Reconceptualising Voice in the Non-Union Workplace - Assignment Example

Industrial Relations Student’s Name: Grade Course: Tutor’s Name: Date: Word count: 2455 Question 1: 609 words There are no absolutes on whether the understanding defined by Dundon and Gollan (2007, p. 1192) can accommodate successful workplace change. On one hand, managerial strategies that encourage non-unionisation may succeed in winning over employees, who will stick with the employer’s position for as long they are treated right. In an example, an employer who treats his employees well by providing them with good salaries, leave-days, sick-offs, and benefits among other things can successfully persuade the same employees against joining unions. To accommodate workplace change, such an employer would need to be open to the views and opinions of employees at all times. Additionally, he must be willing to act on the suggestions or opinions of his employees. However, if the employees collectively think the employer is not paying enough attention to their suggestions or opinions, then the possibility of them considering unionisation could arise. Alternatively, employees could forge solidarity in an effort to force the management to react to their calls for change. According to Dundon and Gollan (2007, p. 1187) “... an absence of employee influence or lack of recognition from management about employee effort can lead to a more militant work force, as inter-group solidarity is realised as a countervailing source of power against management”. In such situations, employer-driven workplace changes may be unsuccessful especially considering that the solidarity forged by employees would make them alert about any initiatives by the employer. Although the employer may not face retribution from employees such as industrial action, demarcation or stoppages, it is worth noting that employees can mobilise resistance towards workplace policies, to the extent of making the employer give in to their demands. However, it is noteworthy that the bargaining power of the non-unionised employees would be relative to their perceived worth in the organisation and the extent that the management prerogative is considered legal. There is also the possibility that managerial strategies that encourage non-unionisation may succeed in winning over employees, but may not be as open to employee-driven workplace change. To deal with any calls for change, the employer would probably recount the nature of managerial prerogative in the company, hence making it clear to employees that they are in no position to influence the direction that the organisation will take. In an example where such is the case, an employer could in direct communication tell the employees to either obey orders or quit. Knowing all too well that not all employees would quit, the employer would then try quelling the simmering disquiet among workers, by ‘handing out goodies” in order to silence them and probably take their minds off the need for change. In the end, the employer would succeed in avoiding change, but would end up with an unhappy workforce. In some cases where the non-unionised employees feel that they are not treated right, solidarity initiatives can end up denying employer-driven initiatives a chance to prosper. In some cases, the in-house solidarity initiatives could be extremely strong to the extent that any attempt by the employer to cow workers using threats would not succeed. For such solidarity, initiatives to work however, the work environment must have adequate legal backing, and the employees should be well aware of such legal rights. Overall, the success of change in non-unionised workplaces may vary depending on the level of employee solidarity in individual workplaces, and the extent to which an employer is able to convince employees to do as the management wishes. The presence of legal provisions that prevent employees from being undermined by their employers, and the level of employees’ understanding of the same rights may also affect the success or failure of employer-driven workplace change. Question 4: 628 words Although it is hard to define Non-Union Employee Representation (NER) precisely, several characteristics as identified by Gollan (2003) can help identify such representation. First, Non-Union Employee representative bodies only enlist employee within an organisational setting only. Second, NER fosters limited or no linkages with trade unions or other formal external bodies that represent employees. Third, the resources to support NER are usually provided by the employer organisation; and fourth, NER assumes an agency function in representing employees’ interest to the management (Gollan, 2003, p. 3). Unlike the collective bargaining advanced by trade unions, non-union representation advances non-adversarial conciliation, which is based on consultation between employees and the employer or management. NER has the capacity to challenge conventional roles held by trade unions since they “transform the employment relationship, with other high commitment practices, into a mutually productive relationship” (Gollan, 2003, p. 4). As such, employees who could access better workplace practices through unionisation can access the same without having to take union membership. By satisfying the basic interest of employee, NER renders the basic traditional bargaining aspect of unions unnecessary in many contemporary organisations since employees do not have to take union membership in order to ensure that their rights are discussed with the management. This could be interpreted as one of the ways that NER challenges the conventional role of trade unions suppressing activities that would normally be handled by trade unions. Citing the