Industrial Relations Issues - Coursework Example

Industrial Relations Name Institution Industrial Relations Work dominates the lives of most individual in one way to another. According to Irwin, (2005) work remains the central feature of organizational life this is asserting itself due to the fast-changing business skylines and the industrial landscapes which necessitate the adjustment and readjustment of parameters of the employer relations hence the concept of employer relations requires proper appreciation (Irwin, 2005). The industrial relations refer to the complex human relationships that emerge in the work situations, these are situations that bring different people from diverse culture and different background together for services, which are sold and bought at a price. In each work place setting, there exists those that offer their services these are referred as workers, and there are those who utilize this services these are the employees. Between these two groups, there exists an interpersonal or individual relationship and relations between the two. Their economic interest primarily brings them to the work place to work for wages, and their employers hire their services as a factor contributing to the production. The most prominent feature of industrial relations is that it is an art, which two parties learn by acquiring the skills of adjustment (Konzelmann, Conway, Trenberth & Wilkinson, 2006). The subject of industrial relations deals with particular regulated and institutionalized relationships in the industry. The field of industrial relations includes the study of workers and their respective trade unions. According to the author, the regulation of the relationship is from within; the parties involved in a work place must learn to work together by a process of accommodation and adjustment. Industrial relations deal with the problems that arise in the human relationships. The relationship between labor and management is based on mutual interests and goals. It depends on upon economic, social satisfaction of the parties, the higher the satisfaction the healthier the relationship Approaches in Industrial Relations The way we perceive the nature of this area of the organization determines largely, how we respond to situations within the industrial relations and adapt to influence or modify people’s behavior in an organization. In examining the different approaches, it is essential to distinguish between the approaches, which are implicated with the general nature of employment organizations and the general nature of employment organizations, and those that deal with the industrial relation system itself. Unitary Perspective The essence of the unitary theory is that the larger the social system the larger the perspective in a unitary organization. It is viewed as a football team where everyone in the work place has a similar goal. The unitary perspective is found predominantly among managers; this is particularly in the line of management and is often regarded as a management ideology. This has been attributed to a number of reasons; first, it legitimizes its authority by protecting the interests of management and employees as being the same and by emphasizing the managers’ role of governing the interests of the organization. Second, it reassures managers by confirming that conflict where it occurs and is largely caused by the government rather than the management. Finally, it may be projected to the outside world persuading them that the management’s decisions and actions are best in the circumstances and that any challenge to them is misguided or at worst subversive. From the unitary perspective, all the ideas and perceptions of the government or management are legitimate. Pluralistic Perspective This perspective is based on the belief that the organization is composed of individuals who coalesce into a variety of distinct sectional groups, each with its own interests. The organization is multi-structured and competitive in terms of groupings. This leads the organization into a dynamic tension resulting from the inherent conflict of interest between the different sectional groups and requires to be managed through a variety of roles and processes. Radical Perspective This perspective is also referred as the Marxist perspective; it constitutes the nature of the society that surrounds the organization. The perspective assumes that the organization exists within a capitalist society. Muller, (2008) asserts that the production system is privately owned; profit is the principal influence on the company policy. The author urges class group conflict is the source of societal change, without such conflict society would stagnate. Class conflict a rises primary in the distribution and access to economic power in the society, and this particularly occurs between those who own capital and those who supply labor. The Marxist view is that institutions of joint regulations would improve rather than limit management positions as they presume the continuation rather than challenge it (Muller, 2008). This perspective sees inequalities of power and economic system, in this case, conflicts are inevitable, and trade unions are a natural response to workers to their exploitation by capital (Brown & Garman, 2010). Neo Institution Theory The conventional neo-institutional explanation for societal change is the spread of cultural characteristics from one locale to another through