Perspectives that Have Influenced Employment Relations over a Period of the Last Twenty Years - Coursework Example

Employment Relations Name Course number University Date Introduction The employment scene is very diverse and dynamic especially in relation to the parties that are at play in forming this relationship. The dynamism of this scenario has given rise to the concept of employment relations (ER) which has developed over a period of time. To begin with, ER is founded on the idea that it constitutes a legal and formal employment contract and it may also be seen as a psychological contract of unwritten rules. This paper takes a focus on the perspectives that have influenced employment relations over a period of the last twenty years, in different areas of employment as well as in different countries. However, focus is also given to the factors that are continually having an impact on employment relations. Specifically we will focus on the roles that different states play in shaping the way employment relations are managed in the different countries. Rogers (2012) argues that the government (state) plays a very important role in ER, since it acts as a regulator to the employer-employee relationship. Therefore it is important for the state to be actively involved in regulating the practices of industrial relations in order to ensure that every party involved receives fair treatment. The state (or government) in this concept refers to a body that governs a country, republic or state and holds a political association. Employment relations (ER) best refer to the way employment relationships are managed by all parties involved in the relationship. The most important parties in this relationship are the employer and employee. However, it may be expanded to include other parties such as labour unions and state governments. According to Waiganjo & Ng’ethe (2012), the objective of employment relations is to ensure that the procedures followed in defining the rules of the game are efficient and fair enough. Industrial relations (IR) refer to a system where employees are collectively represented by a body or union, which interacts with their employers in a bid to establish and set the pace for how the employment relationship should be governed. According to Kauffman (2010), the concept of Industrial relations is built on the understanding that the employment relationship is heavily influenced by political and economic factors. On the other hand, IR takes on a pluralistic perspective in the management of employment relations because different bodies are at play in generating solutions to the problems faced in the labour market. Human Resource management (HRM) refers to the process involved in managing human capital with the aim of attaining organizational goals. HRM takes on a Unitarian perspective in the management of employee relations. This is because HRM lays emphasis on the importance of integrating employees into the organizations strategy such that the organization is viewed as a harmonious entity where every party in the picture works to achieve a common goal. According to Muller (1999), HRM is has evolved over the last twenty years to become a very important subject in managerial practices worldwide. The question of whether the state should be actively involved in employment relations is rather contemptuous because different state governments have played different roles in shaping the ER in their countries. As a result different countries record different industrial relations systems (Collings, n.d). For instance in capitalistic countries, employers and labour unions have the freedom to determine their own actions but they have to follow the legislative requirements that the government sets. The scenario is different for countries where governments exercise autocracy and for countries that take on a communist approach. However, regardless of the system at play, it is hard to separates the government from the employment relations scene because it is the predominant employer in the public sector. To begin with the ER front has changed so much with time, moving from permanent employment to non standard employment relations characterized by temporary, part time and contractual work based employment (Kalleberg, 2000). This can be attributed to the changes in the global economy, where competition has become so stiff and organizations and businesses (employers) alike are seeking to grow their profits and reduce on their expenditure. The main actors in ER are employees and employers where employees are paid a wage by their employers for their effort. However this relationship is characterized by inequalities and dissatisfactions from both parties and this gives rise to the need of industrial relations as an actor in ER (Hall, 2006). In the last two decades, economic performance has become the key issue targeted by state regulations because of the uncertainties involved. Traxler (1999) argues that as a result of this shift, state governments have had to move away from a pluralistic approach of collective bargaining and they have become more deliberate on regulating ER. In the USA for instance, the Unitarian approach of HRM is adopted in managing the employment relationship. In this scenario, HRM framework is very sophisticated, and the practices employed target the employee as an individual (Muller, 1999). In contrast the Human Resource Management aspect in Europe freely integrates the concept of pluralistic IR, and organizations are highly regulated. Interestingly, the institutional framework in Germany’s labour market is highly regulated towards a pluralistic approach such that organizations may lack the power to run a self regulated Unitarian HRM unit. Australia on the other hand has not been left behind in the ER debate and this is evidenced by the move the senate took in