Why Managerial Prerogative Has Gone Too Far - Coursework Example

Running head: MANAGERIAL PREROGATIVE HAS GONE TOO FAR! DISCUSS Managerial prerogative has gone too far! Discuss Name Institution Essay Plan Managerial prerogative has gone too far! Discuss Any directionary powers that are endowed to the managers at any particular moment are termed as managerial prerogatives. Managerial prerogatives involve a situation whereby a manager can lawfully perform a task without even without a reference to the worker organization (Storey, 1983). This essay will be divided into five sections: The nature and scope of managerial prerogatives; misuse of managerial powers; managerial prerogatives and employment contracts; procedural and substantive rules and the conclusion. The first part will cover the definition and the scope of managerial prerogative culminating from awareness that there is always a conflict between the interest of management and workers who both have rights provided by most constitutions (Bray, 2006). The second part will evaluate examine how these powers endowed to managers can be misused by the employer for his benefit. During the time of industrial revolution control was an essential managerial function in every country and social system. In the modern world context the workplace relationship has been highly informed by the element of subordination and discipline (storey, 1983). In this case it is difficult to draw much deference between managerial control and worker resistance if the nature distribution of the power is not conceived (Clegg, 1979). Therefore managerial prerogatives have been devised as a powerful factor between management and the labor as the managed workers strive to challenge the manager and the manager attempts to have the managed worker under his control (Parlin & Poniter, 2009). The third part will evaluate how the managerial powers are inherent in the contracts which an employee and employer signs. Although these contracts are meant to strike a balance of powers between the employer and the employee, they end up giving the employer the biggest share. Normally in job regulations, employers and employees adopt an agreement contract. They contain an individual interest which necessarily ignores the economic reality behind the bargain because the parties are simply not equal (Wedderburn, 1986). Most critics of employment contracts posit that the relationship between the employer and an employee or worker is just a relation between a powerful and a powerless partner (Perline & Poynter, 2009). The fourth section will try to see how substantive and procedural rules are applied in the work relation and how they affect the managerial prerogatives. Substantive part includes that part of duty that the worker is obliged to do as par the contract agreement (Flanders, 1975). However, each of the set of rules, whether substantive or procedural regulate different sets of relationships. Collective relations that involve representative organizations are under the procedural rules. Substantive relation rules are meant to benefit the managers or employer because a contract entered is binding between an employee who sells his labor and the employer who is ready to buy it but has the control on how to do it. Then there is a brief conclusion holding that the government should establish rules and policies to limit these managerial powers for the sake of the employee. The main paper Introduction: The Nature and Scope of Managerial Prerogatives What is referred to as managerial prerogatives are the rights of an employer to regulate every aspect of workplace like transferring of employees, laying off, dismissal and recall of workers all which directly affect the workers. Managerial prerogatives are viewed by the management agents from two perspectives: the property rights where the manager feel that they are mandated over their capital asset control and economic efficiency where managers argues for their freedom to manage as they deem it viable for the benefit of all stakeholders (Storey,1983). On the contrary the workers through trade union do acknowledge the part of the management role to control the power but do not see this as the right of the management, but part of what managers are paid for (Bray, 2006). Therefore as managers use this premise to defend themselves, workers use it also to place an element of responsibility upon managers. In any for profit enterprise the right to manage by the employer is granted to him as he is the owner of the capital and can decide how to control his or her affairs. While the employer commands capital, information and access to legal advice the employee works in order to survive. What brings these people closer to an established objective is a contract which only encases unequal relationship between the employer and the employee (Fox, 1966). An employer allocates tasks to the employees that he expects to be done adequately. However these managerial prerogatives have got the far reaching excesses on the right to manage. Misuse of Managerial Powers In the strict sense of the term managerial prerogative denotes something which managers are allowed to do but which is not possibly allowed for everyone (Kinamugire, 2009). This may involve managers crafting some goals, aims and objectives and planning on how they will be achieved. The achievement of the aims and goals will ultimately involve controlling the means of production and this is where the employee comes in. All these rights are granted to the manager at default and sometimes it is too much because he or she uses it to decide the destiny of the employee. Under the normal circumstances, the law provides that these powers should be exercised in a controlled way and there are statutes like labor relations act, employment equity rights and basic conditions of employment act that are aimed at checking any excesses inherent in the right to manage. All these statutes seem to provide an equal playing ground for both employer and the employee but they are not (Hyman, 1975). This means that managerial prerogative is a loophole that has always been misused by managers and employers against their employees. In most cases managers have been seen to change the nature of the agreed work which causes the worker material or ethical