Regulation of Employment Practices Is Leading to Increased Workplace Fairness: Agree or Disagree - Term Paper Example

To what extent do you agree or disagree that greater regulation of employment practices is leading to increased workplace fairness? Executive SummaryThe issue of workplace fairness has become a serious debate among business executives, theorists, law-makers, industry analysts, employers and general public because the above mentioned groups are directly affected if unfair practices exist. Some of the major workplace issues include employee – employer and employee – employee conflicts, discrimination on the basis of race / ethnicity, religion, gender, disability and age, unhealthy working conditions, unfair compensation and untimely pay, unpaid time, no or fewer employee benefits, unhealthy and unsafe working conditions (ventilation, washroom, flammable hazards etc.), no real employee training about use of sophisticated equipments, no or some counseling and tutorial sessions about precautionary measures, violations of employment contract, manipulation and exploitation, coercion and undue influence etc. In order to deal with aforementioned workplace issues, the government policy-makers have been focusing on greater regulation of employment practices through effective implementation of existing federal, state and local laws. In simple words, regulation is an attempt to enhance the bargaining power of employees who, in most cases, are the victims of unfair practices of employers (the dominant party). For instance, if workplace laws are not correctly implemented then the dominant party (either employees or workers) may create disciplinary issues, thereby leading to workplace unfairness. However, if laws are not followed then the guilty party has to bear adverse consequences in the form of suits and claims for damages. HR managers also have significant importance because today they are viewed as employee advocates and strategic partners. Therefore, HR managers communicate with strategic planners to comply with workplace legislations for greater workplace fairness that reduces absenteeism, conflicts and turnover rates; while leading to greater organisational harmony, cost efficiency and business growth. Law-makers could make legislations fool-proof through eradication on any shortcomings, could enhance workplace fairness through audits (visits for check and balance), through surveys and interviews with employees, and through evaluation of employers’ practices. 1. Background / Introduction Today, we are living in a globalised world which is highly competitive and challenging for employers and employees. The growth of media, developments and advancements in information technology followed by improvements in communication networks have forced the companies to change their business strategies and to focus more on product development, market development and diversification in addition to orthodox market penetration policy / strategy / tactic. Without any doubt, the emergence of mass media has greatly affected / influenced the attitudes, perceptions, behaviours, beliefs and lifestyles of people all across the globe, thereby compelling the people (who are also potential customers of business enterprises) to consider themselves a part of this globalised world. The entrance of new enterprises in corporate arena has intensified the competition among firms; hence every entity is more focused towards cost leadership so that it could ensure business survival and expansion. For instance, the companies also face financial burden because they are morally and ethically obliged to offer workplace benefits followed by provision of safe and healthy working conditions. In addition, the companies have also been found discriminating against potential workers on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, age, language disability and colour. Therefore, the evident violations of employee moral and ethical rights have compelled government authorities to formulate and implement workplace laws, rules and regulations as an attempt towards assuring workplace fairness. Such laws include “minimum wage laws, holidays and holiday pay, lay – offs / dismissals / retrenchment and short-time working, sickness, time off work, time for training and flexible working, health and safety, harassment and discrimination, bullying, business unionism, whistle-blowing at work, surveillance, Sunday working, Christmas Day working and others etc” (Advice Guide Article, 2010). It is worthwhile to mention that employees tend to face work – family conflicts when they are bombarded with excessive tasks and job requirements coupled with unrealistic goals and targets that are unachievable. For instance, employment discrimination and glass ceiling restricts the entry and progress of many deserving workers, which comes under unfair behaviour. Next, employers tend to force employees to work for additional hours without any extra disbursements / payments for overtime (Webster, 2011). In this way, the unfair attitude on behalf of employers reduces morale, job satisfaction, normative and affective commitment, and trust of workers thereby resulting in absenteeism and high job turnover rates. It is, therefore, justified to argue that regulation of employee practices would facilitate and lead to workplace fairness because the constant check & balance and social audit of state, federal and local authorities (including labour welfare departments) give employers an impression that they could not maximise their financial gains at the expense of customers. This report will provide a discussion on the basic legal concepts common to managing people at work followed by a demonstration of English employment legislation & procedures. The researcher will also analyse the possible adverse effects on organisations of not implementing the law correctly. In addition, the researcher will also explain and evaluate the role of the HR function in implementing the legal framework in organisations as well as assess the effectiveness of a range of good practices in legal implementation. Finally, the report will include pertinent suggestions and recommendations to enhance workplace fairness across United Kingdom. 