Incompatibility of Workplace Democracy with Efficient Management, Nurses Legal Right to Strike - Assignment Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Debates Essays Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Introduction The first essay talks about workplace democracy which is the application of all aspects of democracy in the place of work. This includes use of creative methods such as arbitration when settling workplace disputes. The second essay talks about whether or not the nurses should be given the legal right to strike just like other professionals. The third essay discuses flexibilisation in the workplace and whether or not it has given the employees excessive powers. The fourth essay talks about the issue of whether any job is better than no job at all considering the economic needs where people have needs but there are no good jobs. EASY 1 Workplace democracy is incompatible with efficient management The debate on effectiveness of workplace democracy in ensuring efficient management has received both positive and negative attention in most organization leaders. Workplace can improve the performance of a company when practised well in the organization and can also lower the performance of the organization. The main issue that is raised by workplace democracy depends on how the employees take the freedom of decision making that comes with the democracy. Workplace democracy can be efficient in management since it is an innovative management strategy where the information that concerns the organization is distributed among all the employees such that when the workers are faced by the customers, they can make decisions and sort out their issues. This is because the workers have the power to make decisions and can therefore be able to decide on the matters concerning the employees. The employees are the ones who are close to the customers and are usually best known to them. Therefore when the employees are aware of the goals and the performance of the organization, they feel motivated to make smart decisions which are an essential in today’s competitive environment. Democracy therefore enables a company to motivate its employees by engaging them in decision making and will therefore maintain a competitive advantage of their organization (Nightingale 1992). Workplace democracy is also considered by many people as the solution to instilling a sense of ownership of the organization to the employees and is therefore important in enhancing competitiveness and increasing productivity. This also combats employee turnover and reduces their disengagement in the organization’s affairs. In a democratic workplace, there are three things that are shared amongst the employees. These are information, discretion and rewards. All the employees should be given information regarding the goals, the performance of the company and how the company is doing towards attainment of those goals. This is because if the employees are not aware of the goals and the performance of their organization, they may lose sight of the importance of their role in the organization and their contribution towards the attainment of the stated goals. Sharing discretion means that when the employees are aware of the goals of the organization, and on the overall importance of their task to the organization, they should have the discretion to decide on the best way to perfume their duties for the benefit of the organization. This is because they feel part of the organization ownership and are proud of its better performance. When the workplace is democratic, the employees will share the rewards either positive or negative rewards. They should celebrate when the company is in better performance and also share negative consequences (Zwerdling 1999). On the other hand, democracy at workplace can be a barrier to effective performance. This is because some employees may not be having positive motives towards the organization and may work towards its failure. When such employees are allowed freedom to make decisions, they make decisions that may negatively affect the organization. Another negative impact of workplace democracy is that the decision making process may become slow since everyone has to be involved in it. In organizations where there is no democracy, decisions are made by the manager and the role of the other employees is just to implement. This saves the time that could be spent consulting before the decision is made (Greenberg 2000). EASY 2 Should nurses have the legal right to strike? This is a question that has raised many concerns especially considering the situation that is prevailing in the health care sector. The debate on this is issue is therefore significant because it is the legal right of every worker to strike but the nurses are sometimes considered an exception on this. Secondly the government that employs the nurses does not give them special consideration to justify their exception from the legal right. However, nurses also rarely strike because they are the king of people who take others to be above themselves (Wolfe 1997). Nevertheless, nurses should also be allowed the legal right to strike. Nursing is just like any other profession and should also be allowed the right to better working conditions and acceptable terms of compensation. The demand for health care is increasing because of the increase in the aging population and the increase in health concerns. The health care sector is therefore trying to expand the facilities so that it can cater for the rising healthcare needs of the population. But on contrary, there are no enough nurses to cater for the rising demand. The few who are available are therefore overworked and at the same time are supposed to keep watch of the confined patients for 24 hours. The nursing profession is also very challenging in that the nurses deal with very critical health conditions some of which are matters of life and