International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalisation and Change - Example

Employment Relations Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction Despite the fact that the world in the recent past has experienced serious challenges in terms of food shortage, energy and financial crisis as well as economic crisis, still many governments are on the run to work on ways to penetrate to global markets. Globalization has continued to dominate the world market-framework and that any person dealing within that framework is subject to dynamics taking place in the greater global market (Bray et al. 2009). With the increased absence of the market framework that controls or regulates the global markets, excesses of globalization have continued to dominate both economically and socially. The end result has been that multinationals and other leading institutions have been setting the pace and behavior of the market by Ivancevich (2008). From this perspective, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has come into focus and more especially from the aspect of employment relations. Different employment relations theories have come to emerge and they have to affect the national and international employment frameworks of different nations. The objective of this analysis is to try and use different relations theory and frameworks and then use them to explain how national and international influences have continued to shape different employment relations. In this case, the Republic of South Africa has been used to illustrate and demonstrate critically how various national and international relations frameworks have influenced its employment relations. South Africa as a republic is one of those countries that have undergone numerous changes in their employment relations whereby workplace was dominated by high levels of discrimination during the apartheid regime. Despite the fact that diversity existed at workplace it did not receive much attention as it ought to have been (Fox 1969). Definition of Employment relations While trying to define and discuss the term employment relations, it’s important to look what constitutes the term and various characteristics entailed in employment relations. It’s possible to mention that debate has been on existence on the best definition of the term ‘employment relations’. This is because research has shown that the term entails a number of aspects which must all be taken into account while trying to define it (Ivancevich 2008). For instance one may wonder what management professionals and scholars refer to when they talk about industrial relations (Williams 2007). Industrial psychology, human resource management, labor economics, industrial psychology and labor law as well as labor economics for example, are some of the aspects that one must understand before becoming to appreciate what the term real stands for. This argument is very important since the term has been used to refer to different things in various contexts (Bray et al 2009). For example, the American HRM literature most often refer to employment relations when it tries to talk about HRM activities and the possible interactions that exist between the employees and their employers at workplace. On the other hand, British HRM literature tries to define the term ‘employment relations’ in a more detailed manner and it goes beyond just mere workplace (Fox 1969). The British HRM literature for example goes further to talk about the interaction that exists between three main stakeholders namely the government, the organized labor unions and employer associations. This definition by the British HRM literature seems to be more elaborate and can be suited into this context. This is because the three stakeholders have a role to play in determining the employment relations of a given system as argued by Katz and Colvin (2011). Reference frames Reference frames can be defined as the informing source to certain employment relations. In other words, people collect information from various sources which they try to benchmark with their own working places so as to demand for what they want to be incorporated in their own systems. The process is more informed from what is being witnessed from either the same industry or regional block. Reference frames is especially more relevant in the global arena whereby many governments have continued to enact different workplace places after learning from some ideas from certain parts of the word (Fox 1969). Globalization has actually come to support in greater heights the use of reference frames. Since workplace is such one place that real affects many people’s lives, debate has been in place in trying to discuss and unfold the best approach to employment relations which can both favor the employer and the employees. Such debates are informed with what people see happening somewhere else as reference points and then try to conceptualize and relate to their own workplace (Welz 2010). This concept was first mentioned in 1966 by Alan Fox as when way of trying to categorize and understand the opinions of various people in relation to employment relations. In trying to categorize the opinions, three main frames of reference were founded namely the unitarist, the pluralist and the Marxist. These three concepts have been very important in informing the most appropriate employment relations at workplace (Cooke 2003). Unitarism The unitarists at workplace are informed by the assumption and certain values that in any workplace where different people exist and different opinions held, conflicts are always there but can easily be avoided (Lansbury &Wailes 2011). Conflicts at workplace are expected to emerge at certain points and now the question that can be posed at this point is “what best approach to handling those conflicts?” Many of the people who have the unitarist view at workplace are convinced that conflicts are commonly triggered by the managers who hold different interests with regard to the survival of their organizations (Bamber et al 2011, Fox1969). However, this kind of relationship is only possible where individuals are working cooperatively. Those individuals who hold this opinion are of the view that conflicts is a result personality disorders, lack of appropriate and adequate employee recruitment and promotion procedures and poor communication (Katz and Colvin 2011). With employment relations in place, the unitarist are suggesting that to ensure natural order at workplace, it’s important to have a rational management team which pay careful attention to issues surrounding employees more especially in terms of recruitment