Role of State in Employment Relations - Coursework Example

Role of state in employment relations Name Institution Course Lecturer Date This essay is answering the question whether the state should play an active part in employment relations. Employment relationship is legal connection between the employers and the employees (Yuan, 1998). This relationship exists when one performs work under certain conditions in turn for payment. State is used to refer to the elected governments of the various countries. The state’s objective is to fulfil the desires of the citizens and the state do this by exercising power. The powers of the state are exercised by the the judiciary, legislature and bureaucracy. The functioning of the state is influenced by technology and globalization. In many countries, the state play crucial roles and the collective bargaining systems are vastly centralized, for example, Australia and West Germany. In some other countries, the role of the state is minor and non decisive, for example, United Kingdom. The role of the state in IR depends on the ideological bent of the state. In capitalist countries, the employer and unions are allowed to determine their own affairs (Bridges & Villemez, 1991). In communist countries, there is no separate role predicted for the employers and the unions. Their operation is due to the directive of the party and the state plan (Bridges & Villemez, 1991). The state has several roles and functions; provision of institutional framework, avoiding industrial conflicts, provision of the system of collective bargaining, interpretation of the conflict of interest and participation in public sector labor relations. The actors in employment relations are workers, employers and the state. Employment relations include HRM and IR. There are four theories which relates to industrial relations and the involvement of the state. These theories are unitary, plural, class and elite (Strauss & Whitfield, 1998). In this essay, I will deal with the unitary and plural theory. Unitary perspective has several elements. First, the source of authority in an organization is only one and that is the management and opposition does not exist. Secondly, the role of the leaders in the organisation is to ensure that the workers are loyal and committed. Thirdly, organizations are seen as having teams that work together to achieve mutual goals and there are no conflicts of interest between the managers and the employees. This perspective believes that the managers and the employees can come together to achieve common objectives and values. Fourthly, the management should show strong leadership in order to attain the objectives of the organisation. Fifth, trade unions are not viewed to be essential in harmonious management of conflicts in an organisation. Sixth, conflicts that arise in an organisation are perceived in a negative manner. They lead to disloyalty which in turn impairs the organizations well being. The last element of this perspective is that the state is responsible in shaping of the Industrial relations systems (Kaufman, 2002). The unitary perspective wants to build the employee’s loyalty and commitment by integrating the employer’s and employee’s interests. It also emphasizes on the managers role in the attainment of a win-win situation for the organizations and the employees. The managers have to show their capabilities as leaders and if they are influential and convincing, there will be no demand for trade unions. The unitary perspective is individualist in its approach. Many Industrial Relations systems in the world have shifted from collectivist paradigms to individualistic paradigms for example UK. However, this perspective has weaknesses. The major weakness is lack of realization that there are inequalities between employees and the employers with regards to power in the organisation. This brings about conflicts. This perspective also lacks a clear description on how interests can be identified and shared in the organizations. The pluralist theory believes that the place of work comprises very diverse sets of beliefs, behavior, values and attitudes. Secondly, there are conflicting sources of leadership in organizations. Thirdly, conflicts are unavoidable because of the competing interests. These conflicts can be helpful in an organisation if identified and controlled. Fourth, the management plays the role of mediating due to the competing interests. Fifth, trade unions are viewed in a positive way as opposed to the unitary perspective. These unions help employees in decision making. Sixth, the role of the state is promotion of the interests of the public. Lastly, employment relations can be achieved through negotiations between managers and employees (Ackers, 2002). Pluralist perspective emphasizes that resolution of conflicts can occur if there is effective Industrial Relations interventions. However, this theory dwell more on rules and disregard the processes of resolving conflicts. In addition, it does not realize that the state represents commercial interests too not just interests of the public. The essay will consider UK and India societies and also Nigeria. The institutions in India copy heavily from the UK institutions.UK is a developed nation while India is a developing nation.UK has a longer experience in industrialization and therefore India can learn from the UK.India is growing at a faster rate than UK. Conservative parties and Labour parties has dominated UK politics since 1945.Conservative party gets its support from