The pluralist approach to industrial relations accepts that conflict is inherent in society and can be accommodated through various institutional arrangements. Pluralism recognizes the existence of more than one ruling principle and allows for different and divergent views from both management and trade unions, achieved through negotiation, concession and compromise. This approach to industrial relations reinforces the value and legitimacy of collective bargaining between management and trade unions as conflict-resolving and rule-making processes. This approach is found in businesses with a large number of employees, such as aa retail store chain or hotel chain.
In pluralism, the organization is perceived as being made up of powerful and divergent
…show more content…
The theory holds work to be governed by a wide range of formal and informal rules and regulations, which cover everything from recruitment, holidays, performance, wages, hours, and a myriad of other details of employment. It asserts that these rules are what industrial actors try to determine, that their establishment is influenced by the wider environmental context in which the actors operate, and that the actors themselves share an interest in maintaining the processes of negotiation and conflict resolution. On the back of these assertions four elements are held to make up the system of industrial relations rule-making. The first is industrial actors, which consists of employers and their representatives (i.e., employer associations), employees and their representatives (i.e., trade unions), and external agencies with an interest in industrial relations (i.e., government departments and labour courts). The second is the environmental context, which …show more content…
An important aspect of this framework conceives the industrial relations system as self-adjusting towards equilibrium. In so far as change in one element had repercussions for the other elements, they are held to set in motion a range of processes that invariably restores a sense of order on the system. Strategic choice theory Another widely used and more recent theory drawing on pluralist assumptions is Kochan, Katz and McKersie’s (1986) strategic choice theory. This particular theory picks up on the systems concept developed by Dunlop (1958) and advanced on it by accommodating a number of contemporary changes in the way industrial relations was being practiced. Three such changes are noted as being influential in determining the way managers deal with industrial relations issues. The first is identified in the recent decline in union membership and the rise of new industries not covered by unions. The second is noted in the way collective bargaining structures and outcomes involving trade unions
To conclude this analysis on the basis of the labor’s extensive history, Sloane & Witney (2010) propose, “it is entirely possible that labor’s remarkable staying power has been because of the simple fact that to many workers, from the nineteenth century to the present, there really has been no acceptable substitute for collective bargaining as a means of maintaining and improving employment conditions” (p.80). In the end, it is important to anticipate unions and employers presently work together to find solutions that will enhance collective bargaining strategies and practices to serve the interest of both parties.
The case study of GMFC provides an example of a company attempting to avoid unionization of its workers. GMFC is expanding by building a new U.S. plant which will manufacture motorized recreational equipment. The company plans to hire about 500 production workers to assemble mechanical components, fabricate fiberglass body parts, and assemble the final products. In order to avoid the expected union campaign by the United Automobile Workers (UAW) to organize its workers, GMFC must implement specific strategies to keep the new plant union-free. GMFC’s planning committee offers suggestions with regards to the plant’s size, location, staffing, wages and benefits, and other employee relations issues in order to defend the company against the negative effects of unionization and increase...
David Brody argues that the rise of contractual or collective bargaining relationships during the post WWII era formalized the relationship between employers and unions, but simultaneously began to put a break on shop floor activism. Explain Brody’s argument and, where relevant, incorporate Weber’s theory of bureaucracy.
Deery, S. , Plowman, D. and Walsh, J. (2000), Industrial Relations, A Contemporary Analysis, McGraw Hill, Roseville.
Factories were known for their ill treatment of their employees, long hours and dirty and unsafe conditions. In 1866, unions started to form to improve working conditions for the workers. A fundamental problem faced by democratic societies is as long as people live their lives individually and go their separate ways and be selfish individuals, they are unlikely to meet collectively to resolve issues. There needs to be meaningful unity among people to alleviate this problem to get people obliged to one another, so there is a willingness to sacrifice for shared goals. Bonding of its citizens creates a democracy. Unions seemed to offer the middle class a chance to become a crucial part of fostering institutions of constitutional democracy. The unions have went through several transitions, but have always worked for the working force. I will discuss the history of the various unions, their wins and losses, and the struggle of the employee to achieve democracy in the workplace.
Despite attempting to predict the eventual outcome of the negotiation, I did not anticipate the confrontations between Local H-56 and the management of Hotel Zinnia. Although they initially agreed to engage in integrative bargaining, the union and management subsequently entered an intense negotiation. When Local H-56 presented its proposal of wage increases and health insurance, management immediately responded with a counterproposal that surprised the union. Both the union and management eventually behaved confrontationally, accusing each other of bargaining unreasonably and focusing on the trivial aspects of the negotiation. Moreover, as the union and management felt increasingly frustrated, they suffered from a lack of unity in their teams. The union could not fulfill its objectives because its lead negotiator prevented other team members from contributing to the negotiation. On the other hand, several team members of management struggled to assert their authority as the lead negotiator. After observing these issues, I ultimately believe that the union and management failed to achieve their individual objectives. Moreover, by approaching the negotiation with a zero-sum strategy, I assert that the union and management failed to reach a mutually beneficial contract. At the same time, both sides of the bargaining table lacked cohesive teams and therefore struggled under the pressure of the negotiation.
