Employment Relations Policies of UK Governments - Assignment Example

Name Course Tutor Date Coursework How far do you agree with the proposition that the employment relations policies of UK governments since the 1980s have been underpinned by an unambiguous neo-liberal ideology? Introduction Industrial or employment relations institutions make regulations to guide business and labour internal and external to the firm. Before the 1980s, employment relations in the UK were based on a collective system which was dominant but not universal (Blanchflower et. al.2007, p.287). This system was depended on mutual values of legitimacy of symbolization by solitary trade unions, and also of mutual regulation. However, since Britain’s Conservative rule took power in 1979 and criticized the system of unionized employment relations, the latter pulverized into diminishment and is no longer an influential model. Therefore, this paper is in agreement with the proposition that-Employment relations policies of UK governments since the 1980s have been underpinned by an unambiguous neo-liberal ideology. Traditional role of trade unions and collective bargaining Trade unions are generally organised by contract with the objective of enhancing the accepted norms of their members (Knight& Latreille 2000, p.13). Conventionally, there was limited state role in employee relations for much of the voluntarism period of the collective laissez faire (Belfield &. Heywood 2001, p. 577). The state encouraged voluntary collective bargaining and this was established at industry level in many sectors. Trade unions followed a self-governing internal organization, and the members could not get excluded void of valid reason, neither could they be discriminated against by their employers (Knight& Latreille 2000, p.15). The unions recurrently organized the collective voice of the workers. In cases where the statutory rights to involvement and session cease, mass bargaining by unions become the most effective mode of supremacy that workers can use against their employers, as an equalizer in organizations to the interest of stakeholders (Knight& Latreille 2000, p.13) Employment relationships are regulated by the labour law (Knight & Latreille 2000, p 7). The execution of employee relations institutions is significant in both durations of contingent economic constancy, and when one reign of accession gets in to a catastrophe and the tension for change is initiated (Belfield &. Heywood 2001, p. 579). Hence, trade union institutions undertake a fundamental function in the scope of restructuring of economies (Bryson et al., 2004, p. 129). Crudely, during periods of economic transition, prevailing institutions may pass as obstacle to economic adjustment, hence establishing pressure for institutional alteration (Torrini 2005). A similar case is seen in the UK in which growth of individual rights replaced collective rights in the 1980s. Neo-liberalism in the global economies After World War II, corporate enterprises in the Europe and US assisted to form an affluent society which thrilled in most of the political control on their governments (Harman 2007, p. 5; Louise 2002, p.87). Neo-liberalism was illustrated as response by these affluent elites to counterweigh policies of post-war that were in favour of the workers, and reinforced the welfare state. Neoliberal stratagem promotes market dynamics and barter enterprise as the most adequate ways for goods and services produce and supply (Harman 2007, p. 5). Simultaneously, they disdain the function of the state and demoralize government arbitration into economic, social, and financial pursuits (Louise 2002, p.87). Neoliberal ideology drives the process of economic globalization, by advocating for removal of boundaries amongst nations so that market dynamics can stimulate the worldwide economy (Brenner & Theodore 2002, p.349). These policies were easily embraced by governments and still proceed to strongly affect the classical economic thought. However, the neo-liberal ideology was most avidly administered in the UK in the 1980s during the reign of Thatcher. The politic and economic perspectives of Thatcher were driven by minimized state intercession and liberal markets and entrepreneurialism (Brenner & Theodore 2002, p.350). The government knew that maximizing the liberal market and allowing individual ownership would establish adequate economic proficiency and welfare. The impact was deregulation, individual ownership, and elimination of border boundaries to provide a ready and fertile ground for corporate activity (Addison & Belfield 2004, p.307). By the first month of 1982, U.K’s inflation quota declined to 8.6 percent, and by 1983, the economic recovery was stronger overall and mortgage and inflation quotas lowest since 1970s (Addison & Belfield 2004, p.306). Thatcherism was thus adopted as a term that described Thatcher’s policies, personal style and ethical outlook, and emphasize on individuals rather than the community. It is this individualistic approach-introduced by neoliberal ideology-to industrial relations that has been attributed to the demise of collective bargaining of workers through trade unions (Cooper & Ellem 2008). Events that led to embrace of neo-liberalism and demise of collective bargaining Prior 1980, industrial relations in the United Kingdom were guarded by principles of Keynesianism and corporatism (Howell 2004). A postwar regime, also referred to as the Fordist, was in place but by the end of its rule in the late 1970s, it had become painfully obvious that a crisis was present (Bellofiore 1999, p.45). The Fordist regime was associated with inelasticity in the labour market (Howell 2004). The rigidities were linked to hire and fire abilities, labour deployment, organisation, sets of various skills, time of work, and in pay and compensation (Bellofiore 1999, p.45). Trade unions were powerful and were mostly decisive of the working conditions and