Employment Relation - Coursework Example

Employment Relation Introduction and Thesis Parameters of recruitment have changed a great deal in today’s world of dynamic market economy. Many firms appoint workers according to contractual, part-time or contingent basis – customary to what can be commonly defined as nonstandard employment relation (Kalleberg, 2000). Such practices are regulated by a number of factors such as economic leverage that can be afforded by a given firm, lack of self-employment opportunities, demands for increased flexibility of working hours and so on (Marcus, 2005). Quite clearly, the core idea of successful employee management is based on equitable treatment of all workers regardless of their positional values. To this effect, it is only sensible to regard the pluralist model suitable for managing contingent workers. In light of the abovementioned contention, this paper is going to argue in favour of the pluralist approach to manage contingent workers effectively Common Conventions Depending on the vacancies available at a given time, specific strategies are espoused by the management of a firm. The situation of contractual or casual appointment may occur when the management hires people on the basis of informal or semi-formal referral by existing employee(s). These closed searches are discernible in many organisations worldwide. On the other hand, responsive methods of recruitment involve proactive responses from the applicant’s end. Again, terms of casual or temporary agreement may be inked between the employer and the employee in such methodologies, creating a contingency blueprint for future. Aspects of Nonstandard Employee Relation Creating a flexible working environment is essential for adjusting to the changing requirements of modern workplaces. The tourism industry in Taiwan has been steadily growing in stature over the past two decades. As a distinguished tourist destination in the Asia-Pacific region, Taiwan enjoys a steady inflow of global tourists from all corners of the world. Tour operators, retail chain owners and other agencies in the country have embraced atypical employee arrangements to introduce and sustain a flexible environment with regard to appointment, employee retention and promotion, and allocation of specialised tasks. More empirical data shows that alternative work arrangements have increased by 15% in the European Union (EU). But there are certain dangers in engaging atypical or irregular labours. They tend to lack in motivation and commitment due to a number of factors. Firstly, workers demand recognition from the firm they serve. Despite healthy reimbursements and financial perks, atypical work arrangement does not provide recognition for the job done. Secondly, job security, which is so essential in today’s volatile markets, is not there in firms that operate under contingency basis (Chang & Liao, 2009). Considering these points, the crucial questions are why firms opt for this practice of using contingent workforce. How should a firm handle its contractual, leased, temporary or part-time workers effectively, keeping view of its goals? The ensuing part of this paper will attempt to answer these questions. Emergence of Pluralism In today’s heterogeneous workplaces, the most challenging task for any employer is to implement the basic components of human resource management. It is extremely problematic to arrive at a definitive means to bridge the ever-widening gulf between economic determinants of employment and a firm’s resources for capacity management. What makes the nonstandard work allocations more intricate is how there seems to be an ontological difference among all categories of nonstandard work. Academic probes into the topic have unearthed a series of related terms for nonstandard employee relations: market-mediated arrangements, vagrant or peripheral employment, disposable work, alternative work arrangements and so on (Kalleberg, 2000). The Labour Government in Europe envisioned a collective model to address the burgeoning labour unrest in the country. The role of unions was deemed important as long as they functioned moderately and sensitively to workers’ cause (Kaufman, International Industrial Relations Association, & International Labour Office, 2004, p.409). However, Lucas (2004) argues that while the Labour Government had shown a keen interest in advocating for pluralism to manage labour relations, the Conservatives in the 1990s immobilised the process of wage revision for unorganised labours by intervening into the labour market (p.10). HRM: Standard Practice The study of human resource management has been espoused in recent years after nonstandard employee relations came to be acknowledged by most global organisations (Kalleberg, 2000). But the study of industrial relations dates back to the end of the 19th century. The concept of personnel management within the UK labour sector gradually culminated into laying down of industrial management principles. Personnel management was deemed essential for the welfare of employees working under fixed schedules (Leat, 2007, p.313). It was common for both the United Kingdom and other countries to follow normative work structures to ensure socio-economic security for the workers. Moreover, the proliferation of trade unionism following the labour revolts in Canada in the late 19th century and early 20th century made big organisations accountable for safety and security of their integrated workforce. New Breed of Employee Relations With increased competition in the mid-1970s, firms encountered newer challenges in meeting customer specifications. The