The Concept of Employment Relations - Essay Example

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEW ACTORS IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS IN PROVIDING A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION By University Date (Word count 2499) Introduction Employment relations can be described in broad terms and is evolving every day. It, therefore, has a no definite definition but narrowing down to a business environment, the international labour organisation (2011) describes employment relations as the relationship that exist between the employer and the employee. This relationship is considered to have legal implications meaning there are rights and obligations that must be maintained and met respectively (“Employment Relationship”, 2011). Various actors have been fighting for the rights of employees and protecting them from exploitation by their employers. They also have been ensuring there is equity among employees and efficiency to show fairness in the running of organisations (Rasmussen, 2005). Some of the old actors in employment relations include national unions especially the labour unions and the state`s government. Due to the failure of effectiveness of these actors, new actors have emerged who are relevant and effectively fight for the employees’ rights. The new actors include non-union bodies such as; company councils, works councils, consultative councils/committees (CCs), joint consultative committees (JCCs), staff associations and independent organisations such as; NGOs, HR consultancy firms, employment agencies, chaplains, health advisors and trainers, Citizens’ advice bureaus, global union federations, employment arbitrators, grassroots activists, social movements and counsellors. This essay henceforth evaluates the effectiveness of these new actors in employment relations in providing a viable alternative to employee`s representation. The new actors in employment relations are mostly comprised of non-union employee`s representation bodies and some independent organisations all with the aim of fighting for the employee`s rights and interests (“Employment Relationship”, 2011). Non-union bodies refer to those employees who do not belong to any labour unions. They have emerged due to the inadequacy of the labour unions to handle employees grievances effectively and failing to represent them properly. The company councils, works councils, consultative councils/committees (CCs), Joint Consultative Committees (JCCs), staff associations NGOs, consultancy firms, employment arbitrators and activists are some of non-union bodies who have shown interests in the fight for employee rights and interests in their workplaces. These new actors have come up with new ways of handling employee`s grievances and negotiating with their employers to the benefit of the employees compared to the old ways that were used by the unions and the governments (“Employment Relationship”, 2011). They also help in eradicating the corruption that had been prevalent when the labour unions used to be the only way for the employees to reach their grievances to the employers. Many labour unions were believed to conspire with employers and taking favours from them thus not doing their core functions of fighting for the workers. The states also had some domination on the employees and could not honour the agreements they could make concerning the employees complaints (“Employment Relationship”, 2011). This led to the formation of new actors who are independent and had interests in fighting for the employee`s rights. Evaluation of the New Actor’s Effectiveness The new actors have been effective in fighting for the employee`s rights and interests though not without some failures at some point. The non-union bodies, for instance, the company councils and the works councils have been effective in employee representation. These bodies form a strong bargaining agent that constitutes members of the organisations. The agent has a bargaining power that helps it fight for equality and while ensuring the management maintains ethical democracy in the organisation. They eradicate cases of favoritism and unfair promotions. Democracy is also empirically followed hence ensuring the management enforces the law as expected by the company`s constitution. The employees find the non-profit bodies more effective to labour unions since they don’t contribute any money to these formations. Any member of a labour union must contribute a sum of money which many employees don’t approve because the money is not equivalent to the representation of the union on behalf of the employee. The unions are always at laxity instead of fighting for their customer`s rights (Taras, 2006). In addition, the non-union bodies are effective according to various managements because they exclude any external influence that could be caused by the labour union. For many years now, the labour unions have been associated with industrial unrest and distortion of organisation`s structures because of their influences to the employees. This adversely affects the performance of an organisation. Finally, the non-union bodies create mechanisms which force the management to enhance its responsiveness on any issue raised by the employees in a firm (Gallon, 2003). Apart from the non-union bodies, there are independent organisations which are new actors in employment relations (Abbott, Heery & Williams, 2012). Examples of such organisations are the civil societies. The civil society organisations include the advocacy bodies, social organisations, non-governmental organisations and charities and voluntary associations. The civil society organisations seek to represent the interest of workers in various capacities and different organisations. These organisations have effectively exercised their powers by employers while fighting for the employee`s interests and rights (Abbott, Heery & Williams, 2011). They have devised a number of strategies that have enabled them to represent the workers effectively across all the diversity. Firstly, the civil societies have achieved effectiveness by setting up cooperative relations with employers and also partnering with them. By civil societies getting into the internal system of an organisation, they effectively influence the decisions of the management to suit the