NZ’s industrial relations developed by protection of the employment relationship through acts passed by government, particularly the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act (IC&A). This is fundamental to NZ’s employment relations and set the right for trade unions to arrange and negotiate collectively with employers, as well as producing awards, wage rates and handling disputes (Bryson, 2011c).
When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister the first thing she wanted to do was limit union power. She felt that union power applied to nationalized industrial monopolies resulted in poor service at exorbitant cost to the taxpayers. She pointed to inefficient work practices, overemployment and restrictive employment conditions such as the all union “closed shop”. These rules were dictated by union contracts and served to tie the hands of managers and the government alike. Mrs. Thatcher’s greatest grievance concerned the powers union leaders had over strikes ( Moskin 100).
Willman, P. (2004) 'Structuring Unions: The Administrative Rationality of Collective Action' in Kelly, J .and Willman, P. (eds.) Union Organisation and Activity, pp. 73-89 London: Routledge.
A collective bargaining agreement collectively sets the terms on which an employer offers individual work contracts to each of its employees in the bargaining unit. A bargaining agreement, also herein referred to as a labour agreement, is a legally enforceable written commitment, which states the rights and duties of all parties involved. The labour agreement should be made in good faith and is intended to be observed and not violated. The National Labour Relations Act obligates employers and unions to bargain in good faith concerning terms and conditions of employment, including hours and wages. Like any normal contract, competent parties must enter into a labour agreement. However, a labour agreement is unique from other legal contracts in that there is no consideration involved and nothing tangible is exchanged. Many, but not all, unions require formal ratification of a new labour contract by a majority membership acceptance, which is determined through vote by the members. Until majority approval of those voting in a ratification election is received, the proposed labour contract is not final. While each labour agreement is unique to the needs of an organization and its employees, most agreements include five issues: (1) Management Rights, (2) Union Security, (3) Wages and Benefits, (4) Individual Security (Seniority) Rights, and (5) Dispute Resolution. Management Rights “Management” is the process of working with people and resources to accomplish organizational goals by making the best possible use of money, time, materials and people. The management process, when properly executed, involves a wide variety of activities including planning, organizing, directing and controlling. It is management’s role to perform all of these functions in order to maximize results.
Colvin, A. S. (2013). Participation versus procedures in non-union dispute resolution. Industrial Relations, 52(S1), 259-283.
Traditional literature in the field of labor relations has focused immensely on its benefit towards the employer and in the process equating it to working rules. This has been so despite the field being expected to cover the process of, labor management, union formation, and collective bargain; all which are anticipated to create a positive employer-employee relationship. This relationship is said to be positive if there exist a balance between employment functions and the rights of the laborer. Also important to note, is that this relation is equally important to the public sector as it is to the private one. Therefore, to ensure a mutually conducive labor environment exists, effective labor management process and inclusive negotiation program should be adopted (Mulve 2006; Walton, 2008).
Industrial Relations is a multidisciplinary field dealing with the study of employment relationship in union and non-union organizations. There have been various theories of industrial relations in place, but the first and most influential theory was put forward by John Thomas Dunlop. Dunlop, as a labor economist, remodelled the work of sociologists and developed a framework of industrial relations system. He developed the System’s Theory which stressed on the interrelationship of institutions and behaviors that enables one to understand and explain industrial relation rules.
There are many different approaches and theories regarding industrial relations nowadays. In order to mount an opinion on which is the ‘best’ or most appropriate theory of industrial relations, each theory will have to be analyzed. The three most prevalent theories of industrial relations which exist are The Unitarist theory, The Pluralist theory and The Marxist theory. Each offers a particular perception of workplace relations and will therefore interpret such events as workplace conflict, the role of trade unions and job regulation very differently. I will examine each of these theories in turn and then formulate my own opinion regarding which is the ‘best’ or most appropriate theory.
The Marxist approach looks at industrial relations from a societal perspective. It views industrial relations as a small-scale version of a capitalist society. This approach surrounds itself with the assumption that industrial relations under capitalism are unavoidable, and thus would be a source of conflict. According to Marxist, industrial conflict is central to industrial relations, however actual altercations are uncommon. The approach also sees this as a form ...