Term-Collective Bargaining and Term-Employee Involvement - Assignment Example

Question 1. Employment Relationships “In the context of employee relations explain what is meant by the employment relationship, and outline how it has changed over the years. Please give reasons why this might have been.” Employment relationship is a term that refers to the legal notion used by various nations in explaining the relationship between employers and employees. This relationship exists when the employees work under given conditions and in return for remuneration. According to ILO (2006), it is through the employment relationship that various rights and obligations are created between the employer and the employees. ILO (2006) regards it as a key point of reference for the determination of the nature and extent of the rights and obligations associated with employment in areas of social security and labour law. Changes in the World Bank and particularly in the labour market have led to the rise of new forms of employee relationship. Deery (1999) adds that the government interventions in legal and institutional frameworks for the labour relation have eroded the application of collective norms to employment relationship and the regulatory role of the individual tribunals. The individualization of employment relations occurred due to various factors. Deery (1999) notes that during the 1980s and 1990s there was a rapid development of individualization due to the vigorous challenges that the successive conservative governments had on the legitimacy of the trade unions. Countries such as the Britain remove d the most of the statutory and administrating supports for collective bargaining (Herriot 2002). Similarly, in New Zealand, there was a dramatic shift away from the collectivist industrial relations as imposed by the New Zealand Employment Contracts Act 1991 which removed the long-standing system of arbitration and conciliation based on trade union representation and replaced it with a framework that emphasized on individual employment contracts (ILO 2006). This resulted into a decline in the trade union membership and a collapse in the collective determination of working conditions and wages. Although the individualization of employee relationship has been slower in Australia, the passage of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 created a concerted move towards decollectivizing the Australian industrial relations. The earlier legislative efforts by conservative state governments in victoria, Queensland and Western Australia succeeded in introducing more individualized system of employment arrangement. Also, the union membership for this country declined as from the mid 1980s. Generally, the governments have played a major role in facilitating and encouraging the development of individualization as a policy in employment relations. Herriot (2002) explains that the growth of individualization in the employment relations is due to interrelated factors. First, he argues that during the 1980s and 1990s, there was aggressive assertion of managerial rights which coincided with a period of rapid global economic restructuring. The pursuit of labour flexibility gave a rationale for greater unilateralism and the lack of effective opposition from trade unions weakened their membership base and thus making it easier for employers to press for procedural individualization. The presence of a more facilitative political climate in the 1980s and 1990s also favored the individualization process. Both Social Democratic and Conservative parties in Europe and Australasia adopted a more free market and deregulatory approaches to government policy making hence deinstitutionalizing the determination of working conditions and wages. This provided employers with a greater discretion on employment issues. Finally, individualization of employment relations has been facilitated by the rhetoric and language of HRM. Deer (1999) argues that the HRM seek to build a corporate culture of “enlightened” self interest and individual responsibility. In such a unitary framework, there is no need of trade unions or collective bargaining. The management developed close links with their employees and avoided the indirect relationships which are usually mediated by elected representatives. Question 3.The EU and the Social Partners “Describe what is meant by the term- the EU social partners and explain their significance to employment relations in the UK.” Social partners refer to the representatives of labor and management which include trade unions and employer’s organizations respectively. The EU social partners specifically refer to the representative bodies of the two sides of the industries: employers and employees at EU level that are engaged in the European social dialogue in accordance to Article 138 and 139EC (Geyer, Mackintosh and Lehmann 2005). The relevant organization of management and labor must comply with the following criteria set by the European Commission. First, they should relate to specific categories, or be cross-industry and be organized at the European level. Secondly, they must be integral and recognizable to the member state social partner structures, have the capacity of negotiating agreements, and represent all the member states. Finally, they should have adequate structures that ensure there is effective participation during the consultation process. According to Marchington and Wilkinson (2005), currently there are 75 organizations that can be divided into five categories: general cross-industry organizations such as ETUC, CEEP and BusinessEurope (formerly UNICE); cross-industry organizations that represent particular categories of undertakings or workers such as UEAPME, Eurocadres and CEC; specific organizations i.e. the Eurochambres; sectorial organizations that have no cross industry affiliation which consists of 53 organizations; and the European trade union organizations which comprises of 15 organizations. The EU social partners engage themselves in cross-industry social dialogue or sectorial social dialogue. The influence of the EU social partners in the UK cannot be overstated. According to Gennard and Judge (2005), the UTUC and UNICE have the responsibility of participating inn the law making process through social dialogue process or simply collective agreements which can then be transposed into legally binding EU directives. By the courtesy of Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, they are given considerable powers to lead trade unions in the UK. Employers are also expected to play a greater role in determining social and employment legislation in the future. However, the UK government can, of course, continue enacting social and employment legislation that they wish domestically, provided that this legislation does not undermine the provisions laid down by EU law (Gennard and Judge 2005). Consequently, the UK social partners, specifically the TUC and CBI, are influential affiliates within the UNICE and ETUS that are well placed in playing the biggest role of determining any of such legislation. Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) add that the UK social partners negotiate for the framework agreements that substitute the legislation. These social partners also engage in various negotiations at their own initiatives in relation to working conditions and accident prevention. They negotiate these framework agreements on part time work, parental leave, and fixed teamwork contracts. In conjunction with the UK government, the social partners have played a leading role in fostering the modernization process of promoting adaptability of employees within the organization. The social partners act as consultants on the policy implementation in the UK (Marchington, M and Wilkinson A 2005). Conclusively, the EU social partners play a major role in fostering autonomous social dialogue by positively impacting on the European labor markets and negotiating various frameworks of employment actions. They are also concerned with the monitoring, assessment of evaluation of the implementation of the EU frameworks of social dialogue agreement as well as framework of actions. Question 4. The Role of the State “Define what is meant by the term- collective bargaining. Explain why, and how, sometimes UK governments have supported it and then sometimes been against it.” Collective bargaining refers to the process in which employers organize and collectively bargain with employers in the workplace (Royle and Towers 2002). In simple terms, it involves the coming together of the employees to negotiate their employment. During this process the workers representatives approach their employer and negotiates over a contract which can be agreed upon by both sides. The labour contract covers issues such as working hours, benefits, wages, working conditions, and rules and regulations of the workplace. They are also concerned with matters of mutual interest such as layoffs, hiring practices, promotions, work safety, and worker discipline. These are the issues that are collectively bargained upon and once the two sides have reached into a consensus, they sign a contract and keep it for a given period of time. The final contract is referred to as a collective bargaining agreement which reflects collective bargaining efforts. Blanpain, Ameglio and International Society for Labour Law and Social Security (2004) regard collective bargaining as a formal process which involves consultation, negotiation and exchange of information between employees and their employer with the aim of reaching on an agreement that is mutually acceptable by all parties. He notes that the state at times play an important role in the promotion of collective bargaining through the establishment of relevant national legislation. However, the state may also be against collective bargaining due to various reasons. The collective bargaining agreement legally binds the employers with the employer and apply to all workers, whether they or did not participate actively in the bargaining process. According to Blanpain, Ameglio and International Society for Labour Law and Social Security (2004), there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining in the UK. However, the recent Human Rights Act of 1998 gives the UK law a “further effect” to the rights and freedom that are guaranteed under the European convection on Human Rights. However, the Europeans Courts of Human Rights (ECtHR) has interpreted the freedom of association provision of article 11 (Royle and Towers 2002). Thus, article 11 gave trade unions a right of being heard but the state has a free choice of the means it can use and, more importantly, it is not a right that employers should consult the unions while engaging in collective bargaining. The governments support collective bargaining by enacting the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 (TULECA) which relates to collective bargaining. This Act defines the various legal categories in which collective organizations are divided as well as legal implications which follow from the categorization. It also gives a statutory union recognition. During the 19th century, the governments supported collective bargaining as the preferred method of determining the terms and conditions of employment through exhortation rather than legislation. The UK is however, weakening the collective bargaining and moving towards a new emphasis of the role of an individual. Royle and Towers (2002) argue that despite of the established rules that govern the collective bargaining by the custom, they are loosely defined, lack regulations and thus leave the UK employees without formally guaranteeing them rights of collective bargaining. The combination of traditionally voluntarist approach towards industrial relations and changes in union legislation has left the UK trade unions in a vulnerable position. There has been also a decline in the trade union membership. Governments have dismantled the support of collective bargaining and instead promoted individualization of employment relationship. Deery (1999) says that the Labour government of 1992 did not wholeheartedly support collective bargaining. The procedure for mandatory recognition of has although been reintroduced by the employment relations act 1999. Therefore, in one way the government supports collective bargaining and in some cases it does not. Question 6. Employment Involvement “Explain what is meant by the term-employee involvement and give some examples of how it is introduced” Organizations