Industril Rltins and Wrkl hng - Assignment Example

Running Header: Industriаl Rеlаtiоns Аnd Wоrkрlасе Сhаngе Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Introduction Industrial relationship takes various shapes from one institution to another depending on the terms of contracts that link employees to their employers. In many cases, work place conditions warrant the establishment of trade unions to protect the rights of employees. Likewise on the employers’ side, there are federations of employers in different capacities, whose functions are to safeguard the positions, privileges and the fundamental rights of employers. There are various perspectives or orientations of industrial relationships worldwide. This essay narrows down to discussion four main orientations of industrial relations affecting typical work places. Ellem (2010, p.360) presents the four are unitarism (also known as neo-liberalism), pluralism, radicalism (also known as Marxism) and feminism. Characteristics of the orientations Pluralism Pluralism is a perspective of industrial relation and work place change in which the organization forms two groups of power; trade unions on one side and the management on the other side. There is usually a conflict between the two groups as they compete over the sharing of work benefits. Workers and the employers are always at war. The management usually protects the interests of the institution, while the trade unions defend the employees’ interests based on legal grounds. The second characteristic of pluralism is the use of mutual and collective bargaining to resolve conflicts (Bélanger &Edwards 2007, p720). Thirdly, there is the involvement of the state in protecting the interest of the public. The state usually avoids taking part in the collective bargaining negotiations, but addresses the effects of industrial conflicts on the general public. The challenge with pluralism is that it has vague policies and usually involves violations of procedures. Secondly, it tends to defend the management more than it does to the workers union. The management disregards the necessary changes that work places require. Even though it has written procedure, its implementation more often require the use of radical forceful methods including strikes and boycotts (Visser, 2006). Radicalism This perspective of industrial relations originated from the theory of capitalist movement and social transformation. One of the characteristics of this orientation is the fundamental conflicts which are inherent between the management and the trade unions (Balser & Winkler 2012, p.400). Just like pluralism, it has unequal division of power between the management and the workers union. The trade unions usually challenge the prevailing systems of management towards relevant work place changes. The unions oppose the attempts of the managements (capitalists) to exploit their workers (Hunter 2006, p. 320). The radicalism perspective has a number of challenges for example; it has no ability to eradicate work place conflicts. The management misuses power and disregards statutory provisions concerning employee rights. Unitarism Unitarism perspective presents an organization as a system without conflicts. It assumes that the management and the employees are in a mutual agreement on their interests, values, objectives and their purposes of co-existence. This theory expects total loyalty of all the workers towards the management. As Treuren (2000, p.98) explains, trade unions do not find space because this perspective considers conflicts as interferences in the work place. It enables employees to participate in the active processes of work place changes. It also welcomes employee initiatives towards creative inventions, problem solving and a certain level of decision making. It therefore has flexible practices in the organization, including discussions of work place issues to identify and resolve possible conflicts (Wilkinson et al 2009, p.370). One major weakness of unitarism is that it does not have details and justification for unequal sharing of power between workers and the management in the processes of decision-making. The best Fitting Orientation for Work Place Change Example Having considered all the perspectives, this study realizes that pluralism is the best fitting industrial relationship orientation. This is because it articulates the interests of both the employers and the workers. By using the collective bargaining agreements, an organization manages to control conflicts between the employees and the managements. It beats radicalism theory because in radicalism, workers’ unions use radical approaches even where the prevailing situations do not warrant them. Workers unions in radicalism have an attitude of challenging every move of the management (Wilkinson, Bailey, & Mourell, 2009). There is a risk in radicalism that the trade unions can resist even the constructive decisions. In unitarism, the employers silently dominate the workers, and subject them to authoritative decision makings. This has more negative effects on the workers since it demands automatic loyalty from the employees. There is an ambiguity in distinguishing between riots and genuine reporting of negative work place conditions. It subjects employees to the risk of victimization (Wilkinson, Bailey, & Mourell, 2009). Evaluation of an actual workplace change example This study presents an actual case of workplace change, involving the North Australian Workers Union and an Australian Company, the Northern Territory, otherwise known as the Cattle Station Industry. In the year 1965, the industry had 2500 workers, each of whom was earning a monthly pay of 3.33 US Dollars. The union presented the grievances of workers, proposing an increment of 80 percent. Secondly union wanted a change of the employment term from casual to permanent, with a retirement age of 55 years (Hunter, 2006). Thirdly, the workers union complained that there was an element of racial discrimination and violation of human rights. The Aboriginal pastoral workers received preferential treatment in the company compared to the rest of the Australian workers in the company. The management of the company initially refused to act on the proposal and this triggered workers’ decision to boycott work. The impact of this loss to the company prompted the management to organize a sitting with the workers union to negotiate common agreements. The management argued that if the increment had to be 80 percent, then the permanent employment was not going to be possible. The other option was a permanent term of employment but with a 50 percent rise. About discrimination, the management apologized and agreed to observe work ethics and eradicate such cases of discrimination. The workers then agreed to the terms and resumed working. Nature of Orientation The kind of industrial relation and workplace orientation in this scenario is Pluralism. There was a representation of the workers union and a typical example of workplace conflict had to go through a mutual bargain of the agreement. Both the management side and the workers union had equal powers of negotiation (Heery et al 2008, p.32). The employees did not take a radical move as in the case of radicalism. At the same time, the management of the Northern Territory did not dominate the discussion. It recognized the trade union as a legal entity and respected its sentiments (Hunter, 2006). Observable Features of the orientation or perspective There were two divergent units of power in the Northern Territory. Both the workers and the organization management had its own legal loyalty, its own goals and objectives. In terms of leadership, each group had its own leaders