Employment relations- unitarist, pluarist and radical and conflict in workplace

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

This assignment is going to argue to what degree conflict is inherent in employment relationships and also how it may not be inherent. In the broader sense management styles do have an impact, but for the purpose of this assignment I am focusing on conflict and the perspectives.

Hyman (1975) defined employment relationship as “the authorisation of day to day work relations that affect employees and employers”. However there are three dominating factors that determine the relationship these being economic, legal and social factors. These can often be the catalyst for conflict between the two parties in the employment relationship. Davidson & Griffin (2001, p114), stated conflict “is a disagreement between two or more industrial groups or organisations”. The issue of how inherent conflict is managed must also be dealt with by looking at the three different ideologies of unitarist, radical and pluralist perspectives (Ed Rose, pg26-28). Within the employment relationship where does the balance of power lie? Bargaining power is a key concept of the employment relationship which influences “the selection by the employer of the appropriate employee relation processes, the subject matter of agreements between employers and their employees, whether agreements are jointly authorised by employers and employees or solely written by one of the parties, and whether an agreement is closer to the ideal interests of employers or those of employees” (Gennard & Judge 1997, p31).

Wishart (1992), (cited in Mabey, Skinner & Clark p71) stated a unitarist view is based “on a mutual cooperation, a shared goal and harmony of interest between the employees and the employers”. In these instances both employees and employers see unions as an unwanted disturbance to the organisation and if conflict arises it is often caused by irrational behaviour which may often result from personality clashes. Under this approach it tends not to be seen as a direct result of management failure. Unitarist views are therefore not a “them and us” situation but a feeling of togetherness and fairness. Over the years surveys have showed that managers continue to believe in harmony and trust and focus on Human Resource Management (HRM). In the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Managers survey it was shown that 72% of workplace managers would rather deal with employees directly than go through Trade Unions (TU) (Paul Edwards 2003, p10-11). Organisations that adopt this perspective are often based on a management’s prerogative that is perceived as legitimate and rational. Unitarists are reluctant to acknowledge the role of TU, they believe that they are not required to protect employees because of the advent of HRM. After analysing this perspective it indicates to me that organisations that use this approach have the interest of all staff at heart when decisions are being made, and is based on a common goal/s being shared to achieve the set objective/s. Employers empower individuals in their roles and encourage team work. This approach reflects the vision of McGregor’s theory (1960’s) of the Y manager and as a result of this it is deemed unnecessary for the need of TU’s as there is loyalty between employees and employers. Organisations like Motorola and John Lewis Partnership believe in this approach where all workers have a real say. In the latter this is achieved through the established principles of democracy. The unitarist approach has a focus on team management and employees are seen as partners in the organisation. The first UK study found that 67% of manual workers agreed with this statement that team work means success (Goldthorpe et all 1968 p78, cited in Edwards, P (2004))

In contrast to this, a pluralist recognises that conflict is inevitable and rational within an organisation. The major difference between the pluralist and the unitarist perspective is the acknowledgment of enterprises, Bray et all (2005) p13, stated this perspective “contains people with a variety of interest aims and aspirations. Power is shared so there is no single dominant party”. Organisations that adopt this approach tend to be diverse and always have tension resulting from inherent conflict of interest “whenever there are separate sources of authority there is a risk of conflict” (Paul Edwards 2003, p11) (6). TUs are viewed as the legitimate representatives of employee interests at work, and have the right to challenge management (Deery et all 2002 p64).

This is a preview of the whole essay

The final perspective is the radical view, which is broader than the other approaches but does share the pluralist idea of inherent conflict between employee and employer and that it is human nature, however the radicalists believe that conflict derives from the unequal distribution of income and wealth in society. Deery et all (2002) p68, stated “that the vulnerability of employees as individuals leads them to form unions so they can challenge management and the inequality of society and exploitation”. The radical perspective is inherent due to the balance of power and the nature of a political, economical and capitalist society. Labour is used when needed and the profit earned is of primary importance compared to that of wages paid. The inequalities depend on the amount of power and wealth an employer/organisation has. Conflict in these instances can be seen as inevitable and an employee’s response to capitalism allows employers to control and legitimise their use of power over employees. The nature of conflict I believe is seen as inherent in economical and social system and is resolved through a change in society.

Within nearly every organisation conflict occurs from time to time between employers and employees, this could be in terms of misunderstandings or disagreements. Ramsey (2003) stated “conflict often can be hidden in the workplace and as a result has not been dealt with”. This therefore can lead to a decrease in staff morale and de-motivation of employees. After reading Salaman (2002) I feel that he believes that management power is very strong and that employees only have industrial action to take. The employer has a greater ability to affect the employee’s world than the employee does the employers world.

During 1998 and 2004 there was little change in terms of industrial action and it remained low. 5% of managers reported a collective dispute and 8% of employers reported an employment tribunal being claimed against them (economical & social research council (2005) p4.

