Employment Relations - Essay Example

Employment relations Institution Name Date Introduction Employment relations has been presented in literature and practice as being characterized with competing schools of thought with reference to ideological positions. Different authors have presented it in different perspectives. These demonstrate how this has evolved over time. These perspectives have an influence on management principles and human resource management strategies. This paper intends to explore the strengths and weaknesses of three key perspectives common in the competition between schools of thought: unitarist, pluralist, and radicalist approaches. They are reference frames, and ideologies packaging the values and inherent assumptions which are entrenched in employment relations parties: employer, employee, state, needs and wants. They also defined how these parties interact and the degree of their compatibility in human relations. They will be explored with reference to the pluralist neo-institutionalist perspective cited as being a more preferable perspective. Unitarism refers to views of employee relationship as being based on mutualism of interests between employee and organization and that conflict is not inherent, nor is it permanent but is as a result of aberrant behaviors such as poor communication. It is its view that conflict can be avoided or eliminated and that this is majorly managerial oriented (Martin & Fellenz 2010). Pluralism, a critique of the former, is a view that conflict is inherent in employment relationships and that it shows multiplicity of conflicts in an imperfect labor market. This multiplicity is exacerbated by the value that labor is not a commodity. The imperfectness is characterized by power diffusion and imbalance amongst the competing interests and aspirations of the parties. As such, the state and trade unions play a very central role in the power bargain. A focus on radicalist approach presents one with views that there is inherent conflict between employers and employees. Based on Marxism this approach assumes a political nature of the conflict by enshrining a duo-class conflict. The capitalists are engaged in bargaining with the employees and then focus on extracting the maximum benefit from the labor potential. In this relationship, the labor market is a power and control instrument that is socially based (George 2011). As such, it suggests that there could be industrial harmony only if employees are in control of and own production means (Singh & Kumar 2011). This view also shares the view that labor is more than just production factor and therefore the inevitable conflict in the relationship is construed to imply broader social class conflicts. This denotes the political struggle this view presents between the owners of means of production and those who are selling labor. In this relation, the state protects the owners of the means whereas trade unions challenge national distribution of products as well as management control in the relationship. Unitarism A unitarist approach refers to a perspective built on the tenets of unitary employment relationships policies and practices which tend to unify employers’ and employees’ interests. The latter and the former are assumed as having similarity or unity of interests. As such, any policy is made as influenced by such a perspective and with a focus on promoting mutual interests (George 2011). This indicates the implication that the employment relationship is founded on tenets of mutual cooperation and commonness of interests of the involved parties and that conflict is not inherent in the relationship. It is developed on common-interest aspects and on a nature of conflict cited as not being inherent but as being caused by an aberrant behavior. This conflict is temporary. As such, this relationship views trade unions as intruders and third parties, similar to the state. However, this approach provides for the state to participate in the relations by entrenching policies and laws which promote mutualism and cooperative employer-employee relationship (Whalen, 2008). Unitarist ideology forms the frame of reference in the underlying components influencing the development of policies that are mutually beneficial to both labor and organization (Budd & Bhave 2006). This is the mains stay of its strength given that it focuses on developing harmonious and integrated systems in organizations which are vital in enhanced productivity. This approach definition also entrenches an individual component rather than collective identities. It is this component that eliminates the state and labor unions from the picture since there is a focus on fulfillment and intrinsic rewards. As such, this approach requires that there is effective management of human capital thereby developing a satisfied capital and therefore a minimization of industrial conflicts. This effectiveness is entrenched in the prediction of the view that with right employment policies, strategies and practices it is possible to align interests of parties. This underlies the school of thought of human resource management (HRM) whose focus is on mutuality of benefits (Whalen 2008). However, this approach has been criticized for having a narrow approach with respect to conflict in power. This view does not consider the labor capital market as being realistically imperfect and with inherent power imbalance. By not considering the factors that make up the imperfect market and that are inherent in the inevitable power imbalance relations such as security and distribution of business proceeds, this view bases its assumptions on a narrow view of the industrial relations conflict. The narrowness is delineated by the approach’s failure to recognize different stakeholders’ roles in contemporary globalized, highly dynamic and knowledge based employment relations and the complexity of the interactions amongst the stakeholders. As such, the approach has limited application in today’s management theory and practice (Martin & Fellenz 2010). Pluralism This approach of study and conflict is critiqued majorly by the pluralist employment relationship. From the pluralist view, the basic tenet is that there is a conflict of interest amongst the aforementioned employment parties and therefore the need for intervention in the bargaining. There is a power imbalance in which it is diffused amongst the parties and their bargaining agents. The parties’ relationship is intermediate and open-ended in an imperfect labor capital market with multiple