Strikes and Employment Relations - Essay Example

 Introduction Conflicts are natural and normal life aspects. Conflicts can be constructive or destructive and can be negative or positive for an organisation. Conflicts become critical issues in firms when destructive conflicts become excessive. Organisations have been suffering from conflicts for a long time. During the early industrialisation phase trade union conflicts were a major pandemic issue for managements. However, with the decline in trade unions, there is an increasing research on new sources or causes of conflict within the workplace. The purpose of the study is to find out the relationship between conflict and employee-employer relationship. Changes in the definition and description of workforce conflicts across various time periods will provide an exhaustive understanding on whether conflict can be considered as an influential feature of contemporary employment relations or not. Strikes can be described as temporary disruption of work by certain groups of workers or employees. The objective behind strikes is expressing grievance or enforcing particular demand. Strikes can be temporary and in severe cases may lead to permanent closure of the factory or manufacturing site. In general, strikes have always been hampering for the company as it involves loss of time, money and productivity. However, strikes have been used as an influential method by worker unions to put their demands in front of the management. Strikes are conducted with specific and calculative purposes. As a result of its high influence and potential harm, they are often considered as biggest manifestation of the industrial conflict. Nonetheless, looking at the present decline in the number of strikes, it cannot be concluded that strikes are the only source of conflict between employees or workers and management. Yet, it cannot be concluded that strikes have lost their importance or are shrinking. From a worldwide perspective, it is clear that strikes are still a major source of communication and interaction in many parts of the globe. The interconnectivity between employment relations and human resource management can be understood by associating them with different managerial ideologies. For instance, unitarist ideology is dominated by autocratic and authoritarian style, where managerial control over decision making in disciplined and under strict control. In another form, unitarism can also be considered as a more paternalist management approach. During the initial phase of industrial revolution this management approach was hugely popularised as employers were regarded as the caretakers and responsible members for welfare of the employees (Strauss, 2006). This was followed by the pluralism ideology, according to which, management styles were compelled to accept the various conflicting groups and their increasing influence with the organisation as well as decision making process. Interaction between employee relation and human resource management can also be understood through an analysis framework. This framework studies recognition of trade union with respect to unitarism and pluralism management philosophies. Companies focussing on both approaches can be termed as partners, where collective mechanisms and individualism are combined for employee management. These strategies are prevalent in public sector enterprises. Traditional pluralists are companies exercising consultation, information sharing and negotiation across various issues via representatives of trade unions. Next, there are firms that focus on individual labour management and soft human resource management. They are known as individualists. Also, firms lacking all of the above features were termed as black hole. Among developed nations, United Kingdom can be studied, in order to understand the current status of strikes and its influence on employment relations. During majority of the 20th decade, UK trade unions were considered legitimate tactics for representing interests of the employees and bargaining for wages and time (Gall, 1999). However, with deregulation of labour market and economy, greater freedom was given to managers in order to quickly respond to environmental and organisational changes. As a result, employment protections were minimised and restrictions were increased which impacted the trade union’s ability to influence. The peak of trade union’s economic and political power was till 1970. There have been significant declines in the level of strike activities since 1970s. During these times, majority of strikes occurred to oppose rationalization initiatives. At present, the number of work places having trade unions is reduced to half of what it was during 1970s (Drinkwater and Ingram, 2005). Trade unions have significantly influenced as well as regulated UK’s employment relationship through activities such as, collective bargaining of working practices, pay and employment conditions. The steep decline in the strike activities can be attributed to various factors. First, with the establishment of various labour laws and policies and amendments in terms of wages and time helped in settling a lot of conflicts between workers and employees. Second, there has been a decrease in the power of worker unions in the recent past. Employment relations have also faced dramatic changes as a result of the evolving organisational behaviour and psychology. However, the overall union density across United Kingdom has become more complex. Union activities have significantly increased in public sector enterprises while it has decreased in private sector firms. In private sector firms too, retail sector is the only formal with highest union density. It can also be observed