Category: Collective Bargaining

Introduction 1.1 Problem statement

The relationship between management and trade unions are one of the most fundamental working relationships within South Africa’s labour sphere. Yet, bargaining with South African trade unions can be quite a daunting task, as management continually protests against trade unions’ obstinate actions and workplace disruptions within their organisation (Mash & Kremer, 2016).

Researchers within the field of sociology critically portray trade unions as uncompromisable, supercilious and irrational (Farber 2001; Freeman and Medoff, 1984). Even so, trade unions are commonly acknowledged as employee organisations formed with the expectation of resolving work-related matters and promoting employee benefits (Rajesh & Manoj, 2015). Mash and Kremer (2016) however, point out that trade unions put emphasis on vertical differences that occur in the organisation consisting between management and employees. Dhammika (2015) describes trade unions as a key determining factor regarding the nature of industrial relations, not only within the labour market sphere but as well as in the country. Nevertheless, unionism is cynically connected with organisational research, capital investment and market value of organisations (Cullinane & Durdan, 2012; Mash & Kremer, 2016). Cullinane and Durdan (2012) state that the relationship climate between management and trade union is set by the rejection or acceptance of management towards trade unions. This determines whether the labour relationship between unions and management are harmonious or not (Cullinane and Durdan, 2012). Furthermore, the degree to which an employee commits either to the union or their organisation is a deciding factor in the relationship between management and union (Snape, Tom, & Chan, 2000). This view can result in unanticipated conflict causing a strenuous bargaining relationship between management and union (Ohlendorf, 2001; Omisore & Abiodun; 2016).

On the word of Godfrey (2010) collective bargaining in South Africa is an adversarial and conflicting process, which involves negotiations between parties with contradictory interests, searching for mutually acceptable compromises. In accordance to this, the South African constitution grants all individuals the right to fair and just labour practice as well the right to strike (Botha, 2015). However, the right to strike and the right to engage in the collective bargaining process is governed by the LRA 66 of 1995 (Botha, 2015). The collective bargaining process is thus voluntary and therefore settles any conflicting objectives of management, employees and unions through joint regulations of the terms and conditions of employment (Harrison, 2004). Du Plessis et al. (1996) describe collective bargaining as a process in which mutual control of the organisation is established by management and labour and by bargaining collectively, all workplace-related conflict is contained and collective agreements are reached to resolve any conflict situations. Nel and van Rooyen (1991:166) further elaborate that during the bargaining process management and unions meet, present and counter demands, convince, and in many cases within the South African labour sphere, threaten the opposition, until suitable agreements are reached.

Kahn-Freund (1972) states that for management, collective bargaining serves as a way to maintain peaceful industrial relations and for trade unions, it serves as a way to maintain specific work standards, such as employment rewards and stable employment conditions for union members. The collective bargaining process is set in motion when the trade union stipulates their demands, the management will act in response by comparing the demands stipulated by the union with their own (Harrison, 2004). According to Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips (2006) and Dubin (1957), the bargaining relationship between management and the representative trade union is typically viewed as an ongoing power struggle. Hence, the degree to which a trade union is viewed as a nuisance or an advantage in the bargaining relationship is greatly determined by the management’s response toward the trade union (Mash & Kremer, 2016). In addition, when trade unions affiliate themselves with political parties (Nanayakkara, 1998), this causes severe economic and managerial implications for the organization (Fenando, 1988). As most South African trade unions are affiliated with political parties, this has fostered political unionism (Biyanwila, 2003). Lambert (2002) defines political unionism as trade unions who engage with predominant political parties with the aim of obtaining power-based mechanisms to achieve union demands. Political unionism is largely used by trade unions as a power and status bargaining tool and provides unions with a clear collective identity (Dhammika, 2015; Gunawardana & Biyanwilla, 2008). T

By standing together unions gain power and reduce the gap between management and employees (Mash & Kremer, 2016). Thus, as the unionization of employees grow, changes occur from bargaining over work conditions and wages to a well-organized effort led by professional individuals in the trade union (Mash & Kremer, 2016). According to Martinez, Fiorito and Ferris (2012), one of the most distinct objectives of any trade union is to better the balance ratio of power between trade union and management groups. Therefore, the trade union’s level of strength is a realization of this fundamental aim (Martinez, Fiorito and Ferris, 2012). As a result, strong unions are measured in accordance to their perceived success in dealing with management and vice versa (Martinez, Fiorito and Ferris, 2012). Bacharach and Lawler (1986) distinguished that the power dependence theory treats the ongoing collective bargaining relationship between management and unions as a power struggle where both union and management try to obtain a favorable power position.

