Industrial Relations and HRM in Asia - Research Paper Example

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (HRM) “Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management” (HRM) Introduction Industrial relations have been a major source of dispute between employers and workers. Singapore has not been an exception. In Singapore, the labor Unions are often part of opinionated associations majorly with the ruling party, which is “People’s Action Party” Mullah 2005, p 35). This was born out of previous confrontations to the current mutual understanding that enhances the nation’s prosperity. The tripartite model has been of great impact among the Asiatic nations, with Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore being the best model users. This is because these Nations have strong industrial relations mechanisms. “The National Trades Union Congress” (NTUC) in Singapore With numerous trade unions and affiliates, the NTUC has almost 90% of the national workforce. With such a membership, NTUC strives to be involved in various activities that entail sharing views while addressing concerns of the labor workforce in Singapore. To achieve this, the Union has five pillars upon which it focuses on to obtain success for its workforce membership (Hutagalung, 2003 p.98). From the onset, NTUC has strived to apply these pillars and strengthen its structures to offer improved operational conditions for the Singapore population. According to the “International Labor Organizations” rules and regulations concerning Industrial relations, the NTUC has endeavored to meet most of the important regulations based on the international stipulations (Mullah 2005, p 34). These conditions place NTUC in a challenging position when addressing the needs of its member’s and resolving disputes between the employers in Singapore and the workers (Mullah 2005, p 34). The tripartite Model and its pillars Most businesses in Singapore often agree that currently the economic atmosphere is still wanting. However, they strive to meet workers minimum basic requirements especially with the government’s emphasis on minimum wages (Koh, 2007 p 33). The primary pillar emphasizes the need of having a well-educated, skilled and practical workforce other than having welfare issues at the forefront of enhancing performance of the workforce. This will make sure that the working population notes its expectations in terms of service delivery (Pikiran 2005, p 141). Concurrently, the pillar illuminates the need to address the welfare concerns with the intention of increasing the chances of success amongst the workers. This will make them employable for an extended period thus the likelihood of drawing maximum benefits. Indeed, Pikiran denotes that shunning welfare completely while focusing on employment concerns will diminish the likelihood of goal attainment. The second pillar concurrently emphasizes the need of a skilled worker rather than bare pay. This hopes to make sure that the workforce delivers well on their work while at the same time earning their rightful salary or wage. It also envisages other provisions such as medical cover or insurance for the worker together with other benefits. These may not be pegged on the basic wage or salary. An analysis of this pillar indicates that it focuses on making significant proportions of the populace employable regardless of their education capacities. It is crucial to comprehend that such a move works well for the financial system. Consider the barely educated persons who can get jobs, and improve to the success of the financial system. As such, this pillar focuses on creating opportunities for the average person within the country. The third pillar emphasizes the need for a quality source of labor or service rather than cheap source of labor with the intent of cutting on the expenditure; this would in turn help reduce the availability or tolerance of shoddy work (Wilson 200, p 108). An interpretation of this pillar indicates that cheap sourcing often places the country and its economic forces under significant strain. This is evident in the constant dilapidation of resources; furthermore, additional funds are disbursed to correct the anomaly. The pillar thus exemplifies the need to safeguard quality in the prospect rather than increase production and spend more. The fourth pillar emphasizes the need for productivity improvement rather than increased labor outsourcing. It strives to show that it is appropriate to have fewer achieving employees. This is upon comparison to a crowded workforce that makes it difficult for one to meet demands. An analysis of productivity basing on the conventional pecuniary system denotes that a stipulated number of personnel can achieve a standard result, which cannot change by increasing the number. This means that an increase in personnel ought to improve competence and yield. Concurrently, the country’s economic forces should focus on reducing a leaner yet productive team. The last pillar then sums up the other pillars and indicates that if all the above pillars are addressed, the workforce would perform well and thus the country would lead a better life due to better jobs and working environments. An analysis of the pillar denotes that improved livelihoods arise from empowering the workforce to acquire the appropriate skills. Concurrently, it is crucial to focus on the providing pay for persons with bare skills since they can enrich the wealth system. Concurrently, entities ought to focus on best sourcing since the effects are known and likely to augment performance. In the end, productivity and improvement of livelihoods are seen. Pros and cons of the pillars These pillars offer enormous potential to the workforce in Singapore together with the industry and government. However, these can only work to meet the envisaged goals if these three sectors work in unison. This is a rare occurrence even in the developed world due to perceived mistrust among these three stakeholders. The best these pillars can harness is the probable satisfaction of all the stakeholders and a thriving Singapore economy with a healthy workforce and satisfied employer base. Additionally, the Gross Domestic Product would greatly improve following enhanced industrial productivity (Suparwanto 2004, pp 24-27, 248 & 319). However, these pillars are undeviating. With political interference of these Unions, very little are tenable by them. This is because dishonesty and nepotism among the leadership and their counterparts in government and industry is thriving. As such, very little is tenable from such union leadership. The government incompetence within the ministries in terms of policy execution and formulation also hinders much to be achieved by the pillars. The tripartite model as compared to other nations Uwiyono et al (2009) indicates