Evolution of Employee Relations in Britain - Book Report/Review Example

Evolution of Employee Relations in Britain and its Social and European Connotations Today Introduction This paper examines the process of employee relations in Britain. It will examine how employee relations has evolved in the UK from the post-World War II era to the present dispensation. The paper will also examine the position of European Union Law and Social Rules that regulate employee relations in the UK today. Question 1: What is are the changes and evolutions that Employee Relations has gone through in Britain since 1945 and what is the Current Status of Employee Relations? Answer: “Employee relations consists of all those areas of human resource management that involves relationship with employees – directly and/or through collective agreements where trade unions are recognized” (Armstrong, 2003: 745). This means that employee relations is a branch of human resource management and it has to do with the way employees interact with their employers and other major stakeholders. Traditionally, employee relations is viewed as employee voice. In other words it focuses on the ways and means through which employees interact and communicate in the work place. Employee relations focuses on how employees interact both up and down in an organisation. Mathis and Jackson identifies three main components of employee relations (2008). The are employee rights, human resource policies and discipline. Employee rights is about what an employee is empowered to do and can do. Human resource policies include rules and regulations that are mutually agreed by employee and employer. Discipline has to do with the scope of actions that the employer can take against the employee. These three things define the scope within which employers can interact with employee. These three things work in the context of larger laws that are made by the government as a whole. This brings the government into the whole picture and gives it the role of regulator and controller of affairs in employee relations. In the UK, the relationship between the governments, employees and employers has changed significantly over the past 60 years. Due to this, employee relations has also changed significantly over the past years. Employee relations has evolved from a system of industrial actions, championed by trade unionists to a period of privatisation and supply-side economics to today's cooperative and individualistic based employee relations. Post World War II: Industrial Relations In the period after the Second World War, employee relations was in the form of industrial relations. This was based on a series of collective actions that were taken in order to promote negotiations between employers and employees. “The universalistic and egalitarian pressures of post World War Two welfare states and the period of economic growth and full employment experienced throughout Western Europe during the 1950s and 60s, marked the foundation of employee relations in the UK” (Countouris, 2007: 28). This is because in the era after the War, the main focus of nations was to ensure that the welfare of its citizens were sought. Also, the idea of rebuilding the collapsed economy meant that employees had to work a little hard. In attaining this end, most relationships between employees and their employers could be done through collectivism. Employees were members of unions and these unions lobbied for the interest of employees. “One of the difficulties that Britain has endured since World War II is a propensity to 'boom and bust' in the context of economic cycle.” (Gennard and Judge, 2005: 77). Due to this, the UK government also had an obligation of ensuring that the collective needs of the unions were met. This is because the workers had the power to command electoral results and determine the outcome of who would stay in power and who would go out of office. Due to this, the government acted as a partner to ensure that negotiations between workers and their employers yielded results through union action. The attempt to satisfy employees was part of an attempt to control public spending and also ensure that the government balanced its payment systems. So politicians believed in full employment and also government intervention. So in short, Farnham states that “government economic policies [after 1945) and its legal policies on trade unions, the regulation of industrial conflict and employment protection rights have major implications for employee relations” (2000: 104). This means that employees relations was based on employee unions meeting their employers and the government in a mid-point in order to attain results. In cases where this was not attained, the employees could use their collective action to undergo strikes, boycotts and demonstrations until some consensus could be met. This period is widely known as the Keynesian era where economic traditions and Orthodoxy was reflected in employee relations (Farnham, 2000). The employment sector was run like the traditional civil service which was based on a high degree of employment security, permanent employees and unions played a major role through the tripartite negotiation web which involved employers, employees and government (Lindquist, 2000). This era was marked by industrial relations, strikes and venting outs (Einarsen et al, 2010). This was a period adversarial negotiations where disputes and other tensions existed in the economy. However, in the mid-1970s, employee relations took a different turn. Mid-70s: Thatcherism In the period between 1945 and the 1970s, the strikes and actions of unions were causing so much strain on the UK. The Thatcher administration was a major supporter of supply-side economics or monetarism which encouraged people to work to earn their keep (Farnham, 2000: 104). By the mid-1970s, these industrial disputes had come up with very bitter results. They turned out to be extremely adversarial in nature. This is because the unions