employees. They always launch arguments that are based on fairness while making decisions so as not to affect the employee negatively. Many of these civil societies have been using cases to demonstrate to managements the importance of mutual benefits between the employee and the employer. They insist on the benefits the employer gets by not exploiting the worker and treating the worker with respect. Furthermore, the civil societies have always been at the front line to influence the states policies especially if they aren’t in favour of the workers. They offer the workers some protection by influencing on the public policies which might oppress them. The civil societies have also been given mandate to storm any workplace to restrict and reduce any management behaviour that is oppressive to the workers (Abbott, Heery & Williams, 2011: 2012) Finally, the Citizen`s Advice Bureaux, which is a charitable organisation is a new actor in the employment relation that has been in the front line to fight for the employees’ rights and interests. Its core purpose has been to provide advises concerning employment. The increase in influence of the CABx has seen a decline in the number of labour unions representing the employees. This is due to the employees contacting the CABx through their non-union groups to seek for employment advises. In general, employees always seek to get that party that will represent them and its effect seen. Many unions don’t deliver as the non-union settings do. Many employees have therefore been withdrawing from the labour unions because they are not effective at all. Such organisations as CABx arm the employees to make them confident enough to face the employers and fight for their rights through their formed non-union groups (Abbott, 2006). Limitations of the New Actors in Employment Relations Even though the new actors in employment relations are effective, they also have some limitations that in one way or another limit their effectiveness in employment relations (Abbott, Heery & Williams, 2011). They include; many management bodies in companies disregard the non-union bodies. They view them as being formed towards increasing the organisations productivity while promoting understanding of the company`s policies. This is downgrading the efforts of these bodies because their aims are different from the decisions of the managements. This hence demoralizes the formation of non-union groups because they won`t be taken seriously by the management. Furthermore, the non-union groupings do not increase negotiation or bargaining power as compared to the labour unions. This is because, they have a low number of participants compared to those of labour unions. They also fear to attack the management because they can be sacked anytime. However, belonging to a labour union provides some form of immunity to the workers because they are so many and cannot be terminated promptly (Abbott, Heery & Williams, 2012). In addition, the non-union bodies have no influence on the management`s decision-making. This is because; they are not represented at the time the company is making major decisions. They are receiver of already made decisions and have to work according to the expectations of the management. These groups are, therefore, not in a position to change the decision even if it does not favor the employees, in addition to, not to being professionally trained to handle such roles, thus failing to deliver compared to labour unions. The civil societies, on the other hand, have got some limitations such as their proposed practices failing due to the organisation`s lack of resources and their commitments. Some organisations don’t mind about their image, and they would therefore not mind about their image tarnished by the civil society in the public (Abbott, Heery & Williams, 2011: 2012). Finally, the CABx which is a charitable organisation has got a limitation concerning the capability of employees facing the management and fighting for their rights. It might have some negative implications which in one way or another might lead to employee`s sanctions since they are powerless. Theoretical Perspective on Employment Relation There are three major theoretical perspectives on employment relations helps one understand and analyse the employment relations properly. They do have a different interpretation of employee`s unrest in the workplaces and propose rules and regulations of unions on containing the employee`s issues. They also propose on setting up of job regulations that guide the employees and the employers. This helps in reducing the conflicts in the workplaces (Kaufman, 2004). The three perspectives include the unitarist, pluralist and Marxist perspectives. The three approaches are still relevant in showing the guidelines of how new actors in employment relations should implement their roles in fighting for the employee`s rights and interests (Abbott, 2006). Unitarist Perspective According to the unitarist perspective, the companies and firms are regarded to have a loyalty culture that has been created by people being together as a group. People are expected to be integrated and in harmony in organisational set ups. The employees are therefore sharing a common purpose because they all want to maintain some harmony and unity. The employers, on the other hand, importantly recognize the corporation created by the employees because they prospect on good results from such cooperation (Hoel & Beale, 2006). Every employee must be loyal in such a set up so as to enable the creation of cooperative organisation. In this case, the unions are not necessary because there is a harmonious cooperation between the employers and the employees (Hoel & Beale, 2006). In relation to new actors in employment relations, their presence in such settings is very important. The reason behind this is because the new actors such as works councils associate with the employee one on one, thus giving them a chance to talk about their grievances. The works council can also influence the company`s decision making because they are integrated fully in such activities in the company. Some of the new actors are, therefore, relevant to unitarist perspectives. Pluralist Perspective According to the pluralist perspective, companies and firms are formed by different groups which have their leaders