separate from the other (Hunter, 2006). The role of management in the relation was entirely to guard against misuse or mistreatment of the company interest. The workers union on the other hand concentrated its efforts on protecting the welfare of the workers. The management recognized the North Australian Workers Union as a legally registered union with authority to represent the interest of its members. Just like in a typical pluralism perspective, the two powerful subgroups resolved their work lace conflict using collective bargaining agreement. They actively participated in a change discussion towards mutual benefits and interests (Hunter, 2006). Non observable Features of the orientation or perspective There were certain features that this event did not show clearly. For example, the state did not feature in the discussion as it usually plays the role of an impartial entity, with a duty to protect interest of the public. Secondly, there was no theory of pluralism that appeared as being vague unclear. The rational approach towards conflict resolution did not feature in the initial stages until one side, the workers union, expresses their discontentment. The management did not take the dominant side of the bargain to resist the alternatives of the decisions. It gave room for the workers union to present their sentiments so that they could rectify the already bad situation at work place. The other feature that does not appear to be influential is the emphasis on the company rules, policies and regulations that could easily overrule the power privileges of workers. It presented an atmosphere that was ready to consider exceptional situation to facilitate the necessary workplace change process (Deakin and Whittaker 2007, p.4). Even though there is a high likelihood that the Northern Territory had rules and regulations, there is no mention of this in the event report. Finally, there was no written agreement featuring in after the discussion. It doesn’t feature in any part of the event description. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there was none, but we don’t observe it in the description of the event that unfolded during that era. Processes Followed This situation in this scenario presents typical processes that a pluralist oriented industrial relation takes. First, there was a conflict in the working environment. The workers initiated the subsequent process by presenting a list of their grievances to the trade unionists; the North Australian Workers Union. The third step was a diplomatic presentation of the list to the management of the Northern Territory. As usual, one would simply expect the management to react negatively, because the list of grievances does not favor the company (Akorsu & Akorsu 2009, p.40). The forth step involved the industrial action, which was an initiative of the employees, through the workers union. The fifth step was a collective bargaining process where each group presented its views, and then they come to a common understanding. The sixth step was to seal the agreement and allow the workers to resume their duties (Kotter & Schlesinger 2008. P.139). The reaction of employees The employees took part in preparation of their grievances out of observation and experiences. They made a formal complaint against the unfavorable work place conditions. After presenting their list, the next stage where the employees participated actively was the industrial action, where they refused to attend to and perform their duties. It was a non-violent protest awaiting a positive response to their complaints. Upon confirmation of a common understanding between the negotiating teams, the employee reaction changed to a favorable behavior. They finally resumed working. The outcome The outcome of the whole event was contentment. The discussion had an impact on both the management and the workers. The management lost in the sense that the employees did not work for the period when they were on strike. This was a financial loss to the entire organization because and it definitely had an impact on the financial performance at the end of the financial period. Worse still, management was going to adjust employee wages by a big margin. Again, employees were going to have freedom to go on leave at any time they feel appropriate, and this might not have had a favorable impacts on the company. For the employees, they were going to have an improved living condition as well as work place transformation. It was going to be easy for them to attend leave with enough flexibility. The other benefit they were going to have is that the company was going to absorb them as permanent employees, not temporary staff. They were also hopeful that the elements of discrimination were going to end. The worker’s union was going to gain more confidence from its members; the workers, since they were going to receive direct benefits (Visser 2006, p. 39). For the entire company, there was going to be a complete metamorphosis in the management. Working policies was going to change to the mutual benefit of all stake holders. Reasons why features are observable or not observable The features that were visible were because of the nature of industrial relation that exists in the Northern Territory. It has recognized the position of trade Union in industrial relation, and thus, liberally permits diplomatic discussion with the North Australian Workers Union. The other he case of reason is that the industry has a representation of two divergent power groups. Unlike in unitarism, company does not consider industrial strikes as illegal interferences. It seeks to understand the views of its employees. The features that were not observable such as lack of documentation of policies are an exclusively isolated situation that cannot reflect a deliberate sabotage. References Akorsu, AD & Akorsu, PK 2009, ‘Human resource management practice: a substitute for trade unionism?’ Journal of Business and Enterprise Development, pp. 28-42. Balser, DB. & Winkler, AE 2012, ‘Worker behavior on the job: a multi-methods study of labor cooperation with management’, Journal of Labor Research, vol. 33, issue 3, pp 388-413. Bélanger, J & Edwards, P 2007, ‘The conditions promoting compromise in the workplace’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 713-734. Deakin, S & Whittaker, DH 2007, ‘Re-embedding the corporation? Comparative perspectives on corporate governance, employment relations and corporate social responsibility’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1-4. Ellem, B 2010,‘The making of industrial relations policy: where are we now and how did we get here?’, Labour and Industry, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 353-368. Heery, E, Bacon, N, Blyton, P& Fiorito, J 2008, ‘Introduction: the field of industrial relations’, in P. Blyton et al (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations, SAGE Publications Ltd, London. pp. 1-32. Hunter, L 2006, ‘Low cost airlines: business model and employment relations’, European Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 315-321. Kotter, J & Schlesinger, L 2008, ‘Choosing strategies for change’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 86, no. 7/8, pp. 130-139. Treuren, G 2000, ‘The concept of the state in Australian industrial relations theory’, Labour and Industry, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 75-98. Visser, J 2006, ‘Union membership statistics in 24 countries’, Monthly Labor Review, vol. 129, no.1 (January), pp. 38-49. Wilkinson, A, Bailey, J & Mourell. M 2009, ‘Editors’ introduction: Australian industrial relations in transition’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 358-371. Read More