Trade Union Activity and Pluralistic Perspective - Term Paper Example

 «Trade Union Activity and Pluralistic Perspective» Introduction “Employee relations” is a common title for the industrial relations function within personnel management and is also sometimes used as an alternative label for the academic field of industrial relations. The term underlines the fact that industrial relations is not confined to the study of trade unions but embraces the broad pattern of employee management, including systems of direct communication and employee involvement that target the individual worker” (Heery and Noon, 2001, p.97). Employee relations refers to a systemic framework of interrelated links between employers and employees that are both influenced by and determine worker productivity, motivation, employee psychology and measured responses to organizational culture. Identical terms such as labour relations and industrial relations are also applied as synonyms though researchers and writers sometimes tend to distinguish between them in order to attach special importance to each. The contextual differences apart, they are synonymous terms in the organization’s functional environment. Hog Kong as a separate administrative region under China now and a British colony then has been consistently developing a system of employee relations that in turn has been subject to a variety of influences such as social, economic, legal and political. During this evolutionary process, employee relations in Hong Kong has acquired a broader perspective (Rowley, 2000, p.127). While much of its current constituent parameters have been influenced by the British institutional relations, including hierarchies and organizational culture, there is some influence coming from the mainland China as well. The business organization in Hong Kong tends to be as independent as the free entrepreneurial spirit of the average Hong Kong businessman. It’s against this backdrop that this paper seeks to examine the various influences on employee relations in Hong Kong. Analysis Employee Relations has been around for a very short time now and is considered to be a larger area of study than industrial relations. Therefore it includes such broader perspectives as employer-employee relations, psycho-social behavioural dynamics of the employee, non-unionized work environments, private contractual agreements and some emotive relationships among employees and employers. The diversity and complexity of theoretical underpinnings need more articulate logic to establish linear and non-linear links among various variables. This is a sphere of study with diverse ideological nuances and political implications. Governments in Europe and North America have been actively involved in efforts to chart its progress. Especially in Europe, harmonization of employee relations is leading to the setting-up of works councils, thus creating a sense of collective or pluralist responsibility. The same can be said of Hong Kong (Beatly, 2003, p.141). Theoretical analysis of the subject will delineate such highly influential theoretical constructs like the Pluralistic, Unitary and Radical/Marxist perspectives and the Systems and Social Action theories. Finally it will focus on empirical evidence with particular attention on external environmental factors of employee relations, i.e. social, economic, political and legal perspectives. Three major perspective theories – Pluralistic, Unitary and Radical/Marxist – need to be applied to Hong Kong’s employee relations context with a marked focus on their persuasive elements. The subsequent contradictions are discussed in order to establish a series of parallels in employee relations for Hong Kong. These theoretical perspectives plus Systems and Social Action theories would give a clearer picture of the theoretical background while external environmental factors and their influences on Hong Kong’s employee relations would put the study into its proper perspective. Pluralistic perspective is perhaps the most politically motivated theoretical postulate on employee relations because it presupposes the existence and pacification of politically divergent groups that seek to enforce their own will over the rest. Thus in the process the management is expected to reconcile their position and reward the divergent groups to focus on the achievement of organizational goals. In other words managers might not coerce and berate the recalcitrant workforce but persuade to work towards the achievement of common goals. Their loyalties are not to be questioned but redirected. Similarly their group leaders are not to be antagonized. Thus conflicts between the management and employees are solved through collective bargaining. As a corollary of the above in the hierarchy of relations, superimposing or overlapping structures or layers would not exist. Pluralistic or egalitarian structures would compel the participants to concur on a singularly important value (Skyttner, 2005, p.65). Even in the absence of such a perfect arrangement, power relations between managers and employees ought to produce positive outcomes. At least that’s what theoretical constructs would tell us. Employee relations in Hong Kong assumed such a pluralistic character under the British. Trade union activity flourished during this time. Pluralistic perspective is primarily concerned with equitable power relations inside the organization and therefore there is no gainsaying the fact that employees regard their trade union leaders as indisputable saviours and representatives