The Nature of the Employment Relationship - Case Study Example

The nature of the employment relationship Name Course Tutor Date The nature of the employment relationship Introduction Workplace procedures have a significant function to play in making sure that the operational flexibility of organization and increasing the productivity of that organization in the entire industry. Some employers and groups in the industry have raised concerns concerning the impacts of industrial relations legislation and rewards on wage results, flexibility in the place of work, employment and productivity. Similarly, several employees and unions emphasizes on the rather low levels of payment in different industries in Australia. According to Callus & Lansbury (2002), Unions also claim that the existing workplace relations practices offer adequate flexibility. Causes of industrial relations inflexibility in Australia Possibly, the major inflexibility in industrial relations in Australia leading to inefficiency and labor conflict is mental idleness on both part of management and labor (Norington, 2006). Management is not adequately concerned to establish the sources of inefficiency and conflict following the laissez-faire strategy, unless the organization experiences strikes and more severe conflict. Even regarding work methods, management does not trouble to work out the best process but leaves it largely to the subordinates to solve it for themselves. Disdain on the employer’s part towards the employees is another main cause. Indeed change was needed in the industrial relations in Australia for work efficiency but it's fair enough to say that the change was overshadowed by federal political plots (Bray, Waring & Cooper 2011, p. 81). The government took a lot of time tussling over the reforms in the labor market. While this was happening there were interested parties who were sabotaging the government effort while trying to influence the reform process. Bray, Waring & Cooper (2011, p. 81) argues that for many years, Australian political system and structure stared by imitating the British system; this was seen as no independence in making laws that fight for reforms in Australia (Rae, 2011). At the same time politicians in parliament only made laws that were advantageous to them causing inflexibility in industrial relations. For instance, when the National Party and liberal party coalition took power in 1996 their manifesto was strongly opposed to trade unions. Unions were mostly not included in political and industrial decision making whilst some employers were closely involved (Norington, 2006). The rise of part time and casual employees as a key attribute of the labor market in Australia had a considerable impacts for collective industrial relations. For instance, part time employees were more likely to register with unions with the number registered members being quoted at 16 percent as opposed to 22 percent registered by 2006. This made unions struggle in several years to negotiate terms of employment for all employees, therefore this trend was seen as undermining the membership of the union and authority to challenge the contentious terms of industrial relations regulations (Bray, Waring & Cooper 2011, p. 108). When contentious issues are not resolved, employees pursue different goals and not shared goals causing inefficiency while inhibiting productivity. The nature is also seen as an inflexible element hindering efficiency and productivity. Bray, Waring & Cooper (2011, p. 107) citing wooden and Warren (2003, p.4) claims that, in the twentieth century most casual workers worked in lower skilled jobs, these include sales, clerical and service jobs. These lower level jobs were portrayed as ‘bad jobs’ (Wooden and Warren, 2003, p.4). Lower level jobs were also characterized by low pay, exclusion from organization decision making, limited control, inadequate task diversity and high degree of dissatisfaction. When all these challenges are experienced efficiency and productivity declines. Dissatisfaction was also experienced amongst hospitality and retail workers in Australia (Bray, Waring & Cooper 2011, p. 108). This mainly attributed to variability and unsociable working hours (Parkin & Anderson, 2006, p.305). How has industrial inflexibility been addressed in the past 20-odd years From the time of its start after the election in 1996, the government of Howard has transformed the federal industrial relations to introduce particular flexibilities and reduce intervention from a third party. The government claims that these changes have led to increase in productivity and economic success (Keenoy & Kelly, 2002, p. 21). The government believed flexibility increase in the labor market and reduction of regulation will add to higher employment and greater productivity. Therefore, the government proposed ways to address the issues of inflexibility in industrial relations by creating a move towards a unitary national system of industrial relations. The government asked every state to refer industrial relations laws and power to commonwealth make a national system of industrial relations (Rae, 2011). Formation of the Australian Fair Pay Commission was also another step ahead by the government to try and reform the inflexibility issues in industrial relations that have been in existence since the twentieth century. The government of Australia through WorkChoices policy established Australian Fair Pay Commission and Condition Standard for protection of workers’ conditions and wages in their agreement with their employers (Norington, 2006). The commission was to ensure that workers have at least paid leave for weeks in a year, 10 days of career leave which includes sick leave, 52 weeks of parental leave and 38 hours of working in a week. With this arrangement in place, the employees feel satisfied thus ensures efficiency and productivity in the workplace. Another way the Australian government addressed the issue of inflexible industrial relations was by simplifying workplace agreement processes. This ensured smooth process of job creation, variation and termination (Parkin & Anderson, 2006, p. 297). It also ensured an employee negotiate his employment terms that suit his needs and situations. Increased