and promotion so as to ensure fairness and equity. Further, communications also ought to be in place as one way of ensuring that all the workforce are aware and frequently informed of where their interest lie and how people who stand on their way can be suppressed or dismissed. However, this unitarist approach to employment relations, has received a lot of criticism. For instance, Bray & Waring (2011), are of the view that trying to do away with other systems such as stewardship or trade unions may open room for a lot of time wasting since there will be no systematic way an issue within an organization can be handled (Cooke 2003). Pluralism However, unlike the unitarists, the pluralists are guided by the assumptions and values that at workplace conflicts are always inevitable and that they always take place between the employers and their employees (Bray & Waring 2011). Those who believe in this view, argue that a business organization is a very complex social setting where different groups with different interests exist and that both the management and the employees form the large part of the social groups. What is seen to be the major cause of values under pluralism is the existence of different values and objectives among different groups. Under pluralism, it is also assumed that different sources of authority and organizational tasks are key contributors to conflicts (Cooke 2011). By accepting that conflicts are real a reality at workplace, then it becomes easier for many organizations to create room for negotiations and hearing grievances. This approach is preferable in many of the working places because it has the potential to manage conflicts at workplace. Further, the pluralist embraces the idea of using trade unions and other labor organization to arbitrate or negotiate on behalf of the employees (Welz 2010). Marxism reference frame The Marxist reference frame in the contemporary society since it was mainly used during the reign of the Soviet Union and it ended when communism and radical thinking ended in eastern and Western Europe respectively. However, a number of schools attached to this theory are still being very influential in the current work environment (ILO 2003). This is because they are based on a number of assumptions and that are real relevant in explaining the causes of conflicts at workplaces and the critiques on the first two frames. Those who draw from Karl Marx (1950, 1967, 1978), argue that Marxism frame of reference is founded on class struggle in the society and that it has been caused by inequities and unfair distribution of resources and wealth according to Fox (1969). However, most important to note is that these concepts of employment relationships have been applied in various parts of the world and that various reactions have recorded. With globalization and liberalization of world trade, different aspects of employment relations are drawing closer and are almost becoming standard in many countries (Eyraud & Saget 2005). This has opened major debate in both developed and developing world about the best way to go about employment relations in various countries. It is with this regard that the Republic of South Africa has been chosen to illustrate how both national and international relations theory and framework have influenced its national and international employment relations (Bamber et al 2011). Employment relations in the Republic of South Africa In South Africa, employment relations have remained a thorny issue for many years and this is because of the much contribution from the colonial masters during the apartheid rule. The relationship during that time was not good with other world countries. This is because the regime was seen to be causing a lot of suppression and suffering of its workers. This is because the employment relations were discriminative and tended to undermine the ability of black labor who was working in various companies (Hughes 2005). This situation at national level between 1970s and 1980s, witnessed a number of strikes from workers in different companies trying to push for change in working conditions. For example in 1972, a number of strikes were experienced along the Durban area where the Putco Bus Company was involved. Later on in 1973, the Durban Municipality joined in the strike according to ILO (2008). Later on other companies from other sectors started joining in the strikes. Even though the strikes were considered illegal it was not easy for many of the participants to fear legal action or detention at the expense of their grievances. During this season to manage African workers became fruitless and because of the relationship with other countries, pressure was mounting on the government to enact a national policy that will ensure equity and fairness at workplace. The pressure was also expected to track the legislative development process by ILO (2000). The new constitution was expected to bring great change in the employment relations and the country where all are workers subjected to same work policies and conditions irrespective of race, gender or age. Further, new employment relations reforms were aimed at ensuring that the workers were allowed to create their own unions to champion their rights so that they could have a say on what they wanted to be changed at their respective workplace (Gennard and Judge 2002). To illustrate further how relations theory has worked wonders in influencing the employment relationships in South Africa, the case of AngloGold Ashanti. AngloGold Ashanti is among the top gold producers companies in the world. This Company is headquartered in South Africa where it’s estimated to be among the top 30 most profitable companies in the country. The company in 2007 managed to produce 5.5 million ounces which was equivalent to 7% of the world’s total production and becoming the largest gold producing company in the world. The company is a multinational firm and has several operations in different countries like Western Australia, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, China and Colombia (Bamber et al 2011). As part of the company’s obligation to ensuring good working conditions for the employees and as a result of its attachment to international relations, the company had signed the International Framework Agreement (IFA) in 2002 and also it’s the member of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) which is an affiliate to ICEM South Africa. The main objective of the company CEO Bobby Godsell has been to be in the forefront in leading other companies in the country to joining IFA which is an act by International Labor Organization (ILO) (ILO 2008). Godsell