Australia Industrial Relation Policies Essay

Introduction

What is industrial relation?

Hyman (1980, para.1) defines industrial relation as an interdisciplinary field which encompasses the study of all aspects of employees in the course o executing their duties. In his earlier attempts to develop a general theory of industrial relations, Hyman defined its essence in terms of three “actors”.

These actors include employers and managers, workers and their representatives and government agencies. He also defines it in terms of three “contexts” that includes technology, market constraints and the distribution of power in the society. Despite all these, the role of government and politics did not figure in his studies and that of early English writers.

The studies focused on the rules negotiated between employers and employees. The focus of this essay is to compare the traditional pluralists’ assumptions about industrial relations with specific emphasis on the role of the state and compare with the role of the state in industrial relations currently in Australia

Historical perspective on the role of the state in industrial relations

Hyman focuses on economic and technological factors which employment regulation. He treats politics and government as peripheral and emphasizes on collective bargaining as central. Diversity in Anglo Saxon industrial relations was the product of distinctive and prioritization of “industrializing elites’’ who had created the process of economic modernization.

This created a convergence towards a common market regulation that matched Anglo American “pluralistic industrialism”. This was a system that allowed employers and unions to formulate increasingly effective and non conflict in bargaining relationships thus rendering detailed state regulation unnecessary. In light of this, mature industrial systems were assumed to be detached from the political process.

English language in this subject has typically treated industrial relations and politics as different spheres. While government intervention in labor relations is allowed, it is usually bounded and issue specific. In addition, the welfare of the state and labor relations are treated as two separate socio-economic sub-systems.

This perspective contrasts with that in other countries where the state plays a key role in industrial relations. Hyman argues that it is necessary to distinguish between the state and the institutions that make up the government. It is therefore misleading to talk of state intervention because the state is an integral part of any productive system.

The state may be viewed as a configuration of organization and actions which influences the meaning and methods of politics for all groups and classes within the society (Treuren, 2000, p. 9). In addition, he characterizes the state “as a network structure with no permanent content.”

The groups and the structures active in society therefore are constantly recreating the state. There is however a consensus that there is no distinction between the state and the civil society among scholars.

While governments may be regarded as actors who intervene in industrial relations, we cannot talk of state as intervening and the yet it shapes and conditions industrial relations. This arises from the fact that the role of the state in creating welfare, provision and enhancing citizenship in turn affects the basis on which workers enter the labor market.

The state and markets

Many authors put a distinction between politics and industrial relation. During the post war period, a close connection between the state and economic life was viewed as the hallmark of command economy and this was considered inefficient and undesirable. Since then, all countries have been encouraged to free their markets.

These deregulations have been extended to the labor market and employment relationships. Those arguments are misconceived because the state and markets are interdependent. The view that market processes are natural and that the state involvement is unnatural is a misconception. This arises from the fact that states and organizations are enmeshed in the economy.

Three functions of state activity have a link with employment relations. The first relates to accumulation which involves encouraging economic performance, productivity and competitiveness. There are debates on whether this requires state intervention or not. The second entails pacification which involves maintaining social order, preserving the integrity of national territory and suppressing conflict.

The boundary between industrial conflict and social and political disorder has been uncertain historically. Repression as a result has been a persistent feature of industrial relation for a long time. The third function is legitimation which involves maintaining popular consent by pursuing social equity.

Involving the social partners in economic and social policymaking is a mechanism which can be used to enhance government legitimacy (Gray, 2009, para. 5). There is inevitable tension and contradiction between these three policy objectives resulting into unstable linkages between the government and industrial relations. This does not imply that the government will perform all state functions consistently nor will it do so effectively.

Industrial relation models

There is a distinction between ‘concertation model’ and political isolation. In relation to ‘concertation model’, unions were closely involved in the formulation and implementation of economic policy and regulation was highly centralized. On the other hand ‘political isolation” is where issues related with labor relations are isolated from policy process.

The other model entails pluralistic fragmentation where politics and industrial relations were demarcated and unions relied on their labor market power. Ellem (2004, p. 25) identifies three kinds of state action. These include liberal pluralism, active interference and active and direct interference.

Liberal pluralism maintains the principle of non-intervention, corporatism, active state interference but usually in consultation with partners’. Active state interference is usually in consultation with social partners and statism. On the other hand active and direct state interference relates to terms of employment and working conditions.

Unlike in Anglo-Saxon where pluralistic industrialism is the norm, in most countries political power is an overt feature of industrial relations though in a number of ways. In most countries, the government dominates industrial relation either directly or indirectly. For instance, in national diversity with regard to political-economic regime, the state acts as an economic regulator. This function is carried over to labor relations.

Secondly, highly politicized industrial systems have persisted in most countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Thirdly, new conditions have arisen between industrial relations and political agenda even in countries where there was a considerable detachment between the two. One argument advanced is that pluralistic industrialism is the outcome of a temporary interaction between social, political and economic forces.

How the state shapes the national industrial relations regime

The state achieves this through various roles. The first role is that the state is an employer in its own right. It employs millions of workers in the public sector. The state also defines and limits the status of other actors for instance employers and prescribes the rules in relation to terms of employment and working conditions.

The state also affects the supply side by setting regulations regarding employees who enter the labor market. In addition, the state legislate individual employees’ rights that have to be followed by employers. It performs its functions as the welfare state by limiting employees’ dependence on the employer-employee relationship. This enhances their bargaining power. It also operates as a matrix of ideas of citizenship that shapes the relationship between the employer and employees.

Conclusion

The essay details the roles of the state with regard to industrial relations. The role of the state in industrial relations is highly significant. However, care must be taken when formulating industrial relations legislation. In order to attain this, all the social partners should be involved in order to avoid a degeneration to command economy where the government sets rules that have to be followed without involving the stakeholders. This would culminate into infringement of citizen’s rights instead of protecting them.

Reference List

Ellem, G. 2004. Peak unions in Australia: origins, purpose, power and agency. [E-book]. Washington: Federation Press. Web.

Hyman, R., 2004. The state in industrial relation. New York: Butterworth Publishers.

Treuren, G. 2000. The concept of the state in industrial relations theory. Web.