Understanding Workplace Change - the Cabin Crew Dispute - Case Study Example

Understanding Workplace Change Introduction Pluralism frame of reference in terms of industrial relations is seen as the preferred perspective for running employee relations in organizations. Howeverother perspectives –Marxism, neo-liberalism and feminism – offer alternatives in regards to industrial relations. Heery et al (2008, pp. 14-21) discuss challenges or alternatives to pluralism orientation in industrial relations. This paper gives analysis of Heery’s et al (2008) discussion using an actual example. It will show the challenges faced in changing its industrial relations reference from that of pluralism to Marxism and the implications it has on the organization. The workplace change example I will look into is Upchurch’s (2010) evaluation of British Airways (BA) industrial relations following and after the 2010 Cabin crew dispute. Upchurch did this analysis following a request by Unite (the collective bargaining body at BA) to look at the employee relations strategy and its implication on the dispute with the cabin crew. It is important to look at the trend of employee relations following the Cabin Crew dispute- the main area of attention History of BA Employee Relations Upchurch (2010) reveals that the employee relations at BA are mixed as both sustainable and non-stainable-terminism. From its initiation, the organization developed a culture that was both militaristic and bureaucratic. This culture became detrimental to the organization which led to many of the pilots joining the army. With increasing competition in the market, BA opted for cost-cutting strategy and according to Upchurch (2010) the culture became Marxist and rule was dominated by fear, low trust between managers and staff and the staff became demotivated. With privatization in 1987 and increasing competition, the management opted to change the strategy to that of staff development and enhancement of customer quality. This seemed to have taken the long-term direction as opposed to the short-term strategies the organization seemed to have been operating on. As Upchurch says, they adopted programs like a day in the life and putting people first which reveal that the management was willing to recognize the input of the employees to the profitability and sustainability of the organization. This collaborative approach popularized BA as a model of sustainable work practices. Within this period customer satisfaction was realized and the brand appeared to have gotten a reputation as the ‘World’s favorite Airline’ (Upchurch 2010). However, this reign of profitability and sustainability would not last long since most of its competitors copied their working strategy. At the same time there emerged low-cost carriers within Europe which challenged the kind of business model BA operated in. Thus, BA was faced with the challenge of choosing a strategy of high quality and low-cost model. Without government subsidies, this left BA with the option of cost-cutting. The organization was faced with the challenge of balancing between high-quality strategy, cost-cutting approach and a customer focused approach. This slipped the organization to the low employee motivation and constant disputes. Upchurch (2010) observes that in the 1990s, each bargaining power at BA had a dispute every year. The open management style changed and instead of consultation and negotiation, the management turned to threats and selling off or franchising operations. The analysis by Upchurch (2010) reveals that the strategy changed again in the late 90s. The organization attempted to identify its niche customer base by focusing on premium, high-yielding passengers and point-to-point traffic. In early 2000s the CEO was replaced and the new CEO sought to rationalize the company’s short-haul European operations. This was in a bid to cut out the loss-making routes. With this changes being effected, BA suffered during the 9/11 and what followed was massive cost-cutting in the form of laying off employees. The Cabin Crew Dispute The management strategy on employee relations in 2010 – when the Cabin Crew dispute erupted – is a mixture of human capital and human process advantage approach. The organization aims to recruit a workforce that who will use their abilities to meet the needs of the customers. Upchurch (2010) identifies efforts of the organization to cut costs and change the organizational culture because since the introduction of the ‘Compete 2012’ and People and Organizational Effectiveness’ programmes in 2008, the organization has shed off on third of its senior managers. The cost cutting has given birth to suspicions that BA intends to create new contracts with lower terms and conditions. The organization, as identified in Upchurch’s report seems to be supplementing collective representation with the staff by engaging with the staff on individual basis and engagement in individual electronic communication. The organization popularizesa management style which is keen to recognize the traditional methods of collective bargaining by recognizing the trade unions as well as engaging individual members of staff in the business strategy. However, it is evident from the 2010 Cabin Crew Dispute, that the management has a hidden agenda in regards to management style as well as individual and collective worker representation. Upchurch (2010) identifies a very significant trend with the management – one of removing the industrial relations specialists from the HR docket to line managers. The impasse between the management and Unite seems to be aggravated by a more aggressive management style. In the dispute between the cabin crew and the management, the management rationalizes its approach by with the view that they need to reduce costs and reconstruct pay and working arrangements. This, combined with the suspicions raised earlier – that the mode of operation seems to be under change – is at the center of the stalemate observed in the 2010 cabin crew dispute. The management brought in new cabin crew staff, abolished the seniority and increment based pay, introduced merit and performance based pay and reconstructed the lines of authority within cabin crew staff. BA’s management response to the cabin crew strike shows a change to more belligerent approach. They suspended or disciplined any cabin crew who indicated support for the strike, they sought an injunction from the high court to prevent action of strike, conducted and industrial relations review of the negotiated agreements for cabin crew staff, renegotiated all aspects of trade union facilities, dismissed the trade union branch secretary, removed travel concessions for striking crew members, recruited alternative staff as staff breakers in the course of the dispute, created the Professional Cabin Crew Council – an anti-strike union and came up with that would see the withdrawal of the redeployment agreement. Unite also provide evidence that their members were bullied and harassed within the company. This action seems to suggest that the cabin crew staff members were being isolated. Most companies either choose the to develop one of two strategy in employee relations; human capital advantage – recruitment and retention of outstanding human talent, or human process advantage – through fostering learning co-operation and innovation. Employee strategy is birthed when the above approaches are combined with a choice for management style (Geare, Edgar and McAndrew (2009). Some management styles may be co-operative while others become hostile towards unionism and collective bargaining while others try to balance between