Introduction
Fast-food industry has tremendously grown in the recent past. Besides, there has been emergence of several restaurants. These help to serve the growing market demands. The industry offers various employment opportunities globally.
There are several controversial definitions of fast-foods. However, in this study, fast-foods are described as those foods that can be consumed promptly. This report discusses the main elements of industrial relations in regard to Russia.
The challenges experienced by globalized fast-food companies and standard approaches adopted by HRMs internationally area also discussed.
There is a comparison and contrast of the human resource provisions, employment relations strategies, and processes adopted in the fast-food industries (in the U.S., Germany and Russia).
Main Elements of the Industrial Labour Relations of Russia
In Russia, there are 3 main elements that govern labour relations. These incorporate labour unions, labour legislation, and the new constitution that came into force in 1993 (Leisink 1999, p. 79).
Firstly, the Russian new constitution assured citizens their rights to work in safe and healthy working conditions. The citizens are also entitled to receive compensations without any discrimination. In addition, the labourers should also be well protected against being without a job.
However, after adoption of the new constitution, its real application became sluggish. This resulted into numerous difficulties for the managers and the staffs as well as their representatives.
The labour legislation was embraced in the 21 Century. The legislation comprised of labour code and impartial laws of the Russian federation laws plus its component regions (Bamber, Blanpain & Pochet 2010, p. 207).
As well, there are presidential and ministerial decrees. The Russian government also approved several International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. These conventions covered a number of features of the labour relations.
For example, the legislation guaranteed the right of workers to organize themselves in labour unions, strike and even challenge the decisions that are made by the management (Blanpain, Bromwich, Rymkevich &Valdez 2009, p. 86)
The Russian federation labour laws are a combination of different regulations that control employment. There are several issues related to employment and are regulated by the code.
For instance, the code regulates working hours and conditions, individual and communal labour contracts and safety. In addition, the code regulates state social security, the conflicts that may arise within labour unions, work discipline, compensation for workers and their benefits.
However, this tool was not very effective in regulating labour regulations since the bigger part of the population do not have clear understanding of legal issues. Nevertheless, Russian parliament approved several particular laws that regulated labour relations after 1992.
These laws include: The Russian Federation Employment Law, laws for making a decision regarding collective labour disputes, laws regulating the trade unions in terms of their rights as well as guarantees of their operation. There was also a law about the details of safety at work.
The supreme ‘decision-making body’ that was responsible for organizing labour relations in Russia was the Ministry of Labour and Social Development. It is authorized safe conditions at work and full employment.
The body also organizes specialized provisions to guarantee the social well-being for her citizens. It checks the labour market as well as the standards of living of people. In addition, it monitors any other necessary employment and social pointers.
There are 2 main divisions that are involved directly with the labour relations. These are: the Federal Employment Service and the Federal Labour Inspection Service. The major responsibilities of the Employment Service are to ensure that people get employment and checking on unemployment benefits.
The service functions in manner similar to an employment agency. In relation to this, they register candidates as well as different job opportunities in their database (Fossum 2008, p. 184)
Conversely, the Federal Labour Inspection Service is mandated to ensure that the available labour laws are observed. The head office is located in Moscow.
Other offices can be found in each and every region of the Federation. In total, approximately 5,200 supervisors are employed by the body. They are allowed to get into any business premise at any time and obtain or inspect any documents so long as they do not contain private information of the state or the business.
They can give a penalty to the general manager of a scrutinized firm, and also regulate the amount of compensation that a manager should provide for a worker in case of any injury at work place.
However, an individual is free to challenge the verdict of an inspector in a court of law, but only after fulfilling the decision (Briscoe 2008, p. 92).
Another way in which the Russian government gets involved in the labour relations is through the judicial system (Orlov 2011, p. 173). At the Federal level, Russia does not have any special court to handle matters pertaining to labour issues.
However, they have city courts as well as district courts besides the regional and republic-level courts. They also have Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Again, the Russian government does not have any system of typical judges; rather their courts are controlled by a proficient lawyer who is supported by two jury members who are voted.
Russian trade unions also play a role in labour relations. The trade unions represent the interests of workers. They are involved in dealing with the working conditions for employees, their benefits as well as any collective contracts.
Sometimes, their method is confrontational and some organizations face serious consequences as a viable option in protecting the welfares of their members (Holley, Jennings & Wolters 2009).