competitive model, Gollan (2003) argues that some contemporary organisations enhance or upgrade their NER structures with an intention of making unions less meaningful or useful to employees. When such happens, NER is positioned to compete with the presence of unions. In the end, such representation acts to suppress activities that were formally the reserve of trade unions. For example, an organisation may establish NER and recruit employee representatives from both the unionised and non-unionised staff members. In meetings with the representatives, the organisation may try winning their empathy by communicating its position, and the decisions made by the management. Eventually, the organisation may succeed in building a trusting relationship between the management and the representatives, implying that management decisions are discussed with the representatives who then communicate the same to the employees. By fostering such an understanding between the workforce and the management, the NER challenges the role of trade unions since even the unionised members would have a clear knowledge of why the management is adopting specific practices. According to Gollan (2003), by encouraging unionised employees to identify with management behaviour, NER challenges and weakens links that exist between unions and their representatives at an organisational level. Additionally, NER may foster a climate where employee representatives moderate any resistance from the workforce. By so doing, the representatives discourage actions that would enhance trade union participation. It is worth noting that NER does not only act as a substitute to trade union, but may also play complementary roles. According to Gollan (2003, p. 6), “workplaces that do not recognise a union are significantly less likely to have a consultative body”. This statement indicates that the presence of trade unions, does in some way, encourage management in organisation to establish NER. Following this line of thought, one can argue that management of different organisations try to quell their employees’ involvement in trade unions by encouraging the involvement of employees in NER. For the employees, it is a win-win situation since they can access improved employee relations as a result of their involvement with NER or trade unions. Additionally, one can argue that the presence of NER does not explicitly prevent employees from taking up union membership. In cases where employees feel that NER is not representing their interests to the maximum, then trade unions can play a complementary role in ‘standing in the gap’. Question 6: 588 words The Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) approach suggests that “The impact of globalisation on employment relations varies systematically across different types of market economy” (Wailes, Lansbury & Kirsch, 2009, p. 90). While the approach has received criticism and support from analysts, it is also noteworthy that it provides some understanding about changes that occur in the contemporary workplace. However, workplace changes cannot be understood in all entireties from the VoC approach since other factors also play important roles in shaping relationships and changes that occur in modern organisations. The VoC approach’s emphasis that there is not a single manner of organising capitalism resonates well with the school of thought that proposes that players in a market economy face different coordination problems while doing business. Specifically, such analysts argue that firms have to address “industrial relations; vocational training and education; corporate governance; inter-firm relations and relations with their employees” if they are to handle the internal and external coordination problems effectively (Wailes et al., 2009, p. 90). While it is apparent that the Voc framework is useful in understanding contemporary workplace change, it is hard to quantify the extent of such usefulness. However, the framework has succeeded in offering an explanation as to why workplace change is different in different kinds of economies. For example, Wailes et al. (2009) observe that the differences between liberal market economies (LMEs) and coordinated market economies (CMEs) may explain why workplace changes witnessed in the two settings may be different. Notably, capitalism in LMEs takes a different approach from the capitalism observed in CMEs. As such, workplace changes brought about by managerial prerogative, employment relations, collective or individualised bargaining be inherently different based on the type of capitalism where they are founded. The VoC framework has also provided useful insights towards understanding the cross-national differences in activities that would drive workplace changes. Such include “union membership and density, the gendered nature of labour markets, employee participations and vocational training systems” (Wailes et al., 2009, p. 91). Following the VoC framework, one can argue that the eroding workplace conditions, which lead to employees feeling insecure in their places of work is most prevalent in the LMEs where the management and employees do not relate closely, and where managerial prerogative is exercised most. With eroded workplace conditions, and heightened employee insecurity, such economies would thus have vibrant employee representation bodies such as NER and trade unions. In CMEs however, there is bound to be enhanced cooperation between employees and the management, and labour is more likely to enjoy substantial legal protection. Consequently, the VoC framework helps in explaining the intense vibrancy of trade unions and other employee representation bodies in LMEs when compared to the CMEs. Using the Australian context where