always exerted their influence by calling for strikes whenever they failed to reach an agreement with employers. Due to this, a lot of UK businesses were shut down and the UK economy was eventually suffering from the lapses and the general loss in working hours. The climate for employee relations my the late 1970s were mainly adversarial. The Unions looked up to the employers with suspicion whilst the employers also looked at them with the same sentiment. Thus, the two parties began to work against each other and the UK government and the UK economy was going through a lot of difficulty. Another element of the tripartite system of negotiations was that the UK political parties had different attitudes towards this. The Labour government was not very much perturbed with the strikes and the problems. However, the effects of these industrial actions were visible and the British people could sense it. The Conservatives, who had long been against the use of industrial action promised a lot and eventually, Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979. Under Margaret Thatcher, a lot of things changed in the UK. There was massive restructuring and privatisation (Nielsen, 1996: 27). This obviously weakened the public sector because a lot of work activities that were carried out by the civil service and its related entities which were overwhelmingly unionised gradually lost its power. This is because most private owners wanted nothing less than optimal results. Due to that, they took action to work with employees who could adapt to an alternative method of negotiations and employee relations. The welfare system that existed after World War II came under serious scrutiny. This is because the plan to privatise opened the door for the need to pursue efficiency. And unions were seen to be against this quest for better results. Due to this, the government argued that there was a high degree of unemployment due to union action (Gladstone, 1992). This is because whilst the union was undertaking strikes and other industrial actions, businesses were losing money and they had no other choice but to cut down on their costs. Labour was one of the areas that was affected. Thus, a lot of people had lost their jobs by the time Margaret Thatcher took over. When she took over, Margaret Thatcher sought to weed out inefficiency and promote a system where people would be paid for what they injected into the economy (Gladstone, 1992). So with this situation, the Thatcher administration sought to create a system where unions would be eliminated and different approaches could be used to deal with adversarial union actions (Nielsen, 1996). The end that the proponents of Thatcherism sought to create in employee relations was to eliminate adversarial union action and replace it with a more responsible union movement. In doing this, Gladstone goes further to state that there were three attitudes that this action sought to create in employee relations in the 1970s. First of all, they sought to create a democratic system where unions could chose leaders who were willing to engage on the grounds of consensus and the attainment of optimal results. Secondly, they sought to get the unions to partake in decision making in organisations and not see themselves as independent or seeking an interest that was distinct from that of the organisation. In doing this, they sought to integrate the third component which involved dispute resolution in a non-adversarial manner. This meant that the negotiations were to be carried out without striking and other destructive trends that were affecting the economy and leading to the collapse of businesses. In effect, the Thatcher administration and the reforms of the conservatives promoted privatisation and the use of different methods of dealing with employee relations. This culminated in a spate of privatisation which broke the power of the union which thrived on a model that was supported by the civil service. The result was that negotiations between unions and employers were less adversarial and more constructive in nature. The unions were more sensitive to the needs of employers and this led to a more conducive atmosphere of employee relations. The New Way: Post-1997 Most of the reforms of the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher were maintained by the John Major administration. Thus, privatisation was maintained and the UK remained more of an efficiency-based nation. By 1997, a new system of employee relations had evolved. By then, it was pervasive that there was an abstentionist policy of unions from adversarial means of resolving trade conflicts (Farnham, 2000: 105). This means that they were hesitant to launch strikes mainly because their bargaining power had been reduced significantly due to the privatisation that had gone on in the 20 years preceding this era. Also, they were restrictionists, meaning they focused on limiting the cases of perceived or alleged exploitations meted out by employers (Farnham, 2000: 105). In effect, they could always come up with some kind of action that was targeted at bringing some degree of checks and balances on employers and not really initiators of independent action that could sabotage employers. There was more cooperation between employers and the unions in the UK after 1997. In lieu of serious labour disputes and disagreements, most businesses adopted a system of scientific management after 1997 (Leat, 2012: 44). So the jobs focused on attaining the best results from the resources available. Due to this, most employee relations models were aimed at linking the interests of individual employees to the interest of the organisation (Leat, 2012: 44). This means that the employees worked in an atmosphere where their interest, like the need for employee development and improvement of their prospects, was interconnected. Also, in the late 1990s, employees were more involved in decision making than ever. And the unions began to work to ensure that these things were