of the larger interest. The conflict that arises as a result of this is to be settled by means of negotiations (Werhane and Singer, 1999. P.116). Thus industrial relations perspective is more appropriate here for an understanding of the work culture and its impact on the employee relations. Unitary perspective is presented as an integral theoretical postulate on employee relations and right now its applications in labour relations contexts within the organization are open to doubt (Blyton, 2004, p.32). Such conflict-free harmonious business entities are less likely to exist in the real world. Its theoretical underpinnings are far removed from reality and are seldom characteristic of any authentic organizational environment where employee relations are governed by the need to co-operate rather than falling over each other to please one another. Under the Unitary perspective trade unions are deemed to be non-extant and therefore they do not come into the picture as representatives. They are rather some archaic elements that are not going to fulfill any employee needs. Under this theory industrial action is considered to be inimical to progressive ideological perceptions of the society. The organization is an entity with paternalistic culture which presumes conformity to rules and regulations. Employees’ loyalty is taken for granted because they are there as part and parcel of the whole. As much as it’s impractical in a modern organizational context, it’s also disputable as to what could be accomplished by it in situations where labour relations are strained by disagreements between employers and employees over salary anomalies (Rose, 2004, p.75). Salary anomalies are a permanent feature in any organization where a paternalistic approach exists. Senior managers act in their own interest thus taking it as the interest of the company at large. Divergence in opinion is not permitted because the ‘whole good’ of the company can be vitiated by such divergent behavior. Leader-centric Unitarianism produces little or no criticism and therefore there is the possibility of greater concentration on organizational goals. This is at least partially true of some paternalistic organizations as those which existed in the earlier days of industrialization in Japan. Finally Radical perspective is closely identified with Marxian ideology. This perspective tends to define employee relations in terms of Marxist ideological underpinnings of capital-labour relations, i.e. a permanent struggle between two classes – the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie (Light and Nagel, 2000, p.30). This conflict unlike, any other is determined by a desire for control over means of production. In employee relations this perspective has very little relevance to Hong Kong’s own circumstances; neither does labour relations in the modern business organization support the virtual antagonism between two classes. As of consequence conflict according to Radical perspective is not only inevitable but also an inherent element so that exploitation of labour by capitalists is a permanent feature of this relationship. Managers are prompted by the view that labour is there to be hired at a rate to add more in value terms to the existing capital stock. The argument that labour has to be paid according to its ability to enhance the existing stock of wealth is not taken as an offense. Marginal productivity of labour is not a logical proposition on which payment terms can be arranged (Leat, 2001, p.70). Despite this dichotomous class struggle there is a ray of hope in this perspective. For example if capital were owned by the rich, then it’s the entrepreneurial class that would have the ability to organize production in a manner that total value of assets would rise more than proportionately to bring about socio-economic progress. However how much of this progress would directly benefit the working class is not known. While Radical perspective has quite a number of pluses it invariably exaggerates the class conflict to undermine otherwise singularly important aspect of economic progress in times of mutually exclusive historical social evolution. This is the worst set back of this perspective (Roberti, 1996, p.156). Hong Kong could not have experienced such a time period in its history except under the initial phase of British rule. When studying the theories of industrial relations, there are three major perspectives that contrast in their approach to the nature of workplace relations. The three views are generally described as the unitary, pluralist and Marxist perspectives. The Marxist perspective is sometimes referred to as the Conflict Model. Each offers a particular perception of workplace relations and will therefore interpret such events as workplace conflict, the role of trade unions and job regulation very differently. Industrial Relations cannot be on a bumpy road any longer because it has a greater relevance to empirical contexts elsewhere. The newer phenomenon of social order focuses on historical ties between employment and society. Public policy is not a prerogative of the average politician but a social responsibility of the average employee and employer. Employees of an organization need to be taken care of according to organizational requirements, and rules that are imposed by the government or/and local authorities for the effective governance of employee relations. Organizational requirements might impose restrictions on the management to define organizational goals in advance and then establish systematic