The employment relationship Essay Example for Free

The employment relationship Essay This essay explores and discusses the employment relationship while considering the value of a systems approach to industrial relations and the fact that individuals view issues from a particular frame of reference. The employment relationship is developed on an inter-related basis involving economic, social and legal dimensions of wider society (Fells, 1989). Organisations are subject to the economic conditions in which they operate. Employers rely on the availability of suitable labour to perform the work of the organisation and although viewed as a commodity by the employer, significant investment in the development of the employee can be lost or unused should the employee decide to leave or remain unmotivated. The unavailability of suitable labour can lead to segmentation of the labour market and a division of labour at the workplace. The division of labour is the breaking down of work into its smallest components in order to achieve effective specialisation, minimal worker discretion and the most efficient output (Sutcliffe and Callus, 1994). This division of labour can have far reaching implications for the management and the organisation, including the control and motivation of the workforce. The legal dimension is concerned with the law of contract between an employer and employee which enables the parties to enter into and enforce agreements (Fells, 1989). By its very nature the employment contract implies a subordination relationship where the employer commands and the employee obeys. The introduction of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 also implies legal boundaries in which the employment relationship must operate (for example the rules relating to unfair dismissal and enterprise bargaining). The social dimension, unlike the economic and legal dimension, is one that chiefly impacts on employees. There are two aspects to this dimension according to Fells (1989), the first being the impact of society on the workplace and secondly employees experiencing management pressures at the workplace as well as pressures from other individual employees who work within a team environment. It is clear that most of us want more out of a working relationship than just a monetary return for our labour. An employer must also provide a job that can stimulate and challenge the worker. Many jobs however are mundane and boring which is a consequence of the increasing division of labour in our industrial society. Industrial relations in a broad sense, is about the behaviour and interaction of people at work. It is concerned with how individuals, groups, organisations and institutions make decisions that shape the employment relationship between management and labour (Deery and Plowman, 1991). It is also closely entwined with political, economic and social forces (Salamon, 1992). As a consequence, people differ in their approaches and views on industrial relations which as a result can lead to industrial conflict. Fox in 1966 attempted to explain the reasons for the differing views of industrial conflict by management and the public, by proposing a frames of reference concept in his paper to the UK Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employer Associations (Berrell, 1999). Fox believed that some people view industrial relations as a class conflict, others in terms of mutual co-operation and others still in terms of competing interests of various groups. Three approaches were identified: unitary, pluralist and marxist. The unitarian approach believes that industrial relations is based on mutual co-operation, individual treatment, team work and the sharing of common objectives (Stone, 1996). Conflict in the workplace is seen as an anomaly which has occurred because of either union activity, poor management decisions or practice or employees who dont fit the organisations culture. Conflict resulting in strikes for example, is not only considered as unnecessary but destructive. As result, unions are regarded as competitors for employees loyalty and commitment. In essence the unitarian approach is seen as a management ideology which legitimises their authority and control. It blames conflict on employees and threatens unions existence. It is manipulative and exploitative (Horwitz, 1990). In contrast, the pluralist approach accepts the inevitability of conflict (Deery and Plowman, 1991). It sees organisations as coalitions of competing interests where managements role is to mediate amongst the different interests groups. It sees unions as a legitimate representative of employee interests. Management authority under this approach is not automatically accepted. Employees join unions to promote their interests and influence management decision making. As unions are considered to be important in their role of balancing the power between employers and employees, they are considered not only desirable, but necessary. Societies interests at large are protected by state intervention through legislation and industrial tribunals which provide orderly processes for the regulation and resolution of conflict. The marxist approach like pluralists regard conflict between management and employees as inevitable. However, where pluralists see conflict as inherent within all organisations, marxists see it as a product of capitalist society. Adversarial relations in the workplace are seen as simply one aspect of class conflict. Unions under this approach, are seen as instruments for challenging the capitalist system of class domination. By assimilating a persons behaviour to one of the three frames of references, it determines how we would react and shapes the method for altering such behaviour. As a tool for understanding a parties behaviour when conflict occurs we need to undertake a social action perspective, that is to suspend our own judgment when analysing the cause of conflict and accept the persons frame of reference. Individually, our frames of references are molded and influenced by a multiplicity of variables including, values and behaviour, education, political views, work experiences and religious beliefs to name a few. Our position in the class structure and status hierarchy almost certainly has a significant influence as well (Keenoy and Kelly, 1995). It is important to understand these concepts as employers and employees bring to the employment relationship different strategies to gain as much as they can from the relationship. This in turn makes the relationship inherently competitive. Fells (1989) observes that this points to the duality of the employment relationship. Both the employer and employee put their resources, motives, expectations and own interests into the relationshipthese being influenced by the social and economic structure of society (Fells 1989, P 476). In essence therefore, conflict can arise because of the parties differing social and economic interests and strategies. Keenoy and Kelly (1996) take this further by describing the three great struggles which results from the distribution of authority (inherent in an organisational hierarchy) and the division of labour which are sources of potential conflict and