The employment relationship Essay Example for Free

The skirmish consanguinity EssayThis essay explores and discusses the consumption transactionhip while considering the comfort of a systems come along to industrial dealings and the f bear that respective(pre nary(prenominal)inal)s view issues from a particular frame of reference.The appointment relationship is developed on an inter-related basis involving stinting, affable 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 tote to perform the plump of the organisation and although viewed as a commodity by the employer, signifi enkindlet investment in the development of the employee can be befuddled or unused should the employee decide to leave or remain unmotivated. The unavailability of suitable stab can lead to segmentation of the labour market and a variant of labour at the study. The division of labour is the breaking down of work in to its smallest components in order to achieve effective specialisation, minimal worker discreetness and the most efficient asideput (Sutcliffe and Callus, 1994). This division of labour can have far reaching implications for the guidance and the organisation, including the tick off and motivation of the workforce.The legal dimension is concerned with the law of contract amid an employer and employee which enables the parties to enter into and obligate 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 employment dealings Act 1996 also implies legal boundaries in which the employment relationship must operate (for showcase the rules relating to unfair dismissal and enterprise bargaining).The sociable 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 anxiety pressures at the workplace as well as pressures from new(prenominal) 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 re figure for our labour. An employer must also proffer a duty that can stimulate and challenge the worker. Many jobs however are mundane and dull 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 practice the employment relationship between vigilance and labour (Deery and Plowman, 1991). It is also closely entwined with political, economic and mixer forces (Salamon, 1992). As a consequence, people differ in their firees and vi ews on industrial relations which as a resolving can lead to industrial meshing.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 pattern 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 coterie 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 overlap 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 f or warning, is not only considered as inessential 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 pull strings. 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 voice 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 desirabl e, but necessary. Societies interests at large are protected by present intervention through legislation and industrial tribunals which provide orderly processes for the regulation and endurance of conflict.The marxist approach like pluralists regard conflict between management and employees as inevitable. However, where pluralists see conflict as native 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 gainsay the capitalist system of class domination.By assimilating a persons behaviour to one of the three frames of references, it determines how we would fight 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 coordinate and status pecking order more or less certainly has a significant influence as well (Keenoy and Kelly, 1995).It is important to understand these concepts as employers and employees capture 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 diffe ring 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 staple 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 elementary needs for survival. Once satisfied, the employee seeks to improve their social standing by earning more money and purchasing literal 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 th at the employees interest in maximising income is in direct conflict with the employers interest in minimising costs (Keenoy and Kelly 1996). However, two 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, train of effort and range of duties). Both parties tend therefore to have their own expectations as to what has been initially concur upon and as such, this vagueness can oft 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 o ccur over the inability of an organisation to provide a suitable move 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 idiom on quality and service provided to customers, may force employers to redefine their strategies towar ds 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 focussing 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 unneurotic 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 indus trial relations system has been criticised from a spot 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.BibliographyBain, 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, SydneyFells, R.E., 1989, The Employment Relationship Control and Strategic Choice in the Study of Industrial Relations in Labour and Industry, Vol 2(3), October pp470-492Fox, 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 I ndustrial Relations? A Behavioural Science Approach. British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol 7, no.2, , p273Salamon, 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