Introduction:
The essay below is
going to highlight the changes at the work place citing an example of one such
change and relating it to an orientation that best suits its application. In
the essay therefore, the writer will try to explain the different types of
framework s in industrial relations particularly basing their concentration on
the neo-liberalism views. Other types of frameworks as regards the Marxist
view, and the feminist views are also elaborated on, in order to create an
overview of the picture of the difference in the industrial types of
frameworks. The first paragraph will cover a brief introduction to the subject topic.
After which the writer is going to highlight the main contradicting issues
between the pluralism views and the neo liberalism views. Thereafter the writer
is going to illustrate an example of work place change and the use of the theory
to explain the situation. Finally, a conclusion will be reached from where the
reader is able to get a summary of all the issues tackled in the essay.
Analysis
A Frame of reference is the way through which
different mangers view the employment relationships between them and their
employees. This can in simple terms be described as a way through which each
and every individual views the relations at the workplace. In the society many
people consider a framework as the way through which problems occurring in the
work place can be discussed and eventually solved at the work lace in terms of
how they are viewed. In the frame work concept, there are three main types of
frames, namely the pluralism framework, the Marxists and the Neo-liberalism
framework (Ackers 2002).
As a frame work,
pluralism refers to the cooperation reflected
in terms of demonstrating leadership and loyalty in the work place
through accepting that there may arise instances of disagreements in the
authority of the leaderships and regardless of this fact, they have to be accepted
by the one in the position of authority(Ackers & Wilkinson 2005).
However, there area
also other frameworks on which the industrial relations theory is based, these
re the Marxism framework which advocates for the rights of the employees
stating that although there is conflict between the two parties at hand, it is
essential that the plight of the employees is taken very seriously. It mainly
revolves around the mobilization aspect of the theory advocating for the
strategizes that propagate and encourage the employees to gather power, and to
counter reaction in a different manner
in relation to the strategies that will be put forward as regards the policies
adopted by the government and their employers. It encourages that in order for
the workers to benefit they have to be in constant collision with the
capitalist policies that have been implemented to shrink their welfare. Unlike
the pluralists, this group does not believe in balance between the two parties
but continues to argue that industrial conflict is very beneficial.
Another type of
framework is the feminist type which mainly revolves around the concept that the
interests of both the men and female counterparts at the work place are never
convergent and instead differ in many aspects. It is also argued that in this
case therefore, researchers should consider these differences and thus
incorporate then in their international relations studies. Initially the
feminist framework advocated fro gender balance at the work place but has now
become very diverse in it s arguments advocating for issues like race and
ethnic composition as regards to the work place composition is concerned. There
has been an increase in the desire to examine the issues of sex at the work
place in relation to gender and the emotions involved so as o determine the
suitable type of jobs to suit all these characteristics. However, it is
essential to note that under the feminist type of view some issues correlate
with those that are advocated fro in the pluralists view. Some of these are
like consideration of the collective bargaining power of the employees and
encouragement of the regulation of the law by the government in order to create
a fair working environment for the employees. The third form of framework is
the neo liberalism which is explained in details through the contrast analysis
reflected below.
In regards to the neo
liberalism approach, the pluralism view is challenged in the following ways:
It is argued under this
prospect that instead of putting the needs of both parties in line, it is essential
to ensure that the needs of the employers are first considered other than those
of the laborers who work for them. Neo-liberals argue that it is essential that
the needs of the employers are out first in regards o consideration to the
policies since they act to protect the interest of the consumers (Ackers 2002).Unlike
the pluralism view where both of these parties have to cooperate, in the neo liberalism
approach, policies that could restrain management in the implementation of
their views are regarded as negative to the benefit of the organization. This
is unlike the prior theory which aligns both the views of the two parties in
order to come to a desirable conclusion so as to properly a common interest (Ackers
& Wilkinson 2003).
In the neo liberalism approach,
trade unions are viewed as an opposing factor towards the ideas simulated by
the management and as such are not treated in a friendly manner. Instead, they
do not want their operations challenged by many government legislation or
policies that could affect them since they argue that they operate in order to
create societal solutions. These institutions that are positively in terms of
problem solving as viewed by the pluralists type of management are in this case
regard viewed as a pain in the neck and a contributor to the societal problems
(Kaufmann 2004). They also question the amount of problems that are as a result
of the constant interferences by the regulatory institutions in a bid to regulate
the market place as regards the pluralists’. In this aspect therefore, they
have asserted that it is very unnecessary for the trade unions to try to seek a
balance between the employees and management when in the real sense the main
cause of the problem is self employment and the influence of private ownership
which in most cases render employees less dependent on the wages they are paid
at there work place (Blyton et al 2008).
In regards to minimum wages,
the neo- liberalists argue that many of the low income earners in the
organizations live in locations where they have multi incomes therefore; they
are not completely reliant on their own incomes to make a living (Blyton et al
2008).They also added that it is quite impossible for the regulation carried
out in favor of the pluralist theory to be able to sustain the market outcomes
in the long run since regulations like the minimum wages only displace the
employment levels in the formal sector and not in the informal sector. They
additionally state that regardless of allowing the union to interfere in
certain matters, they never really aid in the long run since this allows for
them to just displace the employment capacities in terms of union economy though
it is impossible for them to take the wages out of competition (Kaufmann 2004).
