Industrial Relations and Workplace Change - Math Problem Example

2, 400 words overall 1, 806 words for Part A answers 600 words for Part B answers Part – A Question 1: To say that non-unionism or voice in non-unionised workplace can lead to successful workplace change require deeper analysis of the concept. For instance, it is important to know the extent by which non-unionism can actually influence decision-making in the workplace or its ability to create a better working environment for employees. Non-unionism according to the article of Dundon & Gollan (2007) is not a simple process and presence of non-unionised workforce does not necessarily indicate the absence of trade union members and opportunities for collective representation (p.1184). Non-unionism therefore is an alternative means for employees who do not want to be represented by a trade union. Employee voice on the other hand, at least by concept, is about allowing employee to participate in decision-making particularly on matters concerning their well-being as a worker. However, since the processes involve in non-unionism is dependent on the systematic alignment between priorities of management and needs of employees, it is important to know how employee satisfaction and organisational performance is ensured. Contrary to common understanding that employee voice is an outright empowerment, it is actually dependent on how committed the organisation is in this type of arrangement. Management responses to employees’ voice are dependent on different environmental factors such as competition and economic pressures. Moreover, the mere fact that most employers are using this defensive strategy to shield themselves against the more powerful trade union, the programme is likely superficial. One good example is when employees are demanding raise in their wages in times of economic downturn or business difficulties arising from poor sales and tight competition. Such demand at this particular point may be viewed by management as insensitive, nuisance, and exploitation of the arrangement unworthy of their time. On the employees’ side, this may be interpreted as lack of recognition which in time can lead to resistance and organized move against management. Occupational identity and group solidarity are important factors in this type of arrangement because workers tend to work better when they sense that they are being valued by their employers. In contrast, lack of recognition and ignorance of their demands generate the opposite often resulting to workers solidarity and collective actions. Transforming an organisation into a non-unionised environment thus entail genuine commitment to the concept and closer interaction with employees. In terms of workplace change, such arrangement is detrimental if management will not keep their end of the bargain. For example, the arrangement generally promotes empowerment and participation in decision-making but most of the time employees are consulted after the decision has been made. Another is writing off employees’ demands whenever management feels that it is against their best interest as entrepreneurs building an empire out of cheap labour. Such feelings or views are not isolated because the intention behind non-unionism is more than just union avoidance and reducing frictions but strategic labour control (Butler 2009, p.201). Study of FinanceCo in Butler’s article for instance revealed the true intention of management on creating the “colleague’s council” along with paternalist employer-employee relations model complete with promotional ladders, assessment and performance appraisal. The sudden change in management attitude turned out as cause and effect brought about by increasing competition, recent strike, and desires for stronger labour control. The effectiveness of non-unionism to affect change in the workplace is questionable and subject to further scrutiny since employee empowerment is not the only source of successful change. In fact, employers attitude towards their employees have a greater impact on change such as shallowness of commitment to voice, attitude towards unionisation and empowerment, trust, and power (Dundon & Gollan 2007, p.1189). Question 4: According to Dundon & Gollan (2007) interpretation of non-unionism such concept generally promotes a mix of union and non-union memberships. Moreover, it is wrong to assume that trade union recognition and collective bargaining are no longer possible because union can still participate in work councils and represent a portion of the workforce (p.1184). NER or non-union employee representation was created to tackle issues associate with employee voice and empowerment. In other words, to protect the right of workers to participate in decision-making particularly in matters that would affect their working lives. Similar to trade unions, NER is also serving the interest of employees minus collective bargaining and industrial actions (Butler 2009, p.200). NER does undermine the ability of trade unions to organise and represent employees because it is undoubtedly being use as an alternative to union representation. More importantly, NER is an extension of union avoidance which is central to non-unionism. It does weaken the capacity of trade unions in quantity since employees are now divided and now free to place their trust on the either council or trade union. There is also a strong possibility that NER can deactivate employee demands for trade union assistance since it generally created to stimulate pluralism among employees. Moreover, employees are likely to favour working environments with flexible and caring