The Management of Industrial Relations

The Management of Industrial dealingHow Has The Management Of Industrial Relations In Britain Changed In The Last Three Decades? What Does This Tell Us About The mortal Roles And Influence Of Employers, Management, Trade Unions And The State In Industrial Relations?This paper crusades to examine the changes which nurse taken place during the mid-eighties, the nineties and the extremity 2000-2010 within the theme of industrial dealing. According to Edwards (20039)The employment relationship is by definition a relationship between an employee and an employer this remove relationship may be mediated by the twain other key institutions to IR, the pile sexual union and the state.Therefore this essay will also seek to explore the respective strategies, mappings and powers of these actors.The paper has two sections the world-class one represents the 1980s and the 1990s whereas the second one represents the period from 1997 into the last decade. In the startle section the e ssay starts by describing the interventionist role that the Conservative disposal of Margaret Thatcher take aftered when it came in power in 1979. The legislations passed by the authorities constitute the reason of the assumement of very confrontational industrial relations throughout the two decades as they caused an imbalance of power in favour of the concern and against trade unions. After seeing the legislative initiatives launched by the government the paper will attempt to describe the advantageous position of managers and employers who managed to re-exert managerial prerogative and to impose harsh managerial strategies. With the power al musical modes on their side managers imposed their own rules in the employee relations and showed a preference for individuality (employee/ anxiety relationship) rather than fabianism (union/management relationship) as they saw benefits such as greater flexibility and greater control over employees. Managers in the UK also start placin g wariness to HRM policies in the 1980s and seek to implement them in an thrust to achieve business goals. hardly evidence suggests that they failed to implement appropriate Human imaging Management strategies. After that this paper will examine the declivity in union rank and file, in unions ideology and therefore the decline of their over each(prenominal) power.In the second section of the essay we will study the period during which the New Labour was in power. In its effort to put an end to the special relationship it had with the trade unions in the past and to promote neo-liberalism the New Labour kept nigh of the legislation of the previous government merely also established its own. Its main goal was to promote body of oeuvre cancelnership which meant that all actors employers, employees, trade unions and government would work in collaboration to adjudge mutual benefits. The strategies implemented by the government in hostel to promote oeuvre partnership, on the one hand helped in fostering employee social function and communication within the workplace and on the other hand helped unions to reassert some of their lost power.During the period 1979 and 1997 the government cl too soon allied itself with the side of managers and employers in an effort to protect capitalism (Salamon 200092). Later on we will see that the alliance between employers and government against trade unions and the unequal distribution of power meant the ascendant of an adversarial employment relationship and industrial relations.Committed to its liberalist/laissez-faire ideologies the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher which came in office sought to achieve one goal to aid management to reassert its authority and power by constraining the power of trade unions. By adopting a very interventionist role the government proceeded with the launching of eight legislations within thirteen years and targeted at curbing unions ability to organise, their ability to pursue industrial action and particularly strikes and it interfered with their internal affairs (Salamon 2000103).Salamon (200065) itemises a number of laws passed by the government during the period 1989-1997 and which account for the decline of the power of trade unions The Thatcher Conservative government abolished the closed shop and removed the statutory recognition procedure. It prohibited lowly industrial action. Trades unions were required to suffrage union components and proceed to industrial action only with the consent of the majority. The government legally enforced the trade unions to use the ballot process for their national elections. Although the costs of conducting ballots were initially subsidised by the government, the Trade Union and Employment Right Act of 1993 put an end to the provision of capital but the procedure was still legally required (Salamon 2000152). Further more than they were considered responsible for unlawful actions authorised by unions off icers, committees or shop stewards unless they denounced them. Unions were deprived of their right to avenge members who opted not to partake in industrial action even if it was legal. In addition to all these, it was easier for employers to fire employees who took part in strikes. In addition to the legislative restrictions that the government imposed on trade unions it also proceeded with the abolishment of tripartite institutions on which the trade unions were stand for such as the MSC and the NEDO (Salamon 200065).During the 1980s and 1990s managers saw the balance of power shifting towards their side. This was re affordable as we have seen to national legislation suppressing trade unions. Salamon (2000 248) argues that this reaffirmation of power as well as the economic climate with the economic recession, the high rates of unemployment and the competition taking place at the international level prompted managers to adopt a managerial bolt foretelled macho management. Purc ell (1982) cited in Salamon (2000248) explained macho management as the style of tough managers who neglected and scorned trade unions and whose ultimate interest was to manage and establish order. They were characterised by a great un spontaneousness to change their policies, to negotiate and to make concessions and they preferred dealing directly with employees rather than through unions.This desire to deal with employees on a individual basis also accounts for the a shift from collectivism to individualism. In other words managers used to have to deal with employee issues through their intermediaries that is to say bodies that represented them, such as trade union whereas now they have to confront employees directly (Salamon 200066) . Salamon (200082) also explains that the new strategies initiated by the management during the period meant that employees were now booked through individual contracts and whose terms and conditions were different than the rest of their colleagues a nd that their reward was dependent on their individual performance. Salamon (200066) explains that managers embraced individual employment relationships rather than collective ones as they were more flexible.This flexibility and this wildness on individualism was also explained by managers attempt to introduce Human Resource policies which made their apparition in the UK in the early 1980s and promised managers what they sought musical arrangemental effectiveness and increased performance (Salamon 2000234) by eliciting employee commitment. According to Salamon (2000235-236), these strategies were also ways of enhancing managerial authority because employees were directly now accountable to managers, managers were more able to obtain control and now had the freedom to design strategies that would limit empowerment conceded to employees, and set some boundaries to the terms and conditions of the employment contract. Generally from now on they had more freedom in the decision-making while at the same time employees were committed to them.Once more Salamon (2000239) explores the possibility that managers took advantage of HR practices in order to manipu new-made employees and claims that in reality managers only desire is to be able to do their work with the slightest possible confrontation from employees. Kessler and Purcell (2003) claim that there is little evidence, from the WIRS data, demonstrating that organisations were willing or had the potential to use HRM strategies. Instead during the period most managers opted for Bleak House strategies. They also claim that managers mostly resorted to opportunistic and cost minimisation strategies. On the same tone, Blyton and Turnbull (2004129) explain that the economic down bend during the 1980s and 1990s, the acute international competition, the low skills equilibrium in which the UK was entrapped and the feelings of job insecurity made it impossible for employees and employers to develop the trust needed for the implementation of HR practices and therefore the management relied on opportunistic and pragmatic strategies.The issue of employee voice and most particularly employee representation raise great attention by the government and the management when the European Court of Justice held in 1994 that the legislative initiatives of the government run counter to the EU directives and that the UK had end up not respecting employee collective consultation rights. The Conservative government was enforced to amend its regulation which had come to mean that managers should either recognise unions at their workplace or/and set up other forms of collective representative bodies elected by the employees. This prompted some organisations too set up work or connection councils. The creation of these councils raises three issues. First of all, they might be a threat to employee rights because managers might use them to by-pass trade unions. Secondly, they are not legally recognized so they have no r ights and thirdly, employee representatives in these councils have not the training or experience of trade union officials and might therefore not elicit the attention and the respect of the management (Salamon 2000188). As an example Salamon (2000189) presents the depicted object study of Bristol West, a non-unionised company which in 1994 introduced the partners councils which were employee representative bodies which allowed employees to express their opinion on the firms Human Resource issues. Although the councils were reserved only for employee representatives the company tried to ensure that there was a professional or manager with them.However, according to Ackers and Payne (1998) cited in Salamon (2000260), it turned out that the reassertion of managerial authority , the HRM strategies introduced aiming at promoting individualism and employee voice and companionship and the decline of powers of trade unions did not give to managers what they sought order, cohesion and em ployee commitment. That is why they turned to the workplace partnership approach in pursuit of these goals.The governments hostile position towards the trade unions as well as the harmful measures it took against trade unions had as subsequent replication the decline of union membership. This is illustrated by the figures presented by Salamon (200067) according to which during the period 1879-1998 union membership dropped by 5,5 million and by the figures provided by Blyton and Turnbull (2004 139) which demonstrate that during 1979 and 1997 the number of trade union members fell by over 41 per cent. Nevertheless Salamon (2000109, 111) also reckons that union membership experienced a striking decline in membership in the 1980s and 1990s because of the changes that took place in industrial and employment structures. The economic conditions of the time pith low inflation and high levels of unemployment kept workers out from joining unions. Unions used to recruit as members full-time male manual workers who worked in large manufacturing firms as well as the public arena. The shift for the manufacturing sector to the service sector, the reduction in the size of firms, the rising female and part-time employment had meant that the trade unions not only lost members but they also had to turn to other types of industries and organisations, in order to seek members, which had not been easy because these organisations had no tradition in union organisation. Diamond and Freedman (2001) cited in Blyton and Turnbull (2004 143) mention that many a(prenominal) unemployed union members had no inducement in maintaining their membership because trade unions were not concerned by people who were on welfare while Cully et al. (1999 212-213) cited in Blyton and Turnbull (2004143) argue that other employees contested the unions ability to offer benefits and that is illustrated by the WERS98 data according to which only a 46 per cent of union members believed that trade unions genuinely provided them with benefits.The trade unions collective consciousness was also negatively affected by the governments legislative measures aiming to (Salamon 2000152)promote responsible unionism, return the union to its members and protect the individual member against union tyranny.Through the Employment Act of 1988 union members obtained individual rights to inspect the unions financial data to ensure that funds were not spent on punishable actions, to resort to the help of court in case the union would be pursuing unlawful industrial action affecting the member, to be protected from be punished by the trade unions whenever they refused to partake in industrial action even if it was lawful. Salamon (2000153) argues that now the individual member had the right to refuse to accept and to call into questions decisions of the unions even if they were taken democratically. The individual member could go against the unions. Salamon (2000124) also argues that the ideologies o n which trade unionism relies with the most valuable one its collective solidarity had also declined collectible to the fact that trade unions started offering modern services to employees individually.The decline in union membership and collective solidarity that have been already discussed overwhelmingly account for the wearing of power of trade unions. Nevertheless other factors have also contributed. Trade unions found themselves not only confronted to managers and employers who have always been reluctant to cooperate but they also had to face the governments hostility (Salamon 2000111). Moreover the trade unions were further alienated due to the shift from the concept of collectivism endorsed by trade unions to the concept of individualism embraced by the managers who introduced HRM practices such as direct manager/employee consultation and information or performance-related pay.Salamon (2000118) discusses the loss of the power of conducting collective bargaining by trade un ions due to three main reasons. First their collective bargaining power was curbed by the legislation launched by the Conservative government. Secondly there was the decentralisation of collective bargaining, meaning that the terms and conditions obtained in collective bargaining were no longer applicable across an industry. Furthermore the managers tended to prefer deciding the terms and conditions of employees based on an individual basis as well as to opt for a system of remuneration based on the individuals performance or ability. Millward et al. (2000197) cited in Blyton and Turnbull (2004150) claim that during the period 1984-1998 the proportion of employees covered by collective bargaining dropped from 70 per cent to 40 per cent.During the 1980s and the 1990s trade unions were on the defensive. They tried to survive during the 1980s and early 1990s because of the unfavourable economic, political and organisational conditions. In other words they had no choice but to make conc essions in order to be construct more attractive to managers. These concessions included the establishment of single-union agreements with no strike activity and employee councils (Salamon 2000130).In 1997 The New Labour came in power with the intention to promote its neo-liberalism strategies. In the past the Labour party had close links with the trade unions with the most significant one their financial contributions to the party (Salamon 2000122). However when it took over in 1997 it assay to distance itself from the trade unions and in its intention to do so, it maintained most of the legislative initiatives of the predecessor government. Nevertheless it launched two laws in support of the trade unions. The first of them was the National Minimum Wage Act of 1998 which allowed for the introduction of a national minimum wage (Salamon 200068). The second one was the Employment Relations Act in 1999 which allowed for the establishment of a statutory procedure permitting union reco gnition, provided that an employer could not refuse to employ, punish, fire or discriminate against an employee who is or intends to join a trade union or has taken or intends to participated in industrial action. The legislation provided for time off from work for trade union officials of independent recognised trade unions without pay loss in order for them to respond to their responsibilities within the union and also allowed for union members to be accompanied by trade union officials during grievance and disciplinal procedures (Salamon 2000 197). The labour government also signed the social protocol of the treaty of Maastricht and as a result the European scarpering Time directive as well as the European Works Council directive became part of the UK law (Hyman 200354). In addition, the government passed legislation regarding part time employment and parental leave.From the late 1990s towards the beginning of the 2000-2010 period the UK workplace experienced the emergence of t he notion of partnership a notion that alludes to the idea that the state, employers, employees and trade unions can collaborate in order to achieve common targets and benefits (Salamon 200021). The emergence of the workplace partnership approach was allowed when the New Labour came in power. This approached seemed to be desired by the main actors pertain in industrial relations who saw it as the solution to their concerns. The government was determined to eradicate the conflicts in the UK workplace, trade unions saw it as a way of striking an alliance with the management and the government in the pursuit of common benefits and the management saw is as way of achieving order and cohesion at the organisation level as they wished (Salamon 2000260). Salamon (2000263) highlights two attributes of the partnership approach which are the commitment for actors to cooperate in order to enhance organisational effectiveness and performance and the recognition that employers and employees have different interests and that is why they should use employee voice and communication mechanisms in order to foster their relationship.Blyton and Turnbull (2004 253) mentions that during the last years the Labour governments wish to promote the aforementioned partnerhip and the European social policies and Britains effort to put in place the EC Information and Consultations Directive have resulted to an acute interest in various forms of employee involvement and participation. obscure from the improvements that took place during the previous two decades in the matter employee voice and employee representation with the set up of work councils (Salamon 2000188) , the new governments decision to accept the European Work Council Directive has strengthened even more employee voice but most particularly the adoption by the management of direct forms of participation. Kersley et al (2006139) searched for evidence of direct forms of communication such as face to face meetings, written two- way communication and downward communication and found out that 63 per cent of all workplaces offered face- to- face meetings as well the opportunity for feedback, and that this figure covered 67 per cent of all employees. They also argued that the WERS2004 data demonstrated that there was a decline in union representation and an increase in direct forms of communication. Although union membership and union recognition had fallen between 1998 and 2004 this decline was much small than during the 1980s and 1990s. Between 1998 and 2004 methods of employee representation dropped from three-fifths to approximately one half. On the contrary direct forms of communication were more common and sometimes they had increased (Kersley at al. 2006143)This emphasis on employee involvement and participation is illustrated by the case study provided by Marchington and Wilkinson (2008 407) who mention the example of Midbank a firm which won a Saturday Times allow for implementing high commitment Hu man Resource policies and facilitating Employee Involvement and direct and indirect methods of Participation. More precisely, some of the forms of information dissemination as well as employee participation they adopted were the presence of a single union, consultation forums and company newspaper to which employees could contribute. Within the context of partnership Johnstone et al (2007) cited in Marchington and Wilkinson (2008417) give us the case study of NatBank which signed a partnership agreement in 2000 with the recognised union (Unifi) in their effort to ameliorate the union-management relationship , to contribute to organisational effectiveness and performance, to work for the interest of employees, shareholders and customers and to commit to the implementation of best practice HRM. The partnership has so far proved to be a success with some of the advantages being a better decision making, and improved employment relations thanks to better communication.From 1997 trade un ions were given the opportunity to reassert part of their lost power and twist due to the favourable legislation launched by the New Labour. Trade unions were now able to abandon their defensive position of the 1980s and 1990s and to adopt one more proactive position. Salamon (200021) argues that trade unions considered partnership at work as a way of developing a more positive and proactive relationship with managers and play the part in order for the idea of social partnership to successfully work. This would simultaneously allow them to defend their members interests and to contribute on their part to the workplace and society (Salamon 200021). Munro and Rainbird (2004) present the example of the UNISON/employer partnership, a partnership concerning workplace learning and explain that the partnership does not only catch benefits for union members but it also generates benefits to employers who provide cost-effective and high quality development to employees through this partne rship. The government also seems to be placing great emphasis on this partnership as it has passed legislation (Employment Act of 2002) allowing to Union Learning Representatives to take paid time off in order to carry out their duties and most significantly it has set up the Union Learning Fund. Moreover in 2007 the government conceded the management of the fund to Unionlearn within the TUC acknowledging in this respect the important role of unions in governmental strategies.(Hoque and Bacon 2008).This essay has endeavoured to examine the changes in the roles and in the exertion of power of the actors involved in industrial relations, and most particularly the roles of the government, of the trade unions, of the management and of employers, during the 1980s, the 1990s and the period 2000-2010. It has demonstrated that during the 1980s and the 1990s the legislative agenda of the Conservative government led in very confrontational and adversarial industrial relations as it increased the gap between employers power and trade unions power. Macho management, shift from collectivism to individualism and the attempt of the introduction of HRM practices are the most important processes of the period. In 1997 the New Labour which was elected in power committed itself to implementing the European social model, by promoting fairness and social justice in UK industrial relations as well as harmonisation by promoting the model of workplace partnership.ReferencesBlyton, P. and Turnball, P. (2004). The Dynamics of Employee Relations. 3rd edit., Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.Edwards, P. (2003)(ed.). Industrial Relations Theory Practice in Britain. 2nd edit., OxfordBlackwell.Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2008). Trade Unions, Union Learning Representatives and Employer-Provided Training in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(4), 702-731.Hyman, R. (2003). The Historical Evolution of British Industrial Relations in Edwards, P. (2003)(ed.). Industrial Relations Theo ry Practice in Britain. 2nd edit., OxfordBlackwell.Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Gix, G. and Oxenbridge, S. (2006). Inside the Workplace Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS 2004). London Routledge.Kessler, B., and Purcell, J. (2003). Individualism and collectivism in industrial relations in Edwards, P. (2003)(ed.). Industrial Relations Theory Practice in Britain. 2nd edit., OxfordBlackwell.Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2008). Human Resource Management at Work. quaternary edit., CIPDMunro, A. and Rainbird, H. (2004). Opening doors as well as banging on tables an assessment of UNISON/employer partnership on learning in the UK public sector. Industrial Relations Journal, 35(5), 419-433.Salamon, M. (2000). Industrial Relations, 4th edit., London FT Prentice Hall.