guaranteed and employee interests were dealt with on an individual basis. In effect, by the late 1990s and towards the 21st Centuries, the role of the unions had changed significantly from how it existed fifty years earlier. The unions' power in Britain had changed over the years. This change was attributable to large scale privatisation and government labour policies that sought employees to be more cooperative with employers. So in the late 1990s, employees were working as partners with their employers, rather than members of a group that opposed their employers. In conclusion, employee relations has gone through a lot of changes over the past 50 years. It started in the Post-World War II era where there was the need to rebuild the nation as a welfare state. Secondly, the government needed to regulate affairs. This led to a tripartite negotiation structure involving employers, employees and the government. Employees were represented by trade unions which had collective bargaining power and could initiate industrial actions. As unions became more and more adversarial, the Thatcher administration came to power and promised to reduce the effects of these union actions. This led to the privatisation of UK public businesses and the promotion of dialogue. This changed employee relations from an industrial based system of collectivism to a more cooperative and individual-based system. By 1997, employee relations were more cooperative and businesses found ways of integrating employee needs into their business agenda. Question 2: What is the influence of Britain's Membership of the European Union on Employee Relations Britain joined the European Union in 1973. Britain's membership of the Union caused her to lose some aspects of her parliamentary sovereignty to the EU which is a supranational organization with powers that sometimes supersedes the power of the British parliament. European Union membership has caused Britain to make significant changes to its ways of doing things. The European Union has also had an impact on the further evolution of employee relations in Britain. The European Union sought to create a single economic unit and this led to the creation of laws that support the migration of workers from different parts of Europe (Hitt, 2011). Also, employee laws have changed and businesses have the obligation to observe the fundamental human rights of their employees (Gernard and Judge, 2005). Labour unions in the UK are now a more significant part of the European Trade Union Confederation. Due to this, British trade union groups affect and are affected by their colleagues in Europe. And they have important power and are a stronger bargaining force. Although further rules in the EU prevents them from becoming as adversarial as trade unions were in the 1950s, the EU allows these unions to be more influential in dealing with laws and regulations relating to employees. The inclusion of the European Union led to the protection of human rights and the expansion of the scope of the unions. However, unions are more influential in making laws than striking. Question 3 What are the specific Social Rules of European Union Membership and how does it affect Employee Relations in Britain? Also, the social chapter of the European Union's 1951 Treaty of Rome, amended by the Single European Act of 1987 and the Treaty of the Union 1993 affected the role and position of employee relations from two angles. This include significant changes to the legal environment and systems and changes in the way things are to be done in the workplace. The social charter had five main elements. First of all, employment is to be promoted through the European Union. This means that the EU seeks to promote and protect the rights of employees and also enhance cooperation with employers. This forms a general framework that supports employees and protects their right to interact with their employers and governments. Secondly, the Social Rules seek to improve living and working conditions in the UK. Employees have rights and the conditions within which they work and operate is to be improved throughout member states. This gives them the right to come up with channels of communication that will allow them to speak up when the ideal elements of these things are non-existent. Thirdly, the charter seeks to encourage dialogue between employers, governments and employees. This shows that there are direct rules and regulations that can be formulated through the union to get employees in nations like the UK to talk with their employers without tensions. Fourthly,. The Charter is committed to the development of human resources. This provides a grounds for employees and potential workers, to get support necessary to further their education and improve their worth. Finally, the Social Chapter seeks to combat of social exclusion. This provides a guaranteed status for employees of all backgrounds to be included in the workplace without prejudice or hate. References Armstrong, M. (2003) A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice London: Kogan Page Countouris, N. (2007) The Changing Law of Employment Relations Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H and Kopt, D. (2010) Bullying and Harrassment in the Workplace London: CRC Press. Farnham, D. (2000) Employee Relations in Context London: CIPD. Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (2005) Employee Relations London: CIPD. Gladstone, A. (1992) Labour Relations in a Changing Environment Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter Publishing. Hitt, D. (2011) European Union Law London: Sweet and Maxwell. Lindquist, E. A. (2000) government Restructuring & Career Public Service Toronto: Institute of Public Administration. Mathis, R. L and Jackson, J. A. (2008) Human Resource Management: Essential Perspectives Mason, OH: Cengage Nielsen, R. P. (1996) The Politics of Culture: Methods for Acting, Learning and Sometimes Fighting Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More