early years when it was starting its manufacturing sector of the economy. Its history with industrial relations is a very good example of how best one can show that countries are slowly but continuously moving away from traditional industrial relations to a modern employment relationship (Bala´zs & William, 2012). This history will take through world war two. Japanese started by being a collectivism state in the early times of Tokugawa Shogunate but as industrialization and modernization creped in, the individualism values emerged. Comparing Japan and UK, it is evident that in Japan, individuals identify themselves by in groups like corporations which one belongs to while the UK style is that where people identified themselves by functions they represented in their community (Maruyama, 1997). Japan was playing a lone ranger shying away from the western culture between 17th and 19th centuries. By the time the relationship got better, already countries like UK and USA had advanced so much technologically, Japan then embarked on a mission to further their education from the West especially in United States of America which had advanced in technology. This was an initiative launched by the government that saw many students get education grants to go further their education in America. This is because Japan wanted to start it industrialization but was having a major problem. The workforce comprised mostly of unskilled laborers (Bala´zs & William, 2012). The Meiji government organized study trips to western countries to expose them to the new technology and even invited the west to come work in Japan. Japanese’s factories by this time were almost similar to their pre-Taylorist American friends with their owners being without any skills to run the factories. This is what necessitated them to contract other people to run the factories on their behalf. These people were responsible for recruitment, training and even “firing’.’ During this time and later on up to the year 1917, they were still using Taylorism but then decided to introduce efficiency. By around 1930s, Japan, by the help of the American initiated Human resource Relations ideas with the help of some Japanese scholars (Bala´zs & William, 2012). The new management promised to solve the labor unrest that was beginning to manifest itself. In fact, some firms were implementing human resource practices that allowed employees to give their suggestion to the production process. Japan quickly embraced methods that could help ease on the labor unrest probably having learnt from the experience of the UK and USA. They introduced welfare policies that were aimed at winning employees loyalty. Conclusion Revolution in the management system especially with regard to employees is one of the areas that never troubled Japan compared to UK. This is owing to the fact that they had learnt from their American and UK friend’s troubles. UK witnessed a number of challenges in this process but was seen to be different from US because unlike US, its labor unionists and the employers were kind of having gentle man’s informal agreements. Therefore, even during industrialization, labor relations were never a major issue to them. Japan’s case was even better because there’s was a proactive measures. Either way, it is true that many countries have moved from the traditional industrial relations to a modern employment relations going by the corporate standards being seen today, References Almond, P. (2004). Industrial relations as a discipline and field in UK AND France. Indusrial relations , 320-347. Bala´zs, V., & William, M. T. (2012). A modern history of Japanese Management thought. Journal of Management History, 18, 369-381. Cowell, N. (2000). the use of workplace innovation in a developing Economy: the case of Jamaica. Thesis Submitted to the University of Toronto. Gallie, D. (1994). understanding industrial relations: theoritical perspectives in industrial Sociology Richard K Brown. Contemporary sociology, 2-193. Kimmel, J. (2000). Creating ‘A Real Science of Human Relations: Personnel Management and the Politics of Professionalism,. Dssertation presented to John Hopkins University, 4-24. Maruyama, K. (1997). “A comparative study of the Japanese management theories of fourscholars Masumi Tsuda, Hiroshi Hazama, Ryushi Iwata and Kuniyoshi Urabe”,. Global Studies in Management: A Japanese Perspective, Institute of Business Research. Maryanne, F. (1994). Organizations, occupations, and markets- the new American workplace; Transforming work systems in the US by Eileen Applebaum and Rosemary Batt. Contemporary sociology. Sisson, K. (2008). Putting the record straight: Industrial relations and the employment relationship . Warwik Papers in industrial relations. Read More