State Regulation of Employment Relations Essay

I would advocate for a minimization of the state’s role in regulating employment relations. Most workplace matters should be left in the hands of employers and employees. However the complexity of employment relations in many states tends to make it hard to comprehend this argument.

The areas of interest between the parties in employment arrangements, which take centre stage are: “typical and flexible work arrangement; disagreement settlement procedures; job security, anti-discrimination and gender equality; acknowledgment of unions and employers’ associations; regulation of collective bargaining; parental leave and childcare directives; the capacity of individual agreements to override or not override collective agreements; and minimum wage rates among others”.^[1]

Every company or industry has its own code of regulations that are to be adhered to by its employees in all the activities being coordinated by the employer. It is the employer who ensures that a harmonious coexistence prevails between the organization and the employees so as to have smooth running of activities.

The role of the state should be to enact laws that will have to be followed by the employers and their employees, but the role of implementing the laws should be left to the labor organization within that given country. By looking at employment relations, it involves interactions between the employer and the employees at a workplace meant to boost the firm’s performance.

All actions taking place within a working environment concerns the employers and their employees, so any actions or decision making matters pertaining the place of work is within their jurisdiction. The states full involvement in employment matters happens to paralyze the activities as it may impose laws which may act as a barrier to the performance of the organization.^[2]

For the implementation of laws regarding workers and their employers, an institutions within the government known as trade unions are formed which link the company and the state, although the powers of the union are independent and do not allow for government interference. However, looking from a Marxism point of view it is undeniable that the state plays a vital influence over the conduct of employment relations.

The state is largely involved in providing an environment in which capital can flourish at the expense of the labor interest by setting up measures, such as progressive legislation for instance, designed to protect employee’s consciousness and assist legitimize the exploitative nature of the employment arrangement.^[3]

In support of this argument, we will discuss the various theories have been developed to explain this interaction. The most common theory is individualism, which bestows the management of the employees solely on in the employer. It majorly focuses on safeguarding the interests of the employer over the employees at the workplace.

The state and the labor organization tend to play a passive role, although they act as watchdogs to ensure the rights of the employees are not violated in areas of remuneration and how they relate with their employer at work at work. In Australia individualism has taken center stage in the labor market where the federal has established the Workplace Relations Act that ensures all the stakeholders in the employment system work under good conditions.

According to individualism, human resource is a key factor in a working environment. Individualism theory argues that there is need to develop high trust and promote a sense of common purpose between the employees and their management system. So in the absence of labor unions things like open communication networks, team work, incentive compensation and the dissolution of status barrier have been easier to implement.

Individualization here refers to “formalization of management’s power to determine terms and conditions unilaterally rather than rather a shift on emphasis towards mutual trust and shared power”^[4]. Although it encourages smooth running of activities without external interference, the employees are denied the chance to present their grievances to the union incase they are not well attended to because it has been excluded from decision making in company matters.

The best thing that employees ought to do is to adopt a strategy that will benefit them and their staff what is commonly known as collectivism where both the state and trade union have a say in the decision making of the employees at a working place. However, the state’s role should be limited to overseeing the adoption of best policies.

Furthermore, the prevalence of market individualism and laissez-faire principles provide the foundation for the development of ‘collective laissez-faire’, and argues that employers should handle employment arrangements matters, and with unions, themselves, without direct intervention by the state^[5]. This framework enables employers to handle union activities in ways that do not undermine their objectives.

Another important theory is the welfarism theory that mostly addresses issues to do with industrial relations of employees and their employer. In Australia it was meant by the employers to increase productivity and control from external challenges (Balnave 36). The importance of welfarism movement is to create a scope of good and quality workers from which the management can emulate.

Also it is a strategy by managers to enhance control of their workers and their productive effort as a way of building worker consent to managing system.^[6] This increases worker dependency on the company thus minimizing individual or collective resistances at the same time strengthening managerial authority.

Industries pose a great risk on the life of employees as they are deemed to work with machines that happen to pose a risk to their lives, so the managers should understand and listen to their grievances incase any are raised. Democratic principles ought to be incorporated so as not to hamper with the industry operations. If these institutions are established, they should either be freely offered or low costs are charged on the workers who are meant to be the core beneficiaries.

The achievement of this can be done through the introduction of programs such pension schemes, company sponsored recreation, provident funds, health and accident schemes, company housing, in-house medical care and company libraries and if possible schools for the children’s of the employees, all aimed at boosting the morale and loyalty of the workers.

Mostly employers will not be ready to incur extra costs on establishment of institutions that are meant to care for the employees thereby lowering their productivity as their performance is minimized due to management services they are offered.^[7] Attending to your employees in a very cruel manner by establishing strong dictatorial laws that they are bound to follow, usually results into a state of tension in the company, it may result into a strike that may hinder the functions of the company thus making it run a great loss.