2. Discussions 2.1 – English Employment Legislation It should be recalled that English Law has already covered various regulations that aim to enhance workplace fairness and greater provision of legitimate employee rights. The first major legislation is known as National Minimum Wages (NMW) according to which all the employees (UK citizens and overseas) who have been legally working in United Kingdom will be entitled to minimum wage rates that are calculated by government for different groups. Indeed, the UK government announces separate wage rates for workers of different age levels (i-e from 16 - 17, 18 – 20, 21 and above years, apprentices, internees, offshores, seafearers, trainees, agency workers, piece workers, home and commission workers). Hence, if an employee has an employment contract / agreement then he has to be paid NMW, no matter what the mode of payment is, what the size of employer is, where a worker is employed (UK), and what working schedule and payment schedule is agreed upon (weekly, monthly etc.). For instance, if an organisation violates the aforementioned minimum wage laws, then it has to face legal consequences either in the form of lawsuits / fines or payment of damages (Direct Gov, 2010). It is worthwhile to highlight that employment contract could be used by workers to sue employers who do not abide by employment laws and regulations. In addition, UK law also comprises of Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations. Indeed, the above mentioned act and regulations are designed in accordance with Equal Employment Opportunity laws and aim to reduce / eradicate employment discrimination on the basis of gender. For instance, the amendments have also been made in existing laws to ensure fool proof decisions and solutions regarding the grave issue of sex discrimination. Glass Ceiling, which refers to an invisible barrier to progress of women employees in a corporate setting, could also be reduced from implementation of aforementioned laws. In order to deal with ethnic and racial discrimination, English employment law focuses on the Race Relations Act 1976. Similarly, there are other acts such as Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulation and Employment Equality (Age) Regulations that are constituted to reduce discrimination on the basis of culture, beliefs, age, and disability. Indeed, every individual has right to his / her desired job and just wage rate / salary; therefore, the employers could not be permitted to manipulate and discriminate workers in any instances (Bond et al, 2009). As far as the laws for safer working conditions and environment are concerned, it is worthwhile to mention the fact that UK employment law has implemented The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 under employers’ and employees’ responsibilities are defined to ensure health and safety of the latter. For instance, the Act throws light over the ‘duty of care’ under which employers are directly responsible to ensure that workplace is secure for all normal personnel (assuming no skin sensitivities), to prepare emergency plans in case of fire eruptions, to take precautionary measures for reducing the risks of “explosive hazards, electrical equipment, noise and radiation”, to provide proper ventilation and washing facilities, to train about use of sophisticated equipments / machinery / tools and to inform about general safety measures etc. In this way, the effective implementation of healthcare legislation not only facilitates employees in providing a secure and trouble - free working environment but also reduces the government healthcare costs because the number of patients (suffering from chronic illnesses and contagious diseases caused due to presence of toxicants / hazardous materials at workplaces) tends to decline. In addition, the UK employment law also covers the issue of paternal and maternal leaves that are demanded by parents (both males and females) to look after their children. In such cases, UK law covers the conditions for extended leaves, paid leaves, job security and others etc. (Direct Gov, 2010). Furthermore, there are laws regarding sexual harassment (although the term is not for a particular gender, however, mostly women are victims) to curb unwelcome advances / motives towards either sex. Indeed, the laws enable the victims to lodge complaints against the culprits who are involved in any sexual misconduct (either physical or verbal). For instance, employers are also legally obliged and responsible to maintain decorum and strict discipline so that they could minimise the probability of sexual harassment. Employers are also responsible for providing guidance and counseling to workers about the possibilities of harassment and how to deal with such issues. As far as other laws are concerned, employers are bound to follow numerous regulations such as ‘working hours, fair compensation’ (calculated after job responsibilities, prevailing state and industry rates, jobs of comparable worth - through factor comparison method, point system method etc.) and ‘unpaid time’ (Russell, 2010). In addition, there are a large variety of laws such as restraint of trade, union membership, grievance procedures, agricultural, migrant and agency workers, resignation from jobs, redundancy etc. that have to be followed by employers and employees to avert any legal action by either parties (Direct Gov, 2010). 