the year 2004. That is approving reforms in their labour laws that sought to allow flexible collective bargaining, decentralize the IR system and deregulate their labour market (Hall, 2006). However, in developing countries like Bangladesh, governments tend to be directly involved in labour unions and as such; industrial relations in such countries are run around a hostile environment (Al Faruque, 2009). Ebbinghaus (2002) in his working paper reports that in Europe, trade unions have faced major challenges in regard to member recruitment in the last two decades. This is mainly attributed to the dynamic changes in the socioeconomic front, which have seen a growth of the private sector. These changes have resulted to a shift towards individualism which is represented by the Unitarian approach of HRM and away from the pluralistic trade union approach. Ebbinghaus (2002) provides excellent statistics which highlight a high rate of unionization in the public sector in Britain, yet the private sector accounts for a very low rate of unionization in the same country. Therefore it is only fair to argue that industrial relations are efficient when a state’s economy is relatively stable, but may be detrimental in the case of economic changes. Actors in the field of industrial relations face varied challenges because there are different forces at play such as dynamic changes in the market and government regulations (Hyman, 2005). The liberalization of trade across continents has facilitated the growth of trade investments across countries and consequently, multinational companies have taken root in different countries. This poses challenges to governments that are actively involved in the regulation of their industrial relations (Anner et al, 2006). On the contrary, this may be a good contribution on the part that employees are protected from exploitation. Whether the employment relationship is managed through a unitary or pluralistic approach, conflicts will always arise due to certain conflicts amongst the parties at play influenced by factors such as poor wages, poor employment conditions and the managerial aspects. Labour unions actions such as strikes and go slows affect the employment relationship, yet on the on the other hand, employers have their own associations that give them to push the government in regard to policies that protect them. Conclusion Employment relations prove to be a dynamic area that calls for clear regulations and control. This ensures that all the parties participate in achieving a win-win situation. State governments have originally played the role of controlling market forces in their legislative capacity. However, given the trends over the last two decades where globalization has opened cross border trade, new challenge of regulating industrial relations have risen. Notwithstanding is the role of economic instability that is facing many countries which has forced governments to shift their focus to formulating policies that support economic growth and stability. This has in turn given rise to modes of employment that shy away from the traditional permanent mode of employment, to give rise to what has been termed as nonstandard employment terms. This has given rise to turbulences in the labour market with employees demanding better treatment from their employers who in turn demand high quality input from the employees. In this case, political parties in countries especially those in the opposition put pressure on governments to intervene in finding permanent solutions to such conflicts. Therefore we conclude that it is imperative for governments to take an active role in regulating the forces at play in the field of employment relations. They participate actively by formulating and implementing policies and rules that give directions on how all actors should behave towards each other. This way the state plays its role in protecting all parties from exploitations by the other party. References Al-Faruque, A. (2009). Current Status and Evolution of Industrial Relations System in Bangladesh. International Labour Organization Anner, M., Greer, I., Hauptmeier, M., Lillie, N. & Winchester, N. (2006). T he Industrial Determinants of Transnational Solidarity: Global Interunion Politics in Three Sectors. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 12(1), 7-27 Collings, D. G. (n.d). Multinational corporations and industrial relations research: A road less travelled. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(2), 173–193 Ebbinghaus, B. (2002). Trade unions’ changing role: membership erosion, organisational reform, and social partnership in Europe. Industrial Relations Journal Hall, R. (2006). Australian Industrial Relations in 2005 – The WorkChoices Revolution. Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(3) 291–303 Hyman, R. (2005).Trade unions and the politics of the European social model. Economics and Industrial Democracy, 26(1), 9-40 Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract work. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 341-365. Kauffman, B. (2010). The Theoretical Foundation of Industrial Relations and Its Implications. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 64(1) Muller, M. (1999). Unitarism, Pluralism, and Human Resource Management in Germany. Management International Review, 39(3), 125-144 Rogers, E. D. (2012). Striking the Wrong Balance: Constituency Statutes and Corporate Governance. Pepperdine Law Review, 21(3), 3. Traxler, F. (1999). The state in industrial relations: A cross-national analysis of developments and socioeconomic effects. European Journal of Political Research, 36(1), 55-85 Waiganjo, E. W. &Nge’the, J. M. (2012). A Critical Evaluation of the Applicability of Unitarism Perspective in Contemporary Employment Relations. DBA Africa Management Review, 2(3), 55-68 Read More