Every employee is entitled to enrolment in a labor union that is mandated for fighting for their rights while at the work place. A number of factors tend to interfere with employment relations at any given firm one of them being management style and attitude towards Trade Unions Recognition.

Some firms and their managers tend to neglect the role of the trade unions in the welfare of the workers in a way that they stop their employees from joining them, or if they are enrolled, the unions are not usually recognized in the area of collective bargaining or consultation. Some will even try to persuade employees not to join the union citing that they are in their best interests, just as a way of maintaining their authority without interference from external sources.^[8]

According to the theory, the management should restore the confidence of its employees on how it executes its duties by allowing them to join trade unions. It should also be sensitive and attend to the employees’ needs so as to save the firm from incurring losses as a result of strikes or boycotts. The management style adopted by the firm’s stakeholders is also vital and it should encourage a harmonious working environment with the workers.

Regulations that are stipulated as the firm’s guidelines ought not to be oppressive, and those coordinating them should act accordingly, not administering autocratic kind of leadership. What they should note keenly is that human resource is most important at a workplace, and by showing that their presence is much recognized boosts their morale of working even extra hard in order to ensure the company objectives are achieved as well as their own welfare and needs.

Upgrading of workers from one position to the other is also vital and should be done with a lot of transparency and integrity^[9]. An employee working in the same position over a long period of time feels that he or she gets little or no attention from his employer, and by developing such a feeling it totally destabilizes his performance.

When a worker is moved from a lower position to a higher one his morale of working extra hard is increased as he will be fighting to ensure that he is moved to an even higher position, and this creates a healthy competition among the employees at the same time production being increased hence high profits.

Learning opportunities should be encouraged as a way of helping them acquire new skills and improve on their working and also their salaries.^[10] This can be done by establishment of things like study leaves where they are given time off to go and study and then come and take on new position. This is a good idea although most employers do not value it as they cite it increases the cost of production as the company will be forced to hire extra staff to take care of the vacant position for the time being.

Another good way of conducting knowledge acquisition and skill improvement without incurring extra costs is by organizing in-service programs.^[11] Here the workers can improve their knowledge at the same time executing their duties what leaves the amount of money spent on salaries remaining at the same rate. All this are contributing factors towards good relations between the employer and their employees within a given work place.

Time specifications should be spelt out as to when the workers will be reporting to work and the time they will have to leave. Incase any employee is not able to report at the work place within the specified time, a friendly interaction should coexist to establish the reason why and be able to reach an agreement without conflict arousal.

A situation where an employer becomes the overall authority leads to conflicts every now and then because they believe workers have no role in decision making concerning matters of the workplace. Bonuses should be given to the workers as per how well one has performed his or her duties and according to how long he or she has at the company or institution.

This bonus should not be part of the net salary of which one earns but should be seen an extra boost on the usual salary as a way of recognition for service offered. Incases where there is need for overtime working, there ought to an agreement reached between the two parties and not being the decision of management. This should be followed by an extra pay on their salaries reflecting the extra hours they dedicated to work.

The use of scientific system of management should not at all be used within a workplace as it puts a lot of pressure on the employees on the amount of work that they perform. This involves the use of things like stop watches top record the time one has worked or use of a card recording system as it was introduced in Australia, but it was welcomed with a great resistance as it was characterized by the great strike that called for government intervention to control it.

This a clear indication of lack of efficient management principles that can encourage good service delivery but it only deals with individual interest, which is of the employer.^[12]

Workers are supposed to work at free will and that they should know that they are working because they are after earning an income. Everyone should do his work with interference from the other and that they should love their work so that they may do it without much hindrance. A big problem that happens to affect most employees is the manner in which they take decision without consulting them.^[13]

A decision like retrenchment of workers as a way of cost cutting to save the company from making more losses should be discouraged completely. One thing is that activities will be interfered with at the same resulting into a major strike that will at long last ruin everything. Other important measures such as reduction on input cost in order to maximize output profits can be used to substitute the retrenchment process.^[14]

The overreliance on personal regulations that are quite stringent is what normally calls for government intervention in order to control events.^[15] A situation where a worker is involved in sort of an accident in the line of duty should be treated as a company expense as for the treatment. This makes the workers to carry their activities without fear as they are sure of their safety incase they get injured.

This is a measure that should be included in codes of regulations governing industries they working conditions pose a big threat to the lives of employees as they are the ones exposed to the tough working conditions.

In conclusion the participation of the state in employment relations should be minimized; instead an emphasis on ‘free’ collective bargaining between employers, or employers’ associations, and trade unions.

