Employment Laws in UK Replacing the Collective Laissez-Fair System - Essay Example

Employment laws in UK replacing the collective laissez-fair system “The term ‘collective laissez-faire’ may once have dominated UK policy approaches in the regulation of the employment relationship, but it has now been rendered increasingly redundant by a whole raft of statutory employment rights. Before the introduction of the statutory employment law what was commonly in use was the laissez- fair that lost its significance later after the introduction of the statutory laws. This has made the collective bargaining to lose its significance considerable and instead the statutory laws have become more important. This has resulted into emergence of new employment patterns in addition to employment disputes. This is clear indications that in the modern day workers depend on law rather than on the collective bargain. The rise of groups lobbying for the rights of workers has continually attacked the tenets of laissez faire through the enforcement of the labor laws. Laissez faire, which advocates for equal competitive chances for all hence survival for the fittest is currently seen as discriminative, offensive and unfair. Not only has individuals and organizations come up with new strategies, but the government has also come up with strategies aimed at protecting the consumers and investors. These regulations deal a great blow on the capitalist nature of businessmen as dictated by the laissez-faire policy. According to the Labor & European Law Review Index (2011), there are articles, acceptable by the law that dictates on the associations at the workplace. Among the regulations in the index are the age regulations. This dictates that investors cannot hire children of a given age. Moreover, here are conditions that have to be fulfilled before an investor can hire women, children or the disabled. This restricts the freedom granted by the laissez-faire where one can hire whoever has the skills to complete the task at hand. Another challenge posed by the LERL (2011) is the employment rights, equality and compensation. As it is widely accepted, Laissez faire is centered on the benefit of the investor but not the employees. It encourages manipulation of the workers as long as they fulfill the demands of the employer. An incompetent worker is automatically dismissed. However, with the coming of the regulations, these freedoms are curtailed. The freedom of information means that the workers are no longer regulated. Access to information means that the workers are fully aware of their rights. They are therefore empowered to fight for their rights. On the other hand, the employers’ hands are tied as the labour regulations allow for such. Therefore, the employer ceases becoming the top-most authority, as is the case in laissez-faire. The employer also cannot fire the workers at will since that would be a breach of contract and the employer can be arraigned in court for that. Through these regulations, the employer losses the much control that is availed by the laissez-faire system. The UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) has also formulated policies that are aimed at bringing a balanced and sustainable growth. On the face of it, this may seem like a great idea, but not in the eyes of investors who believe in the Laissez faire. Under these policies are some policy areas of interest. According to the BIS (2011), these areas include business law, better regulation, consumer issues and business sectors among others. These are the key areas that threaten the continuity and functionality of the laissez faire system. Of greatest impact is the business law (BIS, 2011). This law is divided into segments which dictate how various functions in a business entity should be carried out. This alone inhibits the freedom of investors. Furthermore, these regulations call for corporate governance. This comes in line with the corporate social responsibility. Under this regulation, the investor should ensure that the community benefits from the presence of the business entity among them. This goes against the laissez faire code since laissez faire serves the interest of the best competitor. It is concerned with what the investor can get from the community, not the vice-versa. Though the Criminal Investigations and prosecution is encouraged under the new policies (BIS, 2011) advocating for fair trade seems to map to the belief in laissez faire, there is a difference in ideologies. While these regulations call for measures to prevent exploitation and fraud, the understanding in laissez faire is to give a free environment where the investor is free to employ his aggressive means so as to retain a competitive edge. From these observations, it is evident that new business regulations have actually rendered the laissez faire dysfunctional. According to Monks (2003, p. 78) unions have used employment rights to make the workers to act in addition to applying the same in order to make the employees to take actions pertaining to certain issues at workplace. In the United Kingdom, the unions have acted towards ensuring that legal strategies and also constitutional rights are put into use. According to study carried out by Kahn-Freund (1954) in the early 20th century, relationships between workers were majorly regulated via agreements that were voluntary in nature. In additionally, they were represented by the trade union officials. Before the establishment of the employment statutory laws in addition to special labor courts, labor inspectorate to check on neither various relationship employment operations nor any form of framework to intervene incase of any dispute. Moreover according to (Monks, 2003, p. 78) the existing statutory laws did not establish any form of conducting the negotiations., their content or level and due to this the agreements that were arrived at were not enforceable by law. Additionally, the existing laws failed to impinge on the collective bargaining and as a result of this the employment right of every individual was only enforced through collective bargains and not through law. The existing contract maintained that the existing relations between n the unions and the employees should be carried out on a voluntary basis and not through the use of statutory