Why Organizations and Jurisdictions Outlaw Strikes - Coursework Example

INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT: OUTLAWING STRIKES Student’s name Institution’s Affiliation Course +Code Professor’s name Date Introduction Managing industrial conflict is an intricate undertaking which forces managers to adopt stringent measures such as outlawing strikes in order to combat the unrest. In most cases, conflict arises from employee dissatisfaction with their management on matters such as pay, unionization, layoffs and work conditions. The discontent influences the personnel to adopt behaviors that include absenteeism, turnover, and strikes. Although industrial action is a common occurrence, controversy exists on how best the organization can deal with the issue. In some circumstances, managers may adopt strategies such as outlawing strikes in order to reduce the conflict. The big question that arises is whether the move to outlaw the strikes is workable or it may result to undercover effects such as such as absenteeism, and turnover. This paper seeks to examine the move to outlaw strikes during industrial conflict. The paper takes the stance that outlawing strikes cannot reduce conflicts in industrial relations, but it would just be a shift to more covert forms of conflict, such as absenteeism and turnover. Why Organizations and jurisdictions Outlaw Strikes Conflict can be defined as an interpersonal process that affects relationships (Bomers and Peterson, 2013). As noted earlier, employees use approaches such as turnover, absenteeism and strikes to indicate the existence of conflict. In order to deal with conflict, the management can adopt measures such as imposing a strike ban. It is essential to note that the move to outlaw strikes has been used by the management and governments due to a variety of reasons. A study conducted by Hebdon and Stern (2003), examined whether public strike-buns really prevent conflicts. The study disclosed that in jurisdictions that had no laws to prohibit strikes, industrial actions were higher. However, regions that imposed a burn on strikes experienced fewer go-slows. It is based on this fact that organizations tend to use the approach in order to resolve conflicts. Also, managers tend to believe that outlawing the strikes is bound to reduce the level of conflict. According to Torenvlied and Akkerman (nd), some managers use the assumption that the infiltration of go-slow activities in the organization can result in a sudden increase in industrial conflict. The best approach to minimize the implications is to outlaw such activities. On the other hand, despite such views, this paper asserts that outlawing strikes cannot reduce conflicts in industrial relations, but it would just be a shift to more covert forms of conflict, such as absenteeism and turnover. Outlawing strikes cannot reduce conflicts in industrial relations Although managers and governments may use the assumption that outlawing strikes reduces the level of conflict, it can be argued that such a move can instigate more underground forms of conflict. Despite outlawing strikes, employees can decide to engage in other forms of industrial actions to the detrimental effect on the organisation and management. For instance, absenteeism occurs when a good percentage of employees on an average work day, stay away from work without leave or on apply for sick leave. When a majority of employees resort to getting sick leave, without advance approval, it demonstrates their desire to manifest an industrial conflict (Forsyth 2012). Secondly, employees can resign as an indication of their overt way of industrial conflict since they may not be satisfied with their wages and benefits, and working conditions among other issues. Further, some may resort to methods like work-to-rule such that they strictly follow the terms of their employment contract. If a task is not specified in their contract, employees cannot perform it during such times (Fair Work Commission 2017). Conclusively, strike bans are counterproductive in managing industrial conflicts. Employees will always seek for more covert ways to manifest their industrial relations conflict with the management. Again, the International Labour Organisation and a host of legal jurisdictions recognizes the need for workers to engage in industrial action (Ewing and Hendy, 2010). Therefore, placing bans on strikes is a violation of these noble intentions, and in the absence of such frameworks, workers may resort to more disruptive and costly alternatives like turnovers, and absenteeism among others. It suffices to note that employees can not only engage in covert forms of industrial action but also overt ones like picketing, work bans, and work-to-rule. In most cases, a strike is the most obvious way of expressing employees’ dissatisfaction with an organisation’s management. A strike implies that employees withdraw from working as a group aimed at disrupting business operations to express their grievances and lack of interest from the employer in addressing them (Forsyth 2012). Through strikes, the employees can draw the attention of stakeholders, especially the community, to their