employee relations. It’s essential to provide employees with information on corporate goals and policies so that they come to know about the relevant work standards that they are expected of. Hong Kong has had a checkered history of labour relations. The British introduced their own organizational practices in the island decades ago. As such disciplinary aspects of employment occupied the topmost place in the hierarchy of organization’s employee relations framework. Trade union activity was virtually absent at the beginning but as the time went on a system of comprehensive labour regulations was developed. Systems and social action perspectives have also inevitably contributed to Hong Kong’s current developments in employee relations. For instance resource allocation processes based on free market mechanisms presuppose the existence of socio-economic equilibria through minimal government intervention thus leaving much of the socially desirable transformation to take place without human interference (Zafirovski, 2001, p.5). Hong Kong, with approximately 7 million people and a labour force half that, is unlikely to regulate its economy by using authoritarian principles. China’s undertaking not to interfere with its economy is sufficient promise for a systems-based free economic evolution from a trade union dominated employee relations past to a more dynamic modern system of labour relations. These systems and social action perspectives are qualitatively influenced by those participants in the industrial relations field such as employees, trade unions, employers and their organizations, the government of Hong Kong, the Chinese government, government agencies and regulatory bodies. How much impact each brings to bear on the equation is indeterminate. However their sum total of influence is so high as to cause a paradigm shift in employee relations. With new legislation being passed to regulate the existing wage anomalies in some sectors of the economy, Hong Kong has successfully overcome the inherent difficulties faced by any free market economic system that has gone through a smooth process of political transition (Terano, Deguchi and Takadama, 2003, p.4). Employee relations in this particular context has to be examined with specific focus on the post transition period because despite a polarizing tendency among workers to seek trade union remedies against a host of problems such as redundancy, underemployment, discrimination on the basis of sex and country of origin and less overtime pay, there has been a common sentiment among them to increase productivity in order to achieve organizational goals (Namatame, Terano and Kurumatani, 2000, p.145). According to some authors trade unionism in Hong Kong has assumed “a classic dualism” instead of autonomy (Snape and Chan, 1997, Vol.35 (1), pp.39-63). According to the authors trade unions in Hong Kong irrespective of their respective profession or industry tend to adopt a dual approach of accommodation and self-servility towards employers. While they are not critical of the tendency, they point out that it can be of greater help in achieving faster and stable economic progress (Fosh, 1999, p.23). The overarching power structures in Hong Kong could not have allowed formalization and centralization of trade unions to the extent that was noticed in other societies. According to Chiu and Levin the causative factors for this peculiar characteristic could be traced by using three analytical perspectives – “transaction cost economics, political conflict and neo-institutional sociology” (Chiu and Levin, 1999, Vol. 20 (2), pp.293-321). The institutional environment in Hong Kong could be the most deterministic force in shaping the employee relations as they are today. The predominance of legal influences on employee relations in Hong Kong is obvious when we look at various pieces of legislation pertaining to employment. They include Wage Protection, Rest Days, Holidays with Pay, Paid Annual Leave, Sickness Allowance, Maternity Protection, Severance Payment, Long Service Payment, Employment Protection, Termination of Employment Contract & Protection Against Anti-Union Discrimination (www.labour.gov.hk). Companies that operate on the principle of profit maximization have to pay attention to these legal requirements as well. The Race Discrimination Ordinance of 2006 provides for the protection of employees against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language or any other difference. As a result it has had far reaching consequences for the employers in Hong Kong. Employment contracts contain contractual obligations on the part of both the employer and the employee. Such obligations have a telling impact on the management. In Hong Kong these recent changes have forced managers to change their age-old attitudes (The Race Discrimination Bill – Implications for Hong Kong Employers, 2007, www.bakernet.com). Finally political influences on employee relations in Hong Kong have produced some of the most welcome outcomes in recent times. Very rarely in a country such influences play a neutral role on labour relations, but in Hong Kong they have little negative impact. In the first place Hong Kong was ruled by the British whose political processes are far removed from the Chinese mainland way of doing things (Share, 2007, p.88). Yet subsequent developments after the handover to China in 1997 show some disturbing trends. Political influences such as the formation of alliances with companies of mainland origin by trade unions and trade union bosses becoming