Employee Relations - Japan and Great Britain - Essay Example

Employee Relations (Japan and Great Britain) Executive summary The issues revolving around employee relations seems to be complex, given the fact all the parties involved in the relationship of a working environment all do have objectives and point of views in their regulations. In addition, at international level, there are differences that exist from country to country regarding the quality of employee relations. In this essay, I have compared the employee relations in Great Britain and the Japan according to the role of played by their trade unions, Employers, collective negotiation, employee representative, and social dialogue. Introduction Employee relations refer to the relations existing between the employers with his or her employee. In today’s working the environment, human relations are more important than people can realize. This means employee relations are a particular issue this days because every employee shares a given relationship with his or her colleagues at the place of work. The relation in the working environment can be between any person in the organization- it can be between coworkers, between the employee and his superior, between members of management among others. It is paramount in a working place employees share a healthy and productive relationship with one another to deliver their maximum output and the best performance (Purcell 1987, pp.533–548). For long, it has been echoed out those employees who are comfortable and satisfied with their places of work play a great role in making productivity increase in every organization. On the other hand, those set of employees who are not happy have the potential to bring adversity and loss to the organizational business because their level of motivation is not at par to enhance growth. Consequently, systems are put in place in different nations to create a conducive working environment between the employees and the top management. The main objective of employee relation programs is ensuring a satisfaction of employees to harness their full potential. When employees are satisfied, their output tends to increase by that leading o full organization growth and development. In this study, we will look at the two most distinct countries (Japan and United Kingdom) in terms of their practice of employee relations ( Gunnigle et al. 1998, pp.115–131). Employee Relations in Great Britain Despite the fact there is a long history of industrial relations in Great Britain, there have been numerous changes seen over the past years in the country. In recent times, in Britain, the degree of unionization and reduction in the number of unions has been noted. Example, in the year 1979 approximately four hundred and seventy-five unions and trade unions were registered in the United Kingdom. In the year 2000, there number slumped to two hundred and twenty-one and eventually to two hundred and six in the following year (Bacon & Storey 2000, pp.407–427). However, the role that unions do play in the United Kingdom is still important today. The union’s role is to undertake crucial concrete actions in order to reduce the initiatives of the employers to act in an arbitrary manner. In Britain, congress, trade union congress does form unions. They represent the voice of all unions in every sector. The role played by the trade union congress, which assembles all the fifty-eight trade unions and represent the interest of all employees, is to develop regulations between unions, assist in the litigation of the union, offering of various services to the affiliated unions, development of trade union policies and representing the union movement worldwide and internally. Currently, the importance of collective negotiation has lost its importance in Great Britain compared with the situation that was recorded approximately ten years ago. This is because of the conservative attitude of the government that is also adopted by several firms in different countries (Wendy Loretto 2013, pp. 35). This situation was generated by joint action factors such as the high rate of unemployment that was 5.3 percent in the year 2006 compared to the 4.7 percent rate registered in the year 2004. From the collective agreements provisions, only thirty-three percent of the total employees number in the United Kingdom do benefit from the provisions. This percentage is lower in the private sector; approximately nineteen percent of the total negotiations do take place at the company level. Approximately sixty-nine percent of the total employees working in the private sector benefit from the collective agreement provision. Several companies from different national economic sectors such as the textiles and processing of wood have gone ahead to renounce membership of employers, thus not being in a position to participate in the negotiations with the unions. For this reason, they can determine their context of the work, which is adapted to the performed activity. Approximately seventy-five percent of the jobs in the public sector are under regulation using collective agreements. In some cases such as in teachers and nurses, their salaries are set by government hence no collective agreements (MacKenzie 2010, pp.657–658). In the context of politics and socio-economics, to a lesser extent, employers are willing to engage with their employees in negotiations because such a move is likely to lessen the degree of flexibility available in the market. As a result, the degree of responsiveness to changes in the operating environment will be reduced significantly. At small and medium size businesses, there is no institutionalization of collective bargaining and negotiation where employees are less than two hundred and fifty. Thus, nearly seventy-five percent of the companies having more than fifty employees have signed their agreements with the employees concerning collective work agreements. In the case where a company does not have any trade union, it is not under any law obligated to appoint any employee representative. In Great Britain, wages, overtime hours, rest time and working time are the main things