Is Enterprise Bargaining Still a Better Way of Working - Article Example

Is еntеrрrisе bargaining still а better way оf working? Name Course Lecture Date Introduction Enterprise bargaining involves the negotiation of the working conditions and wages in an organization. Once they are established, they legally bind the employees as well as the employers. Enterprise bargaining is usually a concept that Australian workers are encouraged to adopt the aim of making the workplaces productive and also making their jobs more secure. The supporters of the concept argue that workers will be able to gain dividends with the increased flexibility in the workplaces. In essence enterprise bargaining seems to be a valuable tool which will in a way enable businesses to be flexible as well as responsive and it will also play a greater role when it comes to improving of efficiency as well as productivity. Having a clear understanding of what enterprise bargaining can achieve, organizations can be able to tailor their agreements within the organization to achieve desired level of productivity, optimize workplace flexibilities and by doing so they will be able to create and have a more productive and engaged workforce. Summary of the central argument A country such as Australia has experienced far-reaching reforms in relation to the industrial relations regulations, policies as well as institutions. Тоwnsеnd, Burgеss, Wilkinsоn (2013) argues that Australia have for over three decades been undergoing numerous reforms that relates to employee relations rules, processes as well as the regulation. To offer more support for the argument the article, he adds that in the year 1989, the business council in Australia formed a plan for change. The authors of the article further argue that the core reasons for the introduction of the enterprise bargaining concept include, but not limited to, organizational and economic rationales in relation to labor flexibility and labor deployment, labor productivity, diminishing of the influence of trade unions and allowing some unions that had been formed to break control over wages that had been established through prices and Incomes Accord (Тоwnsеnd, Burgеss, Wilkinsоn 2013). The authors further argue that since the year 1991, industrial relations has attained regular and diverse changes, enterprise bargaining has on the other hand become more ingrained in the Australian system. The author further contends that EB has been and is currently being used in different circumstances; it has undergone diverse meaning during different times in over two decades. The article further argues that during the pre-1991 industrial relations system, other forms of EB coexisted with the award system. Critical analysis The central argument Though EB is said to increase the participation, involvement as well as communication, it is also said to consume a lot of resources and time. Other authors are of the opinion that the benefits that are associated with EB are usually experienced during the negotiation process and after that they are not evident. Thus, authors such as Niland (1990, pp. 36) calls for decentralize bargaining. Based on Niland (1990, pp. 78) EB is a vital component when it comes to the modernization of industrial relations and when it comes to the allocation of more responsibilities to workplace agents. Thus, there seems to be an urgent need to put supporting infrastructures for the devolution of industrial relations systems. Based on the various research that have been conducted in EB over the years, it seems to be beneficial to revisit the bargaining as well as the experience in an organization where bargaining is being implemented. Ever since the formalization of the decentralized agenda in regard to bargaining, even though with transformations and diverse regulatory scenarios (Sappey et al., 2006), the case of EB is usually questioned since the outcomes that came about were totally different from those that had been promised in that there was no innovation and high performance work practices. Based on this it was clearly evident that enterprise bargaining was more beneficial to those who had market power and for those who did not they had no choice but to rely on safe net and award conditions for them to be able to achieve improved benefits and pay. It is also stipulated that the gap between those who are inside the bargaining system and those who are outside may widen and this may seem to be inevitable with EB. This is solely based on the fact that if the awards remain to be on a safety net, EB will only allow the strongest to thrive since the weakest can be able to afford. The authors of the article allege that enterprise bargaining outlines tend to promote the rights of the managers and other closely linked to them and it also requires the unions to defend conditions rather than calling for and building up resourceful employment conditions. Based on the research, both the employees as well as the managers in the two organizations inveterate good links as well as trust amongst the parties, but a breakdown in trust and disruption in links within the workplace were experienced during the enterprise