Classical Approaches to Employment Relations - Coursework Example

Employment relations Name Institution Course Tutor Date Introduction At the emergence of a global economy, there has been a notable proliferation of capitalistic organization and enterprise specializing in an array of products and services, leading to increased market segmentation. Paradoxically while this is the case of exemplary outburst of organizations and enterprises in the economy, population growth has also equally countered the growth. Significantly, sheer market to population augmentation has resulted to increased demand of goods and services to sustain and maintain the market. This trend has consequently phased out the monopolistic market trends, which created room for dominance of the market forces thus paving way for a more liberal competitiveness. With liberalization, competition has rather been the key determining factor for sustainability. Competitively, enterprises have competed on products and services, human resource, working conditions and remuneration packages just to mention a few. The human resource is a dependent variable and paramount to the success and implementation of the organizational policies and procedures for a competitive market share. With the rapid growth of organizations and the expansive market, the human resource plays an active interactive and linkage role to the general function of the organizational business. It is through this pillar of management that secures entire process of recruitment for the right responsibilities. This entire process helps to maintain a clear-cut adjudication of roles and responsibilities thus ensuring a continuum and harmony of roles and responsibilities performed for a mutual goal. This organizational space has nurtured a professional relationship bounding the management in the place of the employer and the human resources team as the employees. With mutual interdependence, each as a major stakeholder has worked to ensure a comfortable working space for the other. Technically this has being termed as employment relations. Etymologically derived from the amalgamation of the terms employment and relationship, broadly employment relation refers to the entire corpus of organizational policy and effort to sustain and enforce a formidable relationship between the employer and the human resource. For maximum productivity and smooth implementation of organizational policies, there is need for relative congruence and harmony in the governance and administration of the two vital segments. Virtually, the concept also addresses pertinent conflicting issues arising within the organizational professional platform thus ensuring arbitration and adjudication in an open and professional way. With keen interest in the concept, the researcher interrogates several approaches used to understand the idea comprehensively. In scope, this paper will assess the unitary thought, pluralist assumptions, and radical approaches linked to the concept of employment relations. Herein and in relative detail, the researcher will conceptualize the theories under the helm of an ideology and philosophy, thus establishing the relative significance and point out the relative strength and weaknesses as well. This highlighted outline captures the scope of this paper. Employment relations(ER) The growing organizational structure is always complimented by an increase in human resource capacity. In rational, while organizations continue to venture in new market, new offices open up thus sourcing for professional support leading to more people being absorbed in to the system. This significant growth and expansion have more often provoked the need for the human resource to instill mechanisms of maintaining professional order and code of practice. Gradually this has resulted to a paradigm shift of managers as key brokers in professional relationships to the entire staff resonance. Amidst the increasing debate of what definition constitute proper, the absolute meaning of the term employment relation, Keith (2006) in his work notes that term captures the micro level relationships binding the staff and the management body in its entirety. On the same note, he further highlights that, the macro level interaction in far significant and influence the general outcome of employment relation. Similarly in a report, the international labor conference (2006) defined employee relationship as a notion largely embraced between the worker and the employer, where the worker is far more subjected to varied terms and conditions. In this analysis, the researcher would like to bring to attention that while the term has a multidisciplinary element, there has been a continuum of evolutionary definitions attributed to the term thus creating room for rational engagement and contextualization of the term in the broader sense. In this analysis, this term present a number of key factors, according to Rasmussen and Lamm (2002), the working environment, employee, and the organization are of key concern. Embodied in ER, are key issues of employment, interests of employment, representation within an organization, procedures viable for conflict resolution and analysis within the organizational structure. However, this corpus is broadly subjected to a number of factors that influence policy formulation within the on ER. On a light note, it is through ER policy that organizations have arbitrated on professional misconduct generally as well using the platform to sell policies and expectations. This acts as a joint accord between the management and the staff. Due to the emerging trends of desperate folk in search of employment and income generating opportunities, majority have fallen victims of exploitation and victimization as the world of work continues to revolutionize in search for profitability. For clear employment relations, majority of organizations have endorsed formative policies on ER, for clarity of terms of service and responsibilities for the employee and the employer as well. The emergence of this concept can be traced back shortly after the period of renaissance where organizations began to proliferate and capitalistic consciousness became popular. All along, this led to a varied discourse in multi disciplinary approaches to understand these tenets. Far more reaching were the notable efforts of the; unitary, pluralist and radical school of thought aligned to this concept. In the next section, the researcher clearly highlights these approaches on employment relations. Classical approaches to employment relation As the word of work continued to change over time, more and more people began to express their dissatisfaction of the working environment they were subjected to, it is in this era that the concept of employment relation began to take shape as organizations sought to retain order in the world of work. Preceding this, there was a rapid rise of extensive