grievances, and thus place huge pressure on the management. However, strikes as industrial action can annoy the public and reduce sympathy towards the employees. While this may be the case, banning strikes cannot reduce conflicts in organisations, but rather the employees may revert to actions such as absenteeism and turnover. As stated earlier, industrial conflicts arise during interactions between employees and the management over issues like wages and benefits, unionization, layoffs, work safety, and working conditions like work hours. Imperatively, employees may resort to strikes, absenteeism, and turnover in some instances. However, in the recent years much of economic research has focused on industrial action, especially strikes, as the only way that employees can demonstrate that a conflict exists in their working relations (Cameron 2015). The studies ignore the fact that contemporary employees are able to use other approaches to highlight that conflict still exists. For instance, Munro, P, (2013) discloses that the absenteeism rates among Australian employees continue to increase. Workers take an average of 8.93 sick days in a years. Organizations further admit that the rate of nonattendance increases the costs of operation. A case in point is the chief executive of Toyota Company who acknowledges that there are days when a third of the personnel do not report to work by stating that they were sick or they had an emergency. The chief executive accused the Australian Industrial regulation system of the phenomena and proposed the need to change the regulations (Adonis, 2012). According to (Adonis, 2012), when a firm has one in three workers calling in sick, then it definitely has a problem, and no amount of legislative reforms in Industrial relations will solve such problems. In most case, a high percentage of absenteeism implies that something is not right. Employees may, therefore not engage in strikes, nevertheless, their actions will illuminate the fact that the conflict still exists. It is, therefore, imperative for the management to identify the source of conflict and to find amicable solutions to employee issues. Much of this research does not factor in other tactics that employees can use to manifest industrial conflicts. Workers can use different forms of industrial action apart from strike to show their dissatisfaction in their relations with the employer. Therefore, strike bans or outlawing strikes cannot reduce conflicts in industrial relations since employees can shift to more covert forms of conflict like turnover, work bans, and absenteeism. Further, they can stage sit-ins and force the management to carry out sit-outs (Barry 2016). All these methods manifest the existence of industrial conflict and demonstrate that other methods exist for workers in addressing disputes. However, it is important to note that while all these forms of alternatives are available for employees, strike remains one of the most effective ways for employees to manifest an industrial dispute over unresolved or pending issues with their employers and organisations. Most jurisdictions recognize, through their constitutional provisions, that workers have a right to strike as a fundamental part of a stable collective bargaining in industrial relations (Walsh 2013). Employees use industrial actions like strikes to promote, protect, and seek for their economic and social interests. It follows that legislative frameworks have been created in different countries, and recognized by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as essential in equalizing power bases and enhancing stable bargaining as they set the rules of the game (Romeyn 2008). Therefore, the right to strike remains an important part of these rules, and cannot be banned or hindered by any legislation. In the case of Australia, the introduction of protected industrial action by the Keating administration in 1993, and subsequent reforms by the Howard government between 1996 and 2005 have limited the rights of workers to take industrial action. The two administrations did this by reducing the scope of protected industrial action, and imposed difficult procedures on how to execute industrial actions (Romeyn 2008). Through these efforts, unprotected industrial action is considered unlawful and can be remedied using different solutions (Fair Work Commission 2017). Imperatively, such legislations do not equalize power bases between the employer and the employees. Instead, many have argued that the labour laws relating to industrial disputes or conflicts are tipped towards the interests of the employers and leave workers with few options. Effectively, the protection of employer’s interests undermines the essential role of the right to strike as a critical component of a stable collective bargaining agreement. These actions by regulatory agencies over time have pointed to an increased interest by the government to ban strikes (Long 2017). However, many researchers have questioned the effectiveness of strike bans to the overall goal by the stakeholders like government and individual organisations in the country. Banning strikes has never helped as demonstrated by recent cases