rights of workers. Collective bargaining was the main procedure in the employment relations. However, when the Conservative government came to power in 1979, it took over an economy with low employment rate at approximately one million, inflation rate at 10 percent, and deficit in balance of payments deficit by 661 million pounds (Blanchflower et. al.2007, p.286). To solve these problems, the Thatcher government decided to pull from the post war agreement and embrace a more individualist approach to industrial and economic policy (Blanchflower et. al.2007, p.286). Without surprise, the scrutiny of the challenges experienced by the free market economies was expected to be solved by market and workplace adaptability, such that by the beginning of 1980s, a regular splutter of employers, their political accomplice, and also conventionally social democratic groups were requesting for a wide restructuring of the work after Ford (Klees 2002, p.19). Employers and accomplices of the Right wing accompanied the change process with an allegation that reconstruction needed an enlargement of managerial authority and the competence of managers to dictate one-sided changes in the organization, as much as trade unions and their accomplices were likelier to request the massive negotiation of any alterations (Klees 2002, p.19). The government believed that a free market economy and monetarism were preferable to solve the economic and industrial problems of the time, as opposed to Keynesianism and corporatism (Klees 2002, p.19). Hence, the weakening of the traditional work unions can directly be attributed to the neo-liberal ideology. Neo-liberalism was embraced with the aim of improving the competitiveness of Britain in the world market. Low inflation, controlling the trade unions powers, and minimization of public spending were believed to help achieve the competitiveness. UK labour law and major Acts that reduced independence of trade unions and industrial action legality As a result, the government tried extreme changes in the policies of industrial relations. Blyton, Heery, & Turnbull (2011, p. 737) asserts that the change to the demise of the collective industrial relations was so profound that it can be termed as a transformation. First, a general macroeconomic policy was initiated with the aim of neither trying to minimize unemployment nor avoid excesses (Smith 2009, p. 337). The impact of this policy is that workers were conscious of strikes or conducting any other industrial actions that is a risk to their jobs. Second, public sector expenditure was restricted, hence reducing the chance for political bargaining. Moreover, this strategy led to exerting lower wages in the public sector as compared to the private sector. Next, the law was changed to restrict the authority of the unions but only a minimal restriction in the enforceable rights of individual employees. Next, one of the most significant policies addressed picketing and auxiliary action which disposed workers to no position of helping those striking in another organization. Also, the labour markets were turned to free markets through removing minimum pay and working terms in the public sector. Next, wage committees were also removed and limitations to maternity rights and unfair repel were introduced. The government really focused on crippling trade unions. However, it was uncertain of a favourable industrial relations system. Seemingly, the government fostered individual employers, rather than unions, or the government itself, to authorize employment relations. Therefore, employers were liberalized to select the industrial relations system and legal schema to back them up. Although the government did not seem to bother whether the workers maintained the collective bargaining, rejected to recognize unions, or formed their own stratagem, the government was certain of reduced power of collective bargaining. The labour law in the UK necessitates the legal affiliation between employees, employers, and unions (Dunn 2004, p.202). Since 1979, a new Conservative rule embraced a massively doubted policy to all labour law and regulation variants. In 1980, ten major Acts were put in place and they step by step eliminated the independence of trade unions and right to industrial actions. Reforms to the union’s internal organization made compulsory that embodiments are admitted and a ballot is conducted prior an industrial action. A public awareness opposing the unions’ excellence paralleled the fall of membership and collective agreement scope to less than forty percent. Additionally, the government came out of the European Union Social Chapter in the Maastricht Treaty. Neo-liberalism and individualized bargaining power in employment relations Neo-liberalism has underpinned employment relations in the UK since the 80s, when the Thatcher reign took office in 1979 (Bodin 2001). A neo-liberal ideology was embraced with the aim of solving the existing labour market problems such as high unemployment rates and inflation, and mainly, to improve country’s competitiveness in the global market. The objective of neoliberal market globalization is to remove all restrictions to commerce, and to privatize all occurring resources and services. In such a situation, the workers and the public in general are under sympathies of market dynamics as the generated profits help only the few. The industrial relations institutions in the UK have undergone restructuring since the 1980 and individual worker rights have been emphasized as opposed to collective workers rights (Bogg 2009, p.733). These individual rights are currently legally enforced, and represent an aftermath of the modern neo-liberalism ideology (Kersley et al. 2006, p.78). For instance, the Employment Rights Act of 1996 offers individual rights protection like child care leave, and individual right to ask for adaptable working conditions (Kersley et al. 2006, p.121). The Act reckons that unless