that collective negotiations do approach. In most cases, collective bargaining takes consultation forms and decisions made on specific projects of the employers. However, there exists no legal provision that requires employers to negotiate with unions unless they are fully recognized as one of the partners in the negotiation (King 1976, pp.11–36). Despite the fact that the legislation on equal opportunities and relations of trade unions is well established, the practices of employment are often being put to criticism. In addition, they are also outdated and discriminatory. People who are most affected are the disabled, workers of minority culture and color, women, immigrants, and older workers. It has been shown in some reports the huge difference in salaries between men and women managers; the difference is as huge as twenty-six percent against the female managers. Even though, it is against the British law to discriminate against gender, it is still evident in most companies’ practices. Such occurrences are common in medium and small enterprises. The fundamental changes in the laws of labor, economic trends, social, managerial and changes in Socio- demography in the British framework were influenced by the national particular. Since then, the most vital criteria according to which the dialogue has been taking place between unions and employees is the equality of work. The problems due to work-life balancing have been too obvious; their resolution have been backed by the directives of the European Union regarding equality of gender, health, security and social dialogue (Almeida-Santos & Mumford 2005, pp.321–342). On the other hand, the policies of the government that are aimed at increasing the social security and on the other hand too lies the increasing integration of the unemployed population in the labor markets. Regarding disputes of labor, from the year 2004 employers were obliged under the law to establish procedures to be used in resolving disputes of labor. Failure to dispute resolutions procedures at work may constitute grounds for rejection of complaints that are brought before the courts. Hence, employers are mandated to inform the employees of the procedures applicable to conflict resolution in the working environment. These provisions, which constitute an individual’s employment contract or briefings on a written document that employers must provide to the employees within a period of two months from the date of beginning of working relationship. Both the employees and their employers must work hard towards resolving any labor disputes until they are submitted to the employment tribunal. Currently, the labor relationships are dominated by the relations established between the employers and the unions at the level of the organization. The scenarios, where individuals are given support in the context of the employment relationship rather than the collective approach represented by the union, are wholly supported by the labor legislation. In Great Britain, there exist no regulations under the law where the employees are the board members. This issue is covered in every company. Such situation can be seen especially in organizations found in public sectors and less in the private sectors (Naples et al. 2000, p.858). Employee Relations in Japan Looking at several ways many companies in Japan treat their employees, one is shocked by the employers attitude and their docility levels. Perhaps from the top management perspective, competitors would snatch employees who have the potential, and unless the workers agree to work long hours, many inconveniences will be created for the customers. Several companies do have their policies on personnel that cannot be helped from the perspective of the rational economic choices made by the companies (Jeong 2007, pp.150–151). Today in Japan, the modern society has changed largely; companies that are acting with traditional perspective and rationality are missing something important. Now that income is increasing, more Japanese are traveling in abroad countries and being exposed to new cultures. The system in the Japanese management is afflicting a heavy cost to the people of Japan in terms of loss of individual freedom. The system of management in Japan is not even bestowed on an even majority of works but instead the system is limited to a small minority. The rising productivity of labor in Japan, particularly in the manufacturing industries is contributing to the development of the nation’s economy. In 1979, the productivity of labor was unusually high in Japan. The reason for this enviable performance during that period was the structure of the employment system in Japan and the labor-management relations that was in harmony. In Japan today, mix outcomes are likely to be offered by the employee relations. This is due to the system used in the country. The system only rewards the employees basing upon the positions that they serve. It is also reported that, the employee who ae permanently employed in japan are earning huge salaries in comparison to their counterparts whose remuneration is low (Demann et al. 2008, pp.535–547). In hiring people, the system used by the Japanese is not appropriate compared to the United Kingdom. In respective of other qualifications, the young employees are automatically paid less compared to the other workers in the same working environment. Because the number of the young populations who are applying for these jobs is increasing at an alarming rate, the companies are enjoying by taking advantage to employing the young employees at low wages. Several Japanese companies have recently come under heavy criticism of undermining their employees with their approach on shareholding. Unlike the past periods where there was the prioritization of the employees affairs, this new approach endorsed by the Japanese firms has seen them hire new staffs on a regular basis. In Japan, the union has been under pressure to negotiate for the workers interest. Initially before the companies adopted this approach, the Japanese unions were credited for repulsing oppressing moves by several firms (Whitehall Jr 