the rural communities while Labour party gets its support from working class in the urban areas(Johnston, Jones, Sarker, Propper, Burgess& Bolster, 2004).Mrs. Thatcher was head of conservative governments and she instigated reforms whose focus was to revive the British economy which was declining.This focus was meant to decentralize and individualize employment relationships.In the 70s,the Labour unions were perceived to have disproportionality in power due to strikes, for example the coal miners. The impact of this was redressing of power balance between the employer and the employee to increase competitiveness in the industry. Currently, the economy of UK is better prepared to deal with technology and globalization. This is indicated by expansion of Human Resource practices, bigger degree of outsourcing as compared to other nations in the EU and increment in part time and temporary work. In India, legislation of labour was greatly influenced by colonialism by Britain. After independence, the state focused on manufacturing and agriculture. Unions representing employers and employees were taken up. The Trade Dispute Act of 1929 was replaced by the Industrial disputes Act in 1947.The Industrial Disputes Act was to address fair wages and good working conditions for the productivity to be higher and the production uninterrupted(Srivastava, 1974). During this period, the state took the unitary role and an employer. The role of the state in India may shift towards a more pluralist theory. The employment relations picture in India has a larger informal sector than the formal sector of employment that is a developing state. Due to this, the degree to which the state has intervention in employment relations is reduced. Comparing the two societies, there are some similarities in the growth of trade unions, decline in the economy and revival of the economy. There are also differences in the terms of poverty, unemployment, education levels, and distribution of the workforce across the different sectors and the patterns of migration. The action taken by the two states are similar, that is, redressing power balance and reducing the direct role of the state and increasing its role in indirect areas. Nigeria is a developing nation and it has developed an IR system in which the state plays an active role. The state through the government is applying based on the belief that workers and employers cannot be left to completely regulate all the features of the work system. Developing countries, Nigeria included have assumed leadership in economic and political fields. The involvement of the state in IR is beyond legislation. Nigeria inherited economic and political tradition from the Western countries (Sandbrook, 1985). Between late 20s to the 30s, more unions have been formed. The trade unions Ordinance was enacted in 1938.The British principles of collective bargaining, freedom of association, industrial organization and democracy became the foundations of Nigeria’s IR policy by the end of Second World War (Akinwale, 2011). This continued until the installation of military regime in 1966.Industrial democracy meant that trade unions and employers would be free to negotiate and determine employment conditions and the wages. In IR, wages are the main problem and they vary between employers, geographical areas and occupations. Industrial democracy received shocks when the military regime was established in 1966.The government felt obliged to bans strikes and to limit freedom of employers and employees to negotiate on wages. In conclusion, the extent to which the state is involved in employment relations in crisis situations should be higher. However, one question on to what degree should the state be involved in employment relations remains unanswered. In my own view, I would propose that the level to which the state should play part in employment relations should be dependent on the larger picture. If there are crisis in employment relations, the intervention of the state should be from a perspective of protecting the different interests. During normal times, the intervention of the state should focus on good of the public. References Ackers, P. (2002). Reframing employment relations: the case for neo‐pluralism. Industrial Relations Journal, 33(1), 2-19. Akinwale, A. A. (2011, January). Labour Reform and Industrial Conflicts Mismanagement in Nigeria. In A Paper presented at the sixth IIRA African Regional Congress of Industrial Relations. Bridges, W. P., & Villemez, W. J. (1991). Employment relations and the labor market: Integrating institutional and market perspectives. American Sociological Review, 748-764. Johnston, R., Jones, K., Sarker, R., Propper, C., Burgess, S., & Bolster, A. (2004). Party support and the neighborhood effect: spatial polarization of the British electorate, 1991–2001. Political Geography, 23(4), 367-402. Kaufman, B. E. (2002). The theory and practice of strategic HRM and participative management: Antecedents in early industrial relations. Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 505-533. Sandbrook, R. (1985). The politics of Africa's economic stagnation. Cambridge University Press. Srivastava, K. D. (1974). The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Universal Law Publishing. Strauss, G., & Whitfield, K. (1998). Research methods in industrial relations.Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, 5-30. Yuan, Y. C. (1998). Restructuring the employment relationship. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Read More