HR who seems to promote cooperation, participation, high self-esteem, and allowing everyone to freely voice out their concern. In other words, NER reduced frictions between management and employees thus the demand for trade union assistance is less. In terms of collective bargaining, work councils created under NER do not recognise its value as it is more concern on information and consultation rather than providing means to bargain. NER does not undermine trade unions ability to organise as employees are still to choose trade union representation and bargain under the latter’s assistance. In fact, since trade unions are independent and external to organisations implementing NER, they can freely organise and launch industrial actions when necessary to protect their members. The real problem is recognition since most employers with non-unionised workforce will be reluctant to recognize trade union particularly those with long list of industrial actions in the past. For example, the primary reason for adopting non-unionism in FinanceCo was union avoidance. This is because most senior managers perceived union presence as hindrance to the organisation’s quest for change such as re-alignment of pay with performance, removal of healthcare benefits for retired employees, and modification in profit sharing. More importantly, troublesome union demonstration is detrimental to their paternalistic image which is central to the unitary-driven philosophy of the company (Butler 2009, p.198-214). The relationship between with NER and trade union can be mutually beneficial and complimentary in several ways. For example, NER is generally informative and consultative which in other words a repository of detailed facts and figures of employee grievances and other workplace issues. Moreover, considering that some structures under NER are hybrids or a combination of union and non-union representation, there is a big opportunity for trade unions to participate. Although it may be difficult for some hardcore trade union representatives to accept the fact that they cannot do traditional bargaining in NER, the mere fact that NER was created to hear employees voice and promote social justice is an assurance that employees will get what they deserve. Accept the reality that sometimes pushing an issue through lock-out or strikes is more devastating to the members than the employers- business closure, lay-offs, forced early retirement and so on. Similarly, NER work council can learn from trade union in understanding employee sentiments and social implications of labour decisions. Question 6: In relation to labour and capitalist relationship, industrial relations, decision making, and workplace change, the VoC framework discussed by Wailes et al. (2009) not only can enhance understanding of contemporary workplace change but explain the varying circumstances leading to management decisions and industrial relations outcomes. VoC or Varieties of Capitalism represents the different impact of globalisation on employment relations (p. 90). In other words, the VoC framework detailed the reality that capitalist decisions and its subsequent impact on labour is a product of varying approach to capitalism mainly induced by the demands from the market economy – liberal or coordinated. Liberal Market Economies or LME is consisting of firms mainly relying on market and hierarchies particularly in resolving coordination problems. In contrast, Coordinated Market Economies are those taking advantage of non-market systems in order resolve coordination problems. In VoC, these firms have separate approaches in employment relations and those that belong with LME are likely to adopt decentralised and individualised bargaining when confronted with problems associated with globalisation and competition. In contrast, CME firms will be likely to remain loyal to traditional form of employer-employee relations. In other words, LMEs is for non-unionism while CMEs are for trade unions. The relationship thus explains why union membership and density varies from firms to firms and why employee participation is limited to one firm but legitimate to another. However, in its initial form is limited since despite its potential, it ignored other varieties of capitalism and the range of countries that they can be applied. For example, aside for being broad it does not include the Asian market economies or AMEs and consider the capitalist diversity in France, Italy, Spain and Turkey which Wailes et al. (2009) think are not LME or CME (p.92). Another deficiency is its narrow outlook on sources of social actions and change which is mainly determinism in form. For instance, VoC view LME or CME as the only determinant of institutional order where social actions are limited by institutional configuration and external forces ignoring the influence of behaviour and preferences, the impact of geographical location or country of origin, influences outside national boundaries, and the role of politics and conflict in shaping social actions (Wailes et al. 2009, p.92). With the inclusion of AMEs and recognition of MNCs or multi-national corporations’ practices and other real-life diversities, VoC can be very useful in indentifying causes of varying employment relations. For instance, study conducted by Wailes et al. (2009) in international auto-assembly industry shows a number of important variables affecting employment relations. These include confirming the fact that globalisation is not the only determining factor in employment relations but a range of evident but neglected factors such as national circumstances, increasing international