The paper 'How Does the State Interfere in Employment Relations ' is a perfect example of a Management Essay. In most countries, the state has a great influence on labor relations. The state encompasses more than a single actor, government institutions and departments. The state has been influencing employment relations in different ways. There have been passing of judgments which have led to great changes in the employment relations. The government has powered on bodies and institutions that govern employment relations (Hyman, 2008). The state interventions have been increasing over the years.
The state main aim of intervening in employment relations is gaining economic and social development for the whole nation. The state has a role to make sure that there is a high level of employment, stability in prices, and ensure that the exchange rate is protected (Sycholt & Klerck, 1997). Labour legislation is used to influence employers’ decision making. It also ensures that there is tangible protection for the employees from the discretionary powers held by the employer (Sisson, 2007). This paper will give ways in which the state interferes with employment relations.
The paper will also explain how a neoliberal government can ever be absent from the management of employment relations. The state has various methods of intervention which include; being an employer, regulating incomes and prices, economic manager, protecting the standards, making rules, and promoting the citizenship guidelines. A state acts as an employer in its own right. This involves being a responsible employer, which sends a signal to the way employees ought to be treated at work. This makes the employees in the public sector and the labor unions to take a reciprocal that will ensure conflict in employment relations are avoided.
The government ensures that they encourage employees to be members of the trade unions under the public sector. This has made trade union membership to be healthy among the public sector employees in most countries (Hyman, 2008). By being an income regulator, the government is able to intervene in employment relations. The governments in most countries control prices and wage increases. This ensures that there is a low inflation rate. The government can also manipulate the interests’ rates and regulate public spending which results in influence in employment relations.
The government is the economic manager of a country. The state is thus involved in macro-economic policies which include money supply and fiscal regulations. These are issues that can have an effect on the labor market and the manner in which manpower is utilized. The state can provide a return to work incentives and operate employment exchanges. This is a major step towards labor mobility through means such as providing training that caters to skills shortages. Through being an economic manager, the government is able to provide labor decommodification.
This is through funding the welfare protection which ensures employees do not become over-dependent on employers (Hyman, 2008). This helps a lot, especially during recession and unemployment. The state is a protector for the standards for employment. Through this, the state is able to set the minimum standards for employment. The minimum standards for employment have been in existence for a long time in most countries. This is to ensure that there is no discrimination in workplaces, no unfair dismissal, and upholding equal pay.
The state is also the rule maker and the legislator. The government promulgates legislation directly. The main functions of the law based on this respect are three. First, good employment relations are encouraged by giving actions that will be undertaken against those who break the legislation. Governments around the world have a code of practice that has to be followed for good employment practices. The state is also responsible for setting restrictive laws such as those against child labor and discrimination in labor practices (Heyes & Nolan, 2010).
The state also sets the minimum wages which must be adhered to by the employers.
Campbell, J.L. & Pedersen, O.K. 2001, The Rise of Neo-liberalism and Institutional Analysis, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Cook, M. L. 2007, The Politics of Labor Reform in Latin America: Between Flexibility and Rights, University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press.
Ewing, K.D. 1998, “The State and Industrial Relations: Collective Laissez-faire Revisited”, Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, Vol.5, no.2, p.1-31.
Heyes, J. & Nolan, P. 2010, “State, Capital, and Labour Relations in Crisis”. In Colling, T. & Terry, M. Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. Chichester: John Willey, p. 106-124.
Hyman, R. 2008, “The State in Industrial Relations”. In Blyton, P. et al. The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage, p. 258-283.
Sycholt, M., & Klerck, G. 1997, The state and labour relations: Walking the tightrope between corporatism and neo-liberalism. Continuity and change: Labour relations in independent Namibia. Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan.
Sisson, K. 2007, ‘Revitalising industrial relations: making the most of the “institutional turn”’, Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, No. 85, University of Warwick, Coventry.