2.2 – Consequences of not Correctly Implementing Employment Law Incorrect implementation of employment law is primarily the result of weakness in judicial system coupled with inefficiencies of law-makers who do not have sufficient strength for successfully implementing the designed laws. As far as the consequences are concerned, it should be mentioned that employers (assume as the dominant party) become fearless because of evident weaknesses in legal system; therefore, they could violate existing laws through breach of employment conditions, manipulation and exploitation of workers, insecure working environment, no provision of employee benefits and services etc. For instance, the employers could also get indulged into illicit activities such as bribing law-makers and sending expensive presents / gifts so that the invigilators would not report their certain violations. As a result, the actual victims are the workers who expect that judicial system would maintain workplace fairness and would not allow the dominant party to reap benefits at the expense of innocents / feeble groups. In other words, if law is not implemented correctly then the burdens are actually transferred to entire society. For instance, this also leads to violation of Utilitarian, Social, Distributive, Retributive and Compensatory Justices, Moral Rights and Egalitarian ethical approaches. Another argument is that society is largely affected negatively from incorrect implementation because every household bears the burden. Moreover, people lose trust on law and law enforcement agencies that may lead to societal unrest. 2.3 – Role of HR Managers Human Resource Mangers play their vital role in success and growth of any business organisation because they are responsible for recruitment and selection, training and development, evaluation, performance appraisal and protection of workers. For instance, the HR professionals are also responsible for resolving employees’ personal (if any) and organisational problems / conflicts, for providing legitimate financial / non-financial incentives to workers, for maintaining discipline / stability, for reducing turnover rates, and for motivation and encouragement of workers. It should be argued that HR managers also directly contribute in implementing flexible work practices as well as enhancing fairness across an organisation. Nevertheless, the more flexible and fair a business firm is, the higher the job satisfaction level and job commitment of employees and the lower the absenteeism and employee turnover rates. HR managers could coordinate and communicate with strategic planners, board members and policy – makers the Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action laws, Health and Safety Acts / Legislations, Minimum Wage Laws, Sexual Harassment and other regulations after which they could formulate a comprehensive Code of Conduct followed by Employment Contracts for workers that fully comply with English employment law. HR managers could, therefore, help their respective organisation in effectively implementing of employment regulations that would then help their firm in reducing the number of lawsuits and legal complaints by employees. It is justified to highlight that UK law does not compromise over violations and Judges have zero tolerance policy for those employers who are found guilty and are involved in any illicit or discriminatory practices. For instance, the successful implementation of healthcare and safety laws also reduce an organisation’s annual healthcare expenditures (on insurance cover, accidents, injuries and disabilities) as well as enhance its reputation among employees. For instance, the laws regarding dismissals and retrenchment of workers should also be a constant part of an organisation’s legal framework because unannounced, uninformed or prior-to-notice dismissals and retrenchment (without any formal communication of legitimate reasons) practices result in violation of job security conditions / regulations, thereby leading to legal action from employees. 3. Conclusions The researcher would like to conclude this analysis by summarising some major advantages of greater regulation of employment practices that could greatly facilitate workplace fairness in the corporate arena. The major advantage of employment regulations is the enhancement in workplace fairness, which then helps reducing probability of employee – employee, employee – employer and employee - organisation conflicts. Indeed, law prohibits employees to get indulged into bullying, name-calling, fraud, deception or larceny with other employees (legitimate duties / rights of every worker); thereby ensuring discipline and harmony. Next, the law also defines severe consequences and punishments for employers if they violate conditions of employment contract; if they are involved in any manipulation and exploitation through extra responsibilities without fair, timely and additional payments; if they are providing unhygienic working conditions, food and accommodation etc.; if they do not provide any holiday or call for extra work on official holidays (such as Christmas, Easter etc.) announced by government authorities; if they dismiss workers (termination of employment contract) without any legitimate reason; if they refuse to pay minimum wages to unskilled workers; if they do not provide any job security and others etc. It should be argued that the major reason behind formulation and implementation of employment legislation is to ensure smooth functioning of economic system and conformity. Nevertheless, if employment law does not exist, then the bargaining power of employees would reduce. It has been a proven fact the employers (as being powerful and dominant party) opt to maximise their personal gains at the expense of consumers and employees; therefore, the authorities have designed employment legislation to regulate employment practices for greater welfare and well-being of greatest number of people in a society (Dickens et al, 2005). For instance, it should also be clarified that a small group of employers (or owners of a firm) tends to hire a large pool of workers that have their households; hence the unfair workplace practices (for example not paying fair and timely wages, providing unhealthy conditions that may cause chronic illnesses or life-long diseases, when absence of precautionary measures leads to accidents and makes workers handicapped) adversely impacts not only an employee but also his / her household. In a nut shell, the greater regulation of employment practices helps reducing managerial problems, while benefiting in ‘resolution of conflicts’. Otherwise, the mismanagement of conflicts also comes under workplace unfairness, thereby leading to creation of hostile organisational culture and internal environment. Hence, the effective implementation of employment law compels employers to remain fair and just with their subordinates / personnel (employers), thereby maximising workplace harmony and peace followed by relationship building among employees - employers (Russell, 2010). 