is a well renowned businessman in the country not because of the leadership positions that he has held in different organizations like World Gold Council, the Chamber of Mines, Anglo American and the Business Unity South Africa but because of his contribution in terms of views and vision since the apartheid time. Godsell has also been in the frontline in championing democracy at workplace and black labor force is presented freely. The idea behind Godsell’s mind was to ensure that employment relations were improved and ways of handling different conflicts between the employees and their employers worked out (ILO 2000). Despite signing the IFA by AngloGold Ashanti, many companies especially those were engaged in mining remained skeptical for a while. This is because many of them feared that involving themselves in internationals relations, they will be subjected to a number of challenges they show being very costly to their business. Some of the reasons that made so many companies in south Africa to take quite a while before signing IFA membership include: First the feared that they will lose their autonomy in operations and therefore they could not be able to manage diversity at workplace as they deserved (Gennard and Judge 2002). Second, they show the move as a very costly affair and that supporting and financing the union officials operations could impact on the revenues generated by the respective companies. Third, sponsoring the trade union officials to attend meeting organized by ILO and other organizations will almost be inevitable. Fourth, signing the agreement was also seen by many of the company managers as one of committing that their companies will adhere to the international laws on labor something that could end shaping-up their profits negatively (ILO 2003). However, at the moment, many of the companies in the country have come to understand that the signing of the IFA will not make them lose their identity and legitimacy but an important way of ensuring that conflicts occurring at workplace are well handled for the benefit of both the employer and the employee (Rees & Rice 2008). In essence, the concept behind the pushing of many companies to sign the IFA is to ensure workplace is made a place where everyone can speak, give views and participate in those process involve making important decisions that affect them (Gospel 2008). Conclusion The objective of this article was to critically present a country and how relations theory and framework has influenced both its national and international employment relationships. With the case of South Africa, it has been found out that employment relations for many years has been very poor more especially with the existence of the apartheid regime in the country. Relations theory seeks to explain how people in any working environment can coexist despite diversity. Therefore, relations theory is important to explain fairness, justice and social as very important aspects in any relationships. Employment relations are used to explain the relationships that exist at workplace among three key stakeholders who are the government, the employers’ association and the employees’ organizations. Most important in the picture of this article is about existence and the common relations theories that are used to explain them and how they can apply in different situations. In association with other people at global level and exchange of ideas has continued to have greater impact on employment relations not only in developing countries but globally. Works cited Bray, M. et al. (2009). Employment Relations: Theory and Practice. London: Springer. Cooke, F.L. (2003). 'Equal Opportunity? The role of legislation and public policies in women’s employment in China‟, Women in Management Review, 16(7), pp. 334-48. Eyraud, F. & Saget, C. (2005). The Fundamentals of Minimum Wage Fixing. Geneva: International Labour Office. Bamber, R., Lansbury G. & Wailes N. (2011). International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalisation and Change. Sydney: Allen &Unwin. Fox, A. (1969). ‘Management’s Frame of Reference’ in A. Flanders (ed), Collective Bargaining. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gennard, J. & Judge, G. (2002). Employee Relations (3rd edition). Wimbledon: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. ILO. (2000). Decent Work and Poverty Reduction in the Global Economy. Retrieved 17th July 2012, http//www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/exrel/papaers/2000/globalec.htm ILO. (2003). Time for equality at work. Global report under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ILO, Geneva, Part II, Chapter 2: ‘Policy issues and interventions’. ILO. (2008). ‘ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization’, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 97th Session, Geneva, 10 June. Available at www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Publications/Officialdocuments/lang—en/docName— WCMS_099766/index. htm [accessed 2 July 2010]. Gospel, H. (2008). ‘Trade unions in theory and practice: Perspectives from advanced industrial countries’ in J. Benson & Y. Zhu (eds), Trade Unions in Asia. Hoboken: Routledge. Hughes, S. (2005). ‘The International Labour Organisation’, New Political Economy, 10(3), September, pp. 413-25. Lansbury, R. &Wailes, N. (2011). ‘Employment Relations in Australia’ in Bamber et al. (eds), International and Comparative Employment Relations, 4th Edition, Chapter 5. London: SAGE. Bray, M. &Waring, P. (2011). ‘Employment Relations’ in R. Kramar, T. Bartrum, H. De Cieri, Human Resource Management: Strategy, People and Performance. McGraw-Hill, Sydney, 4th Edition. Rees, Lindsay & Rice (2008). Australian Anti-Discrimination Law. Sydney: Federation Press. Katz, H. & Colvin, J. (2011). ‘Employment Relations in the USA’ in Bamber et al. (eds), International and Comparative Employment Relations. Sydney: Allen &Unwin. Ivancevich, J. (2008). Human Resource Management, 10th Edition, Chapter 3: ‘Equal Employment Opportunity: Legal Aspects of HRM’. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Cooke, F. (2011). ‘Employment Relations in China’ in G. Bamber et al. (eds) International and Comparative Employment Relations, 5th Edn, Chapter 12. Sydney: Allen &Unwin. Welz, C. (2010). ‘European Industrial Relations between Hard and Soft Law: A Sectoral and Company Perspective’, European Journal of Labour Law, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 99–105. Williams, C. (2007). ‘Tackling Undeclared Work in Europe: Lessons from a Study of Ukraine,’ European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 219–36. Read More