An organization should be allowed autonomy to operate within its parameters in achieving its objectives, though the state can set standard measures, which address the labor market as a whole.

However, the abstentionist role of the state in the employment relations should not advantage the employer, because as others have argued the removal of the state from employment relations would allow unbalanced effects of the functioning of private law, so that collectivized labor can engage with capital, on a par basis, in the independent economy.

Bibliography

Allan, C., Bamber, G. J. & Timo, N. Fast-food work: Are “McJobs” satisfying? Employee Relations, 28(5), 402-420, 2006.

Balnave, N. et al. Employment Relations in Australia, 2nd Edition. Wiley, Milton. Sydney, 2009.

Balnave, N. & Brown, J & Maconachie, GL. &Stone, R. Employment Relations in Australia. John Wiley & Sons, Milton, Qld, 2007.

Bamber, J. & Pochet, P. Regulating Employment Relations, Work and Labour Laws. International Comparisons between Key Countries, Special Issue of the Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, Vol. 74, Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, 2010.

Bamber, G. J., Lansbury, R. D. & Wailes, N. International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalisation and Change, 5th edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney/Sage, London, 2010.

Gardner, M. & Palmer, G. Employment Relations 2^nd edition. Palgrave Macmillan Australia, Sydney, 1997.

Deery, S & Mitchell R. Employment relations: individualisation and union exclusion : an international study. Federation Press, New York, 1999.

Dukes, R. Constitutionalizing Employment Relations: Sinzheimer, Kahn-Freund, and the Role of Labour Law. Journal of Law and Society, Volume 35, Issue 3, 341–363, September 2008.

Dundon, T & Rollinson, D. Employment relations in non-union firms 3^rd edition. Rout ledge, London, 2004.

Fastenau, M. and Pullin, L. ‘Employment Relations: An Emerging Paradigm’, in Fastenau, M. and Pullin, L. (eds.), Employment Relations Theory and Practice: Current Research. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, Monash University, Clayton VIC.

Leat, M. Exploring employee relations. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.

Rose, E. Employment Relations. Financial Times Prentice Hall, New York, 2008.

Ruysseveldt, J. V. etal. Comparative industrial & employment relations, SAGE, Moscow, 1995.

Shelley, S. & Calveley, M. Learning with trade unions: a contemporary agenda in employment relations. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., London, 2007.

Wilkinson, A., Bacon, N., Redman, T. and Snell, S. The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management. Sage, London, 2009.

Footnotes

1. J. Bamber & P. Pochet, Regulating Employment Relations, Work and Labour Laws. International Comparisons between Key Countries, Special Issue of the Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, Vol. 74, Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, 2010, 54.
2. R. Dukes, Constitutionalizing Employment Relations: Sinzheimer, Kahn-Freund, and the Role of Labour Law. Journal of Law and Society, Volume 35, Issue 3, 341–363, September 2008, 36.
3. M. Leat, Exploring employee relations. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007, 123.
4. E, Rose, Employment Relations, Financial Times Prentice Hall, New York, 2008, 54.
5. J. V. Ruysseveldt, et al. Comparative industrial & employment relations, SAGE, Moscow, 1995, 68.
6. T. Dundon & D. Rollinson, Employment relations in non-union firms, 3rd edition. Routledge, London, 2004, 106.
7. M. Gardner & G. Palmer, Employment Relations, 2nd edition. Palgrave Macmillan Australia, Sydney, 1997, 154.
8. G. J. Bamber, R. D. Lansbury, & N. Wailes, International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalisation and Change, 5th edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney/Sage, London, 2010, 126.
9. M. Fastenau and L. Pullin, ‘Employment Relations: An Emerging Paradigm’, in Fastenau, M. and Pullin, L. (eds.), Employment Relations Theory and Practice: Current Research. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, Monash University, Clayton VIC, 478.
10. S. Deery & R. Mitchell, Employment relations: individualisation and union exclusion : an international study. Federation Press, New York, 1999, 236.
11. C. Allan, G Bamber & N Timo, Fast-food work: Are “McJobs” satisfying? Employee Relations, 28(5), 402-420, 2006, 187.
12. S Shelley & M Calveley, Learning with trade unions: a contemporary agenda in employment relations. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., London, 2007, 63.
13. N Balnave et al. Employment Relations in Australia, 2nd Edition. Wiley, Milton. Sydney, 2009, 145.
14. A. Wilkinson, N. Bacon, T. Redman, and S. Snell. The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management. Sage, London, 2009, 57.
15. N Balnave & J Brown, G Maconachie & R Stone, Employment Relations in Australia. John Wiley & Sons, Milton, Qld, 2007, 79.