Effective collective bargaining and conflict management play a crucial role towards harmonious labour relationships between unions and management (Yah Baah et al., 2012). According to Gelfand and Dyer (2000) conflict is ever-present, in addition, the capacity to comprehend, predict and manage conflict is one of the most essential challenges in any labour relationship. Elgoibar et al. (2012) elaborate that the success of internal collective bargaining and problem solving mainly depends on trade unions and management’s capability of managing potential conflicts. Rahim (1986) states that efficient and effective conflict management promotes motivation, improves management and union morale and encourages individual and social growth. Yah Baah et al., (2012) coincide with Rahim (1986) by further explaining that successful conflict management can contribute to a organisation’s effectiveness, resulting in ‘win-win’ situations, but if conflict is mismanaged it can result in counterproductive behaviour, resulting in both parties walking away empty-handed. As stated by Ting-Toomey et al. (2000) conflict is not always the main cause of problematic collective bargaining sessions but rather the conflict management style implemented, creating insubstantial conflict conditions between management and unions. Blake and Mouton (1964), Thomas and Kilmann (1974) and Rahim (1983) identified specific styles to manage conflict which enable individuals to react in a particular manner when confronted with a conflict situation. The five styles of conflict have been identified as; competing (forcing, dominating), accommodating (obliging), avoiding (denial, withdrawal), collaborating (integrating) and compromising (negotiating) (Blake & Mouton 1964; Rahim 1983; Thomas & Kilmann 1974). According to Vokić and Sontor (2009) no particular style of managing conflict is always the most suitable, therefore it depends on the given situation in order to reach a decision about what style will be the most appropriate to implement. By way of explanation, background appears to play a fundamental part in managing conflict, which indicates the choice an individual makes regarding their conflict management style is situational dependant (King & Miles, 1990).

In conclusion, the general objective of this study will be to investigate how trade unions and management approach each conflict management styles and how these styles to manage conflict affects each parties bargaining power during the collective bargaining process. It is anticipated that a better understanding of these issues will pinpoint better strategies for collective bargaining between management and unions. Furthermore, this research study will attempt to investigate the influence of the power-dependence theory on the collective braining process of management and unions, and in addition how the power-dependency of each actor influences the participating member’s conflict management styles. Henceforth, the researchers will conduct a quantitative study to gather data relating to the impact of power-dependence and conflict management styles on management and trade unions and how these factors overall influences the collective bargaining process of management and unions.

1.2 Literature review

Collective bargaining intro

Intro

In South Africa, collective bargaining acts as a fundamental economic function that regulates employee relations in the workplace and aims to the resolve conflicting interests of management and trade unions (Harrison, 2004). When studying present literature available on collective bargaining, research verified that differences in the collective bargaining processes amongst unions and management are derived from the power dependence theory (Doellgast & Benassi, 2014). Theorists argued that the outcome and structure of these labour market relationships are explained by differences or variations in the power of labour relative to management and the mediation through unions and the state (Korpi 1983; Esping-Andersen and Korpi 1984). When assessing the variation in trade unions access to bargaining power, which includes their level of power and strength in the organisation and their participation rights in the workplace, it influences the unions capability to promote employees’ interest in reorganisation and control over their work environment (Doellgast & Benassi, 2014).

Empirical evidence, therefore, suggests that coordinated forms of collective bargaining are not mainly established and maintained to seek and resolve coordination problems between management and unions, but are instead the result of conflict between societal attempts made by management and unions to regulate the labour market through bargaining collectively (Streeck 2009). Research, therefore, suggests that management and unions are not necessarily complicit with marginal growth in the collective bargaining relationship and will therefore seek to expand their power when their traditional sources of bargaining power declines (Doellgast & Benassi, 2014).

