The paper 'State and Employment Relations" is a good example of business coursework. 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 the 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 pacesetter, as an economic manager, as a 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, the 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 new technologies, losses of organizations, the increasing competition in the dynamic markets and the essence of fighting the high levels of unemployment (Boyce, 2008).
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.