4. Recommendations The researcher would now like to provide following pertinent recommendations that could facilitate in successful implementation of workplace laws and practices followed by check and balance on employers. 1) The first recommendation is to design a fool – proof law that does not have any shortcomings and underlying technical problems (such as double – meaning, unclear responsibilities, difficult to handle certain unique cases, unnecessary favours to a particular ethnic / religious group, gender etc.). Obviously, any unclear employment legislations / acts do not lead to equality, discrimination and fairness. In addition, the ambiguities in law also results in demotivation of workers, who affecting trust – factor of employees – jury. 2) The second recommendation is about regular audits and visits to organisations of law enforcement and government agencies so that they could personally assess and evaluate what workplace benefits / incentives, wages / salaries and conditions etc. are provided by employers to their employees. Indeed, the face-to-face interviews (at workplaces) should also be conducted with workers (with mutual consent and promise of confidentiality) so that unbiased and genuine responses could be obtained, which then help in identifying any implicit workplace issues or unfair practices. 3) Another recommendation is that law enforcement agencies and concerned authorities should compile complete background information of all workers before initiating an audit programme. Workers should also be approached at their living address so that they could freely and fearlessly communicate with law personnel. It must be ascertained that employers, in no way, coerce or threaten organisational members to provide specific responses to law-makers (otherwise they would lose their jobs). 4) The law-makers should also compile data about the number of complaints / lawsuits that have been submitted by employees about a specific employer / organisation (in this case, large and medium-scale registered companies). Indeed, law-makers could set a threshold (for complaints per annum) based on which the workplace fairness will be rated. Based on the results, the law-makers could issue warnings to those against which there are overwhelmingly high complaints were registered within a year. Consequently, this would help maximising workplace fairness. 5) The final recommendation is that law-makers should also consult with financial auditors who are responsible for auditing financial statements of business enterprises. Indeed, the law-makers could compare and contrast responses of employees about workplace fairness in their firm with the annual budgets for employee benefits and costs incurred on lawsuits. If employee responses reveal very high level of uncertain / unfair practices (followed by greater conflicts, turnover rates and absenteeism), then the law-makers could check if there are any discrepancies (about employee benefits, lawsuits etc.) in financial statements. For instance, the ratio of male and female workers (of minorities), ratio of males and females (of minority and majority workers) on strategic positions and the concentration level should also be analysed to ensure zero employment discrimination and glass ceiling. References / Bibliography Bewley, Helen (2006). “Raising the Standard? The Regulation of Employment, and Public Sector Employment Policy” British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 44, Issue 2, pp. 351–372 Janet, Walsh (1997). “Employment Systems in Transition? A Comparative Analysis of Britain and Australia” Work Employment & Society, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-25 Dickens, Linda, Stephen Wood and Mark Hall (2005). “The impact of employment legislation: reviewing the research” Employment Relations Research Series, No. 45 Befort, Stephen (2002) “Labor and Employment Law at the Millennium: A Historical Review and Critical Assessment” Boston College Law Review, Vol. 33, Issue 2, pp. 351-456 Webster, Amanda (2011). “What Is Workplace Fairness?” Ehow.com [Online] Available at http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_7751526_workplace-fairness.html Bond, Sue, Fiona Colgan and Emma Hollywood (2009). “Integration in the workplace: emerging employment practice on age, sexual orientation and religion or belief” Equality and Human Rights Commission [Online] Available at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/integration_in_the_workplace.pdf Riley, Rebecca, Hilary Metcalf and John Forth (2008). “The business case for Equal Opportunities: An econometric investigation” Department for Work and Pensions, Research Report No 483 [Online] Available at http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep483.pdf FBU Annual Report (2008). “Fairness at Work” FBU.org.uk [Online] Available at http://www.fbu.org.uk/workplace/fairnesswork/pdf/ANNREP08-%20FAW.pdf Russell, Carmen (2010). “State Regulation of Employment Relations” Ehow.com [Online] Available at http://www.ehow.co.uk/facts_7552656_state-regulation-employment-relations.html Advice Guide Article (2010). “Basic rights at work” Adviceguide.co.uk [Online] Available at http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/employment/basic_rights_at_work.htm Direct Gov (2010). “Employment” Direct.gov.uk [Online] Available at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/TheNationalMinimumWage/DG_10027201 Read More