and followers. These groups also have very conflicting and opposite goals and perspectives. In this case, the employers and the employees form these groups, which are divergent in their objectives and goals. Each group has their loyal followers who believe they can only gain satisfaction in their workplaces by supporting those particular groups. The employers form the management while the employees form the unions and groupings in the workplaces (Guest, 2002). The role of management in these companies is to persuade the employees to follow the company`s set objectives and set rules. On the other hand, the employees pass their grievances through their unions to the management (Guest, 2002). In this perspective, the two parties that are the management and employees always conflict because they are parallel in views. Labour unions are not preferred in situations where the employees and the management are conflicting because the two parties have different loyalties and fight for their benefit. For these organisations to work properly, there must be devised ways such as non-union bodies formed by the employees that discuss the matters affecting the employees with the management (Guest, 2002). Such new actors are, therefore, necessary for such situations because they might help in bringing harmony rather than bringing to the third party. The unions mostly work to break the created cooperation by introducing negative energies into the employees forcing them to fight against the employers instead of coming to terms with the employers (Della Porta & Keating, 2008). Marxist Perspective Another term used to describe the Marxist perspective is the radical perspective. It is radical because it sees things in a manner that they are against the expected that is, they are against history. For instance, according to this perspective, the society has become more capitalist, thus forming conflicting interests between capital and labour. These conflicting interests create some power fighting in employment whereby the management uses its powers to oppress the employees (Ackers, 2002). The capitalist oppression of employees by the employers usually forces them to form unions which are used as the voice and bargaining power of the employees (Ackers, 2002). The theoretical perspectives above have different perceptive about the conflicts that always occur in organisations thus helping employees decide, on the perfect representation framework, they would consider. The unitarist perspective focuses mainly on forming a harmonious organisation meaning there are specific employee representation frameworks that would work better compared to others. In this case, non-union parties which are new actors in the employment relation provides the best framework for employee representation. The reason behind this is because of its immediate and one on one cooperation with the employers compared to other actors (Willcoxson, 2000). Conclusion Apparently, new actors in the employment relation have revived the employee representation, which had almost become dysfunctional. The labour unions which played the key roles as traditional actors in employee representation, all over sudden became voiceless because of their unending money hunger. The increased corruption in these labour unions led to the increase in employee oppression thus calling for new non-compromising actors with zero economic interests on fighting for the worker`s rights and interests. The new actors include non-union bodies such as; company councils, works councils, consultative councils/committees (CCs), joint consultative committees (JCCs), staff associations and independent organisations such as; NGOs, HR consultancy firms, employment agencies, chaplains, health advisors and trainers, Citizens’ advice bureaus, global union federations, employment arbitrators, grassroots activists, social movements and counsellors as discussed above. They have been effective in employee representation which has seen the employees prefer them to labour unions. The three perspectives analyses the employment relations in workplaces thus shedding some light on the importance of non-union actors in fighting for the employee rights. Bibliography Abbott, B., 2006. Determining the significance of the citizens advice bureau as an industrial relations actor. Employee Relations, 28(5), 435-448. Abbott, B., Heery, E., & Williams, S., 2011. Civil society organisations and the exercise of power in the employment relationship. Employee Relations, 34(1), 91-107. Abbott, B., Heery, E., & Williams, S., 2012. Civil society organisations and the exercise of power in the employment relationship. Employee Relations, 34(1), pp. 91-107. ISSN (print) 0142-5455 Abbott, K., 2006. A review of employment relations theories and their application. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 1(2006), 187-199. Ackers, P., 2002. Reframing employment relations: the case for neo‐pluralism. Industrial Relations Journal, 33(1), 2-19. Della Porta, D., & Keating, M. (Eds.)., 2008. Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press. Employment Relationship. (2011). Available at: from http://ilo.org/ifpdial/areas-of-work/labour-law/WCMS_CON_TXT_IFPDIAL_EMPREL_EN/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed 29 March 2015]. Gollan, P. J., 2003. All talk but no voice: employee voice at the Eurotunnel call centre. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24(4), 509-541. Guest, D., 2002. Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing: Building the worker into HRM. Journal of Industrial relations, 44(3), 335-358. Hoel, H., & Beale, D., 2006. Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial relations: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(2), 239-262. Kaufman, B. E. (Ed.)., 2004. Theoretical perspectives on work and the employment relationship. Cornell University Press. Rasmussen, E., & Lamm, F., 2005. From collectivism to individualism in New Zealand employment relations. Reworking, 479. Taras, D. G., & Kaufman, B. E., 2006. Non‐union employee representation in North America: diversity, controversy and uncertain future1. Industrial Relations Journal, 37(5), 513-542. Willcoxson, L., & Millett, B., 2000. The management of organisational culture. Australian Journal of Management and Organisational Behaviour, 3(2), 91-99. Read More