death. The working environment is harsh and requires a lot of courage. But in return, the nurses are underpaid in most countries. They do a lot of work, deal with very critical issues and at the same time they do not receive proper compensation. It is also difficult for the nurses to go on leave because their work requires 24hour attention and are few in most hospitals. Some of them work continuously throughout the year or have a very short leave period, making them to be exhausted. Therefore, regardless of the sensitivity of the work that they do and the area that they look after, they should be allowed the legal right to strike if their working conditions are compromised. However, if the government does not want the nurses to strike, it should make sure that their working conditions are well looked at and that they are getting the appropriate compensation for their work (Brody & Stamm 1998). On the other hand, the nurses’ strike results to great losses of lives and deterioration of health status of the confined patients. A research that was done in New York by the National Bureau of Economic Research indicated some evidence on the negative impacts of nurse’s strike on the health of the patients. The study was carried out in 43 hospitals to observe the impacts of 50 strikes that had taken place for a period of ten years. This found out that the rate of hospital mortality increased by 20% and the rate of readmission after thirty days also increased by 6.5 %. This indicates the negative happenings that result from a nurses’ strike. When nurses are allowed the legal right to strike, they may tend to take advantage of the sensitivity of their profession and will be going on strike more often compromising the health of the nation. The nurses will be aware that the government cannot let them to stay on strike for a long period and will therefore be very quick to respond to their demands. The nurses will therefore take advantage of this and may violate the health of many people. They should then be denied the legal right to strike but have an organization that will always be paying attention to their needs (Levine, Zacur & Horton 2000). EASY 3 Flexibilization and Employee Power The main issue that was raised by flexibilisation is the power that it gave to the employees. Flexibilization meant that employees could be flexible enough to work for different organizations on temporary basis and have enough time to care for their families. Before flexibilisation was realized in most of the organizations, the system that existed was the capitalism. In capitalism, the employees did not have freedom and power over their works and could not make schedules for themselves. The results in the capitalist organization were high profitability and economic benefits. These were the benefits that could be felt by the organization and not the employee. The trade unions then called for strikes that resulted to conflicts within the organization. From then the issue of flexibilisation came in in most of the organizations. This then increased the power of employees to unnecessary levels. This is because the employees could have more free time and could also work for different organizations (Vallas 2001). The new rule of flexibilisation also called for a great consideration of the employees’ welfare to an extent that the welfare of the organization could be under looked. The employees then felt as if they are very important and this feeling made them to feel more powerful. The employees tended to concentrate more on their welfare and forgetting the objectives of the organization. Flexibilisation also resulted to more concrete associations of the employees. This could fight for their rights and they could feel protected. Even though flexibilization reduced the rate of unemployment, the working time was also reduced. The employees therefore achieved more free time that they could use to do their own business, a fact that really empowered them. Their economic stability also increased and hence added on their power (Blanpain, Pennings, & Dereli 2006). On the other hand, flexibilisation did not add power to the employees as many would think. The flexibilisation of the labour market resulted to non-standard forms of employment relationships where the employees could not have formal and close relationships with the employer. This consequently reduced other incentives that the employees could get for example loans. There was no specific employer since the employee could work on contracts and no permanent terms. The employees could therefore not access loans and other benefits of a permanent employee. This in a way reduced the borrowing power of the employee and limited his or her chances of expanding economically. This is because with the current economic hardships, the free time that the employees get as a result of flexibilisation is spent looking for other means of finances. Flexibilisation also came with the reduction of the welfare benefits of the employees. The employees got free time for their welfare activities but lost the welfare incentives that were associated (Warhurst & Nickson 2007). The reduction of the work-week time that came with flexibilisation increased the intensification of work and the periods of work were concentrated together, weekend rests disappeared, working at night and on Sundays become common. The working places could change the working hours every time and the schedules could not be known to the employees. This later become inconveniencing to the employee since they could not plan for their free time properly. This was the case especially in the large departmental stores. The employees therefore lacked power to control their free time and this did not improve their economic status significantly. EASY 4 Any Job is better than No Job In some cases, any job can be better than no job. When it comes to looking for the first job, it is always better or one to lower