in New York City and other places across the world. Through these industrial actions judges find difficult time to rule on the industrial relations since they do not consider things the way employers look at them. In fact, most rulings across many industrial dispute cases have favored employees and unions’ demands. For instance, the ban on transport strikes in New York City has never worked. Employees in New York transport sector cannot take to industrial action because the law makes it difficult for employers to change any provision without the approval of the unions. Imperatively, both parties have fossilized terms and conditions yet even with the ban on industrial action, New York continues to struggle with the implementation of the driver only trains as most operate with conductors. Again, these employees have always found more ingenious ways of manifesting their protests, for instance, refusing to collect fares, and the drivers forgetting their driving licenses. Further, the use of social media networks cannot be ignored as employees may resort to operations’ paralysis without warning to the management. The management may find it difficult to deal with such actions (Walsh 2013). Therefore, when strikes are not banned, the management may have some warnings because before employees resort to industrial action, they will have a ballot to determine if they go on strike or not. Further, the employers and customers of services rendered by such employees may have time to make contingency plans. However, when these people resort to covert means of manifesting their grievances, it reduces productivity and catches employers and customers unaware, and offers them no time to create contingency plans. Critically, labour relations-focused governments, right from the 19th century, have never banned strikes, particularly in peace periods (Donovan 2012). It follows that a government and its agencies cannot legislate against industrial conflict because these events provide safety valve, whereby in their absence, the conflict will simply manifest in other less manageable and more disruptive forms, either covert or overt like work-to-rule, absenteeism, turnover, sabotage, and even exclusion from critical decisions. Conclusion The above discussion underscores the fact that outlawing strikes cannot reduce conflicts in industrial relations, but it would just be a shift to more covert forms of conflict, such as absenteeism and turnover. The paper begins by examining the reasons why managers outlaw strikes and the most outstanding fact is that they do so as a means of resolving the existing conflict. It is apparent from the discussion that conflict does end when the management prohibits employees from engaging in go-slows, but rather, it is essential for managers to adopt effective approaches of conflict resolution that will be useful to both the organization and its employees. The amicable solutions will, therefore, eliminate the use of covert means to signify the existence of conflict. Reference Adonis, J, (2012). Sick and tired of absenteeism. The Sydney Morning Herald. Barry, M, (2016). Employer and employer association matters in Australia in 2015. Journal of Industrial Relations, p.0022185616634092. Bomers, G and Peterson, R, (2013). Conflict Management and Industrial Relations. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. Cameron, B.A, (2015). The impact of industrial relations law reforms in Australia since 1996 on the Union Movement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow). Human Resource Management, vol.23, no.3 (2012). Donovan, S,( 2012). “Nurses to ignore Fair Work strike ban.” Accessed on April 11, 2017, from Ewing, K and Hendy, J, (2010). Collective bargaining; Freedom of assembly and association; Freedom of establishment; Industrial action; Liabilities; Trade unions. Industrial Law Journal, 39(1), 2-51. Fair Work Commission,( 2017). February. “Industrial Action.” Accessed on April 11, 2017, from Forsyth, A, (2012). “Workplace conflict resolution in Australia: the dominance of the public dispute resolution framework and the limited role of ADR.” International Journal of Grenfell, O, (2016). December. “Australia: State Labor government moves to ban Esso strike.” Accessed on April 11, 2017, from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/05/esso-d05.html Hebdon, R and Stern, R, (2003) .Do Public-Sector Strike Bans Really Prevent Conflict? 6(2013). Industrial Relations, A journal of Economy and Society. p 493–512. Industrial action.” Parliament of Australia. Accessed on April 11, 2017, from Long, S, (2017). March 20. “Have Australia’s right to strike laws gone too far?” Accessed on April 11, 2017, from Munro, P, (2013). Absenteeism — the latest Australian trends. Workplace info. Romeyn, J, (2008). “Striking a balance: the need for further reform of the law relating to Torenvlied, R and Akkerman, A.(nd). Effects of industrial conflict between and within organizations: Contagion in collective bargaining and the deterioration of work relations. Utrecht University. Walsh, P, (2013). August. “Australia: Industrial Action in Australia: Best Practice Guide.” Accessed on April 11, 2017, from Read More