laws. In this aspect the unions and the employees had to negotiate rather than legislate (Monks, 2003, p. 78). After the laissez-faire employment laws were later put in place to guide the working relations between the employees and the unions. This resulted into boundaries being put in place outlining aspects that employers can do and those he/she cannot do in employing the staff in addition to outlining the entitlements or rights that should be accorded to the workers. According to research carried out by Monks (2003, p. 78) there had been development of government imposed regulations which are called red-tape. Red tape is defines as the administration burden that takes part in implementing or complying with regulations in addition to being used to certain degree of the entitlements or rights of the employers. Nevertheless, the business community in the United Kingdom and in specific the organizations of various employers are against excessive application of the red-tape. For instance the British chamber of commerce has complained that the government is excessively using the red-tape (Monks, 2003, p. 78). Another study carried out by Kersley et al (2006, p. 34) further pointed out that most companies prefer to have organizational power rather than legal frameworks in place. Moreover, UK tribunal systems that handle the rights of employers have more individualized in nature replacing the earlier liassez-faire system. This particular tribunal has greatly concentrated on fighting for the employees whose rights have been infringed. Moreover, the tribunal is characterized by demarcations that are rigid in nature that explains the existing boundaries between the collective employment law and the employees. Additionally, use of law made the unions to be in a position to provide traditional strategies in situations whereby the work solidarity and bargaining power were not clearly put into place (Lea, 2001, p. 90). Moreover, use of laws provided a firmer basis for addressing the concerns of the members in addition to persuading employers to become members. In this case the law has provided inspiration, consolidation and confirmation as a way through which the workers shared grievances and also as a tool for inspiring one another. Moreover, the employers for fought for their rights using the statutory laws (Honeyball, 2010, p. 65). Moreover, the application of laws totally replaced the lassie fair and motivated behavior change among the employees in that they supported the objectives of the trade unions. Study carried out by Davies & Freedland, (1993, p. 117) indicated that there was limited regulatory laws in United Kingdom in early 1960s and 1970s. Additionally, the same study reported that employment relations in the United Kingdom were majorly regulated by a system known as laissez-fair. Therefore the state was not in any way involved with employment relations during the industrial period. This made individuals to have the freedom of entering any form of contractual agreement (Honeyball, 2010, p. 78). However, the existing trade unions ensured that the rights of the employees were not abused in any manner. However this changed with the introduction of redundancy payment act which was introduced in 1965. This particular act ensured that workers were compensated in case they were sacked by their employers due to the fact that the company was experiencing economic difficulties. In addition to that a tribunal was established to put in place various ways through which employment law could be enforced. In 1970s, another statutory law was put in place. This law was the health and safety act which was not only consolidated but also expanded to include all workplaces in the safety and health act which was established in 1974. Another act which aimed at protecting the discrimination of workers on the basis of their sex was introduced and this act was known as equal pay and sex discrimination law. In 1975 another law which was known as the employment protection act was introduced to provide maternity rights to employees. According to study carried out by Davies & Freedland, (1993, p. 117) the attention was later shifted to collective employment law during the governments of Thatcher in 1980s. This made the trade unions to be highly regulated and as a result the number under which the trade unions could organize any sort of strike was reduced. In 1980s, as a result of European directives, employment relationships on an individual perspective further expanded in 1980s and in 1981, transfer undertaking regulations were also put into place. Moreover, there was expansion of health and safety regulation in addition to the act pertaining to equal pay. This made the law protecting employees against any hazardous substance to be introduced. In conclusion, a study carried out by Anderman (2000, p. 78) further indicated that the government continued to use a number of laws which aimed at regulating the power of various trade unions. Additionally, the laws established by the government extended the health and safety act in order to meet the requirements set up by the European Union pertaining to the rights of employees. Nonetheless, on the basis of individual employment law, the most recognizable and important act was the passing of the disability discrimination act which was passed in 1995. This changed the manners in which employers treated individuals who were suffering from long term illness in addition to regulating elements pertaining to their dismissal from workplace. References Anderman, S.D. (2000) Labour Law: Management Decisions and Workers’ Rights (4th edn., OUP). Davies, P. & Freedland, M. (1993). Labour Legislation and Public Policy (OUP). Honeyball, S. (2010). Honeyball and Bowers’ Textbook on Labour Law 11th edn., (OUP). Kersley B. et al (2006) Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Abingdon: Routledge. Khan-Freund, O. (1954) ‘Legal Framework’ in A. Flanders and H. Clegg (eds) The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain. Oxford: Blackwell. Lea, R. (2001) The work-life balance and all that: the re-regulation of the labour market. London: Institute of Directors. Monks, J. (2003) ‘A Eurovision at Work’ Warwick Papers in Industrial relations, 70. Industrial Relations Research Unit: University of Warwick. Read More