competition within the employment relationship. These are identified as the struggle over interests, control and motivation. Abraham Maslow in his hierarchy of needs theory argued that individuals sought to satisfy basic needs required to live; that is food, warmth and shelter (Bartol et al 1995). An employee therefore, seeks is in his/her strategy to satisfy their basic needs for survival. Once satisfied, the employee seeks to improve their social standing by earning more money and purchasing material symbols to demonstrate their success. In contrast however, is the organisations strategy to run an efficient and cost effective business. The nature of the employment relationship is such that the employees interest in maximising income is in direct conflict with the employers interest in minimising costs (Keenoy and Kelly 1996). However, both parties in the relationship are equally dependent upon each other for without labour there is no profit and without capital this is no jobs. This is simply termed structured antagonism as the relationship produces both mutual and conflicting interests. Fells (1989) argues that a frontier of control exists between an employer and employee which is born out of the legal, social and economic pressures effecting the distribution of power within the employment relationship. It represents the point of confrontation and interaction between the structure of management control and the challenge from organised labour (Storey, 1980 p 12). The struggle for control arises out of the vagueness of the employment contract, as it rarely specifies the parameters and preciseness of the work to be performed by the employee in exchange for payment (for example, level of effort and range of duties). Both parties tend therefore to have their own expectations as to what has been initially agreed upon and as such, this vagueness can often lead to conflict. In response, the employers strategy is to set up an array of control mechanisms, one being the hierarchy of authority where people are employed to supervise the work of others. This act in itself can lead to tensions within the employment relationship as industrial conflict often occurs when employees challenge the limits of managerial authority. Variations in the degree of control is also apparent within many jobs. For example production line workers experience tight control mechanisms whereas politicians, doctors and lawyers experience little or no control over their particular functions. This last group especially enjoy an elevated position in the hierarchy of authority and a high level of control and autonomy over their work (Kennoy and Kelly, 1996). As a result, conflict may occur over the inability of an organisation to provide a suitable career path which allows an employee access to a higher level of authority within the hierarchy. Securing employee commitment can be a difficult task for an employer as not all employees are motivated to work by monetary rewards alone. Although theorists have argued that motivation is the key to employee behaviour and productivity, work undertaken by the likes of Frederick Herzberg and his two-factor theory have largely been ignored due to the advantages of increasing the division of labour over the benefits of increasing employee satisfaction (Keenoy and Kelly, 1996). Management are faced therefore with a dilemma over ensuring employees remain sufficiently motivated to ensure job effectiveness whilst maintaining the cost effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation. Increasing market competition and a greater emphasis on quality and service provided to customers, may force employers to redefine their strategies towards motivation of their employees. Up to this point the employment relationship has been discussed in terms of its dual nature. However, it is clear that a more holistic approach is required. A systems approach provides a useful look at the employment relationship because it expands on the dual focus to include a third group of actors and the environment within which the relationship operates. John Dunlop proposed an industrial relations system comprised of actors operating within an environment influenced by technology, economics and power distribution. The system is bound together by both ideology and rules to govern behaviour. Three main groups of actors have been defined as managers, workers and their representatives and other bodies concerned with the relationship between workers and employers. The major output of the system is a set of rules and regulations that apply both in the individual workplace and in the wider work community. (Deery and Plowman, 1991). Dunlops industrial relations system has been criticised from a number of quarters (Margerison, 1969; Bain and Clegg, 1974; Hyman) for paying insufficient attention to conflict focusing more on conflict resolution than the root of the conflict, and for suggesting that the industrial relations system is naturally stable. Despite these negative views the system perspective of industrial relations remains valid if only as an analytical tool (Deery and Plowman, 1991). The employment relationship is a unique but fundamental feature of modern society. It commences when an employer engages an employee to perform work in exchange for money. Although this concept of the relationship appears simplistic in nature, it is subject to many stresses and strains brought about by political, social and economic interference. Bibliography Bain, G.S Clegg, H.A, 1974, A Strategy for Industrial Relations Research in Great Britain, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 12, no. 1, p92. Bartol, K.M., Martin, D.C., Tein, M Matthews, G. 1995, Management a Pacific Rim Focus, McGraw-Hill, Sydney. Berrell, M. 1999, Subject Book: Industrial Relations, Monash Distrance Education Centre, Monash University, Churchill, Vic. Deery, S.J. Plowman, D.H. 1991, Australian Industrial Relations, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Sydney Fells, R.E., 1989, The Employment Relationship Control and Strategic Choice in the Study of Industrial Relations in Labour and Industry, Vol 2(3), October pp470-492 Fox, A. 1980, Industrial Relations: A Social Critique of Pluralist Ideology in Barrett, B., Rhodes, E and Beishon, J. (eds), Industrial Relations in the Wider Society; Aspects of Interaction, Collier MacMillan, London. Horwitz, F.M., 1990, HRM: an ideological perspective, Personnel Review, Vol 19, No.2 pp 10-15. Hyman, R., 1975, Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. MacMillan, London. Keenoy, T. Kelley, D. 1998, The Employment Relationship in Australia, 2nd Ed. Harcourt Brace and Co, Sydney. Margerison, C.J., 1969, What do we mean by Industrial Relations? A Behavioural Science Approach. British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol 7, no.2, , p273 Salamon, M. 1992, Industrial relations Theory and Practice, 2nd Ed, Prentice-Hall, London. Stone, R. 1995. Human Resource Management, 2nd Ed, John Wiley and sons, Brisbane. Storey, J. 1980, The Challenge to Management Control, Kogan Page, London. Suttcliffe, P. Callus, R. 1994, Glossary of Industrial Relations Terms, ACIRRT and ACSM, Sydney, Brisbane. Industrial Relations Assn 1 pg 11