Should the State Take Part in Employment Relations - Literature review Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2012 Introduction Work is essential to human condition. It determines what individuals do daily. Work enables individuals relate with other people and assists in defining a sense of identity. It also enables individuals enjoy material necessities of life and achievements of civilizations. Therefore, the way work is allocated, organized, managed and rewarded is essential to individuals in the society. The allocation, organization, management and rewarding of work simply refer to employment relations. Employment relations dwell a lot on the relationship between employees and their employers within the workplace. This therefore has raised concerns on whether the state should take no part in employment relations and leave it entirely to employers and their employees. This paper evaluates this statement with reference to the modern Australian workplace. The state should take no part in employment relations. It should entirely leave it to employers and their employees. It can be argued that the state should take no part in employment relations since it is always biased in its operations. It is believed that the state’s biasness in the economic system affects its regulatory role on employment relation system. There is always a tendency of the state to find ways of protecting private set-up, whose main objective is profit maximization. The state does always come up with an excuse of developing favorable climate that will attract more investors and create more jobs. This, however, is not always the case, since it usually provides priority to the probable benefits in terms of revenue that will be accumulated to its covers. The state earns revenue from either employers’ profits or employees via taxes. However, it normally protects employers more than employees. The biasness of the state occurs when it provides concession to employers through reduction of taxes, custom duties, provision of minimum wage and hindering employees from asking a lot from investors (Gennard, 2005). Therefore, the state organs are always interested in protecting private investors rather than promoting employees’ interest, thus affecting employment relations. In modern Australia for instance, it is believed that the state has formulated legislation that cushion employers and oppress employees. The legislation introduced by the Australian government is believed to be anti-union and limits unions’ participation within the workplace. This minimizes the bargaining power of employees. This type of government influence has not only been felt in private sector but also in the public sector. Employees in Australia are currently expected to make direct arrangements with their employers rather than the unions. Management in various organizations in Australia has tried to limit the influence of union on wages and work conditions negotiations (Teicher, 2006). This has affected the employment relations. Therefore, in order to avoid all these, it is essential to leave the entire employment relations to employees and employers. The state should not take part in the relations. The state should take no part in employment relations since its involvement downgrades partnership programs. Partnership programs such as employee involvement and industrial democracy are normally affected by the state involvement in employment relations. The current marketization and public management in Australia do not take into account employee involvement and industrial democracy, which are essential to effective employment relations. This has greatly affected the employment relations in this nation. According to Todd (2007), good employment relations should incorporate some aspects of employee involvement and managers should take wide approach to management. This cannot be attained if the state is to take part in employment relations. Employment relations should be left entirely to employees and employers since their participation enhance productivity and employee performance. Employment relations should be left entirely to employers and employees. The state should take no part in employment relations. The relations majorly concerns with the relationship of employers and employees. It should entirely be left to employers and employees since they are the ones who understand well their interest in the relation. The state should not be allowed to formulate the contract or legislation that regulate the employee-employer relationship as this might bring tension in the relationship, thus causing one party to find ways of stealing or mishandling another party. According to teicher et al (2006), the Australian government has of late tried to regulate wages and working conditions in a decentralized manner. This has created tensions among employees and employers. Employees and employers should fully handle their on issues. Employees through trade unions should negotiate with employers regarding better payment and working condition. Employers on the other hand should provide employees with better working conditions that motivate employees to perform effectively in the workplace. The state therefore should not be introduced in employment relations since it might interfere with the cordial relationship between employers and employees. It can also be argued that the state should take part in employment relations. The state’s role in employment relations is crucial and unique. It is essential for the state to involve actively in employment relations so as to associate employers and the union with the country’s development. Good employee-employer relationship is good for a country’s economic growth. Marchington & Wilkinson (2005) argue that the general objective of the state is to develop an effective institutional framework that provides good bilateral relationship between trade unions/employees and employers. Development of institutional framework is believed to regulate relationships between management and workforce at enterprise, regional and national levels. This therefore makes it important to involve the state in employment relations. The state should take part in employment relations since it provides a system for collective bargaining. It is believed that the state offers mechanism for settling terms of employment through non-political means, such as judicial means. The legal framework employed in settling terms of employment includes functional provisions for general minimum standards of employment’s conditions such as minimum wage, standardization of working hours on weekly or daily basis, health provisions and occupational safety, anti-discrimination controls and protection against sacking. Therefore, the role of the government on employment relations is very essential since it establishes the legal framework upon which employment relations operates in. Employment