bargaining process. Lands, Tseng & Wooden (2003, pp. 250) are other supporters of the concept of EB; they argue that EB play a great role in the facilitation of workplace agreements that enhance the living standards and the productivity of organizations. Through EB employees are able to get more appealing and well paying jobs and thus the stimulation of employee engagement in the day to day running of the organization's operations. Consequently, enterprise bargaining also heightens reforms in the organization besides the enhancement of productivity in the organization. Loundes, Tseng & Wooden (2003, p.245), offer two ways in which wage determination as well as centralized conditions can lead to an increase in productivity. One of the major way is that EB can play a major role in assisting organizations that are currently ineffective to practice what is advocated fro by the enhancement of incentives that are essential in the establishment more productive practices and professional work. Those who are against the concept of enterprise bargaining, such as Townsend and Wilkinson (2013, p. 108) argues that EB destroys the relations amongst the employers and the employees, but they also acknowledge the positive aspects associated with EB, such as active participation, communication and involvement in the organization's operations. None of the supporters of EB had offered constructive evidence on all the possible positive impacts and for the few that have been mentioned research need to be conducted so as to support the facts with ample data. They argue that though EB is said to have both positive and negative impacts, future researchers need to deal with the issues such as the identification of the positive impacts that are felt after the agreements are made. Though the trade unions offer formidable relevance as well as presence, this ultimately disappears in the bargaining rounds. The legislative shifts usually offers the employers with a wide range of options in regard to their wage fitting rules and the trade unions usually face increasing pressures in their bargaining amenities (Briggs 2001, p.27). Issues such as time costs and resource costs as well as the lack of expertise are among the core issues that unions and employers have identified in regard to EB (Burgess and Waring 2006). Industry bargaining and awards permit lower transaction costs and economies of scale of all the parties at the bargaining (Knox 2009, pp. 35). Based on this, the issues of the relevance of trade unions usually crop up. According to Briggs 2001, unions usually underestimate the infrastructure as well as the resources that are essential for active bargaining and based on these most of the bargaining tend to be employer led and thus it is more focused on the reduction of labor costs. In theory, enterprise bargaining usually unions into direct contact with their memberships and thus increasing their relevance as well as presence. Nevertheless, besides the resources costs, unions may also be called upon to defend condition in addition to the status quo. Methodology When seeking to answer the questions whether Enterprise Bargaining Still a Better Way of Working? Townsend, Wilkinson and Burgess (2013) use qualitative research methods. This method of research seems to be appropriate since it aims at gaining a greater level of understanding of human behavior and the reasons behind such behavior. The qualitative research method usually answers the how and why in decision making and not just where, what, when and thus in this kind of research smaller but more focused samples are used as compared to large samples of data. For example, in relation to this research, only two case studies, organizations have been used that is a hotel a manufacturing firm (Sappey et al. 2006). To gain the necessary data from the research, interviews were conducted to the middle managers, senior managers, and operational level employees as well as to the union delegates. A total of 18 interviews were conducted in the hotel and another 19 in the manufacturing firm. The major reason for using qualitative research is based on the fact that this approach seems to be more responsive to the conditions, local situations and to stakeholder needs. The interviews were semi structured and they coupled well with concepts that revolved around workplace communication and participation and the questions were also linked to the personal experiences with enterprise bargaining. By the use of interviews the researchers would be able to get the responses from the intended individuals. In addition to the interviews that were conducted, observation was also used do as to gain additional data. Through the use of observation, researchers were able to have direct access to the social issues being evaluated. Instead of basing one's arguments on various self reports, it seems to be more useful to observe and at the same time record their behavior based on the issue being assessed. Observation in this case is more likely to deal with the limitations associated with interviews in that people may tend to answer questions based on what is socially desirable and also accurate and unbiased information