conflicting interests and interests. It is based on the tenet of market imperfectness (Budd & Bhave 2006). This multiplicity is manifested by cost-cutting and profit-maximizing employers in the face of rational employees demanding more salaries, job security for reduced efforts. As such, there is an inevitable industrial conflict and contradictions yet the parties cannot do without each other. Additionally, this approach views labor not as a commodity implying that labor and employees have a right to a equity and adequate representation in the relationship. This necessitates the role of the state as promoting equitable outcomes (Budd & Bhave 2006) and the unions as a bargaining agent on behalf of the employee. The state creates minimum labor standards and policies for social safety nets for the purpose of balancing equity, efficiency and representation (Whalen 2008). On the other hand, the unions are viewed as having the role of welfare enhancing. Whereas this approach is a realistic one with reference to diversity of the labor market, a focus on it entails that in the conflict, there can never be a meaningful outcome in production. The focus of the management is thus on the power bargains, preventing and solving conflicts. This is because of its attention on the establishment of processes, rules and systems for conflict management. Thus, management is pre-occupied with the involved institutions, especially the institutions rather than the employees and outcomes. Radicalism The radicalist approach, also known as critical perspective details a political aspect with tenets of Marxism suggesting that there are unequal power relations between classes relative to capital control. According to radicalist views, conflict is inherent in the labor process as there are differing conflicts between employers and employees. However, this is a stronger view, relative to pluralism since it denotes a commonness of power factors amidst the conflict. The conflict has a social orientation and the employment relations is just one of the arenas in which this conflict is delineated. Hence, the conflict is not, at basic, labor related, it is one that presents class struggles which permeate many other areas of a society as a socio-economic struggle. Capitalist systems have over time established legal and political structures in favor of the employers. Thus, in spite of need’s commonness, the employer has an upper hand over the employee in the power bargain. The role of the state in this relationship is to protect production owners. Trade unionism does not have contribution to achieving equality of the employee. It is necessary, and enshrined within laws, but cannot achieve the equality. At best, trade unions continue to challenge the state and business owners to improve conditions, while attempting to overthrow capitalism. As such, the approach has an inherent nature: inevitable vulnerability of the employees (Bendix 2001). The imbalance of power with respect income and wealth distribution is causative of this. Additionally, it has been faulted for its failure to recognize other elements that are inherent in capitalist power conflicts. Labor is just an element in the conflict. The vulnerability of the employee in this approach is also related to the implied role of management in this conflict. Based on the capital-labor conflict that is socially rooted, HRM practices are viewed as tools developed to undermine labor power and promote capitalist positions, as opposed to the role of interest alignment and conflict resolution, suggested in pluralism. Additionally, the relation is built on contested exchanges rather than voluntary ones. With the curtailed effectiveness of the unions, the employee is ever vulnerable (Budd & Bhave 2006). Neo-institutionalism Citing the issues noted above, in addition to the need for employment relations to be responsive to the changing global organizational scenarios literature suggests that the most appropriate approach is the neo-institutionalism (Nordon 2007). Set on the tenet of social relations at the work place, this approach entrenches the establishment of rules, formal and informal, for the intention of regulating employment relations. Nordon (2007) presents neo-institutionalism with reference to how organizations operate in various scenarios during institutional change. In contemporary businesses environment, change is constant. Globalization is based on this and is causative to it. As such, systems and organized practices that are embedded in organizational structures become important in the face of turnovers, changing preferences and relations structures as well as macro-environment. In this approach, rules and regulations are used as the analytical tools. There is also the emphasis on open-endedness, use of intermediates and creation of structural antagonism. These are entrenched on the view that individuals are rooted in social contexts or institution which control behavior. There is association of concepts such as norms, habits and rules in the empirically-driven approach. In this, the primacy is in describing real-world word situations and developing theoretical explanations commensurate to the complexity of real social situations. Additionally, the multi-casuality or pluralism is inherent in the approach. However, this approach has been challenged for its primary focus on institutions with critiques citing that industrial relations have more complex situations beyond institutionalism. References Bendix, S. 2001. Industrial relations in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta. Budd, J., & Bhave, D. 2006. Values, ideologies and frames of reference in employment relations . In N. Bacon, P. Blyton, J. Fiorito, E. Heery, & (. ), Sage Handbook of employment relations (pp. 1-43). Minneapolis . George, O. 2011. Impact of culture on the transfer of management practices in former British colonies : A comparative case study of Cadbury (Nigeria) Plc and Cadbury Worldwide / [by] Olusoji James George. United Kingdom: Xlibris . Martin, J., & Fellenz, M. 2010. Organizational behaviour and management (4th Ed). Andover: Cengage Learning . Nordon, P. 2007. Institutionalism, instutional change and policy networks in European Relations . Finland : University of Helsinki. Singh, P., & Kumar, N. 2011. Employee Relations Management . New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley. Whalen, C. 2008. New directions in the study of work and employment : revitalizing industrial relations as an academic enterprise. Cheltenham: Elgar. Read More