labour was historically fighting with the management for improved working conditions as an exemplar of LMEs, one gets the impression that the VoC framework could indeed be right in its argument that human relations practices adopted in different forms of capitalist economies could determine the workplace changes witnessed therein. It is worth noting that as Australia becomes more exposed to the forces of globalisation, the employer-employee relations are changing and consequently, the workplace changes experienced in the former years may be different from present-day experiences. Overall, the usefulness of the VoC framework in understanding contemporary workplace change is undeniable. As noted earlier however, it is problematic to quantify such usefulness especially considering that some analysts have drawn attention to the fact that not all economies can fit into the two divisions of LMEs and CMEs. Question 7: 630 words Collective bargaining can take place in the workplace, enterprise or industry levels. Additionally, both unionised and non-unionised employees can engage in the same either individually or collectively through employee representatives. As such, both companies A and B can engage in collective bargaining. However, due to the intrinsic differences in the organisations, variance in the level, agents, scope, status and coverage of bargaining will no doubt be observed Level of bargaining: Ideally, collective bargaining can take place at the company or enterprise level, industry/sector level, or on the national level. The national level is the broader of the three and hence more decentralised, while the company/enterprise level is narrower compared to the others and hence more centralised. Applying this in the context of companies A and B reveals that collective bargaining in the former is likely to happen in the company/enterprise level, while taking an industrial/sectoral level for company B. The reasons behind this are that company A is a hairdressing salon that has two outlets in the same region only. Collectively, Company A has 10 employees who are on full-time, part-time and casual employment. Company B on the other hand has a regional presence and is hence likely to take a more decentralised level of bargaining. Some of the considerations that the bargaining agents are likely to consider include activities that the 140 regional employees engage in and whether there are significant differences in the company’s 20 branches. Bargaining agent: this refers to the individual or entity, which represents the employers or the employees during the bargaining process. Considering that all the 10 employees are non-unionised, it is probable that they would appoint a representative to advance their case in the collective bargaining processes. Alternatively, their employer may try to negotiate with employees at an individual level. In Company B, at least all the customer care employees (tellers) are unionised and this may mean that the trade union may act as the principal bargaining agent. To accommodate the remaining non-unionised employees, non-union representation may be sought. Scope of bargaining: This refers to issues or subjects that are addressed in the bargaining process. Since companies A and B operate in the service industry, it is probable that the scope of bargaining would not be very different. Principally, some of the issues that service workers are dissatisfied with include workloads, wages, and working hours. Notably however, employee representatives in Company B want to ‘wrestle’ the managerial prerogative concerning the representation of non-unionised employees. Status of bargaining: This “mostly concerns the legal status of the bargaining procedures and outcomes” (Bray, Waring & Cooper, 2011, p.330). In both companies A and B, the status of bargaining will most likely depend on the legal frameworks established by courts and government in their countries of operation. Considering that the two companies deal in different services, the status of bargaining may differ depending on whether it is legally permissible to bargain on specific issues under contention. Additionally, the status of bargaining may be affected by the law’s protection of managerial prerogative in the different contexts. Coverage of bargaining: this refers to the proportion of employees whose employment terms or conditions are affected by bargaining. Ideally, collective bargaining cannot succeed in company A since all its employees are non-unionised. In company B, the coverage of bargaining would not only be affected by the fact that some employees are unionised, but also by what Bray, Waring and Cooper (2011, p. 330) calls “union density”. In company B, 90 out of the 140 employees are unionised. This means that unions represent 64 percent of the total workforce. Overall, the appropriateness of collective bargaining in companies A and B is underscored by the fact that both companies have sufficient dimensions of bargaining to warrant representation in contentious issues concerning employer-employee relations. References Bray, Waring & Cooper (2011, Chapter 10) Dundon, T & Gollan, P J 2007, ‘Reconceptualising voice in the non-union workplace,’ the International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 18, no. 7, pp, 1182-1198. Gollan, P J 2003, ‘Faces of non-union representation in the UK: management strategies, processes and practice’, International Employment Relations Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-32. Wailes, N, Lansbury, R, & Kirsch, A 2009, ‘Globalisation and varieties of employment relations: An international study of the automotive assembly industry,’ Labour and Industry, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 89-106. Read More