HRM on International Context - Coursework Example

Case study 2 Multinational corporations, employers’ associations and trade union exclusion The study mainly focuses on the employment practices of both Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and large national competitors in the Germany fast food industry such as Burger King, Pizza Heart, Nordsee, McDonalds and Blockhaus among others. Germany’s industrial relations system has been lauded as the best for the success of Germany’s economy. The system emphasizes the protection of the workers’ rights where they are given full statutory right to representation though this was criticized by some activists and academics for suppressing industrial militancy as well as causing class conflict. It can be noted that Germany labour systems have been characterised by collective agreements where the workers agree on collective bargaining instead of embarking on industrial action to press for more wages. However, the issue has been to test to see if MNCs and larger national fast food employers would respond to sectoral level bargaining as well as the extent of effectiveness of the German system of statutory employee representation in practice. Thus, the research mainly focused on these two groups of industries in Germany particularly McDonalds which has dominated the Germany food industry for many years and its labour relations practices. According to the research, the industrial relation in Germany are characterised by collective representation where industrial action is not advocated. Most unions are affiliated to the German Trade Union Federation (DGB) which by far is the largest and most important federation. In 2001 after mergers, there were six unions affiliated to DGB with the most important mergers taking place between service sector unions to form the new service workers union where the union representing the food, catering, drink and tobacco industries did not take part. Collective agreements negotiated at sectoral levels are legally binding but this excludes other companies in Germany. Focus in this case is on the fast food industry in Germany which broadly includes motorway service stations, retail sector restaurants and airport restaurants excluding hotels and other “leisure” sector. McDonalds tops the Germany food service sector in terms of turnover. Management at McDonalds believed that works councils and collective agreements with unions would seriously undermine its system and this attracted criticism. However, the company later capitulated to pressure. However, the 1952/1972 and 1976 Acts do not apply to McDonalds because it has retained US registration in the state of Delaware. There are few works councils at McDonalds as a result of the structure of its operations where more of the workers are on part time basis, the bulk of the workers are foreigners and this makes employee solidarity difficult. Research has shown that works councils as well as trade unions at McDonalds are discouraged where problem solving by the management is advocated. The company’s efforts to frustrate the operations of the works councils make it difficult for them to properly function hence serve their intended purpose (Kotthoff 1994). The management would even go to the extent of employing dirty tactics as a way of just trying to cripple the efforts of the works council where they would even use bribes to pay the representatives of the workers in the works council. Pay for the majority fast food workers is generally low compared to other sectors and the absence of works councils in most restaurants means that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the collective agreements are properly applied. From the study, it can be noted that some determined companies can operate to some extent outside Germany’s industrial relations system. MNCs which are foreign owned can evade trade union and national institutions in German and can take its management practices across the borders. For instance, McDonalds only agreed to collective bargaining for the sake of the organisation’s image which had come under severe criticism. Highly juridified systems like German may be unable to restrain the activities of MNCs which are fundamentally opposed to the notion of collective bargaining which leads to poor working conditions (Towers 1997). Case study 3-Corporate universities: a catalyst for strategic human resources development The purpose of this paper is to outline the extent to which the concept of corporate university is emerging as a simple re-labeling of the functional training area or key strategic platform in developing organisational competitive advantage. In recent years, the concept of corporate university (CU) has become an increasingly significant of contemporary corporate training and development in Europe (Walton 1999) while in USA the concept has been widespread and projected to outnumber traditional universities within the next decade (Price and Beaver 2001). The paper explores the debate surrounding the concept CUs by focusing on Australia’s largest private sector employer, Coles Myer Limited (CML). CUs are essentially in-house training facilities that have sprung with regards to quality of post education to business and the need for long life learning. Attention is focused on resource based view which is consistent with the human capital theory which links the organisation’s key assets, employees to increased productivity. The ideas of CUs is centered on the notion that the employees are the foundation of an organisation hence the need to put measures in place that seek to ensure that there is constant development of this valuable asset in the long run and this was developed in response to the