unitary, pluralist, and radical opinions to industrial relations. In this chapter, the researcher will interrogate these schools of thought to ascertain the immediate response and link to employment relations. Unitary thoughts on employment relation More often, the organizational structure has always been viewed as a complexity that acts as a level platform of competition. As people seek to outdo each other for influential and competitive positions, leading sociologist characteristically identified this as class conflict and succinct allocation and cooperation of roles and responsibilities. Under the unitary line of thought and perceptions, the organization is viewed as a common place where every person allocated roles and responsibility works for the mutual realization of the organizational goals. Characteristically, unitary theorists place emphasis and much expectation on cooperation between the employees and the employer. With sustained cooperation in the working environment, there has been notable increased teamwork among the staff members as they seek to achieve a common organizational goal. In their argument, unitary proponents view the rise of conflicts within and among the organization as a major deterrent to the primal performance of the organization. That is more time is wasted as the organization takes more time in arbitration than policy growth and development. Constantly, these conflicts trace back to lack of cohesive leadership and management structure. As a mitigating factor, trade unions arising in the recent paste have come in to arbitrate this relationships leading to mutual consent of proper employment policies. Unitary proponents have accrued remarkable significance to trade unions arguing that they play a significant role in forging a common interest. However, conflict is merely not also seen as common detour to performance but also a key ingredient for organizational alignment to purpose (Linda 2008). Explicitly, malfunction within the organization framework tend to be manifested through conflicts and disagreements. Herein due to the increased roles and responsibilities professional may lock horns over errands thus leading to confusion of protocol and service delivery. In such a scenario, this is considered as a positive conflict as it helps to reinvent the wheel of management proper, thus Conflict is a necessary tool of management. In broad terms, campaigners of the unitary approach emphasize the need for organizations to make use of dialogue and negotiations within the organizational structure. Sustained dialogue promotes alignment to the overall organizational goals. However, they note that, the redemptive effects of trade unions and government policies is not universal hence should not wholly entrusted to sustain the organization employment relations. Relevance of unitary approach Unity of purpose within the organization has been a motivating factor in organizational policy. As echoed by McDonald chain of restaurant management, the continued success is plainly attributed to dedicated staff members who are in constant agreement and alignment with the organizational policy. Thus, this theory tends to hold water in illustrating a majority of successful employment relations. Weaknesses of the unitary approach Emerging scholar have criticized unitary proponents is a number ways. To begin with, the theory is criticized for overlooking the value of organizational segmentation. Throughout the theory, there is much emphasis placed on a direct alignment and congruence of purpose for the entire organization where all works for a common goal. However, critiques have argued that this is likely to be an ideal organization but hardly pragmatic. They argue that there is need for segmentation where roles and responsibilities are spread across the line to give room for accountability, performance, and conflict of purpose. Secondly, there is no clear limit on the extent of conflict. In the organizational structure, it is difficult to ascertain how far conflict is destructive of beneficial, in its tenets; this theory does not highlight any qualitative tool of bearing to measure the extent or relativity. Line scholars are critical of this vacuum (Tina et al 2000). Thirdly, in the analysis of this theory, the proponents have overlooked the destructive roles of trade unions. Primarily, they have a biased outlook on the positivity of trade unions thus overlooking the negative impact experienced to the organizational framework. In the recent past there has been a global fall out of vital services in the public sector owing to strikes posed by trade unions. If unregulated, trade unions can have a dangerous impact in labor relations leading to incoherent professional relationships. Pluralist approaches While the unitary proponents advance on the benefits of common goal and purpose for all in employment relation, the pluralist hold a different spectrum of thought and ideas far contrary. The idea of pluralism first designed in America by Commons J, advance that the society is comprised of multiple groups of people who are in constant competition for power and resources. Herein this competition is sustained although the society is dichotomized between the minority and the majority. Proponent of this theory, have directly attributed this competition to manifesting in labor, market and products respectively. Further theorists of this orientation have espoused three major perceptions pluralism. They perceive that; (a) the organization is viewed as an amalgamation of counteractive interests and the manager’s act as the main arbitrators. (b) The trade union is considered as a rightful body for representing the rights of the employees, (c) sustainable cooperation in the employment relation is because of continued relationship between managers and the respective unions(Tina et al 2000). With divided interests, values and conditions there is consistent wrangles over authority of the management to oversee the staff members and this has contributed to increased wrangles within the management structure. In this entity, legitimacy is not easily welcomed as the minimum basic and accepted status quo. With time, the employees have continued to challenge the status quo in their attempt to rise through the cadres of employment opportunities. Authority for the pluralist is more versatile than stationery, it is believed that each person has the potential and the capability to hold and operate power in the management structure. Trade unions also have a legitimate place in the entire pluralist philosophy. With continued strive and competition through the power line, conflicts is inevitable. This has caused many ripples through the management. As a mitigating factor, the trade union is identified as the legitimate arbitrator. In essence, unions have a positive factor in balancing power and authority for the employees and the employer. To achieve