Challenges that exist for the global fast-food company seeking to have a standard approach to HRM adopted internationally
Any company that seeks to have a standard approach to HRM provisions (adopted internationally) must observe all the labour laws and regulations in different countries.
They will have to offer appropriate working conditions to their employees, pay a suitable amount of salaries, and provide compensation and other benefits as required by that government. In addition, they should also allow formation and operation of unions within their organization to represent the right of workers.
In Russia, McDonald Company was criticized for trying to avert the formation and allowing the operation of unions. This denied its workers their rights of getting represented accordingly. With this regard they were faced with disputes in their food producing plant that was based in Solntsevo close to Moscow.
In this subsidiary company, employees were paid salaries that were less than the amount paid to restaurant employees. Reports also indicate that McDonald Company sent its workers out of work and cut down on their salaries.
There were also assertions by the representatives of the union that the majority of workers that signed up the voluntary redundancy forms were never given any pay-off.
As a result of their frustrations with demanding work timetables plus want they considered as insufficient benefits and compensation, the workers endeavoured to form a union that could convey their grievance to the management.
Several employees appealed that price increases and deflation of the wreckage completely reduced the amount they earned. Unions also claimed that the company retorted instantaneously with a serious promotion of intimidation and persecution.
Individuals, who supported the union, were susceptible to losing their wages as well as their benefits. These particular employees were also transferred to works that were more demanding if they declined to sign papers condemning the union.
Other unions like the commerce and catering workers union as well as the representatives at the international trade secretariat and the IUF objected to these conditions. The Moscow administration instigated three-way talks.
These talks gave rise to union acknowledgement. However, McDonald Company repelled any talk for a collective settlement of the issues.
Regardless of the constant pressure they applied on the members of the union, the union initiated creating relations with employees at the restaurant that was owned by the company.
Even though the company declined to accept these accusations, they are likely to cause fears that most international companies regularly do not comply with their own adopted values and codes of conduct , claiming to give workers a top priority.
In a broader perspective, these manners of acts are obviously inconsistent with the standard requirement for international human resource management.
When it comes to benefits and compensation, the administration of McDonald Company have an opinion that there is absolutely no need for the representation of the union. The company upholds that it offers adequate compensation to its workers and also the most suitable working conditions.
The company also feels that it offers good opportunities for career development within their organization. In relation to this, unions that are regarded as a third party in the contract would only distract the drive and time of the workers and the management from offering their services to clients.
Besides, the unions are also viewed to be opposing the welfares of the organization. The Russian regulations do not recognize any procedures for grievance; therefore the corporation does not have it.
In addition, the position of company’s supervision is that the problems of workers can be resolved through their communication channels, thus no need of such procedures.
However, these positions of the government and the Company contradict the requirements of proper mechanisms for solving disputes as required by international human resource management.
According to Russia’s regulations, employees should work for a maximum period of 40 hours per week (Domsch & Lodokhover 2007, P. 89).
However, the agreements signed by McDonald and its employees states that the employees have to work for a minimum of 157 hours per month. This implies that workers have to work for more than 40 hours per week in some of the weeks.
Even as such, McDonald do not provide any compensation for working overtime during those weeks. The legitimate norms as well as the Russian labour code continue to be really unclear on this issue. So far, no any legal action has been instigated on the corporation.
Besides, this corporation also employs part-time workers who are still undertaking their education. These workers work while studying at the same time.
However, most of their workers are above the age of 18 years. This is for the reason that labour laws of Russia really protect employees who are young.
They strictly limit their hours of working as well as their work environments. This implies that a company that would need to adopt an international human resource management will have to comply with these regulations.
Comparison of the Human Resource and employment relations in the Fast-Food industries in the United States, Germany and Russia
Even though strategies and processes adopted in the fast-food industry (in the U.S., Germany, and Russia) show some similarities, there are also differences.
This occurs due to differences in culture and labour regulations governing employment in the fast-food industry. For instance, the culture in the United States is characterized by egoism and meritocracy.
Therefore, employees working in the fast-food industry are given very little support from the public at large and even other employees in different industries (Christensen 1993, p. 121).
As compared to the U.S and Russia, the number of employees in the fast-food industry in Germany is far much low. Much of this is contributed by the fact that most of workers are from the indigenous minorities and economic immigrants, usually from Eastern Europe.