constantly changing work environment. The emphasis is on cost effective training and ability to incorporate training into work schedules at appropriate times with minimal disruptions. This is a functional approach which provides opportunities for more in-depth development of staff. CUs are linked to long term developmental skills. The methodology employed in the research is a case study approach as a way of gaining an in-depth understanding of the concept of corporate university. The study also used interviews with key informants as well as the typology developed by Taylor & Paton in 2001 to analyse the role of corporate university in the study. The case study was particularly focused on one organisation called Coles Myer Limited (CML) which is a private employer. The rationale for this approach was that it facilitates the exploration of training and development strategies within a complex and dynamic organisation. The interviews were also used in collecting data and the main advantage of this research method is that it allows the collection of first hand information directly from the respondents. The research indicates that the development of corporate university within case study organisation has focused resources to strategically develop their human resources capital and is linked to the objectives of the organisation to gain competitive advantage. Coles Myer Limited (CML) developed the concept of CU where it focused on the development, training and education of employees from shelf stackers to management within supermarkets and this was developed in partnership with Deakin University. This programme utilized face to face training where the human capital was constantly educated so as to keep pace with the changing work environment. Self paced distance learning programmes were also used for CMI and recently e-learning with the major aim of training the workers to be able to adapt to the changing environment in which they operate. The utilisation of both the internal and external factors is very effective in the day to day training of the workers. Research has shown that CMI has taken a strategic lead in the retail sector to the extent that its competitor Woolworths has also developed its own corporate university in response. It can be noted that the emergence of CUs plays a very significant role in human resources development. Case study 4- The scoop on Ben and Jerry’s… Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream Inc was formed from humble beginnings by two mates who met at school. Whilst their ice cream has been rated the best in just two years, they decided to take on further the aspect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as their guiding principle. This paper therefore seeks to explain the concept of CSR as well as explore whether the activities of Ben and Jerry are socially responsible. According to Davis (1960), social responsibility is described as “decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic and technical interest.” The concept of corporate social responsibility mainly draws from the idea that organisations do not exist in a vacuum but they operate in societies where there are people hence the need for them to act responsibly to the communities. Indeed, organisations have a social responsibility to fulfil as part of goodwill to different stakeholders that are impacted by its operations in different ways. The concept of corporate social responsibility maintains that businesses are part of the larger society in which they exist and are accountable to the society for their performance. However, some people blame it saying that it makes managers become incompetent as they would tend to divert from their core business and focus of trivial social issues. By any standard, Ben and Jerry’s had several CSR related success stories. They donated 7.5 % profits to charity and some of the organisations that received this money include environmental groups, AIDS projects, a center for immigrant rights, the homeless and the American Indians (Siebert 1995). This is in stuck contrast to the average publicly held corporation in USA which donates about 1 % of the profits towards social concerns. The organisation also treats the customers with due respect as away of cultivating trust and loyalty among them. The company also owns six partnershops and these are franchises owned by non profit organisations working to meet employment, training and social needs for the disadvantaged people (Ben and Jerry’s social 1997). Being a socially responsible company, its operations came under scrutiny when it purchased nuts from a notorious organisation, Mutran Family. This can be questionable since a socially responsible company ought to maintain its principles of doing public good. Although the intentions were quite good, it is apparent that the results were not quite as intended. Secondly, the partnership with LaSoul Bakery does not typify social responsible behavior since Carter suffered the consequences after the withdrawal of the company from the partnership. It can also be noted that the pricing structure of the company is an issue of concern. Given that about 39 million people live below poverty datum line, it is not very fair to put prices which cannot be afforded by the majority of people. The products also cause health related problems since they have too much fat which causes obesity or heart related problems. As can be noted from the study of Ben and Jerry’s company, the concept of social responsibility is quite contestable. It can be noted that donations alone do not constitute social responsibility but the products offered should meet the expected standards that do not put the consumers’ health at risk. Read More