Gennard & Judge (2002) (cited in Ed Rose 2004 p178) argued that the governments economical and legal policies have a major implication on the outcome of employee relations, therefore if the economic policies are directed towards full employment and maximum growth this can have the effect of strengthening the bargaining power of employees relative to that of employers. In an expanding economy the demand for labour increases which causes the price of those labour services to rise. However the case for the UK at this current time under the new coalition government is that parts of the economy are shrinking and the demand for labour services is falling which potentially could lead to redundancies and a rise in unemployment, which in December 2010 was recorded at 2.498 million (cited in Guardian 2011). In these instances the balance of power shifts in the employer’s favour and the employer’s bargaining power is strengthened. The coalition government is currently under a lot of financial pressure in respect of public spending, and there are changes happening around employee relations e.g. Retirement Age and Equality & Diversity. These changes are being driven by the coalition government’s primary objectives of reducing public expenditure, encouraging economic growth and reducing the financial deficit (cited in Newstatemen, Vince Cable. Their aim is to reform the public sector, in terms of its total size as well as the terms and conditions of employment of its staff (e.g. pensions and redundancy terms) and cut spending to reduce the UK budget deficit to 2.1% from 10% by 2014-2015 with a long term objective to support the economic recovery and overall resource savings of 33% by 2014-2015 (cited in Comprehensive Spending review (2010) p72. With the spending cuts in place there is a likelihood that there will be changes in the UK, relating to industrial action especially around equal opportunities. The Financial Times (2010) reported that 90% of executives in private and public sector organisations are expecting Britain to see an increase in industrial action, and has indicated to employer’s that a formal policy should be put in place. It was reported in 2004 that 73% of organisations have a policy compared to 63% of organisations in 1998. It was reported in May 2010 that “if we do see significant industrial action to resist such restructuring, the coalition government might well seek to tighten the rules on strike ballots” (cited in HR review 2010). Contradictory to the 2004 improvement it was reported in 2010 that the new coalition government are already facing charges of “not doing enough” in relation to equal opportunities (Cited in Personnel Today 2010). Finally there could be changes to European Employment Rights due to the Conservatives being in power and having been vocal about their intension to decrease Europe’s influence in respect of UK employment laws (cited in HR review 2010). I feel that this will be hard to achieve in terms of legal and political reasoning.

Overall the coalition government is dynamic and is implementing changes, however these changes are proving less supportive of employee relations and worker’s rights, because it would seem that as the government introduce new legislation it is not favourable to employees and the bargaining power of employer’s is strengthened. Another aspect is around the implementation of technology as this has an impact on the relative bargaining of employees and employers.

Webb and Webb (1920) (cited in Ed Rose 2004 p1), defined a TU as “a continuous association of wage earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the condition of their working lives. Freeman and Medoff (1984) stated that TU provide workers with a “collective voice”. TU have played a huge role in industrial relations by helping manage employment relationship. They promote and protect the interest and terms and conditions of employment of their members in areas such as pay, holidays, health and safety, equal opportunities and employment law etc but also ensure that individuals are treated fairly. TU where possible ensure that there is a balance of power between employees and employers.

Over the years TUs have changed, Hyman (1975) p67, stated “it is now an era of post modernism where people want to live individualistically and this directly contrasts to trade unions”. This therefore is forcing TU to modify their role. Labour strengthened TU through Trade Disputes and The Trade Union Act 1927. Labour remained in power until 1979 and TU membership fluctuated between 1979- 2003, and peaked in 1979 when there were 13 million people (56% of the working population) (citied in lecture 4, Tony Bennett, slide 6) were TU members, this phenomenon was partly due to the principle of “closed shops” in many industries/ employer organisations. In 1979 the Conservatives came to power, the leader Margaret Thatcher shifted the balance towards employers and restricted TU recognition through the Employment Act 1982. Blyton & Turnball (2004) p70, noted that the era of Thatcherism “deregulated trade union power by imposing tighter regulations”. The aim was to promote individualism; however this goes against collective bargaining. Thatcher believed that the best society was when men and women acted individually. There were a lot of restrictions during this time e.g. restriction on strikes and secondary picketing in the workplace. Hyman (1989) stated “in the past the number of strikes recorded was largely dominated by manufacturing industries. In 1971, there were 7,890,000 manufacturing workers but by 2005 this had reduced to 3,184,000”, therefore strike activity had reduced and had resulted in trade memberships declining. When labour returned to power in 1997 they introduced laws to support TU and employee’s such as the fairness of work paper (1998) which was followed by the Employment Relations Act 1999. Also the new labour government passed laws so that employee’s cannot be dismissed so easily for participating in strike ballots Salamon (2002) p452, stated “this is a step towards a right to strike”. Therefore this protected the nurses in 1999, who took part in a strike in relation to there pay and working conditions, this involved 27,500 nurses who stopped work and picketed 100 hospitals and this lead to 100 operations being cancelled in the first hour and 7,000 appointments cancelled (cited in Salamon (2002) p455.