Power dependence

According to Harrison, (2004) the basis of collective bargaining is power. Therefore, in order to understand the theory of power Heckathorn (1983) and Lawler and Bacharach (1986) defined the theory as one actor’s dependence on the opposing on another. Thus, the fundamental aspect of the theory is based on the proposition that each actor’s power is based on the dependency of the opposing side rather than their own side (Bacharach & Lawler, 1981a; Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962, 1972). Consequently, within the field of labour-management relations, the labour’s power is based on the dependency of management on the participation of the trade union and its members (Bacharach and Lawler,1986). Whilst management’s power is based on the degree to which the participating union and its members depend on the management (Lawler & Bacharach, 1986a).

Previous research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s based on the examination of the power dependence theory concluded that the source of power is based on an estimation about oneself and further extent of power (Bacharach and Lawler, 1976, 1981; Hegtvedt, 1988; Lawler & Bacharach 1976, 1979). Dubin (1957) who conducted vital studies based on the power dependence theory in the 1950s, pointed out that bargaining power is a worn-out term used in the research of union-management relations. Whilst, the power dependence theory is viewed by researchers as a systematic process that involves opposition between competing parties over who executes what function, when and how (Bacharach & Lawler,1981; Dubin, 1957; Lawler & Bacharach, 1976, 1979).

Bacharach and Lawler (1986) discovered that the power dependence theory contains certain paradoxes that define the attainment and use of power within the collective bargaining relationship. The four paradoxes of power dependence are as follows;

Power is based on giving. The first paradox according to Bacharach and Lawler (1986), in order for management or unions gain power they must make the other depend on them. Thus, this is accomplished by one party providing benefits to the other (Bacharach and Lawler, 1986; Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). For example, providing the opposition with an item of interest that could influence the power balance in the first parties’ favor. However, both parties, wants to utilize the benefits they provided in order to gain additional benefits in return (Lawler & Bacharach, 1986b). Yet, each actor want to provide benefits which they themselves view as invaluable, that the opposition views as highly valuable, and in return receive the outcome benefits they desired (Lawler & Bacharach, 1986a).

To use power is to lose it. Lawler and Bacharach (1986b), established that the second paradox of the power dependence theory consists out of coercion, which entails that a raise benefits taken or a reduction in benefits provided to the other party. Thus, each party has the capacity to extract benefits. Literature based on power dependence, suggests that the provision of benefits entail a major threat of losing said benefits (French & Raven, 1959; Bacharach and Lawler, 1986; Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). Nevertheless, if the giving is the basis of the power dependence theory, this could implicate the degree to which one party coerces another within the long run (Bacharach and Lawler, 1986; Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). As a result, when a trade union succeeds in negotiating favorable benefits it may motivate management to reduce labour costs such as retrenchments or mechanizations of the work place, resulting in management seeking commodities elsewhere (Lawler & Bacharach, 1986).

Power may have integrative rather than disintegrative effects on a labour-management relationship. The third paradox of power dependence is based on the effort of management and trade unions to change the power relationship, which in most cases is met with hostility (Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). As a result, management and unions implement tactics designed to change the power relationship, which are equivalent in an attempt to transform the terms of which the existing relationship rests on (Bacharach & Lawler, 1986; Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). Hence, this actions causes a disintegrative effect on union-management relations (Bacharach & Lawler, 1976; Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). According to the power dependence framework, strategic actions based on competitive bargaining styles, will ultimately have a integrative effect on the collective bargaining process (Bacharach & Lawler, 1976, 1986; Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). Based on the power dependence framework, two types of tactical options exist in which enables management and unions to modify the power balance in their relationship (Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). The two broad types of tactical options to amend the power relationship are namely; tactics that amplifies the opponent’s dependence and tactics to reduce the actors dependence (Bacharach and Lawler, 1986).

Inferior power can provide an actor a tactical advantage. The last paradox only applies to the commitment dimension (Bacharach & Lawler, 1986). This paradox has opposing implications for power and tactical actions. In accordance with the power dependence theory, actors who are vastly committed to the important benefits will have less proficient power than a actor who is less committed (Bacharach & Lawler, 1976, 1981. 1986; Lawler & Bacharach, 1986). Furthermore, the paradox entails that high levels of commitment will lead to increased tactical attempts to manipulate the opposition, in so doing obtaining highly valued benefits (Bacharach & Lawler, 1981; Lawter & Bacharach, 1976, 1986). Therefore, the party with high power in the aforementioned terms may yield more to the opposition than predicted by their power position in the labour relationship (Lawler & Bacharach, 1986b).