politically motivated all have contributed to the share of trouble of managers. Employee relations in Hong Kong have increasingly been subject to a newer phenomenon of cultural prejudice because after its sovereignty was transferred to China, political authority of mainland China began to assert itself with the same profoundly zealous class identity as found in China. Policy decisions concerning business and economy are being increasingly influenced by these new officials (Chung, 2001, p.266). Communist hierarchical command structures are slowly but surely being implemented there as well. This is none so well evident than in the official appointments of high administrative officers whose functional capacity and office positions are determined by the same political affiliations as those found in mainland China. Thus as of consequence the organizational culture in Hong Kong is gradually undergoing some transformation in which politicization of employee relations seems inevitable. Conclusion Theoretical perspectives that have been associated with employee relations are basically the constructs on which psychological aspects of labour relations are based. Thus Pluralistic, Unitary and Radical perspectives are regarded as the analytically feasible frameworks to examine the constituent elements of any system of employee relations within a territory. While all three perspectives have some positive characteristics, they also have some shortcomings. Unitary theory assumes that there is no need for conflict in the organization between employers and employees. This utopian view does not tally with the modern employee relations that can be seen in every type of political and economic sub-division. Pluralistic perspective on the other hand is based on the theoretical ground that the majority of workers tend to identify themselves with the organizational goals and therefore there is less room for conflict. Both the management and employees work towards these goals. However it’s very difficult to assume that there are such pleasant work environments nowadays in the world. Next there is the Radical perspective on employee relations which tells us that they are based on a permanent conflict between labour and capital. Marxist ideological underpinnings have influenced this theory. It’s also far removed from the reality. Finally Hong Kong’s own employee relations situation shows that despite all political, legal, economic and social influences, these relations have been positively growing with an ever willing labour force contributing to a productivity growth trajectory without resorting to wild trade union activity (Wond, 2002, p.6). But nevertheless it must be noted that mainland’s political influences over the island are visible in a slow process of radicalization of workers. REFERENCES 1. Beatty, B. 2003, Democracy, Asian Values and Hong Kong: Evaluating Political Elite Beliefs, Praeger Publishers, Connecticut. 2. Blyton, P. 2004, Dynamics of Employee Relations (Management, Work and Organisations), Palgrave Macmillan, New York. 3. Chiu, S.W.K. and Levin, D.A. 1999, 'The Organization of Industrial Relations in Hong Kong: Economic, Political and Sociological Perspectives', Organization Studies, Vol.20, No.2, pp.293-321. 4. Chung, S. 2001, Hong Kong’s Journey To Reunification, Columbia University Press, West Sussex. 5. Fosh, P. 1999, Konh Kong Management and Labour: Continuity and Change, Routledge, New York. 6. Employment, The Race Discrimination Bill-Implications for Hong Kong Employers, 2007, www.bakernet.com 7. Heery, E. and Noon, M. 2001, A Dictionary of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 8. Labour Department- Labour Legislation, www.labour.gov.hk 9. Leat, M. 2001, Exploring Employee Relations, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. 10. Light, A.and Nagel, M. (Eds.), 2000, Race, Class, and Community Identity, Humanity Books, New York. 11.Namatame, A., Terano, T., and Kurumatani, K. (Eds.), 2000, Agent-Based Approaches in Economic and Social Complex Systems, IOS Press, Oxford. 12. Roberti, M. 1996, The Fall of Hong Kong: China’s Triumph and Britain’s Betrayal, Wiley, New Jersey. 13. Rose, E. Employment Relations, Financial Times, Prentice Hall, 2004. 14. Rowley, C. 2000, Managed in Hong Kong: Adaptive systems, Entrepreneurship and Human Resources (Studies in Asia Pacific Business), Franu Cass Publishers, London. 15. Share, M. 2007, Where Empires Collided: Russian and Soviet Relations with Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao, The Chinese University Press, Hong Kong 16. Skyttner, L. 2005, General Systems Theory: Perspectives, Problems Practice, World Scientific Publishing Company, New Jersey. 17. Snzpe, E. and Chan, A.W. 1997, 'Whither Hong Kong’s Unions: Autonomous Trade Unionism or Classic Dualism?', British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol.35, No.1, pp.39-63. 18. Terano, T., Deguchi, H., and Takadama, K. (Eds.), 2003, Meeting the Challenge of Social Problems Via Agent-Based Simulation, Springer, New York. 19. Werhane, P. and Singer, A. (Eds.), 1999, Business Ethics in Theory and Practice: Contributions From Asia and New Zealand (Issue in Business Ethics), Kluwer Academic Publishes Massachusetts. 20. Wond, T. 2002, Hegemonies Compared: State Formation and Chinese School Politics in Postwar Singapore and Hong Kong (Reference Books in International Education), RoutledgeFalmer, London. 21. Zafirovski, M. 2001, Exchange, Action, and Social Structure: Elements of Economic Sociology, Greenwood Publishing Group, Connecticut. Read More