1964, pp.69–72). Comparison Japan uses non-confrontational approaches to solving its issues regarding employee relations. On the other hand, the United Kingdom at times uses confrontational means as an approach. The unions in Japan are always oriented toward finding a lasting solution. In both countries, unions are seen to be playing a vital role in trying to enhance a good working environment for both parties having dispute. Currently in the United Kingdom, the trade union congress has fifty-four affiliations. Having such a huge number of unions, the United Kingdom is proud of having stable workforces in the globe. Despite the fact that many a times the unions do not resolve issues leading to strike, the discussions that they often hold bare fruits. In Japan, most of its union had to come together and merge into a single union due to the decreasing number of the employees who were employed on a permanent basis. One cannot underestimate the great work of the unions found in both countries. The union in Japan has helped to increase the total number of part-time workers. In a similar manner, the unions in the United Kingdom have been given credit for having spearheaded changes that have led to great improvement in the employment throughout the kingdom ( Vinten 1993, pp.47–64). In both countries, laws that are precise in terms of friendliness may not be there. In the United Kingdom, all its workers do have minimal rights to employment and, as a result, have an occupational pension. The United Kingdom allows its employers and employees to make choices on the best legal system they were to use in governing their agreements. They have the mandate under the laws to present the employee-employer agreement that bears the terms of the agreement. Compared to the United Kingdom, the Japanese labor laws are almost similar in nature. The only difference among the laws in both countries is on the minimum wage for the employees. Unlike the United Kingdom, Japan’s minim wage is not specific, and it mainly relies on the cost of living. The Japanese minimum wage is not uniform. Every employer in a different organization pays differently in terms of the minimum wage. As opposed to this, the United Kingdom minimum wage is uniform across the kingdom irrespective of the type of work and the nature of the organization. Other factors such as the international trade and the globalization have played instrumental roles in bringing changes in the employees relations. For example, the labor laws of the United Kingdom are connected with those that are governing the European Union. In addition, the fact that both countries do participate in international trade affairs makes it possible for their employees to be motivated. Most often, when an organization has dissatisfied employees, they tend to give up and in the end change their jobs. These would have a great negative impact on any country. Conclusion With no single doubt in mind, the relationship existing between employer and the employees is an important factor that transcends both the employer and the employee. Several countries are frenzied through inviting investors to come and improve its status economically. However, this can be hindered of there exists no strong cohesion between the employees and the employer. In most times this is not always the case, therefore, formation of unions and laws is vital to help in arbitrate the employer and the employees and create a warm working environment thus increase productivity and organizational growth. For this reason, establishing a good relationship between employees and the top management in an organization is of substantial value in any working environment. Human relation is a complex process involving employee training, addressing the employee’s needs, fostering a working and productive culture and resolving conflicts existing between different employees or the top management and employees. Every person in the place of work shares a particular relationship with his or her fellow workers. Human beings need each other people to talk and discuss ideas and share their sorrows and happiness. Individuals cannot work alone. If organizations were to be empty, then the employees would not feel like sitting around and work. It is, for this reason, essential to creating a warm environment to make employees comfortable with one another and work together as one compact unit towards a common organizational goal. References Almeida-Santos, F. & Mumford, K., 2005. Employee training and wage compression in Britain. Manchester School, 73, pp.321–342. Bacon, N. & Storey, J., 2000. New employee relations strategies in Britain: towards individualism or partnership? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, pp.407–427. Demann, E.T.K. et al., 2008. Employee relations. Dental clinics of North America, 52, pp.535–547, ix. Gunnigle , P., Turner , Thomas & Morley , Michael , 1998. Strategic integration and employee relations: the impact of managerial styles. Employee Relations, 20, pp.115–131. Jeong, D.Y., 2007. The Embedded Corporation: Corporate Governance and Employment Relations in Japan and the United States. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 36, pp.150–151. King, A., 1976. Modes of Executive-Legislative Relations: Great Britain, France and West Germany. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1, pp.11–36. MacKenzie, J.M., 2010. Gender, Labour, War and Empire: Essays on Modern Britain. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38, pp.657–658. Naples, N.A. et al., 2000. States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States. Contemporary Sociology, 29, p.858. Purcell, J., 1987. MAPPING MANAGEMENT STYLES IN EMPLOYEE RELATIONS. Journal of Management Studies, 24, pp.533–548. Vinten, G., 1993. Employee Relations in Mergers and Acquisitions. Employee Relations, 15, pp.47–64. Wendy Loretto, D.L.S.V., 2013. Rethinking retirement: changing realities for older workers and employee relations? Employee Relations, pp. 35. Whitehall Jr, A.M., 1964. Cultural values and employee attitudes: United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, pp.69–72.  Read More