(Link to CM)

Notably, the significance of the power dependence theory as variable to conflict management has been recognized and acknowledged by numerous researchers. Greenhalgh (1987) first noted that it is realistically reasonable to anticipate that the power experienced from whatever source will fully affect management or trade unions choice of conflict management style tactic. Greenhalgh (1987) further elaborated that any outcomes of conflict is situational bound and therefore depends on, amongst other indicators, factors such as power distribution and dependency between conflicting parties. Putnam and Poole (1987) on the other hand-reviewed empirical findings and thus found that preferences in regards to conflict management’s styles, differ across hierarchical levels, with superior management utilizing styles such as forcing or dominating and subordinate level management utilizing styles such as avoidance, collaboration and compilation when engaging in negotiations. Significantly, variation in conflict management styles may well reflect the power and status in the discrepancies in bargaining collectively (Ritov, 1997). According to a study conducted by Tjosvold and Okum (1979), within an experimental research setting, participant with low power will thus act more cooperatively and are hence more likely to use the obliging conflict management style than participants who have high levels of power. Similarly, Bacharach and Lawler (1981) argues that the conflict styles union and management therefore use are strongly linked to the level of power they have during negotiations.

CMS

According to Putnam and Wilson (1983) and Roche and Teague (2012), each individual’s conflict management style is influenced by the assessment of the bargaining conditions and any potential long-term implications that may occur. Hence, on the word of Ritov (1997), the choice of conflict management style unions and management choose to implement is presumably influenced by unions and managements power position in the in the collective bargaining relationship. In agreement with Ritov (1997), Bacharach and Lawler (1981) specified in their study that the aforesaid consideration is primarily meaningful when the one actor’s power is obtained in terms of the other actor’s dependence on them for future rewards or benefits. Blake and Mouton (1964), Rahim (1983) and Thomas and Kilmann (1974) identified five styles to effectively manage conflict. These five styles are as follows; competing (forcing, dominating), accommodating (obliging), avoiding (denial, withdrawal), collaborating (integrating) and compromising (negotiating).

The term competing (forcing, dominating) refers to a hard-line, aggressive and hard-nosed approach applied to conflict that is driven by power (Al-Hamdan, Shukri & Anthony, 2010). The competing conflict management style is described by Thomas, Thomas and Schaubhut, (2008) as low cooperativeness and high assertiveness in an attempt to satisfy an individual’s own concern at the other individual’s expense. The individual, therefore pursues their own personal goals without the consideration for others (Al-Hamdan et al., 2010). According McElhaney (1996) and Vivar (2006) the competing approach is suitable to use when a rash decision must be made or to protect an individual or a group from an aggressor or in and a state of emergency.

Accommodation (obliging) is characterised by high cooperativeness and low assertiveness (Al-Hamdan et al., 2010). By obliging or accommodating an individual sacrifices their own concern or opinion to satisfy another individual or group (Al-Hamdan et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2008). Accommodation involves concessions, unrestricted agreements and offers of help (Al-Hamdan et al., 2010). According to Marriner (1982) and McElhaney (1996) the accommodation conflict management style encourages harmony and gains acknowledgment and credit that can be used in the future. Ibrahim and Kassim (2014) noted that in the accommodating style, managers might be more inclined to self-sacrificing, being generous or charitable, and therefore conforming to another individuals desires and would rather yield towards other individual’s point of view.

Avoiding (denial, withdrawal) on the other hand, neglects both conflicting parties concerns by postponing the conflicting issue (Thomas et al., 2008). The avoiding style is the outcome from low cooperativeness, low assertiveness and low concern for self and others (Keenan et al.,1998; Thomas et al., 2008). Keenan et al. (1998) elaborates that the avoiding style entails reducing the importance of a problem and trying to suppress any thoughts regarding the conflicting problem. The avoiding conflict management style refuses to address the conflicting problem and this approach style would be appropriate if the opposing party is more powerful (McElhaney, 1996).