In most cases, these immigrants are unable to find any employment in a different probably because they are certainly older. However, a fraction of them are highly experienced.
In contrary to Germany (where majority of workers are older people), McDonald Company in Russia opted to employ young people. Even though individuals who applied for work at the corporations included all kinds of people, the company believed that younger employees were more suited.
Their view was that younger employees could certainly adopt the values of the company better as compared to older employees (Weiss 1987, p. 96).
In all these countries, employees in the fast-food industry are submissive. This implies that (in most cases) employees should work exemplarily so as to avoid risking their jobs by being inquisitive about how they are managed.
In other cases, they become submissive since they lack earlier experience and therefore do not know anything. Or they just not like involving themselves in critiquing their management since they will soon leave for another job.
In terms of representation, union representatives are not allowed to exercise their responsibilities fully in the United States and Russia (Baker & Blanpain 2010, p. 194). For instance, the McDonald Company in both countries do not provide adequate time for the union to carry out their activities.
In addition, they are only given an office space and small amount of money for carrying out their operations. In spite of the union’s acknowledgement, there has never been any agreement on the terms of employment and work conditions.
This situation is typical of the approach used in deterring workers in the U.S and Russia even in other industries (Thakur & Burton 1997, p. 116).
In most cases, workers are aware that no any fruitful negotiation will ever be reached in signing the contract (Zonis 2011, p. 162). In most cases, the influence of the union towards this will decrease leaving it weak and unsatisfactory.
Actually, even the partial victories of the union in Russia are only achieved by the involvement of the institutions of the state. Finally, most fast-food corporations in the United States, Russia and Germany find it quite simple to undermine and avoid the government laws and regulations that contradict their policies and interests.
Definitely, in countries such as Russia the regulation is so feeble that there have never been any conflicts experienced (Royle 2000, p. 122). Mostly, these corporations are controlled by robust social traditions of democracy.
There are numerous lessons that the fast-food industry can learn from this comparison. It is important o establish and embrace workable international human resource provisions in Russia.
This is a critical provision when considered critically. It is crucial to comprehend various aspects of HR regulations that might affect the performance of employees in various contexts.
Even though, most corporations can learn human resource management from companies such as McDonald, it does not uphold the standards of international Human Resource Management (Sims 2002, p. 107).
The concerned regulations of the government are also weak, this can allow a company to develop a workable international Human resource in Russia.
Conclusion
The fast-food industry in Russia provides a credible example of how Human Resource Management can be established and embraced in an environment that is less friendly.
McDonald Company deals with the issues of its employees internally. It hardly regards government regulations, which are weak when considered critically. As such, most employees are denied their rights even as they struggle through unions.
The same case applies to other countries such as the U.S. and Germany. However, the greatest lesson learnt is that corporations in the fast-food industry should treat their employees with dignity so as to win their confidence and trust.
List of References
Baker, J & Blanpain, R 2010, Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies, Kluwer Law International, Deventer
Bamber, G., Blanpain, R & Pochet, P 2010, Regulating Employment Relations, Work and Labour Laws: International Comparisons Between Key Countries, Kluwer Law International, Deventer.
Blanpain, R., Bromwich, W., Rymkevich, O & Valdez, L 2009, The Modernization of Labour Law and Industrial Relations in a Comparative Perspective, Kluwer Law International, Deventer
Briscoe, D 2008, International Human Resource Management, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Christensen, P 1993, Industrial Russia under the new regimes: labour relations and democratization, Princeton University, New Jersey, NJ.
Domsch, M & Lodokhover, T 2007, Human Resource Management in Russia, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, UK.
Fossum, J 2008, Labour Relations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
Holley, W, Jennings, K & Wolters 2009, The Labour Relations Process, Cengage Learning, New York, NY.
Leisink, P 1999, Globalization and Labour Relations, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Orlov, V 2011, Introduction to Business Law in Russia, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, UK
Royle, T 2002, Labour Relations in the Global Fast-food Industry, Routledge, New York, NY
Sims, R 2002, Organizational Success Through Effective Human Resources Management, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT.
Thakur, M & Burton, E 1997, International Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Education,
Weiss, M 1987, Labour law and industrial relations in the Federal Republic of Germany, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer.
Zonis, N 2011, Human Resource Management in Russia and Germany – a Comparison, GRIN Verlag, Munich.