his or her standards. This should be the case especially for the fresh college graduates who are competing for limited jobs with others who have experience. In such a case, it would be necessary for the fresh graduate to settle for nay job that comes along the way so that he or she can gain experience and fit into the job market. Another reason as to why one should settle for any job is to avoid creating a huge gap on one’s resumes. Having a big gap on the resumes does not look good to the potential employers. In the past when jobs were many, having a gap of more than six months in the resume would a bad sign and the employers couldn’t understand. However, with the current times, the employers are more understanding due to the high rate of unemployment. However, a smaller gap in the resume is better than having a huge one (Myers 2009). Another reason is that the emergency funds cannot run forever. After one looses employment, he or she can rely on the emergency fund which does not run for a long time. At such a time, one should be willing to take up any job to pay for the bills and other expenses. This is because expenses do not cease to occur if the job is lost. They have to be continuously met and this calls for one to continue working o whatever job is available. The other reason is that it is not possible to recover the lost income. The income that one is missing out everyday of staying unemployed can never be recovered. It therefore better that one takes any job so long as it is bringing in some income (OECD 2009). On the other hand, it would be hard to take up any job just because one is need of s job. There are some jobs that are better than none. For example, a person who has studied up the PhD level would find it hard to take up a casual job in the building and construction, or to be employed as a tea girl in someone else’s office. Some jobs may be intimidating to the person up to a point of preferring to stay without any job. Another reason is that some jobs may be paying very little money such that e person may be spending more than he or she is getting paid. For example, one may be offered a job in a place so far away from the place of residence such that one will be paying more money fro fare than he or she is getting at the end of the day. Such a job may be expensive to do and may end up depleting one’s resources instead of adding to his income. Other jobs may have very poor working conditions such may be unbearable to a person. Bullying and other forms of harassment may be experienced at the work place and this may result to hardships in doing the job. Under such circumstances, one may think of quitting the job for his or her safety. Other jobs may be involving risky undertakings that may be a threat to one’s life. For example jobs dealing with illegal businesses may be a risk to one’s security and may have negative consequences. For such a job, it is better to stay without one (JJütting & Laiglesia 2009). Conclusion Workplace democracy has both positive and negative impacts on the performance of the organization. Before it is adopted by the management of the organization, it is better to first consider the benefits and the losses that it will cause once adopted. On the other issue of nurses, I believe that they also equally important like other professionals. They should therefore be given legal right to strike like any other professionals. The new rule of flexibilisation did not give the employees excessive power since it came with other limitations especially on their welfare incentives. The employees gained power in terms of having control over their welfare and that of their families but did not have power to control the free time that they gained as a result of flexibilisation. Flexibilisation was therefore necessary for the sake of their welfare but did not give them excessive power. In the current economic times, jobs are very hard to get and this notion may drive one into taking a job that may not be pleasing. This may also make one to engage into risky jobs in search for income. However, it is very important for one to assess the conditions of a job before accepting it. Regardless of the financial needs that one may be having, it is not necessary to take risks in jobs because of the prevailing conditions. Bibliography Myers, F., 2009, Get the Job You Want, Even When No One's Hiring: Take Charge of Your Career, Find a Job You Love, and Earn What You Deserve, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009, Flexible policy for more and better jobs, OECD Publishing, Boston. JJütting, J., & Laiglesia, J., 2009, Is informal normal: towards more and better jobs in developing countries, OECD Publishing, Boston. Nightingale, D., 1992, Workplace Democracy: An Inquiry In to Employee Participation in Canadian Work Organizations, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Zwerdling, D., 1999, Workplace democracy: a guide to workplace ownership, participation & self-management experiments in the United States & Europe, Harper & Row, New York. Greenberg, E., 2000, Workplace democracy: the political effects of participation, Cornell University Press, New York. Wolfe, S., 1997, Strikes by health workers: a look at the concept, ethics, and impacts. Am J Public Health. 69(5):431–433. Brody, P., & Stamm J., 1998, Coping with hospital strikes. Mt Sinai J Med.;45(6):773–781. Levine, M., Zacur, S., & Horton, L., 2000, Professional issues in nursing: challenges and opportunities, T. Horton publishers, Boston. Warhurst, C., & Nickson, D., 2007, “Employee experience of aesthetic labour in retail and Hospitality”, Work, Employment, Society, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 103-20. Blanpain, R., Pennings, F., & Dereli, T., 2006, Flexibilisation and modernisation of the Turkish labour market, Kluwer Law International, Vatican. Vallas, S., 2001, The transformation of work, Emerald Group Publishing, New York. Read More