Marriner (1982), identifies collaboration (integrating) as both high in cooperativeness and assertiveness. In line with Marriner (1982) research Thomas et al. (2008) concurs that collaboration involves an attempt to work with another party to find an integrative or win-win solution that can satisfy the concerns of both conflicting parties involved. The collaboration approach leads to mutually gratifying decisions-making (Al-Hamdan et al., 2010). According to Al-Hamdan et al. (2010) the collaboration process involves exchanging information about priorities and preferences, indicates insight and composes transitions between significant and insignificant issues, which indicates that each individual or group engages in the problem with equal consideration.

Lastly, compromising (negotiating) is an attempt by conflicting parties to find a middle-ground settlement that will only moderately satisfy each parties concern (Thomas et al., 2008). Al-Hamdan et al. (2010) evaluates the compromising approach as a having a fair concern for both the individual and the conflicting party. The compromising process entails intermediate levels in both cooperativeness and assertiveness (Al-Hamdan et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2008). Rahim (1983) provides an in-depth analysis of the compromising conflict management style. The compromising style focuses on swift, mutually pleasing decisions that aims to moderately satisfy both parties (Rahim 1983). Al-Hamdan et al. (2010) further elaborates on Rahim’s (1983) statement by indicating that the compromising style emerges when there is negotiation and exchange amid conflicting parties. Furthermore, for every gain the party obtains they have to make a concession during the negotiation process (Al-Hamdan et al., 2010).

In contrast, if the chosen conflict management style is unsuitable to resolve the particular conflict situation this could lead to a variety of unintentional and unwanted consequences (Swanson, 2015). There is a vast amount of literature available on conflict management and conflict management styles. In addition, because of the rising response for harmonious workplace environments and production effective conflict management becoming a vital skill (Chan., Monroe & Tan, 2006), numerous researchers, as a result, conducted studies about the relationship of conflict management styles and various individual and situational factors (Vokić & Sontor, 2009).

In summary, the aforementioned evidence proposes that the perception of the management and union power, in the role of the opposition, is a crucial part of the cognitive situational assessment which directs each party’s choice of conflict management style (Ritov, 1997). Ritov (1997) suggested that the two major distinguishing factors of the opposing party’s power in accordance to empirical evidence are the possible future dependence on the opposing party and lastly the opposition parties control over benefit contingencies. This research study, therefore, hypothesize that in a collective bargaining environment, when trade unions are perceived as powerful, management will be less inclined to implement the dominating conflict management style. Moreover, management will be more prone to implement the avoiding, obliging, compromising, and integrating styles.

3.2 Expected contribution of the study

The proposed study will have the following practical and theoretical contributions to the individual, the organisation, and the literature.

3.2.1 Contribution to the individual

The objective of this research study is for both management and trade union to evolve a relationship of mutual gain and agreement. Thus, the research study will aim to achieve the collaboration of each individual union and management member by inspiring both sides to give up their one-sided agendas and therefore aim to develop a plan that is based on mutually approved professional interests. This will lead to an industrial relationship that will flourish in a climate of cooperation, mutual gain and trust by both management and union.

3.2.2 Contribution to the organisation

In the context of this study, the parties concerned, i.e. management and trade union, will gain a better understanding of their opponent’s conflict management style and level of power in regards to the collective bargaining process. This study could therefore assist both parties to identify what leads to dissatisfying as well as satisfying collective bargaining sessions. More so, data gathered from participants will also offer recommendations as to what the management and trade unions can do or implement to improve collective bargaining to achieve a stronger and sounder relationship between management and unions.

3.2.3 Contribution to Labour Relations literature

This study will be beneficial to the literature as it will contribute to the existing international and national-based research performed on the conflict management styles and power dependence and the collective bargaining process of management and trade unions. Additionally, the data of this study will elicit and arouse the thinking and perceptions held by management and trade unions. This research study may broaden the available knowledge regarding conflict management styles, power dependence and collective bargaining. Also, as to how conflict management styles and power dependence might influence management and trade unions participation in collective bargaining. Finally, this research study can promote further studies on how conflict management styles and power dependence influence management and trade unions participating in collective bargaining sessions.

To fully address the above question, it is crucial to establish an understanding of the regulatory processes within the employment and labour market. To accomplish this, a systematic comparison of industrial relations between 3 countries can help to realize that understanding, as these countries possess many divergent characteristics which determine their practices and therefore, outcomes. These comparisons can be used as an explanatory device, coupled with the application of theoretical frameworks to develop an understanding of the role and status of trade unions within the system of industrial relations.