are increasingly turning to employee involvement to cultivate the interests, dedication and participation its members for increased productivity. Cummings and Worley (2008)defines employee involvement as a broad term that covers diverse approaches that helps in achieving greater participation of the employees in relevant workplace decisions. The term refers to the set of practices and processes that uses the entire capacity of employees and is aimed at raising their commitment for the success of the organization. Gennard and Judge (2005) note that employee involvement should not be taken to be synonymous to employee participation, that employee participation is a subset of the larger framework of employee involvement. Also, employee involvement concentrates on the individual members and it is aimed at producing a committed workforce that is likely to contribute to the efficient operations of the organization while employee participation is concerned with the extent at which employees are involved in the organization’s decision making machinery through their representatives. The purpose of employee involvement is to enhance the commitment, participation and productivity of organizational members (Cummings and Worley 2008). For increased employee involvement, the decision making procedures need to be moved downwards in the organization, closer to where the actual work occurs, hence leading to quicker and more responsive decisions, greater employee flexibility, continuous performance improvements, commitment and employee satisfaction. Advocates of employee involvement argue that it better places employees in the achievement of enhanced performance by providing them with intrinsic rewards that increases job satisfaction which, in turn, enhances their motivation for the achievement of the organizational goals. When employees have access to management information, their commitment and mutual trust is increased thereby reducing labor turnover. Employee involvement can take two forms: direct and indirect. Direct forms of employee involvement include processes such as information sharing, participation in teams of various forms, staff newsletters suggestion schemes, employee attitude surveys, quality of working life programmes, exercising worker control through cooperation and financial participation. These practices involve the employees directly in their immediate place of work. On the other hand, indirect employee involvement comprises of indirect participation through elected representative. The indirect employee involvement practices include quality cycles, work councils, board representation, task forces and involvement groups (Robbins 2003). This section discusses two examples of employee involvement. First is employee attitude survey which is a form of direct employee involvement. It is classified as an upward channel of communication (from employees to the management) where the staff/employees fill questionnaires about their levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various aspects of work. Gennard and Judge (2005) note that the employee attitude surveys serve as effective tools for assessing the employees’ commitment and morale. The management can use these surveys to obtain specific information on the ways that employees perceive fairness in the organization, pay systems, training opportunity, employee awareness on the long term goals and organizational strategy. Use of a quality circle is another example of employee involvement. This indirect form of employee involvement aims in identifying work related problems that cause low productivity or quality of services in a given section of the workplace and recommends suitable solutions for these problems. According to Cummings and Worley (2008), employees are given the opportunity to meet on regular basis in order to suggest various ways of improving the organizational productivity. It usually involves six to eight members in discussing issues in an organization under the guidance of their supervisor. The members are able to collect necessary information on a given problem and make suggestions to the management on how to overcome it. In most cases, the groups are given the authority of putting their proposed solutions into practice, however, through a formal representation of recommendations for actions (Robbins 2003). The circles encourage the employees to identify not only the quality of their work but also to the management objectives for better quality and increased productivity. Generally, the employee involvement is aimed at achieving such outcomes like generation of commitment of employees for the success of the organization, enabling the organization improve its performance and productivity, improving satisfaction levels of the employees and providing the employees with the opportunity to be involved and to influence the decisions which are likely to affect their interests. References Blanpain R., Ameglio, E. and International Society for Labour Law and Social Security 2004, The actors of collective bargaining: A world report: XVII World Congress of Labour Law and Social Security, Montevideo, September 2003, Kluwer Law International, London CIPD, Thompson, P and Milsome S 2003, Reward determination in the UK, CIPD Publishing, London Cummings, TG and Worley CG 2008, Organization development & change, Cengage Learning, Mason, OH Deery S 1999, Employment relations: Individualisation and union exclusion: An international study, Federation Press, London Gennard, J and Judge G 2005, Employee relations, CIPD Publishing, London Geyer, R., Mackintosh, A and Lehmann K 2005, Integrating UK and European social policy: the complexity of Europeanization, Radcliffe Publishing, California Herriot, P 2002, The Employment Relationship: A Psychological Perspective, Routledge, New York ILO 2006, The employment relationship, Report V (1), International Labour Conference, 95th Session, 2006, Geneva Marchington, M and Wilkinson A 2005, Human resource management at work: People management and development, CIPD Publishing, London Robbins SP 2003, Organizational Behaviour: Global and Southern African Perspectives, Pearson South Africa, Cape Town. Royle T and Towers B 2002, Labour relations in the global fast-food industry, Routledge, California Read More