competition, ownership and production, unyielding commitment despite global pressures, and the possibility that globalisation, contrary to some belief, is reinforcing dependencies on traditional institutional arrangements where collective bargaining is aligned with industry competitiveness and employment security (p.104). In Japan for example, the system of production coupled with national economic priorities dominate work organisation while their neighbouring Asian countries like South Korea and China are mass producing depriving employees participation and autonomy in the process. Work in Australia’s automotive industry is influenced by both lean production practices, flexible but limited autonomy. The usefulness of VoC framework at this point is therefore limited by scope and understanding of different factors affecting employment relation and capitalist behaviour. In particular, it must adopt a more realistic view of institutions and recognise the different factors affecting international organisations rather than assuming a generalised behaviour based entirely on two categories of firms. Part – B Question 7: By definition given by Bray et al. (2011), the level of bargaining include either multi-employer or single employer bargaining. The former is wider since it may be national or regional level. In contrast, single employer bargaining can deal with individual employees or selected areas of the industry such as specific plant or workplace. The bargaining agents in collective bargaining are representatives of both parties – employer and employees. They are mostly required when the level of bargaining is multi-employer. Trade unions representing employees in a single-employer level is also considered an agent while those who represent themselves in non-union setting can be considered a legitimate bargaining agent. The scope of bargaining on the other hand is issues and subjects to be address in the bargaining table that often include basic workers demands such adjustments in wages, working hours, and so on. However, the scope may extend to other issues or limited depending on the extent such scope affects managerial prerogatives or the right of employers to determine the most appropriate for their organisation. The status of bargaining is actually the legal basis of bargaining such as the extent by which the level and scope of bargaining should be defined and protection of managerial prerogative provided by the law. The coverage of bargaining addresses the number of workers involved such as the density of the union participating in collective bargaining. However, in some countries where collective agreements can be extended to parties outside union membership, the coverage of bargaining will be much higher than union density (p.330-331). Considering the five dimensions of collective bargaining, a non-unionised workforce consist of only 10 individual as in Company A may benefit more from non-unionised form of representation such as work councils and others. However, this does not necessarily mean they cannot be represented in collective bargaining since that opt to use the assistance of trade unions and other bargaining agents. The level of bargaining in this small organisation may be lower, scope of bargaining may be similar depending on the demands and working conditions, legal status can be easily determined while coverage is significantly small. A large supermarket like Company C may benefit more from collective bargaining since it has around 80,000 employees. Here the level of bargaining will be likely higher since it involves a number of regional offices and outlets. The scope will be wider in the sense that the organisational structure is highly diversified with varying needs and demands. The legal status may be problematic considering the different managerial prerogatives in each offices and outlets and the immediacy of extending the terms of agreement to include other employees aside from outlet staff and transport. The coverage of bargaining is equally difficult since even though a large portion of Company C is unionised around 12,000 workers who are clearly part of the overall business process is not. These employees may take advantage of non-union collective bargaining in case such unionised collective bargaining failed to extend the terms of agreements to them. In Australia for instance, non-unionised workforce can acquire certification of collective agreements without union representation. However, such form of collective bargaining is often initiated by employers thus may be disadvantageous to large organisations like Company C. It may be more appropriate to advantage of the Fair Work Act provisions on enterprise agreements where non-union bargaining is recognised through collective agreement made by employers and employees themselves. This type of non-union bargaining is highly favourable to employers seeking settlements outside trade union thus non-unionised employees of Company C will experience no difficulty expressing their grievances anytime they need to. References: Bray M, Waring P, & Cooper R, (2001), Employment Relations: Theory & Practice, McGraw-Hill, Australia Butler P, (2009), Non-union employee representation: exploring the riddle of managerial strategy, Industrial Relations Journal, 40:3, pp.198-214 Dundon T. & Gollan P, (2007), Re-conceptualizing voice in the non-union workplace, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18:7, pp. 1182-1198 Wailes N, Russell L, & Kirsch A, (2009), Globalisation and Varieties of Employment Relations: An International Study, Labour & Industry, 20:1, ProQuest Central, pp.89-106 Read More