State and Employment Relations - Coursework Example

RUNNING HEAD: State and Employment Relations State and Employment Relations Client Inserts His/her Name Client Inserts Name of Institution Introduction In many countries the state’s role in employment relations is not something that can be ignored. The state, which is characterized by a set of institutions made of the executive, legislature, the judiciary, the local government and the police, is a system of political domination that exercises power with the legitimate usage of violence, money supply and taxation. The presence of the state in any aspect of life of its citizens is pervasive, whether it is through macroeconomic policies or its role as an employer or even through legislation. In the capitalist world we live in today the state cannot be left out in any aspect pertaining to its citizens. The state (government) is applying policies on the basis that other participants in the employment relations system (employers and the trade unions) cannot manage to take control of all the aspects involved in the work system (Palmer, 2007). Since the federal elections of 2004, the policy of industrial relations issue has been all over. The competing goals of the employees and employers are evident through the trade unions and third parties. The managements’ objectives are paramount with regards to market efficiency with limited space for other interests. Therefore, curtailing trade unions’ activities and setting tribunals to regulate conditions and wages in the name of free markets is increasing. The states talks of advocating for democracy, having limited interventions s as to bring about industrial harmony in certain sectors of the economy, but in practice it has intervened in almost all the sectors of the economy (Adams, 200 ). This therefore begs the question, should the state play an intervening role in employment relations, and if so, to what extent and why? First of all the state or the government has an influence on the relationship between the employee and the employer, directly and indirectly. It influences this relationship directly through legislation, courts to solve disputes and also as an employer. Indirect influence on the other hand is seen when the state is providing important contexts. These may be engagement rules in relations among them, legitimacy and acceptability boundaries, setting climate and priorities in relations of the employees, employing ‘best practice’ in employees relations and acting as an example (Ozaki, 1999). The state has specific objectives and interests in employee relations like maintaining stability and order in the labour market, protecting employees at work when there are no alternatives, maintaining the bargaining power parity between the main parties, controlling inflation and earnings through income policies, maintaining economic growths and ensuring that its citizens acquire skills through education to reduces the unemployment levels (Sexton, 2003). The state is able to achieve this through its various roles i.e. as a peacemaker, as a pace setter, as an economic manager, as legislature and as an employer. That state had in recent years performed different roles in different countries, particularly in the provision of institutionalized structure for the joint relationship between the trade unions and the workers, and employers and their ambassadors to enhance a bipartite relationship. However, majority of nations have an account of significant and vital involvement of the state, and collective bargaining systems that are highly centralized, Australia being one of them. In some countries like the United Kingdom the state has traditionally played a minimal role in employment relations besides providing an institutional framework. There are however union policies and difficulties facing unions that the state overlooks. These include problems in introducing of new technologies, losses of organizations, the increasing competition in the dynamic markets and the essence of fighting the high levels of unemployment (Boyce, 2008). The role of the state in employment relations depends on its ideological bent. In the communist world, no distinct role is envisaged for trade unions and employers; they operate based on the state plans and party directives. In the capitalist nations on the other hand the trade unions and employers are allowed to establish their own dealings within the structure established by the state. In developing countries they had to intervene in the employment relations for the benefit of the whole economy. However, because the state is a monopoly, controlling all the social systems, it is of no importance to argue whether it should intervene or not (Creighton & Stewart, 2005). State intervention entails each and every action whether direct or indirect, by which the government sustains, promotes or participates to determine or influence the employment conditions and the relations among the partisans of the employment contract i.e employers and managers on one side and trade unions and employees on the other. Some of the roles the state plays in maintaining these relations are discussed under (Keller, 2001); Provision of institutional framework; this is aimed at regulating conflicts between the management and all levels of labour in order to achieve a balance by adjusting to the legal environment. It does this by providing framework for the joint relationships of the participants in the market system. Limiting industrial conflicts; The general right to strike is legally guaranteed in majority of countries, but actions are implemented to curb the official and non official strikes, as well as lock outs to some extent, so as to protect the general public from harmful consequences. In some countries like the United Kingdom and the U.S the state takes the responsibility for mechanisms of conflict resolution of their parties both in the private and public sectors. It provides procedural processes for meditation, compulsory or voluntary arbitration and conciliation. In other countries the states strongly encourage internal dispute settlement procedures (Ebbinghaus & Visser, 1999). Provision of a collective bargaining system; the state adopts alternatives for the general employment terms through non political means. It provides substantive provisions for minimum wages, minimum conditions of employment standards, limitations of working hours, occupational