this, unions are directly involved in protecting the rights of parties concerned for the mutual comfort in employment terms. In this philosophy, the cadres of power have been identified as the main sources of conflict within the organization hence there is need to embrace social mechanisms that address social problems. Proponents have identified trade unions as a social mechanism through the process of collective bargain and conciliation (John, Rafael, 2004). In addition, trade unions also play significant roles to bring about social change. Change is understood as a revolutionary process that is propagated through continued strikes in the work place. However while propagating for change; issues of wages and payment are regarded of secondary significance. Relevance of pluralism in employment relations The principals and tenets of the pluralist thought have much significance in the contemporary employment situations today. Primarily aspects of conflict are of significant relevance to the current employment situations. Currently there is a high stake of qualifications for job opportunities within the organizational structure. Consequently, staff members are in continuous competition to earn academic and professional qualifications. This is relative to the actual competition highlighted by the pluralist thoughts. In addition, with the introduction of performance appraisals employees have been in constant conflict and competition to grab the prize of the best performer. Notably this professional competition has played a significant role in ensuring quality service delivery. Weaknesses of pluralist approach Despite the significant relevance of this theory to contemporary employment relation today, it has been criticized for exaggerating the power of the trade unions. It should be noted that, even then organizations policy framework has the potential to arbitrate employment disputes. In addition is has been noted contrary that the organization also has the full potential to do away with conflicts (Robert 2006). Purporting that conflict is inevitable could imply that the economy is still ruled by the classical and barbaric rules while on the other hand professionalism dictates the current employment relations. Radical approach to employment relations In addition to unitary and pluralist thought, other scholars of radical orientation also build on the concept of employment relation (Keith 2006). Completely indifferent with the propositions expressed by the previous schools of thought they relied mostly on the tenets of conflict. As opposed to the pluralist, radical thinkers believe that there is a high expectation of conflict to arise among the employers and the staff members. They believe that there is a strong parallel between capitalistic economy and conflict. As a byproduct of this interaction, conflict may arise anytime as the management and the employee deliberate on the equivalent monetary value of services offered against the accrued qualifications (Keith 2006). On the same note, radical proponents also believe that, there are other potential avenues likely to spark conflict within the organization. Considering the external environments, the society has being dichotomized into two classes that are in constant antagonism. These are the haves and those who do not have. The haves are considered as the owners of capital while have not’s are the laborers. In pursuit of maximum profits, the owners of the means of production have continually oppressed the laborers resulting to conflict of interest. In addition, proponents of radical approach view the respective government intervention through legislative powers as undermining and oppressing the rights and privileges of the people. They note that, there is a tendency for the governments to pass skewed policies that ensure favorable working conditions for the organization but overlook the plight of the workers. This is plainly motivated by the revenue collected, thus the radical school of thought sees no significant need for government intervention through legislation citing that it offers little in the balance of power between the owners of the mean of production and the majority who provide labor. Contrary to their view, they identify the pluralist as supporters of capitalism while the unitary proponents as rigid supporters of domination than rights. Relevance of radical theory The tenet of this theory reflects a significant impact to the 21st century employment relation. Despite the vast economic growth, there has been a complete detachment between the remuneration and the standard of life, thus leading to sustained conflicts in the work place. With employees, demanding for high pay to caution the increasing commodity price hardly have the employers responded positively to these needs respectively (John, Rafel 2004). This has led to emergence of the revolutionary trade unions speaking in one voice to agitate employment demands with the government as the main mediator with skewed legislations. Critique of the radical approach This approach has been criticized for overlooking legislation as the gateway to the predicament of the workers. Analysts have noted that, there is much positive progress to show from legislative policies that have stream lined employment operations significantly. Such legislations include the labor laws and international treaties on labor (Silva 2001). Conclusion Issues in employment relations can be easily understood through the spectrum of these classical theoretical bases. Within the scope of unitary, pluralist and the radical approaches to employment relations, there is much relevance towards understanding contemporary employment relations today. Throughout this paper, the researcher has clearly explored the tenets of these approaches, relevance and expressed critique of the same. In summary, the researcher can evidently conclude that the current century employment schemes cane be clearly understood from these perspectives. Bibliography Boyd, B 2005, National culture and comparative industrial relations theory. Journal of management Vol.3 excerpts pp. 304-310. International labor conference 95th session 2006. Report V John, W & Rafael, G 2004, Why a balance is best: The pluralist industrial relation paradigm of balancing competing interest. Industrial research association. Vol. 2 excerpts 203-205 Keith A. 2006, A review of employment relations theories and their application. Journal of problems and perspective in management . 1 excerpts pp. 187 Linda, D 2008, Legal regulation, Institution and industrial relation. Warwick paper in industrial relations. No. 89. Robert, T 2006, The future of employment relations, Oxford, Oxford university press. Silva, R 2001, Elements of a sound industrial relations system. International labor organization. Tina, W, Peter, F., & Kursat, L 2000, Employment relation. Journal marketing Vol. 3 excerpts pp. 400-405. Read More