Managing Employment Relations with and without Trade Unions - Essay Example

COMPARE AND CONTRAST MANAGING EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS WITH AND WITHOUT TRADE UNIONS. by + Name City, State Date Introduction It is without doubt that employee relations would be very different if trade unions were to be taken out of the picture. Before the establishment of trade unions and the laws that govern them, employee relations were totally different from what they are today. Since their implementation trade unions have taken the role of lubricating employee relations. This is however not to mean that trade unions are without fault. It is a well accepted opinion that wage premiums are generated by union employee relations are not always smooth. A some years ago it was discovered that trade unions in the workplace are a lubricant as opposed to the previously held notion that they are an irritant. Several employee employer surveys over the years have allowed for this nation to be put to test in real life workplace situation (Blanpain & Dimitrova, 2010). Relevance of Trade Unions It is a fact that workers will perceive the management-employee relations based on practices and even structures that that underpin the relations between the management plus the workers on the individual bases and at large. Not to be forgotten also is the employee’s individual experiences at work as well as their reference frames. It is an obvious thing the opinions of the management-employee relations will vary across the hierarchy at the work place (Bendix, 2001). Managers and especially HR mangers will be less likely to be in criticism of the system as opposed to other employees. This varying opinion may also be caused by the fact that employee needs may differ from those of the managers. A differing opinion may also be as a result of the fact that the management operates on different reference frames, hence working on different information than the employees. As case in point, it is not unusual for a manager to interpret grumbling employees as a form of blowing off steam. While it may be in some cases true that they are letting off steam it is not always the case so there is a need for a mediator to unite the two (Fleming, 2004). It may be hypothesized that unions a perpetually in a bid to obtain higher wages for their members than they would ordinarily be offered were they absent. Some may also argue that trade unions result in the employers losing out to the employees when it comes to share of profits to the disadvantage of the firms. If this line of thought is followed then there is high chances for conflict to araise between the firms and the trade unions. Should the firms resist the trade unions, then the unions would be forced to mobilize workers leading to strong anti-management views to the detriment of both (Hollinshead, Nicholls & Tailby, 2003). Resulting to pay bargaining may lead to similar results where there is a need for wage demands need to be met while there is competition for resources in the face of fixed budgets set by officials and in some cases politicians. If for instance one was to take a closer look at where the unions are functioning effectively it is easy to see that union voices lead to improved relations. This is done by creating avenues for effective communication as only unions can (Sisson & Storey, 2000). It is thus clear that in theory the effectiveness of unions is based on the amount of weight they put on monopoly they hold in comparison to their voice roles. It is only logical that for unions to be more effective that they place greater emphasis on their voice roles and less on their monopoly. The relationship between employment relationships and trade unions, however is determined by a range of varying factors making the effects of a union depends on the arrangements within the institution and sometimes beyond it. Some of these factors cause effects in, the union age premium, lay representation and bargaining arrangements (Singh & Kumar, 2011). Bargaining arrangements. Before the implementation or in the absence of trade unions it was very hard for employees and the management to agree on any matter that affected them both. Each employee would have their own opinion and claim making it very hard to build consensus. Bringing the various employees from different factions of the firm with their differing opinions to all be on the same foot to allow for dialogue would be highly complicated. Even after this was done there would still be the work of convincing them to see anything the way the management saw it (Mumford, Hickey & Matthies, 2006).While this would chiefly be the headache of the management it would also have detrimental effects on the employees since the management if they wanted to they could divide and conquer. Enter the trade unions. At the beginning there would be ordinarily be one union representing the entire employee body. This worked very well for the employers, but there were problems with the employees from various departments complaining that the representation was not fair to all. This led to formation of more unions which ensured that each department was fairly represented (Peetz, 1999). These various unions lead to the employees feeling that they were well represented and made it easier for the management in bargaining with employees making relations easier. This is however not without hitches, there are those employers who play on the different unions that are in the position to act as a substitutes on behalf of others by putting them against each other. Some of these unions are in some cases their own enemies by engaging in leapfrog claims in attempts to outdo each other instead of working together for the benefit of the employees. With all due considerations, however, bargaining is easier where unions are involved (Penninx & Roosblad, 2000).. Lay representation. One would anticipate that in the precence of union lay representation that management-employee relations would be highly strained. This is because having a voice with which to air their grivances employees are more likely to do so. In the absence of union representation, employees are more timid about talking about their problems hence a sort of calm is likely to be felt (Truss, Mankin & Kelliher, 2012). This is not necessarily a good thing. Apart from this fact information that comes from lay representation may bring into focus shortcomings of the management. Some unions may use this information to galvanise support for themselves to the detriment of relations. It is however a growing trend with trade unions to attach greater importance to deal with members grievances by engaging the employers directly thus avoiding needless legal tussles. In the various events that representatives are effective in playing their role, they more often than not nature a very conducive employment relation. This has lead to higher involvement of trade unions being welcomed by