and data is also collected. The research team also acted as observers in a workplace meeting, for example, in team briefing, head of department meetings, supervisor meeting and in staff focus groups. In addition to the use of observation and interview in the collection of data, the management teams also provided the researchers with the corporate records and documents so as to support and facilitate data collection as well as analysis (Burgess & Waring 2006, pp. 45). Examples of such documents include presentations made to the staff and the minutes of the previous meeting within the organizations. Findings and conclusions Based on the articles the authors were able to ascertain that bargaining is an inevitable and necessary process. This is commonly believed to be so since bargaining is a concept that occurs within the organizations. Manager’s usually shows reconciled inevitability in regard to bargaining and this is also mixed anxiety over the process of bargaining as well as the possible consequences. Another major finding of the article is that EB seems to be a chore that in costly and time consuming though on the positive note it is also closely associated with increased communication, participation and consultation in the workplaces. Trade unions in organizations were seen to be playing a major and active role, though in instances when bargaining was prolonged or at times when there were strikes and disruption, there was undermining of cooperation and trust (Macdonald, Campbell &Burges 2001, pp.20). After conducting the research it was found out that EB is costly and long and at times not efficient at all and perception holds that it do not lead to any productivity gains. EB has had both negative and positive consequences. For example on a negative point, it tends to damage the relationships between employees and their employers, on the other hand, the positive aspects include better communication, engagement and participation. The article further argues that similar research ought to be conducted in other organizations and the findings of this research ought not to be generalized to apply to all organizations. Based on the numerous legislative changes employers are offered with better choices in regard to their wage-fixation strategies and thus the unions on the other hand have to deal with the ever increasing pressures on their bargaining resources. In instances when evidence of the research on the two cases reflects the wider experience of other Australian organizations, it would be right to argue that enterprise bargaining is not a sustainable concept (Peetz 2012, pp. 242). Within the neoliberal framework of contemporary capitalism, employers are more likely to grow hesitant in engaging processes that manifests little value added benefits. Further research needs to be carried out in relation to EB and this research can be vital in uncovering scenarios where EB operate in an effective manner. In conclusion, it is clearly evident that further research need to be carried out in regard to the research question. This is solely based on the fact that the questions have not been answered in totality. Also, though the conclusions were made, it would have been useful to use all the data that had been collected from all the groups. For instance, data that had been collected union officials was not considered when arriving at the conclusions. The findings when coupled with the limitations that two case study projects were used attracts two major questions that are closely related to the Australian industrial relations sector: one of the major question addresses issues such as whether there is adequate resources and training for individuals to be involved in the EB process. And the second question deal with the role that skill development and training can play so as to ensure that EB is a sustainable process. References Briggs, C 2001, 'Australian Exceptionalism: the role of trade unions in the emergence of enterprise bargaining’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 43, 1, pp. 27-43. Burgess, J & Waring, P 2006, Productivity and the Proposed Industrial Relations Reforms, Evatt Foundation, Sydney. Knox, A 2009, ‘Better the devil you know? An analysis of employers’ bargaining preferences in the Australian hotel industry,’ Journal of Industrial Relations 51, 1, pp. 25–44. Loundes J, Tseng, Y & Wooden, M 2003, ‘Enterprise bargaining and productivity in Australia: What do we know?,’ Economic Record 79, pp. 245–258. Macdonald, D, Campbell, I &B urges, J 2001, ‘Ten Years of Enterprise bargaining: an Introduction,’ Labor and Industry 12, 1, pp. 1–25. Niland, J 1990, The light on the horizon: The essentials of an enterprise focus. Working Paper no.80, Industrial Relations Research Centre, University of New South Wales. Peetz, D 2012, ‘The impacts and non-impact on unions of enterprise bargaining’, Labor & Industry, 22, 3, pp.237-254. Sappey, R, Burgess, J, Lyons M, et al. 2006, The New Federal Workplace Relations System, Pearson Education, Sydney. Тоwnsеnd, K., Burgеss J., Wilkinsоn, А 2013, ‘Is еntеrрrisе bargaining still а better way оf working? Journal оf Industrial Rеlаtiоns,’ 55, 1, рр.100-117 Read More