Essays on Employment Relations Policies of UK Governments Assignment

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Employment Relations Policies of UK Governments " is a great example of a Law Assignment. Industrial or employment relations institutions make regulations to guide business and labor internal and external to the firm. Before the 1980s, employment relations in the UK were based on a collective system that was dominant but not universal (Blanchflower et. al. 2007, p. 287). This system was depended on mutual values of the legitimacy of symbolization by solitary trade unions, and also of mutual regulation. However, since Britain’ s Conservative rule took power in 1979 and criticized the system of unionized employment relations, the latter pulverized into diminishment and is no longer an influential model.

Therefore, this paper is in agreement with the proposition that-Employment relations policies of UK governments since the 1980s have been underpinned by an unambiguous neo-liberal ideology. The traditional role of trade unions and collective bargaining Trade unions are generally organized by contract with the objective of enhancing the accepted norms of their members (Knight& Latreille 2000, p. 13). Conventionally, there was a limited state role in employee relations for much of the voluntarism period of the collective laissez-faire (Belfield & .

Heywood 2001, p. 577). The state encouraged voluntary collective bargaining and this was established at the industry level in many sectors. Trade unions followed a self-governing internal organization, and the members could not get excluded void of valid reason, neither could they be discriminated against by their employers (Knight& Latreille 2000, p. 15). The unions recurrently organized the collective voice of the workers. In cases where the statutory rights to involvement and session cease, mass bargaining by unions become the most effective mode of supremacy that workers can use against their employers, as an equalizer in organizations to the interest of stakeholders (Knight& Latreille 2000, p. 13) Employment relationships are regulated by the labor law (Knight & Latreille 2000, p 7).

The execution of employee relations institutions is significant in both durations of contingent economic constancy, and when one reign of accession gets into a catastrophe and the tension for change is initiated (Belfield & . Heywood 2001, p. 579). Hence, trade union institutions undertake a fundamental function in the scope of restructuring of economies (Bryson et al. , 2004, p.

129). Crudely, during periods of economic transition, prevailing institutions may pass as an obstacle to economic adjustment, hence establishing pressure for institutional alteration (Torrini 2005). A similar case is seen in the UK in which the growth of individual rights replaced collective rights in the 1980s. Neo-liberalism in the global economies After World War II, corporate enterprises in the Europe and US assisted to form an affluent society that thrilled in most of the political control on their governments (Harman 2007, p. 5; Louise 2002, p. 87). Neo-liberalism was illustrated as a response by these affluent elites to counterweigh policies of post-war that were in favor of the workers and reinforced the welfare state.

Neoliberal stratagem promotes market dynamics and barter enterprise as the most adequate ways for goods and services produce and supply (Harman 2007, p. 5). Simultaneously, they disdain the function of the state and demoralize government arbitration into economic, social, and financial pursuits (Louise 2002, p. 87). Neoliberal ideology drives the process of economic globalization, by advocating for the removal of boundaries amongst nations so that market dynamics can stimulate the worldwide economy (Brenner & Theodore 2002, p. 349).

These policies were easily embraced by governments and still proceed to strongly affect the classical economic thought.


List of References:

Addison, J., T. & Belfield, C., R. 2004. ‘Unions and employment growth: The one constant?’ Industrial Relations, 43(2), 305–323.

Blanchflower, D., Bryson, A., & Forth, J. 2007. ‘Workplace industrial relations in Britain, 1980-2004’, Industrial Relations Journal, 38(4), 285-302

Belfield, C., R. &. Heywood, J., S. 2001. ‘Unionization and the pattern of non-union wages:

Evidence for the UK’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63(5), 577–598.

Bellofiore, R. 1999, “After Fordism, What? Capitalism at the end of the century: Beyond the myths”, in Riccardo Bellofiore (ed), Global Money, Capital Restructuring, and the Changing Patterns of Labour London: Edward Elgar.

Blyton, P., Heery, E, & Turnbull, P. 2011. ‘Reassessing the employment relationship’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 53, 737-738

Bodin, R. 2001. “Wide-ranging forms of work and employment in Europe”, ILO report, Accessed February 25, 2012

Bogg, A. 2009. ‘The Democratic Aspects of Trade Union Recognition’. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing

Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. 2002. ‘Cities and the geographies of actually existing neoliberalism’ Antipode, 349-379

Bryson, A., Gomez, R., & Willman, P.2004. ‘The end of the affair? The decline in employers’ propensity to unionize’, in J. Kelly and P. Willman (eds), Union Organization and Activity, Chapter 8. London: Routledge, pp. 129–149

CenterPiece. 2004. ‘Seeking a premier economy’,CenterPiece,28-31. Accessed February 25, 2012 from

Cerny, P. 2008. ‘Embedding neoliberalism: The evolution of a hegemonic paradigm’. The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy, 2(1), 1-46

Coates, D. 2000. Models of Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity

Cooper, R., & Ellem, B. 2008. The neoliberal state, trade unions and collective bargaining in Australia’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 46(3), 532-554

Dunn, B. 2004. Global Restructuring and the Power of Labour .London: Palgrave.

Harman, C. 2007. ‘Theorising neoliberalism’, International Socialism, 1(117)

Howell, C. 2004. ‘The state and reconstruction of industrial relations institutions after Fordism: Britain and France compared’. Berkeley Education Research: Oberlin College.

Kersley, B., Alpin, J., Forth, A., Bryson, H., Bewley, G.,& Oxenbridge, S. 2006. Inside

the workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations survey. London:


Klees, S. 2002. ‘Privatization and neo-liberalism: Ideology and evidence in rhetorical’, Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(2), 19-26

Knight, K., G., & Latreille, P. 2000. ‘Discipline, dismissals and complaints to employment tribunals’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38 (4), 533–555.

Kochan, T. 2006. ‘Adapting industrial relations to serve knowledge-based economies’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(1), 7-20

Louise, A. 2002. Globalisation contested: An international political economy of work. New York: Manchester University Press.

Fine, B. 2006. ‘Debating the ‘New’ Imperialism’, Historical Materialism, 14(4).

Smith, P. 2009. New labour and the commonsense of neoliberalism: Trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers’ rights’, Industrial Relations Journal, 40(4), 337-355

Torrini, R. 2005. ‘Cross-country difference in self-employment rates: The role of institutions’ Labour Economics, 12(5), 661-683

Waring, P., Lewer, J., & Burgess, J. 2008. ‘Comparing patterns of re-regulation of labour in three liberal market economies’. Australia: University of New Castle, Conference Paper.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us