safety, anti discrimination rules, protection against dismissals, vacations and health provisions. An effective system of collective bargaining can ensure that all these are achieved. Participation in public sector labour relations; the state is a direct employer of a great percentage of the labour force. Therefore numerous public agents are actively engaging in the public sector labour relations. This exerts a vital amount of influence on the development of the overall employment relations system in the economy. Interpretation of conflict of right and interest; Individual and collective conflicts of interest distinctions are made clear. This are supposed to be solved through legal means like the court and peacefully, and not by use of private procedures. In some countries the state outlines legal enforcements to maintain peace during periods governed by joint contract. From these functions it is clear that in the capitalist nations, there is an advanced trend of state intervention in the employment relations system. This is observed in the long run where the mechanisms employed are designed to stabilize the growth of the economy and reduce the unemployment rates. Despite all these roles by the state in regulating the employment relation system, there is no theoretical framework on the capitalist nations in maintaining the political and economic conditions necessary for the accumulation of capital. The state acting as a regulator and employer, making the laws to regulate the relations among the participants in the system does bring about conflicts. It doesn’t matter the level of intervention because the methods and instruments of intervention are all the same. According to the pluralist economists all members of the society strive to meet and protect their members’ interests. This means that most employers or private investors do not see their operations in regards to ‘national interest’ but rather they see the benefits and challenges facing them while trying to grow their businesses. They are mostly concerned with the rules that govern them with their workers or the trade unions (Bruun & Niklas, 1992). Like any other party the state will always have some private interests to protect. Therefore, the contestations of some state policies are likely to transpire when the exact policies or laws are reeled out. Even the citizens who are regarded to be the weakest partisans in the employment relation systems usually fight back with their unions through strikes (Keighly, 2003). The role of state is necessary because the increasingly interdependence of the modern economy means that strike can inflict dangerous harm to other society members. In addition the collective bargaining system does not have grips with numerous social and economic issues. It is due to this that the state decided to step in (Dunlop, 1998). Furthermore a government that is committed to protect private property and limit disruptions in production and eliminating threats to investments cannot be neutral in employment matters. There can never be economic growth with private companies making profits. The striking workers and students, trade unions and those who seek improvements to the employment system are a threat to most of the state functionaries (Sano, Joelle & John, 2008). The biasness in the economic system affects the state’s regulatory role of employment relation system. The state gives priority to the possible benefits in regards to revenue which will accrue to its covers. The state collects revenue from workers in terms of taxes and the private companies’ profits. It is biased also when it comes to setting minimum wages, taxes and other limitations that will obstruct them from asking too much. Therefore most activities of the state are directed towards protecting private investors as opposed to promoting the employee’s interests (Scruggs & Lange, 2002). Conclusion The intervention of the state in the employment relations system is very critical. The government is playing an important role in ensuring that both the employer and employee and the trade unions are operating within the set framework for the benefit of the economy as a whole. In developing nations the state involvement goes beyond procedures and legislations (Archibald, 1999). As much as the state cannot leave the control of the system entirely to the private system, the workers union should also be involved in stimulating productivity and enhancing economic growth. The state should play its role in creating the framework whereby both the sectoral and national interests are integrated to increase productivity. The collective bargaining system should also be independent to develop a more equitable and balanced tripartite relationship (Adams, 2001). References Adams, J. (2001) .Comparative Industrial Relations: Contemporary Research and Theory. London: Harper CollinsAcademic. Archibald, W. (1999). Social psychology as political economy. Toronto: McGraw-Hill. Boyce, P. (2008). Malaysia and Singapore in International Diplomacy. Sydney: Sydney University Press. Bruun,C.,& Niklas, P.(1992). The Nordic Labour Relations Model. Labour Law and Trade Unions in the Nordic Countries - Today and Tomorrow. England: Dartmouth England. Creighton, B. & Stewart, A. (2005). Labour Law. Annandale: The Federation Press. Dunlop, T. (1998). Industrial Relation Stystem.New York: Holt. Ebbinghaus, B. & Visser, J. (1999). When Institutions Matter. Union Growth and Decline in Western Europe, 1950–1995", European Sociological Review 15(2): 135–58 Keighly, T. (2003). Creating an empowered organization. Training and development in Australia. April, 9. Keller, K. (2001). The Role of the State as Corporate Actor in Comparative Industrial Relations: Contemporary Research and Theory. London: Harper Collins Academic. Ozaki, M. (1999). Negotiating flexibility: the role of the social partners and the state. London: international Labour Organization. Palmer, G. (2007). Employment Relations. New York: Macmillan Education. Sano, Joelle & John B. Williamson. (2008). Factors Affecting Union Decline and their Implications for Labor Reform. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 49: 479-500. Scruggs, L. & Lange, P. (2002). Where have all the Members Gone? Globalizations, Institutions, and Union Density. The Journal of Politics 64(1): 126–53. Sexton, P. (2003). The Decline of the Labor Movement. The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Read More