consultation and negotiation. To quote Upchurch (2010, p. 4), “ a benign management approach to employee relation might thus embrace traditional collective bargaining and recognition of the autonomy of unions as a way of gaining (or re-gaining) control by sharing Control with staff representatives”. According to Heery et al (2008) and Bray et al (2011) this points to pluralism as the best approach. Where, the employees are seen as important stakeholders and the kind of relationship that exist between them and management is has significant implications for the organization. Pluralist orientation in industrial relations advocates for the presence of unions which are seen as legitimate representatives of the employees. However, Upchurch (2010) offers that a benign relationship between employees and the management can exist with or without unions. On the other hand, Marxist perspectives adopt an employee relations style that is hostile to collective bargaining and thus staff benefits are high and control by the management does not accept trade unions. Management may also opt to become openly aggressive and cut out collective representation through intimidation threats and penetrating entrepreneurial power; like a spider in the center of its web. In these instances, employee relations ceaseto be a function of the HR but rather it is down-graded and devolved to line managers. Heery et al (2008) argues that there is not much faith in the capacity of employers to manage the employment system for the benefit of the many stakeholders involved. Thus in many instances, IR commentators note market failures which are attributed to employers serving short-term or sectional interests inhuman Most of these spilled over to the management of BA’s management of employee relations which Upchurch (2010) argues have a direct corollary for corporate profitability and customer satisfaction both in medium and long-term goals. For instance, as Upchurch (2010) says, in airline operations, the Cabin crew in are the most important frontline staff when it comes to corporate brand experience and customer satisfaction. This means that that their emotional labor as well as how they look while delivering their duties determines the kind of experience a client will have with the airline, an aspect they will determine whether the client will return to the airline or make it a brand of choice. The pluralist perspective holds a belief that every organization have people with different interests, aims and aspirations. Power in such organization is said to be shared among the different stakeholders and thus no party dominates the other. The nature of the employment relationship is open-ended and unspecified which gives rise to structural antagonism. As a result, in the pluralist perspective, there is a high potential for conflict both at the workplace and in the labor market. This is because of the recognition of the different interests of different stakeholders. The role of the management is to ensure that conflicts that occur are kept within acceptable bounds. This means that they should not sit and expect blind obedience from the employees. In addition, management cannot suppress ideas and intentions from the employees that conflict with its own, thus the role of managing the conflict.The role of the state in organizations ran in this perspective to be an objective protector of the public interest. It protects those seen as the weak from the exploitation of the strong. The pluralist approach allows the thriving of unions which are seen as legitimate representatives of the interests of employees and they provide the right to challenge the management as well as the responsibility to seek compromise (Bray et al 2011). The main philosophy driving the unitarist or neo-liberal perspective is the fact that a workplace is integrated and harmonious unit whose existence serves a common purpose (Ross and Bamber 2009). In this perspective, the management provides strong leadership and ensures good communications. This kind of setting requires that the employees are loyal to the organization and the management. Corollary to this is the fact that unions are not allowed as they are seen to hinder or compete with the commitment and loyalty expected of them. Industrial conflict is not a characteristic of this kind of workplace and in cases where it occurs, it is attributed to faulty communications or employees’ failure to stand by the common interests of the organization. In the radical perspective or the Marxist, Bray et al (2011) says that there is a central and inherent conflict between the employers and the employees which originates from the inequality in the distribution of income and wealth in capitalist societies. One key characteristic that denotes this orientation is that those who own the means of production have superior power to those who come to them to sell labor for wages. Interestingly, unlike in the pluralist orientation where the state comes in as a guardian of the interests of the public interests and protecting the weak from the exploitation of the strong, the state in the Marxist orientation protects the interests of those who on the means of production. Lack protection from the management and the state leads the employees to form unions to challenge the control of the management as well as how the national product is distributed. Upchurch (2010) identifies a management stance aimed at using gender discrimination at gaining control. He says that 70% of the cabin crew staff are female while most of the flight crew are male. What does this imply? This implies what Upchurch calls ‘Macho-management’, “defined as an embedded culture of bullying and authoritarianism deliberately engineered from top echelons of the company hierarchy” (Upchurch 2010, p. 7). There is indication of a culture of authoritarian oppressiveness by the management and creation of an environment of fear which is designed to intimidate cabin crew union members. The dispute at BA is a clear indication of a change from a pluralist orientation to a Marxist orientation. The history of the management style of the organization serves to show that before the dispute, the organization sought to recognize the interests of every stakeholder in the organization, and more so, those of the employees. But the dispute brought forth a kind of panic within the organization which lead them to take belligerent measure turning the whole system into a unitarist-perspective led organization. Jodar, Vidal and Alos (2011) says that the presence of unions in the workplace improves collectivism and builds incentive for action. On the other hand individualistic orientations do not have much relevance especially in today’s world. References Geare, A, Edgar, F and McAndrew, I, 2009, ‘Workplace values and belief: and empirical study of ideology, high commitment management and unionism, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 5, pp. 1147-1171. Jodar, P, Vidal, S and Alos, R, 2011, ‘Union Activism in an inclusive system of industrial relations: Evidence from a Spanish case study, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford. Ross P and Bamber G J, 2009, ‘strategic choices in pluralist and unitarist employment relations regimes: a study of Australian telecommunication’ Industrial and labor relations review, 63, 1, pp. 24-41. Upchurch M, 2010, ‘Creating a sustainable work environment in British Airways: implicationsof the 2010 cabin crew dispute’, Technical Report, Middlesex University, London. http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6144/1/UpchurcCreating_a_Sustainable_Work_Environment_in_British_AirwaysFINAL.pdf Read More