level of employee involvement in decision-making A considerable debate concerning organizational changes in Australia and the significance of consultation has been in the media for quite a long time; employee involvement and industrial freedom in realizing these changes (Lansbury & Davis, 1992, p. 232). In the higher level of employers' organizations, government and trade unions there has been extensive consensus regarding the desire for better employee participation in decision-making. The strong foundation of any effective organization is its employees. Employees come with skills and ideas, however at times human resource remains unexploited. Employee’s involvement in the process of making decisions not just empowers them to add to the prosperity of a company, but also saves money and time, reduced outsourcing and increase productivity. Employment involvement not only involves employees themselves, but can also be represented by the unions in organization decision making (Callus & Lansbury 2002). According Callus & Lansbury (2002), the union movement in Australia has strongly adopted the movement towards business bargaining and has tried to impact workplace reforms by insertion of ‘managing change’ clauses in the agreements which put employers to ongoing consultation preceding to the incorporation of organizational reforms and to negotiate any resulting redundancies. Following the win by the Conservative Liberal- national party coalition in 1996, their government took a harder stand on labor market policy change and relations with trade unions which became turbulent. Norington (2006) argues that the coalition government proposed a unilateral agreement of employers and employees as opposed to a partnership with unions. In the way the government supported individual involvement than collective set up (Bray, Waring & Cooper 2011, p. 108). Employee involvement in the decision making suffered in the twentieth century but governments that later took power in twenty first centuries ensured various laws and policies to engage employees in organizational decisions. Though Mr. John Howard took power in the late twentieth century he proposed the process of simplifying employee’s agreement that ensured employees understood the process of job creation, variation and termination. Simplifying workplace agreement made sure that the employees can negotiate terms of employment. Lansbury & Davis (1992, p. 231) claim that the government of Australia lined up various workplace agreement policies in order to allow employees participate in decision making. These agreements include Australian Workplace agreement which involves an individual agreement, employee collective agreement; an agreement between an employer and a group of employees and union collective agreements; an agreement between union and an employer (Callus & Lansbury 2002). The government claims that workplaces governed by agreements experiences higher productivity and efficiency than award dependence organizations. Employee’s involvement in decision making was also enhanced by the introduction of WorkChoices legislation which promoted the employees’ capability to unilaterally decide on the employment conditions (Callus & Lansbury 2002). It also enhanced employees’ ability to question unfair dismal by the organization. We then say that the law enhances individual bargaining, puts restrictions on activities by the union and decreases employee’s exposure to unfair dismal. Introduction of Australian Fair Pay Commission by Work choices legislation ensured employees’ participation in agreement decision making, wages, types of leave and ordinary hours worked (Parkin & Anderson, 2006, p.297). Under WorkChoices, unions were barred from negotiating in an arrangement where employees were directly in agreement with the employers. Further adjustment in policies and penalties overseeing union access to employees and workplaces restricts their ability to legitimately stand for members or engage new members. The merits of WorkChoices continue to be discussed in Australia, as well as whether they would tackle the existing representation gap or add to managerial prerogatives in the nonexistence of an extensive ‘social partnership’ platform. Conclusions Employee satisfaction and commitment to the management is enhanced by greater employee’s involvement in decision making concerning the organization operation, wages and conditions of work. When workers are engaged in making decisions, they achieve a professional and individual stake in the company and its general prosperity. This commitment results in enhanced productivity as workers are actively taking part in different aspects of the organization and wish to observe their efforts thrive generally. This is not merely beneficial to organization growth, but is also a job training program for the employees. References Bray, M., Waring, P., & Cooper, R. (2011). Employment relations: Theory and practice (2nd edn.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill. Callus, R. & Russell, D. (2002). Working futures: the changing nature of work and employment relations in Australia. New York: The federation Press. Keenoy, T. & Kelly, D. (2002). The employment relationship In Australia, 2nd edn. Harcourt Brace, Marrickville, NSW. Lansbury, R. and Davis, E. (1992). Employee Participation: Some Australian Cases. International Labour Review, 131(2), 231-234. Norington, B. (2006). Unfinished Business, in N. Carter (ed.), the Howard factor: A Decade That Changed the Nation. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Parkin A. and Anderson, G. ( 2006). The Howard government, Regulatory Federalism and the Transformation of Commonwealth – state relations. Australian journal of Political Science, 42( 2), 295-314. Rae, C. (2011). Industrial Relations in 2010: ‘Dead, Buried and Cremated’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(3), 277-287. Wooden, M. and Warren, D. (2003). The Characteristics of Casual and Fixed-Term Employment: Evidence from the HILDA survey. Melbourne Institute, Working paper No. 15/03, June, University of Melbourne Bray, M., Waring, P., & Cooper, R. (2011). Employment relations: Theory and practice (2nd edn.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill. Read More