The paper "Role of State in Employment Relations" is an outstanding example of marketing coursework. This essay is answering the question of whether the state should play an active part in employment relations. The employment relationship is a legal connection between the employers and the employees (Yuan, 1998). This relationship exists when one performs work under certain conditions in turn for payment. The 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 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, the 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 the 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 relate 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 do 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 for shaping 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 manager's 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, the UK. However, this perspective has weaknesses. The major weakness is the lack of realization that there are inequalities between employees and employers with regards to power in the organisation. This brings about conflicts. This perspective also lacks a clear description of how interests can be identified and shared in organizations.
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.