that union density has become a global phenomenon. Research studies have also shown that through union activities have declined in major developed nations, they are still exerting a big influence in developing nations like India (Godard, 2011). Many factors can be attributed for the decline of union influence and strength. The global economy has seen a major shift from manufacturing to service eroding the membership and activities of trade unions. Traditionally, trade unions have lesser impact on services sector. Infrastructure in services sector is small giving less space for trade unions to flourish. Changes in political climate also influenced the overall strength of trade unions in various sectors. Governments started to treat trade unions as impediments to global competitiveness and started making policies and laws further weakening the influence and power of trade unions. For instance, stringent government rules were introduced to ban those workplaces used by employees and workers while joining or preparing for particular unions. Legalism was increased to transfer employment relations powers in management’s favour. Even after establishment of labour government in the year 1997, majority of trade union rights were abstained (Wilmot and Hocker, 2007). This decline was favourable for management as they were given the full power to control and manage these unions who were no longer in power. This was subsequently followed by decentralisation of leadership and activities among trade unions and growth of individualism, which further minimised contributions of trade unions (Gall, 2013). This steep decline in global strike activities can be contributed to a popular perception of peace in the industry. Most of the government as well as employers took strikes in a very negative aspect as they resulted in loss of time, revenue and employee productivity. Thus, decease in strike activities was welcomed across various sectors and various regions. However, an important questions that remains unanswered is that whether decrease in strike activities can be used as a tool or measure to evaluate the level of discontent among industrial workforce or not. It is also critical to find out whether it actually represents increased satisfaction or the decline in strike activities is masking the continued discontent as well as higher usage of other forms for expressing discontent. It cannot be concluded that discontent among employees have decreased. In fact, level of dissatisfaction can be seen in various spheres and sectors. Nevertheless, the modern employee is changes and so have his/her demands and expectations from the workplace. Contemporary employees are more skilled and informed and are not ready to settle for meagre pays and amenities. Qualifications and skills are directly proportional to demands and expectations. Also, there has been a substantial rise in workforce environment. In addition, the face of global firms is also changing resulting in an overall change in infrastructure, functions and working environment demanding more skilled and technology equipped professionals. Contemporary workplace conflicts are increasingly dispersed across various smaller and less understood spheres. According to Jaffee (2008), workplace conflict can be attributed to two areas; individual tensions arising from unique objective and goals of individuals and labour division when often tends to weaken unity and encourage workplace conflicts. Both horizontal and vertical organisational division can become source of conflict. According to Masters and Albright (2002), conflict sources are much broader compared to what explained by Jaffee. According to them, conflict can arise from organizational, workplace and environmental sources as well as individual sources. These conflict sources were further elaborated and categorized by De Dreu and Gelfand (2008). These three contemporary conflict sources are explained below; 1. Resource conflicts: As resources within firms are limited, there is a constant competition and fight going on for them. This gives rise to conflicts at three major organizational levels; individual, group and entire management. For instance, employees with individual rationalities might defect into activities such as, working slowly, stealing, least contribution or showing up late. On the other hand, employees with collective rationalities will help out and work hard this indicates a continuous interest conflict between individually and collectively rational workers. 2. Identity conflicts: Sedikedes and Strube (1997) have argued that most workers ad employees endeavour a positive viewpoint about them and convince both others and themselves that they are valuable through self-enhancement formulas. This results in a self-inflated view and influences the overall self-esteem. It has also been observed that workers and employees with lesser self esteem are unable to deal with negativity and criticism. 