that compared to its neighbors’ Malaysia, East Timor and Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Indonesia fares well in terms of Union representation and tackling of the needs of its members (Uwiyono et al 2009, p 45). For example, while Singapore boasts of having a well functioning tripartite model, the other three countries are still trying to establish theirs except for Malaysia. However, Malaysia is still facing setbacks in its implementation. The NTUC can still do better in order to meet its goal. This incorporate provision of superior employee protection, reduction of child labor and enhanced proviso for finer working conditions for the entire workforce in Singapore (Salamon 2002, p 34). Child labor is still strife in Singapore, Employee versus employer cases in the court are still a problem. However, if the tenets of the tripartite model are well tacked and implemented, then better jobs for a better Singapore are still possible (Haltiwanger, 1991 p. 19). There are claims that the fall of the dictatorial Soeharto government injected new strength for the fight of better labor laws. This is in addition to the appropriate employee working standards in Singapore. This removed their powers from the central government unto the people and common citizenry. With this, dialogues in resolving disputes as well as the courts have taken up a bigger role in industrial relations and labor management in Singapore. Workers rights and representation Previously, the silencing of workers and repression of their rights by the government hindered the workers needs from being known (Hikayat 2008 p. 45). Presently, workers can strike, demonstrate, and demand better treatment. Interestingly, their voices are acknowledged. It was until the industrial strike of 2001, that workers health rights, improved wages and salaries demands and superior operational conditions initiated by the government (Teh & Chong 2005, p 150). More so, with the Union championing for better industrial relations the central government has been pushed to implement and enact laws that favor workers and not necessarily the employers or the government itself (Luther 1979, p 289). Role of the government and central authorities It is the government’s sole responsibility to ensure its citizens have excellent working conditions. With the five pillars, the Union has to make sure that the central administration agrees to correct not only legal loopholes in the constitution for the workers benefit but also improve or enhance the current industrial disputes intervention (Marks, Steven & Jacobs 2009, p 21). Currently, not enough is done in terms of employee dismissal laws, resolution of disputes as well as the International Labor Organization social security needs for universal worker employee relations (Suwano 2010). As an Asiatic Tiger, for the Country’s economy to be competitive, it requires a better business relations structure as envisaged on the Unions five pillars. Worker employer conditions should improve and match ILO’S requirements to allow efficient labor laws, ideas exchange as well as a healthy Singapore workforce. NTUC on its part should ensure that the laws and other regulations are well- understood by its members and the whole workforce of Singapore at large. This will lessen most of the industrial relations concerns affecting the Singapore workforce. Sumatro et al. (2004), suggests that harsh penalties should be given to any party that does not follow these laws to the latter be it the employer or employee without much ado or discrimination. Through relevant entities, the government should however cushion the workers from rich employees who have the best lawyers money can buy so as to have a level playing field for both the parties especially in terms of discussions or disputes. NTUC should also strive to recruit and retain or elect capable leaders and representatives to voice their concerns in diplomatic channels and ways (Rikayat 2009, p. 95). These professionals should strive to understand their role and mandate, the dreams and visions of the union, and the ability to recruit and retain a quality workforce within its wings (Koh 2009, p. 95). Conclusion These pillars on my opinion do solve some but not all of industrial relations issues in Singapore. Therefore, much emphasis on the pillars and legislation of other relevant policies from both the Union and administration in consultation to the industrial employers should be developed and implemented to the latter (Hutagalung 2003 p. 209). A stronger Union means that the Central government of Singapore need not play a dynamic role in industrial disputes as was before, but it should serve as a facilitator to enhance better and flaxen relations among Union members and their employers (Hutagalung 2003 p. 209). However, this may hinder government employees from reaping utmost benefits from the entity (Sarto 2005, pp. 58). This is subject to the elimination process if government employees freely exercise their privileges such that their grievances are heard (Wong et al 2009, p. 345). This will enhance the industrial associations in Singapore. List of References Hutagalung, B & Kompas, A 2003, Pemberlakuan Kempenaker No.160/2010, Business News Hikayat, A 2008, “Industrial relations unions in Singapore, 4th Edition, New York, NY, Prentice Hall Koh, Y & Salamon, U 2009, “Managing Industrial relations” Bishan. Singapore Marks, B, Steven, P & Jacobs, S 2009, Industrial relation in Singapore, Hollman, Australia. Mullah, A 2005, “Improving efficiency within trade Unions, 4th Edition” Bamber, Indonesia. Salamon, M 2002, Industrial relations, theory and practice, 4th Edition” California, CA, Prentice Hall Pikiran, R 2005, “Human resource management in the East” Journal of Human Resource Management, vol 97, no.13, pp 140-156. Koh, Y 2009, Approaches to Human resource management in Singapore” Journal of Human Resource Management, vol 67, no.5, pp 19-26. Luther, H 1979, The Repression of Labour Protest in Singapore: Unique Case or Future Model?. Development and Change, 10: 287–299 Sarto, S 2005, “Improving industrial relations in Singapore” Journal of Human Resource Management, vol 69, no.10, pp 14-16. Suparwanto, A, 2004, “The tripartite Model: Pros and Cons” Bekasi, Indonesia Suwano, S 2010, Industrial relations in Indonesia, Jakarta University, Viewed9th October 2011, "http://ideasindo.relec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/1640.html" Teh, C & Chong, K 2005, “Changing approaches to industrial relations in Singapore” Journal of Human Resource Management, vol 67, no.8, pp 140-146. Wong, T & Rikayat, P 2007, “Child labor in Singapore” Queenstown. Singapore. Wilson, P 2000, The dilemma of a more advanced developing country: conflicting views on the development strategy of Singapore, The Developing Economies, 38: 105–134 Read More