the workers abandons the relationship before a dispel, the employer must provide a legitimate one month notice, and this should be supported by acceptable reason after a year of work, and with a superfluous payment after two years. The ability for the employee to bargain is left at the hands of the individual employee rather than the union. Worth noting is that the state influences the relationship between the employer and the employee either directly or indirectly (Kochan 2006, p. 7). Legislation and dispute resolution are examples of direct influence while, providing important context is part of indirect influence. Since it is the government which adopted the neoliberal ideology, naturally the industrial relations were affected in relevance to the neo-liberal policies (Fine 2006). The government’s hegemonic power influence shapes the climate and priorities in the employment relationships. Neo-liberalism turned out to be offensive to the collective rights of workers (CenterPiece 2004, p.31). Neo-liberalism has been attacked for making right novel forms of capitalist brutality concealing elites and masses alike to the inequalities becoming worse and tendencies of crisis endangered by globalization (Cerny 2008, p. 2; Coates 2000, p.101). Recent governments have promised the improvement in fairness and protection of individual rights. As much as the New Labour government was elected in the 1997 promised a greater legal protection for workers, this has not been experienced and the industrial relations reform project was seen to complement rather than conflict the former Thatcher project (Waring, Lewer, & Burgess, 2008, p.3). In conclusion, the heritages of the industrial relations system attained from the Fordist regime was attributed to rigidity. The restrictions to adaptability became linked to the decentralized system of the communal bargaining and strongly rooted trade union capabilities and resources in the organization, which advanced rapidly to the UK economy from the 1950s. However, the employee relations project of reform in the Conservative government after 1979 was basically not collectivist, and focused at crippling unions, reducing the scope of collective bargaining, and personalizing employment relations. List of References: Addison, J., T. & Belfield, C., R. 2004. ‘Unions and employment growth: The one constant?’ Industrial Relations, 43(2), 305–323. Blanchflower, D., Bryson, A., & Forth, J. 2007. ‘Workplace industrial relations in Britain, 1980-2004’, Industrial Relations Journal, 38(4), 285-302 Belfield, C., R. &. Heywood, J., S. 2001. ‘Unionization and the pattern of non-union wages: Evidence for the UK’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63(5), 577–598. Bellofiore, R. 1999, “After Fordism, What? Capitalism at the end of the century: Beyond the myths”, in Riccardo Bellofiore (ed), Global Money, Capital Restructuring, and the Changing Patterns of Labour London: Edward Elgar. Blyton, P., Heery, E, & Turnbull, P. 2011. ‘Reassessing the employment relationship’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 53, 737-738 Bodin, R. 2001. “Wide-ranging forms of work and employment in Europe”, ILO report, Accessed February 25, 2012 www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/download/bodin.pdf Bogg, A. 2009. ‘The Democratic Aspects of Trade Union Recognition’. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. 2002. ‘Cities and the geographies of actually existing neoliberalism’ Antipode, 349-379 Bryson, A., Gomez, R., & Willman, P.2004. ‘The end of the affair? The decline in employers’ propensity to unionize’, in J. Kelly and P. Willman (eds), Union Organization and Activity, Chapter 8. London: Routledge, pp. 129–149 CenterPiece. 2004. ‘Seeking a premier economy’,CenterPiece,28-31. Accessed February 25, 2012 from http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP166.pdf. Cerny, P. 2008. ‘Embedding neoliberalism: The evolution of a hegemonic paradigm’. The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy, 2(1), 1-46 Coates, D. 2000. Models of Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Cooper, R., & Ellem, B. 2008. The neoliberal state, trade unions and collective bargaining in Australia’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 46(3), 532-554 Dunn, B. 2004. Global Restructuring and the Power of Labour .London: Palgrave. Harman, C. 2007. ‘Theorising neoliberalism’, International Socialism, 1(117) Howell, C. 2004. ‘The state and reconstruction of industrial relations institutions after Fordism: Britain and France compared’. Berkeley Education Research: Oberlin College. Kersley, B., Alpin, J., Forth, A., Bryson, H., Bewley, G.,& Oxenbridge, S. 2006. Inside the workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations survey. London: Routledge. Klees, S. 2002. ‘Privatization and neo-liberalism: Ideology and evidence in rhetorical’, Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(2), 19-26 Knight, K., G., & Latreille, P. 2000. ‘Discipline, dismissals and complaints to employment tribunals’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38 (4), 533–555. Kochan, T. 2006. ‘Adapting industrial relations to serve knowledge-based economies’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(1), 7-20 Louise, A. 2002. Globalisation contested: An international political economy of work. New York: Manchester University Press. Fine, B. 2006. ‘Debating the ‘New’ Imperialism’, Historical Materialism, 14(4). Smith, P. 2009. New labour and the commonsense of neoliberalism: Trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers’ rights’, Industrial Relations Journal, 40(4), 337-355 Torrini, R. 2005. ‘Cross-country difference in self-employment rates: The role of institutions’ Labour Economics, 12(5), 661-683 Waring, P., Lewer, J., & Burgess, J. 2008. ‘Comparing patterns of re-regulation of labour in three liberal market economies’. Australia: University of New Castle, Conference Paper. Read More