relation that is appropriate should acknowledge the needs of both employees and employers (Gennard, 2005). According to Peetz (2006) employees and employers do always want to benefit from each other. They also depend on each other. It is necessary to acknowledge the equal bargaining strength of employees and employers. Therefore, the employment relations legislation that is appropriate should not only address the prevailing power imbalance but also provide both groups with equivalent degree of control. Effective employment relations should permit a combination of collective and personal bargaining. It should also facilitate the participation of employees in daily workplace decisions. Effective employment relations depend on its structure and framework that are governed by the legislation. It is only the state that can provide effective legislations that ensure structures and framework of employment relations are well governed. In Australia for instance, the state has formulated employment relations laws that are employed in organizing and managing labor. One of the employment laws that have been formulated in modern Australia is the fair work act. The fair work act establishes legal minimal employment conditions. It also offers for modern awards. These awards do always apply across occupation or an industry. The modern awards cover the entire national system for employees. Together with the national employment standards, modern awards are believed to be part of the safety that regulates the employment conditions of most workers in Australia. The fair work act also offers for system of collective bargaining at individual enterprise level (TOTCFPE, 2012). Even though the current Australian government and the opposition have varying opinions regarding employment relations laws, majority of the issues concern the employment of unions or third parties, these are, individual verses collective bargaining and individualist and collectivist frames of reference. According to Gennard (2005), effective employment relations law are normally formulated to protect employees and employers through protecting the weak, outlaw discrimination, determining minimum standards of safety, hygiene, health and employment conditions so as to prevent misuse of power by both parties. The state should take part in employment relations since it can limit or prevent industrial conflicts. In developed nations such as Australia, the state normally tries to prevent or minimize collective industrial conflicts. The Australian government has legally guaranteed right to strike. It has also placed ways of curbing both unofficial and official strikes, and at times lockouts, so as to safe guard the entire public from imagined or real harmful or disastrous consequences. The Australian government is responsible for institutions and systems of third-party conflict resolution within the public and private sector. Procedures for mediation, forceful arbitration, conciliation are given externally by the state. The state strongly encourages and supports internal conflict resolution procedures organized by both parties (Teicher, 2006). It is believed that the state should take part in employment relations since it can effectively interpret conflict of right and interest. The state normally makes clear distinction between collective and individual conflict of interest which is solved mostly through peaceful, legal ways including decisions from labor courts, and not private complaint processes. The conflict of interest, such as that regarding terms of new contract, entails various conflict resolution methods, incorporating industrial action. The state normally offers strict and lawfully enforced responsibilities so as to maintain peace at the time the collective contract governs. It is believed that the state ensures that workers and employers understand their rights. This normally assists in developing effective employment relations. Employees do always want conditions of work and wages that sufficiently reflects their capabilities and efforts. They also need to be heard in the organization and be involved in decision making, particularly on issues affecting them directly on the ongoing employment. Employers on the other hand, want employees to be efficient and productive for the amount of money paid. Both parties are therefore interested in a common element, which is control and power (Todd, 2007). In order to cater for the rights and expectation of both employees and employers, it is essential for the state to take part in employment relations. The state should formulate appropriate employment relations laws that provide equality and fairness to employees and employers. The formulated legislations must protect employees through provision of suitable working conditions and wages. Therefore, the state should be allowed to take part in employment relations so as to ensure that employers and employees rights and interest are catered for. Conclusion From the discussion, it can be argued that the state should take no part in employment relations. It is believed that the state’s biasness in the economic system affects its regulatory role on employment relation system. There is always a tendency of the state to find ways of protecting private set-up, whose main objective is profit maximization. The biasness of the state occurs when it provides concession to employers through reduction of taxes, custom duties, provision of minimum wage and hindering employees from asking a lot from investors. The state should take no part in employment relations since its involvement downgrades partnership programs. Partnership programs such as employee involvement and industrial democracy are normally affected by the state involvement in employment relations. It can also be argued that the state should take part in employment relations so as to associate employers and the union with the country’s development. Good employee-employer relationship is good for a country’s economic growth. The state should take part in employment relations since it provides a system for collective bargaining. It should take part in employment relations since it can limit or prevent industrial conflicts. References Gennard, J. & Judge, G, 2005, Employee Relations. CIPD Publishing Marchington, M & Wilkinson, A, 2005, Human Resource Management at Work: People Management and Development. CIPD Publishing Peetz, D, 2006, Brave new workplace: how individual contracts are changing our jobs, x, 262 p. Teicher, et al, 2006, Employee relations management: Australia in a global context, Pearson Education Australia, 2nd ed The Office of The Commission For Public employment (TOTCFPE), 2012, AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SYSTEM AND THE ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT. Todd T. 2007, Foundations of Industrial Relations. University of Western Australia, Crawley Read More