Trends tend to be cyclical and depend on the economic cycle, but I feel that TU’s in the 21st century may have more purpose and less power and a reason for this decline could be globalisation/competitiveness, government power, reduced TU membership and a less sympathetic government. The advancements in technology could have an impact as individuals are able to access information in respect of there employment rights and therefore are less reliant on the support of TU’s. Michael White (2010) reported “an improvement in technology and ease of access to information has meant that employees “know their rights”.

CIPD (2010) define the psychological contract as “a perception of two parties, employees and employers, of what their mutual obligations are towards each other”. The contract is said to be based on trust, perception of fairness, job satisfaction, career progression and reward. If the psychological contract is breached by management there are a number of impacts this could have such as job dissatisfaction, employee disengagement and reduced commitment from employees. It is important that everyone understands the contract so it is not breached. In recent years the contract was that employees demonstrated commitment to their job and in return the employers provided job security but this has rapidly changed and increasingly fewer employers can continue to offer this form of contract. Employers are replacing the idea of job for life with fair pay, training and development opportunities.

After analysing the approaches there seems to be one common denominator in all three approaches that being that conflict is inherent in the employment relationship and is inevitable. The difference in the three approaches therefore, is not of the existence of conflict, but rather the employer’s/manager’s response to conflict. The unitary approach hypothesises that a conflict free workplace is possible, if the objectives of the workers coincide with those of managers. However in practise this is rarely ever the case. On the other hand, pluralists prefer to resolve conflict through consultation and compromise. Radicalists see conflict as an inherent characteristic of a capitalist society, which cannot be eradicated. With our prevailing employment legislation and the current economic climate it is highly likely that the majority of organisations will tend to use variations of the pluralist approach. The unitarist perspective would not be suitable in organisations today because of the redundancies that are happening therefore this conflicts the approach, however this approach would have been used in the 19th century, but is not suitable in today’s fast growing and complex business world.

References:

Bennett T, Employee Relation Module (2010), lecture 4, slide 6, “What is the role of the Trade Unions in the 21st century”

Bray, M Waring, P & Cooper, R (2005) Employment Relations Theory and Practice

Blyton, P & Turnball, P (2004), Dynamics of Employee Relations, 3rd Edition, Basingstoke, Macmillan

CIPD (2010)

Article: Physiological contract

Subtitle What is the psychological contract?

Published July 2010

Paragraph 1 line 3-5

Comprehensive spending review October 2010

BY Presented to Parliament, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by Command of Her Majesty, Subsection: settlements include 2.139

Page 72, line 1-2

Davidson, P and Griffin. R.W (2000) “Management in a Global Context” J.Wiley and Sons

Deery, S, Walsh, J & Plowman, D & Brown, S (2002), Industrial Relations, Contemporary Analysis

Economical & social research council (2005)

Article: research uncovers continuing union decline and increasing availability of flexibility working arrangements

Published- July 2005

Page4 of 8, Paragraph 1, Line 3-5

Accessed: 2nd January 2011 @ 15:00

Edwards, P. (2004), Industrial Relations, 2nd Edition, Theory and Practice

Freeman, Richard B, and James L. Medoff. (1984), What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books.

Financial Times (2010)

Article: Bosses back fresh anti-strike laws

Reported by: Brian Groom, Business and Employment Editor

Published: October 18 2010 19:21 |

Paragraph 2

Line 2-3

Accessed 8th January 2011 @ 10:50

Gennard, J. & Judge, G. (1997), Employment Relations

Guardian (2010),

Published: 24th august 2010 By Michael White

Guardian 2011

Article: Interactive: UK unemployment since 1984

Published 19th January 2011 at 11:50am By , and

Paragraph 2, Line 5-6

Accessed: 2nd January 2011 @ 16:00

HRreview (2010),

Article:

Published May 11, 2010, Posted in: , Paragraph 3, line 1-2

Assessed 7th January 2010 @ 19:24

Hyman, R. (1975), Industrial relations, A Marxist introduction, London Macmillan

Hyman, R(1989), Strikes, 4th edition, A Marxist introduction, London Macmillan

Newstateman article, by Vince Cable, Article: Trade offs must be made

Published 13th September 2010, Paragraph 2, line 2

Accessed 7th January 2011

Personnel Today (2010)

Article: Equality is being overlooked by the government, experts warn

Published 26 May 2010 15:31By Kat Baker

Paragraph 1, Line 2-3

Accessed 8th January 2011 @ 12:54

Ramsey, R (2003) “Peacekeeping in the workplace- How to handle clashes amongst employees”- ProQuest Journal 14

Rose, E (2004), Employment Relations, FT Prentice Hall, 2nd edition

Salamon, M. (2002), Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice

4th edition

Wishart, J (1992) cited in Mabey, C. Skinner, D. & Clark T, (1998), Experiencing Human Resource Management, SAGE publications

Workplace Employee Relations Survey (1998)

Books:

Paul Edwards (2003) Industrial Relations, 2nd Edition, Theory and Practice
Ed Rose (2004) Employment Relations, FT Prentice Hall, 2nd edition
Michael Salamon (2002), Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice
Ken Whitehead (1998), An introduction to employee relations
Ian J Beardwell (1996), Contemporary Industrial relations, critical analysis, Oxford University press