injury (Kostas, 2009). There have been cases where employers are said to change an employees’ work and deploy him or her to another subcontracted job without and additional remuneration. The labor contract provides that reduction of remunerations should be done as far as it is not less than the minimum wage. But this provision may be misused by the employer who has the right to do what he or she pleases being the owner of the capital (Coffey & Thornley, 2009). Managerial prerogative misuse can also involve transferring an employee to a different department that has a different labor or even assigning someone some inferior duties. These are some of the notable avenues that managerial prerogatives have been used by managers while they make policies that were not existing before and that affect the contract. Another way in which managerial prerogative has been used is decreasing the agreed salary, changing the formula of calculating salary and soon (Papadimitriou, 2009). There are cases whereby employers have increased working hours especially in cases of contractual part time work. These managerial prerogatives are justifiable but do breach the contract and hurts the employee (Perline & Poynter, 2009). Managerial Prerogatives and Employment Contracts Employment contract at face value is an act of inception while it really is a condition of subordination of the worker. The contract requires the employer to pay wages, provide work, exercise care and cooperate while employees are expected to obey reasonable order, exercise reasonable care and competence, maintain fidelity, honesty, protect confidential information, be accountable and not to sabotage employers business among other provisions. These provisions are just mere protection on managerial prerogatives and the cooperation in the workplace will depend on class in which each party falls into (Edwards, 1987). Procedural and Substantive Rules The policy guiding employment involve Substantive part that states duties that the worker is obliged to do as par the contract agreement (Flanders, 1975) and Collective relations that involve representative organizations which are under the procedural rules. Substantive relation rules are meant to benefit the managers or employer because a contract entered is binding between an employee who sells his labor and the employer who is ready to buy it but has the control on how to do it. This is usually found in the spirit of collective agreement that is usually constituted in a body of rules. The procedural part of the rules deals with matters as which methods are to be used and the means that are deployed when settling disputes that arise from employment (Flanders, 1975). This very part also deals with facilities to be provided to the representatives of parties who enter the agreement. After the employee has struck a contract with the employer, they enter another level of relationship. The worker is subject to managerial relation whereby authority and subordination come to play with respect of who is who in the work place. The employee is usually placed at a position where he will exercise his powers in a limited way with regard to the hierarchy of power. This relationship is therefore power oriented and mounts a lot of freedom to the employer (Flanders, 1975). These managerial prerogatives are born of organization of the management with an aim of attaining the goals of the enterprise. Conclusion There are cases in the work where an individual worker is subjected to such unfair treatment so that the only way he can avoid the managerial powers is to choose to work or go elsewhere if he or she is not satisfied with employer’s terms of work. This way the managerial prerogatives are said to have gone too far in exercising the powers granted unto the managers. The prerogatives have further crossed the boundaries as to ensure that sometimes workers unions may become integrated in the management circle and operations hence compromising the rights of workers. At this level while workers unions are meant to check the excesses of managerial prerogatives they become vehicles to be manipulated by the managers and employees to exploit the workers. Therefore there is a dire need for a clear delineation between management prerogatives and employees right to be involved in fostering peace for the benefit of the worker and the employer. References Bray, M. (2006). The Rise of Managerial Prerogative under the Howard Government. Australian Bulletin of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.coma0147466279.  Clegg, H.A. (1979). Theories and Definitions. From Clegg, H.A. The Changing Systems of Industrial Relations in Great Britain (pp.444-456). Oxford: Blackwell. Coffey, D. & Thornley, C. (2009). The self deceiving state: the ‘model employer’ myth. From Globalization and Varieties of Capitalism: New Labor, Economic policy and the abject state (pp. 81-109). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Edwards, P.K. (1987). Managing the Factory. Oxford: basil Blackwell. Flanders, A. (1975). Extracts from industrial relations: what is wrong with the system? From Flanders, A. Management and Unions: the Theory and Reform of Industrial Relations (pp. 83-103). London: Faber. Fox, A. (1966). Part 1. From fox, A. Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, pp. 2-15. London: HMSO. Hyman, R. (1975). What Is Industrial Relation? From Hyman Richard. Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction (pp.9-31). Basingstone: Macmillan. Kinamugire J. (2009). Environmental Law the Concept of Managerial Prerogative in South African Labor Law. Retrieved from http://www.thembosdev.com/articles Papadimitriou K. (2009). The managerial prerogative and the Right and duty to collective Bargaining. Greece: University of Athens. Perline, M., & Poynter, D. (2009). Union and Management Perceptions of Managerial Prerogatives: Some insight into the future of co-operative bargaining in the USA. British Journal of Industrial Relations. London: Blackwell. Storey, J. (1983). Managerial Prerogative and the Question of Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Plc.  Wedderburn, B. (1986). Extract from ‘Foundations of Labor’. From Wedderburn Baron, The Worker and the Law (pp.1-16). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Read More