both employers and employees. It has been found that where union lay representation is full time on site, relations between employees and management has been smoother as opposed to part time presence. Full time presence means that problems can be anticipated and avoided long before they happen meaning there is smoother workflow as would not be the case where there is stoppage each time a problem arises (Tisdell & Hartley, 2008). While most employers may consider unions a waste of time, money and resourses such employer may not have all the facts right and indeed they end up missing out some important benefits of their employees being in trade unions. For one unions being as they are represent workers across the board from different organisations. They are therefore likely to have a perspective on the organisation that the employer may not have considered having worked with similar organisation. These different perspectives may mean the difference between a smooth workflow and a complete breakdown due to employer employee relations. A key example is when it comes to legal matters. Where there are good relations between the employer and the union representatives, the employer gains very good and sound advice on such matters from the more experienced representative. This experience proves useful especially in times of difficulty such as times of business transfers or proposed collective redundancy (Kubr, 2007). If it happen that the employer has shown interest in union representatives to listen to the grievances of the employees, the union representatives will then pass this information along to the employees making for smoother operations. Even in cases where a decision may likely face opposition, if the management can convince the union that the decision is necessary for the survival of the business the idea is usually less likely to face stiff criticism. There is also an advantage in consultation because combined with the union experience; input from the workers helps the management to make better informed decisions as opposed to making unilateral decisions that may result in stalemates when it comes to implementation. From simple decisions such as the type of equipment to acquire to complicated ones such as marketing strategies it is important to involve the unions if such decisions will affect employees (Williams & Adam-Smith, 2010). Another advantage to unions is the fact that the employer has a single access point to the employee body as opposed to dealing with the workers on an individual bases. The most crucial thing to consider is that after agreeing to dealing with a certain union the employer may be obliged to disclose certain sensitive information to these unions. There are however real disadvantages to having employees within trade unions which will directly or indirectly affect both the organisation as well as relations within. One such disadvantage is that on average unionised workers earn up to 22% more than non-unionised workers. With the implementation of collective bargaining, employees will usually discuss pay and other issues such as working conditions and benefits before sending their representative for the negotiation. When this is the case production costs will almost certainly go up as a result (Wilkinson, 2014). All too often when an agreement cannot be reached it often leads to strikes that are allowed under law. Employers are limited in firing striking workers so this is usually used to bully employers to give in to their demands. Not only do strikes breed bad blood between the management and employees but also lead to wastage of time and thus lead to loses. Unionisation also cheat well deserving employees of their rewards as unions put more emphasis on the seniority of members as opposed to due merit. This translate to a certain level of unfairness. For instance in the situation where an manager need to terminate a number of worker, the diligent thing to do would terminate those deemed to be least productive but according to unions u are expected to terminate those most recently hired which in some ways beats reason. Unions also make it hard for decisions such as termination and demotion to sail through without opposition. Law suits are more common with unionised workers that non-unionised counterparts. Unions also burden the account department with deductions and disbursement from the workers paycheques to the various unions. This takes time and in some instances costs money (Zagelmeyer, 2004). Conclusion. It is unarguable that trade unions have their merits and demerits, both to the employer and employee. It is has to be recognised that they take part in an integral part in the relations between employers and employees. The effectiveness of any union employer relation lies squarely with the cooperation between the two. Where there is cohesiveness all parties involved stand to gain and vice versa. References. BLANPAIN, R., & DIMITROVA, D. N. (2010).Seafarers rights in the globalized maritime industry.Zuidpoolsingel, Kluwer Law International. BENDIX, S. (2001).Industrial relations in South Africa. Lansdowne, Juta. FLEMING, L. (2004). Excel HSC business studies.Glebe, N.S.W., Pascal Press. HOLLINSHEAD, G., NICHOLLS, P., & TAILBY, S. (2003). Employee relations. Harlow, Pearson Education SISSON, K., & STOREY, J. (2000).The realities of human resource management: managing the employment relationship. Buckingham [u.a.], Open Univ. Press. SINGH, P. N., & KUMAR, N. (2011).Employee relations management.New Delhi, Pearson Education South Asia.http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/?fpi=9788131726013 MUMFORD, E., HICKEY, S., & MATTHIES, H. (2006).Designing human systems: an agile update to ETHICS. [S.l.], Lulu Press. PEETZ, D. (1999). Unions in a contrary world: the future of the Australian trade union movement. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. PENNINX, R., & ROOSBLAD, J. (2000).Trade unions, immigration, and immigrants in Europe, 1960-1993: a comparative study of the attitudes and actions of trade unions in seven West European countries. New York, Berghahn books. TRUSS, C., MANKIN, D., & KELLIHER, C. (2012).Strategic human resource management. Oxford [etc.], Oxford University Press. TISDELL, C. A., & HARTLEY, K. (2008).Microeconomic policy: a new perspective. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar KUBR, M. (2007).Management consulting: a guide to the profession. Geneva, International Labour Office. WILLIAMS, S., & ADAM-SMITH, D. (2010).Contemporary employment relations: a critical introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. WILKINSON, A. (2014). Handbook of research on employee voice.Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing.http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1681110. ZAGELMEYER, S. (2004).Governance structures and the employment relationship: determinants of employer demand for collective bargaining in Britain. Oxford [u.a.], Lang. Read More