In argument with the pluralism
view, they also persist that instead of offering solutions to the group that
they intend to offer remedy to, they instead destroy them through subjecting
them to loose their jobs being that they are members of the unions .In a last argument,
they also state that in a bid to offer solutions to their members, other economical
areas are destroyed, these are like the competiveness of the nationals in the
country. In this case most of what it advocates for leads to dire consequences.
For instance, through raising the costs of education, it has led to effects
like ill educated children with poor educational backgrounds that cannot
properly compete in the labor markets. In general, it is argued that the effects
of the unions have been far much negative than positive with increased cases of
poor quality and inefficiencies as related to the desire of managers to elevate
the position of its employees instead of considering that of the consumers of
the products (Blyton et al 2008).
Due to an increase in
the number of competitors and the desire to maximize on sales so as to meet the
demand of the different customers we have, we have had to work for longer hours
than before. There has been an implementation of 24 hours shift in the
organization forcing all the employees to be flexible to work at any time that
they may be allocated during shift. In this context, I think that the neo liberalism
orientation will explain the change effectively. This is because by increasing
the number of working hours for the employees in order to respond to the
changes in the market place, just as supported by the orientation argument, the
interests of the employers were made dominant over those of the employees. Regardless
that the employers view their employees in an important dimension, their
customers come first, this is displayed by the fact that they chose to increase
the working hours to meet and satisfy for the clients whose shifts are not
flexible and therefore, can only be available at odd hours to carry out their
shopping ventures.
Under the concept of
the neo –liberalism framework, it is argued that it is very essential that measures
to keep the interest of the producers are implanted. Therefore, in this case,
any bodies that may want to oppose the recommendations put forward by the
producers are not taken positively (Ackers & Wilkinson 2003). They are
viewed in a manner that reflects that they are acting in a negative light. In
this case therefore, since the working hours have been increased in order to
cater for the flexibility of their customers, the labor markets may desire to
come in to advocate for the right so f the employees in terms of an increase in
the wage benefits or to question whether it is right under the law to subject
an employee to work longer than the required stated labor hours. Under this
kind of orientation, it is argued that incase of such an incident, the
management may not take up such arguments positively. These challengers are
instead viewed negatively than positively.
The fact that the neo-liberals
argue that there change is in fact minimal and May not affect any societal
change is a reflection of why this orientation suits the above named change.
This is because the management in the above incident mentioned that there would
be no impact in the number of hours the people worked since there are going to
allocate a certain number of working hours to different individuals to ensure
that each is not overworked. Instead the argument was that in so doing, the
number of people that will be employed in the company so as to compensate for
the extra working hours re going to be many, thereby even improving the
standards of living of those in the society.
According to the neo-liberalism
approach, management was acting in the sense of responding to the market
indicators and therefore it would be irrelevant to come up with laws that may
limit there ability to do so in the future (Ackers & Wilkinson 2003). . In
this case, the market indicator was that customers’ were not able to
sufficiently meet their needs through the day since their work schedules would
not allow and therefore there was a cry for help in the sense of longer service
hours.
In regards to the above
change in my place of work, there have been effects from all angles of operation
including the government, employees and the management. In regards to the
government legislations, it was of paramount importance that the increase in
the number of hours per day in regards to the implementation of shifts be
aligned to the present government legislation. The requirements of working time
directives had to be followed and keenly adhered to before the implementations
were introduced. For instance, it was of paramount essence that the number of
hours that an employee worked in a period of time in a stated week would not exceed
certain threshold. This therefore meant that with the above implementation, an
employee would only work for a maximum of eight hours per day regardless of the
shift they had been assigned to. To the employees, these meant that they were
very flexible in the way they were expected to offer their services. This meant
that with consultation with the management, one could choose the period of time
they wanted to work in order to complete their working hours. For them, this meant
that they had a lot of free time at their desire to do any other business or
work that might interest them. The fact that the employees are also given the
freedom to approach the management as regards the flexibility of their work
shifts means that they are taken seriously by the management and are considered
an element in the decision making process.
In regards to the employers,
it means that with the flexibility of the available shifts, they are guaranteed
more productivity and motivation from the employees as they feel that they are
treated fairly in their own right and thus will strive to produce at their maximum
while at the work place.
Conclusion
In regards to the above
essay, it is clear that the various types of frameworks view industrial
relations in a different perspective. In the pluralist view, equity is
advocated for in light of both parties (Blyton et al 2008). That is the workers
and the employers, whereas in the neo- liberalism approaches only the plight of
the employers is considered important especially in matters regarding policy implications.
Other frameworks, which are the Marxist views and the feminist views also, have
their own perspective as regards the issue. There have also been various views
in argument as to why one type of framework should be adopted in comparison to
the rest. However, according to my view, a framework that would consider the
joint responsibilities and contributions of the parties in discussion are
better than one which is only one sided.
References
Ackers, P 2002, “Reframing
Employment Relations: The Case for Neo-Pluralism,”
Industrial
Relations Journal,
33(1): 2-19.
Ackers, P and Wilkinson, A 2003,
eds. Understanding Work and Employment:
Industrial
Relations in Transition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ackers, P, and Wilkinson, A 2005,“
British Industrial Relations Paradigm: A Critical
Outline History and Prognosis,” Journal
of Industrial Relations, 47(4): 443-56.
Blyton, P, Heery E,
Bacon N, Fiorito, J 2008, The sage handbook of international relations, Bangladesh,
Sage.
Kaufmann, B2004,
Theoretical perspectives on work and the employment relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment