Campaign of Underground Workers - Research Paper Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Industrial relation refers to ‘the study of all forms of employment relationship’ whereby employment refers to ‘all forms of economic activity in which employee works under authority of employer and receives a wage in return’ (Gospel & Palmer 1993: 4). According to this definition therefore, some forms of work are not covered in the industrial relations such as domestic work, self-employment and professionals who work on their own account. The employment relationship involves the employer and the employee but the trade union representatives may act as intermediaries in the relationship. According to Kaufman (2004), industrial relations have three faces which include science building, problem solving and the ethical face. Science building involves understanding the employment relationship and its institutions. Problem solving entails designing policies to and institutions so as to enhance the relationship while ethical face is concerned with the principles of employment relationship. In any relationship, there are bound to be conflicts hence in the employment relationship, conflicts are inevitable and it is the role of management to devise ways of ensuring they are dealt with in an appropriate manner to avoid consequences such as strikes and lock-outs. There are three management perspectives regarding conflicts in organizations. The unitarist perspective views conflict as irrational and illegitimate hence does not recognize the role of unions. The pluralist perspective recognizes the existence of different interests among stakeholders hence conflict is inevitable. The radicalist perspective, on the other hand, is f the view that conflict in organizations is as a result of inequalities in income and wealth distribution hence recognizes different forms of eliminating or reducing conflict (Kaufman, 2004). The system of management thus determines the king of employment relationship in the workplace; some organizations are unionisable while others prefer a direct relationship with employees as it is a management prerogative. Poor industrial relations can lead to industrial action in the form of strikes, lock-outs, walkouts among others and may hinder organization efficiency and productivity. The paper will discuss the effect of strike action on employment relationship with reference to London underground workers campaigns during the 1990s. To understand industrial relations in Britain and the effects of strike actions on employment relationship, it is important to understand the historical evolution of industrial relations in Britain. Edward (2003a) acknowledges that industrial relations in Britain began as early as 1920s followed by personnel management practices and later human resource management in 1980s. The IR thus has undergone various transformations shaped by social, political and economic factors. British IR was voluntarism in nature guided by free-market principles; an organization can decide to unionize staff though collective organizations and uniting in strike action was regarded as a restraint to the free market therefore, those found guilty of conspiracy were liable to fines, imprisonment, and deportation (Hyman, 2003). Contrary to practices in other countries, in Britain there was no right to strike or to organize in an attempt to make demands to the management, only immunities were available in some areas. The immunities were also contradictory in nature as they gave employees power which in reality was limited by equal entitlements to the employer. For example, employees were free to join unions but the management was also free to dismiss anyone for joining the union. Collective bargaining was allowed but the management had the discretion to decide which issues to negotiate and which ones to refuse. The employees were also in breach of their employment contracts if they engaged in strike action but at the same time, it was lawful to call a strike. The employers were also reluctant and unwilling to indulge in collective bargaining with union representatives on issues affecting employees and on work organization (Edward 2003a). The voluntarism form of industrial relations was eliminated in 1979 by the conservative government. Legislations were passed to eliminate some immunities and the scope of individual protections was further limited (Hyman, 2003). The management viewed unions as adversarial due to their militancy and when new management methods emerged in form of human resource management practices, organizations got the chance to get rid of trade unions in the name of building high-involvement, high-commitment organizations although unions role is still relevant today and prevalent in many organizations. Most of collective organization is promoted by the EU initiatives that encourage consultation and formation of worker associations to enhance conditions of work and standards of living of employees through the social charter. According to Bratton and Gold (2000), industrial relations in Britain are pluralist in nature. This means that conflict is viewed as inevitable and disputes should be settled harmoniously and peacefully through intermediaries such as trade unions. The parties in employment relationship are seen as having different interests, aims and aspirations and therefore conflicts are rational arising out of roles. Collective bargaining between management and the union is thus used as a way of settling the various issues that arise without coercion from management. The role of the manager in this case is to recognize conflict and solve it through consultation. This was the stance taken by the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) to solve the dispute arising out of management efforts to introduce a company plan in 1990s that would get rid of established perks and change industrial relations framework of London underground (Workmates, 2011). However, the management did not heed to their request and went ahead to introduce the plan. In light of this development, the question that begs an answer is what is the role of management and workers in industrial relations? The management has a vital role to play in ensuring smooth industrial relations. It should treat employees with respect and dignity and give them a voice on issues that affect them (Bratton & Gold, 2000). For example, when designing a new company plan, the management should have let workers give their views especially because the plan affected their pay which is a very sensitive issue. This would give them a sense of being valued hence achieves their commitment and dedication to work and avoid resistance since their input has been utilized. The management also has a role to ensure a good working environment and enhance workers’ skills through training and development. Edward (2007) argues that employer should take into account the outcome of training so as to improve business operations and save management from itself. Due to desire to cut costs, London underground was not keen on developing the workforce hence had trained only a few workers on safety and this weakness led to the success of the pissing strike. Another role of management is to ensure smooth flow of information by installing communication mechanisms. This will enable workers to be aware of what is happening in the organization and to air their grievances. Delegating responsibility and authority to employees will create mutual trust between employer and employee thus enhancing smooth employment relations. The management must also be a good listener to workers problems and mind about their welfare to avoid conflict that can lead to mass action. The role of the workers in employment relationship is to perform their tasks effectively and contribute to organization effectiveness. If the employees expect a fairness and justice, they should ensure quality services and perform work commensurate with their wages and this is the reason why most organizations have adopted the system of linking pay to performance (Edward, 2007). The workers should also ensure smooth employment relations by airing their views instead of exiting the organization or carrying out strikes, go-slows or walk-outs. It is also their business to ensure they get necessary information regarding the business and be conversant with business operations. This will enable them to understand any changes in the environment that may affect them and cooperate with management in ensuring smooth transition. Lambart (2010) acknowledges the fact that the reason why unemployment rate during the 1990s recession did not rise is because the employees cooperated with management in finding alternative solutions such as less work hours or wage cuts thus making sacrifices for future benefits. Poor industrial relations may end up in strike action just like the various strikes by the London underground workers. The first grievance was due to management introduction of a company plan aimed at reducing established perks. Despite much resistance from workers through their union representatives, the management never took their views into account hence went ahead to introduce the plan. This is because of the weakening of union voice in British companies as a result of lack of a legal framework to support collective bargaining (Hyman, 2003). Though dissatisfied, the workers continued with work but with mistrust towards the employer and the union. Due to globalization and increased competition, most organizations have resulted in reduction of labour costs by downsizing, rightsizing and outsourcing. The public sector has not been left behind and so the London underground initiatives to privatize and outsource workers. The workers had lost faith in union negotiations with management and therefore pressured the union to call for a strike which was supported by the contractors and crossing of picket line by some permanent staff. The strike had much effect on the employment relationship and the roles of management and workers. The workers realized they needed supported of non-union members and therefore incorporated them in an informal organization of workmates. Instead of relying on the union only to represent their views to management, the workers found another forum of airing their views through mass meetings with colleagues. The meetings were secret and hence communication was cut between workers and management; they treated each other with suspicion to an extent that the management started spying on employees. The workers also realized they could utilize the legal framework to achieve their ends. For example, the utilization of union representatives to intermediate between them and management but with views collected from illegal meetings. Instead of being committed to organization success, they attended mass meetings during working hours and formed an illegitimate works council (Workmates, 2011). Another transformation by the workers is the use of direct action without utilising union officials and without adhering to laws. This happened during the piss strike to address end of job-and-knock system. The management was planning to introduce this system without consulting employees and employees felt the system was not warranted. They therefore arranged unofficial work to rule so in this case, they would get their full salary and no risk of being sacked as they were officially on duty but not working. The direct action was very effective compared to negotiations between union and management. There was also movement from collective to individualist form of employee voice; union members used the union representatives to settle individual grievances only (workmates, 2011). Social institutions are not fixed things but depend on living human beings whose activity makes them up. The underground workers strike dealt a big blow to many social institutions. The union is one such social institution which is guided by a legal framework to guide employment relationship. However, without employees to represent, the union is of no value as an institution; the piss strike which was successful sidelined the union and the delegate council and from then on both institutions lost relevance as an employee voice in favour of direct action. Furthermore, the workers no longer cared about the existence of the institution of unionised workers. Both union and non-union employees worked together for the common good. According to workmate (2011), due to decline in membership, the unions started merging so as to be strong thus taking away union activity away from workplace. New forms of employee voice have emerged such as team work, focus groups and partnership relationships between various parties hence creating a positive environment for high-performance organization (Edwards 2003b). The strike also revealed social relations hidden in alienated society. It revealed that class conflict is permanent since the boss always says and the workers obey. Despite their various struggles, the management ended up enforcing their will such as outsourcing and casualisation and also implementation of company plan. The strike also revealed that direct action and use of whole workforce against the boss is an effective way to make the boss bulge. Pollert (2007) argues that the British law give employee rights but only in writing as in reality, there are no mechanisms to ensure rights are exercised. For example, the employees have a right to be informed and consulted on matters that affect them but that is rarely implemented. The management introduced various measures such as the company plan without consultation. Another aspect revealed by the strike is the nature of working relationship in modern organizations. Most of them outsource or contract workers and thereafter it becomes very difficult for these workers to know their employers and are denied the freedom to unionise, job security, low pay, no sick pay, and have no voice so according to Edward (2007), the language of empowerment has little use in reality. Though the law states the minimum wage, these contract workers may not achieve it and have no way to air their grievances. The organizations also focus on basic compliance rather than how they can benefit from employee voice or legal requirements. For example, if the management consulted employees and got their views concerning privatization, it could have avoided the mass actions. For workplace justice to be achieved Budd (2004) indicates that employment relations need to balance of efficiency, equity and voice. Conclusion Industrial relation is the study of employment relationship in a workplace. It establishes industrial democracy in the workplace, discourages unfair labour practices and ensures increased organizational efficiency. In any form of relationship there are bound to be conflicts and the role of managers depends on the perspective adopted; whether unitarist, pluralist or radical. For unitarists, the workplace is integrated and harmonious hence conflict is irrational. For pluralists, people have different interests hence conflict is inevitable while for the radicals, conflict is due to inequalities in income and wealth. The conflicts if not properly handled leads to strike action thereby shaping the employment relationship. The strike action results in alteration of social institutions, transformations of roles, and the emergence of new methods of operation such as use of direct action by the London underground workers. References Budd, J. 2004. Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice. Cornell University Press. Bratton, J., Gold, J. 2000. Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. 2 edn. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Edwards, P. 2003a. ‘Concluding Comments’ in Paul, E. (ed). Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. 2 edn. UK: Blackwell. Edwards, P. 2003b. ‘The Future of Industrial Relations’, in Ackers and Wilkinson (eds) Understanding Work and Employment Edwards, P. 2007. ‘Justice in the Workplace: why it is important and why a new public policy initiative is needed’. Work Foundation Provocation Series, Vol. 2(3) Gospel, H., Palmer, G. 1993. British Industrial Relations. 2 edn. London: Routledge. Hyman, R. 2003. ‘Historical Evolution of British Industrial Relations’. In: Paul, E. (ed). Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. 2 edn. UK: Blackwell. Kaufman, B. 2004. The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas and the IIRA. Geneva: ILO. Lambert, R 2010. ‘The Labour Market and Employment Relations Beyond the Recession’ Warwick papers in Industrial Relations, No. 93, Warwick Pollert, A. 2007. ‘Britain and Individual Employment Rights: Paper Tigers, Fierce in Appearance but Missing in Tooth and Claw’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 28(1) Workmates. 2011. “Direct Action Workplace Organizing on the London Underground’. Solidarity Foundation. Read More