coercion, normative or imitation. The theory asserts that the intuitional environment can influence an institution in a strong way. The author argues that the intuitional myths are merely accepted ceremoniously in order for them to gain and maintain legitimacy in the intuitional environment. Organizations adopt the theory of prevalent in their own environments, which mainly include organizational roles and job titles. It is notable that the adoption of acceptable trappings coupled with legitimacy ensures organizational survival and aids the preservation an aura in an organizational setting. Evidently, this action is based on good faith and it alleviates many complications that emanate from organizational setting. The empirical findings also conclude that the net effect of an intuitional pressure is to increase the organizational structures in an intuitional environment. Firms will adopt similar structures as a result of three types pressures namely; coercive pressure, mimetic pressure, and normative pressure. Coercive pressure comes from the legal mandates that influence organizations. Mimetic pressures come when a dire need arises during periods of high uncertainty to copy successful forms. It is worth indicating that, similar attitudes of professional groups brought into the firm through hiring from outside resonate to normative pressure. New institution has made the case for giving institutions analytical primacy, but substantial disagreements remain over how institutional analysis should be carried out. Neo institution theory has also appealed to political scientists, for example, in Europe; they have made tremendous contributions to its literature. In Europe, political science has never experienced a struggle because the state had never been abandoned, whilst the net institutionalism for European scholars tends to stem from its closeness with their own political science tradition (Bacon, Wright & Demina, 2004). The theory has some critics; some argue that it suffers from theoretical and conceptual confusion and that it lacks explanatory power. Labor Theory According to Schuler, (2009) having been forced to sell one's power to another, the workers surrender their interest in the labor process. The theory states that the majority of people are subject to paid employment. In essence, our work is the most important moment in our lives. For most people work is repetitive and mundane, the theory asserts that often the best moments at work are those which subvert the labor we do (Schuler, 2009). Everything we do is related to work from social life this is evident as people remember friends they met at work; talking to people on breaks or out of supervision. Not all authors agree with the theory quarrels with the orthodox labor theory; storey argues that the theory rests upon the premise that capital constructs systems of control in order to secure the structurally necessary extraction of surplus value from labor. Story points to the existence of a multiplicity levels, circuits, and forms of control that are not exclusively formed by an essential logic of capitalism. In response Muller, (2008) suggests that the capitalist mode of production imposes constraints given its nature of development. According to Muller, (2008) it marginalizes the labor process to an extent of invisibility similar to a vehicle for the economic appropriation of surplus value and the private accumulation of wealth (Muller, 2008). Conclusion It is worth noting that, the resolution of inherit in industrial relations is crucial to any business survival growth and competitiveness .The findings conclude that, the coercive pressures are under high state mandate. This implies that it is inevitable for the organizations to adopt quickly and fit into the new structures. Apparently, the rate of adoption is much slower under low coercive pressures. Whilst increased adoption builds legitimacy in the in the institutional environment a collaborative approach between employees and workers is the only way forward, this will be effective if only mutual trust and sustainable solutions. Another key element of good industrial relations is the implementation of national regulations that are up to international standards in both health and safety. The government needs to improve its mechanisms to enable it to monitor the company’s regulations thought. This implies that in the near future, the industrial relations will improve significantly. References Bacon, N., Wright, M., & Demina, N. (2004). Management Buyouts And Human Resource Management. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(2), 325-347. Brown, D. K., & Garman, D. M. (2010). Human Resource Management And International Trade. Industrial Relations, 29(2), 189-213. Irwin, J. W. (2005). Industrial Relations. Chemical & Engineering News, 33(14), 1453. Konzelmann, S., Conway, N., Trenberth, L., & Wilkinson, F. (2006). Corporate Governance And Human Resource Management. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 541-567. Muller, M. (2008). Human Resource And Industrial Relations Practices Of UK And US Multinationals In Germany. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(4), 732-749. Schuler, R. S. (2009). Strategic Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations. Human Relations, 42(2), 157-184. Sisson, K. (1990). Human Resource Management and the Industrial Relations Journal: An Announcement. Industrial Relations Journal, 21(1), 5-6. Read More