need for sticking to a standard, full-time recruitment was questioned. European countries in particular underwent a phase of economic downturn when funding became a problem for many firms with short-term goals. This trend prevailed right throughout the 1970s. But in recent years most European organisations have resorted to pluralistic techniques to explore various channels of recruitment. Massive boom in information technology does their cause no harm as firms can engage a greater number of temporary workers to deliver allocated tasks at a brisk pace. Moreover, many employers evade the clutch of labour laws that safeguarded the clauses of standard employment and restricted procurement of temporary or contingent workers. Expenses involved with permanent workers can be done away with by recruiting nonstandard employees (Kalleberg, 2000). The Dutch case study will further support the acceptability of pluralistic approach over unitary models. The Dutch Case Study The unorganised labour industry in the Netherlands never really had to suffer much because of its non-inclusion in standard modes of employment. Agency workers in the Netherlands have long been acting as the linkage between the organised and the nonstandard employee spheres. The Dutch agencies not only provide jobs for nonstandard employees, but also implement several welfare means. Depending on the organisation and the nature of business, these agencies function in accordance with the mandates of atypical employment (Burgess & Connell, 2004, p.74). It is quite clear from the Dutch case study that handling nonstandard employment in the context of UK market is different from doing the same elsewhere. Human resource management (HRM) principles have more relevance to corporate cultures than conventional business setups. The old-fashioned European ways of labour dealings follows the core principles of industrial relations. Part-time involvement of workers in the UK may be seen as a precursor for the larger and more integrated subclass of HR management in the American context (Ackers & Wilkinson, 2003, p.19). Hence the pluralistic methodology substantiates itself by virtue of its capacity to address labour issues specific to work schedule and commitment. The agency-regulated working method which is prevalent the Netherlands dissociates itself from the liabilities of having a long-term and lasting employment management system (Burgess & Connell, 2004, p.74). Placement of contractual, temporary or contingent workers does not also limit the functional mechanism of HRM. It can work freely to select deserving candidates for specific short-term tasks demanding expertise and experience of a skilled labour. Korea in 1987: Triumph of Pluralism When a firm is not directly under the aegis of government, handling collective workforce becomes easier. With an intolerant policy of authoritarian corporatism prevailing in Korea prior to the labour unrest in 1987, the government, following the agitation, was cornered to review its policies of industrial relations. Pluralism was inducted into the Korean labour market by means of letting labours and management work independent of each other, only exchanging among them the fruits of hard work and dedication. What the revised policy also laid down was its leniency toward unionism. Trade unions were encouraged to arbitrate in labour issues and disputes, so that unorganised labour contingency could fight for earning their rights and stakes (Kim, Kim & Bae, 2004, pp.91-2). Conclusion In essence, the paper draws the conclusion that pluralistic techniques may offer useful remedies in settling employee disputes within nonstandard frameworks of recruitment. As it is, recruitment of any type is a significant HRM function in the academic sense of the term. So when it comes to employing workers on a short-term basis for particular project(s), it becomes imperative to assimilate them in the core of the parent organisation, so that double-standards do not creep into the functional areas of the concerned organisation. Hence, collectivist methodologies, as discussed in-depth in the paper, are a must to secure productivity of the firm along with safety and security for its employees. References Ackers, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2003). Understanding work and employment: industrial relations in transition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, J., & Connell, J. (2004). International perspectives on temporary agency work. London: Routledge. Chang, C-P., & Liao, I-F. (2009). Individual Characteristics, Organizational Justice and Job Attitudes of Employees under Non-standard Work Arrangements: Study of Employees of International Tourist Hotels. International Journal of Management, 26(2), 224-40. Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard Employment Relations: Part-time, Temporary and Contract Work. Annual review of Sociology, 26, 341-365. Kaufman, B. E., International Industrial Relations Association, International Labour Office. (2004). The global evolution of industrial relations: events, ideas, and the IIRA. Genève: Switzerland: International Labour Organization. Kim, T-w, Kim, D-O, & Bae, J. (2004). Employment relations and HRM in South Korea. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Leat, M. (2007). Exploring employee relations. Jordan Hill, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Lucas, R. (2004). Employment relations in the hospitality and tourism industries. London: Routledge. Marcus, Rebick. (2005). The Growth in Non-standard Employment Relations. The Japanese Employment System, 19, 57-75. Read More