3. Social and cognitive conflicts: It is based on three assumptions. First are those employees tried to be positive about them. Second is that they pose limited rational abilities and third is they are always seeking social validation and acceptance which if not agreed by others, can give rise to workplace conflict. Apart from the above factors, present day employees are increasingly looking for opportunity which can enhance their dignity and self-respect. According to Hodson (2001), dignity can also be a critical source of workplace conflict. Five situations were identified creating conflict. First one was mismanagement meaning incompetent, irresponsible and inadequately trained managers, creating inept work environment. Second situation is abuse, which means inconsistent, arbitrary and inappropriate power over workers and employees. Third is overwork, which indicates exploitation of workers. The fourth situation is autonomy challenges referring to conditions, where the decision making power of skilled employees is taken away. The fifth condition is disagreement of worker employment, which applies in conditions where operations are dominated by non-bureaucratic teams. Quantitative research across workplace conflict The topic of workplace research has always been of sheer interest among researchers and human resource academics. Spector and Bruk-Lee (2008) have identified two major resource streams on conflicts at workplace. One is conflict management styles and other is measuring the cost and amount of conflicts. CPP organized a huge research survey for workplace conflict. 5000 employees were interviewed across nine nations in America and Europe. According to the survey results, on an average, an employee spends minimum 2 hours every week handling workplace conflicts. The annual conflict cost in US alone was found to be 359 billion dollars (CPP Inc., 2008). It was also identified that employees experience interpersonal conflicts in almost half of their total lifetime working period. Warring egos and personality clashes are most common categories of conflicts occurring in offices. Second most popular cause identified was stress. According to the participants, destructive conflicts were the worst form of workplace issues experienced by them. Another major factor to consider is that these conflicts are only representing losses, in terms of cost. According to McCrindle (2004), both immeasurable and measurable costs should be taken into consideration. Measurable costs are staff turnover, recruitment, absentee, training costs, legal and productivity costs. Immeasurable conflict costs include damaged relationship between employees and employers, loss of motivation as well as strained customer-company relationship. According to Spector and Bruk-Lee (2008), “Conflict has also been shown to be associated with employee depression, negative emotional states, psychosomatic complaints, life dissatisfaction, burnout and psychiatric morbidity. It has serious effects on employee health” Conclusion and Recommendations The above study provided a clear understanding that new age workplace conflicts are not limited to trade unions or industrial conflicts. These are more complex, complicated as well as dispersed over various phases of work life. It has been seen that new age workforce are more skilled, informed and technologically equipped. At the same time, their conflict issues range from stress, self-respect and dignity to cross-cultural incompetency, work pressure and clash of objectives. At present, there is a dire need to harmonize human resource management functions in organizations and employment relations. However, there are few conditions which need to be satisfied. The organization will have to change the overall attitude of both trade unions as well as management. Both employees and employers should start acknowledging growth link, which binds the enterprise and overall employee development. There should be understanding that employee and employer interests are common as well as divergent; for instance, the issue of productivity is important for both employees and enterprise. Both employers and employees should be ready to accommodate and compromise for each other. Trade unions, on their part, should be more prepared to engage in activities of the human resource departments and not over emphasize on their agendas. HR department, on the other hand, can start training sessions and seminars for trade union workers on aspects ranging from leadership, motivation to equipment handing and better work-life balance. The trade unions should also ensure that their collective bargaining strategies are properly designed to meet the requirements or objectives of the organization without sacrificing core demands. Reference List CPP Inc., 2008. Workplace conflict and how businesses can harness it to thrive. [pdf] Global Human Capital Report. Available at: < http://img.en25.com/Web/CPP/Conflict_report.pdf> [Accessed 20 February 2014]. De Dreu, K. and Gelfand, M., 2008. Conflict in the Workplace. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Drinkwater, S. and Ingram, P., 2005. Have Industrial Relations in the UK Really Improved? Labor, 19(2), pp. 373-398 Gall, G., 1999. A Review of Strike Activity in Western Europe at the End of the Second Millennium. Employee Relations, 21(4), pp. 357 – 377.  Gall, G., 2013. Quiescence Continued? Recent Strike Activity in Nine Western European Economies. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(4), pp. 667-691.  Godard, J., 2011. What Has Happened to Strikes? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(2), pp. 282-305 Hodson, R., 2001. Dignity at work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jaffee, D., 2008. Conflict at work throughout the history of organizations. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Masters, M. and Albright, R., 2002. The complete guide to conflict resolution in the workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association. McCrindle, M., 2004. The costs of conflict. London, England: LexisNexis. Sedikedes, C. and Strube, M., 1997. Self evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Academic Press. Spector, P. and Bruk-Lee, V., 2008. Conflict, health and wellbeing. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Strauss, G., 2006. Worker participation – some under-considered issues. Industrial Relations, 45(4), pp. 778–803 Wilmot, W. and Hocker, J., 2007. Interpersonal Conflict. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Read More