As described by Webb S & Webb B (1894), a trade union is a ‘continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving the conditions of their working lives which require them to be representative of the interests of its members and achieve progress on their behalf. The intensity of that representation is dependent on a number of contextual factors that affect the employment relationship between trade unions and organizations. The main instrument used by trade unions when communicating with employers is defined as ‘collective bargaining, which is the decision-making process which represents the two parties’ interests with the intent of applying an agreed set of rules to govern the utilitarian and bureaucratic terms of the employment relationship. However, trade unionism does not have a universal format that is applicable to every state; organizations are often bureaucratically complicated by the governments of the countries in which they operate, this rule of governance is what gives unions an identity. Hyman (2001) states that these identities are viewed as inherited traditions that shape current choices, pursued agendas, and the type of power resources that are cultivated and applied.

Drawing from theories regarding convergence and divergence can elucidate the challenges faced by trade unions, particularly when discussing comparative industrial relations. The convergence theory focuses on economic forces which tend to override diversity both culturally and institutionally, with ‘best practice’ production and employment systems defining industrial relations (Kerr, et al., 1960). Conversely, there are example nations such as the US and UK which hold institutional similarities that have contrasting economic performance that debunks the convergence theory. Divergence theory deliberates the enduring of cultural differences and societal structures, incorporating a societal effects framework that focuses on ‘nationally characteristic solutions’, the interactions between institutions, and their roles in relation to one another (Maurice, et al., 1980). These theories can be applied in an effective manner when discussing cultural and institutional differences at a national level; this paper will explore examples within the United Kingdom, Germany, and Hungary to address themes in relation to trade unionism.

When analyzing the role of trade unions among different countries, initially defining their theoretical approach to industrial relations provides a comprehensive indication to the state’s relationship with the unions. The United Kingdom historically a corporatist state now adopts a pluralist approach whereby there is conflict amongst employers and works (Budd, et al., 2004), however, it is contained by an appropriate regulatory system. Operating in a liberal market economy, union representation and bargaining power is fairly weak, with a lack of state support meaning individual protection is limited. This voluntarist (Kelly & Frege, 2013) identity bestowed on the trade unions arose out of various union immunity legislation that became a tradition in British industrial relations. Kelly (2013) describes features of Britain’s voluntarist traditions to include non-legally binding collective agreements and a voluntary framework of state-provided dispute resolution facilities, meaning the State possessed no power to arbitrate union disputes.

When comparing this model to the German industrial relations system, it is of stark contrast. The post-wartime Collective Bargaining Act of 1949 established the ‘direct and enforceable power of collective agreement’ (Behrens, 2013) meant that the results of any collective bargaining agreement become legally binding until any new agreement is reached. This bargaining occurs at industry level; however, it is difficult to pinpoint Germany’s exact theoretical approach. With aspects of pluralism and corporatism, there are complexities in the relationship between the state and the employers than cannot be inferred by conventional theories of interest representation. The state is able to lend trade unions organizational support through rules of ‘political influence’ that are favourable with them (Streeck, 1983). Streeck goes onto mention that business associations also become effectively involved in the formulation and implementation of public policy through this approach, preferring autonomy from the state and influence. Trade associations in Germany represents industry to the public and the state (Behrens, 2013) and may fend off legislative state interference with association members (Streeck, 1983) which could negatively affect sectoral level relations.

A more radical theoretical approach is adopted by Hungary; with a history of political and financial volatility such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and it’s 2006 financial crisis, the Central European nation has been governed by Viktor Orban’s authoritarian, neo-liberal approach since 2010 (Stanojevic, 2014). The current industrial relations system does not prove fruitful for trade union membership with only 12% density (European Trade Union Institute, 2016) compared to the United Kingdom and Germany which are 21% and 26% respectively, this has resulted in the majority of bargaining occurring at an organizational level and the state operating unilaterally. An example of this is the wage bargaining structure reform in 2010, whereby a tripartite negotiation council was replaced by a multi-partite system which resulted in the minimum wage being set by the government. The importance of trade unions in Hungary diminished further in 2012 with the introduction of the labour code legislation, which placed restrictions on strikes and union representation, additionally decentralizing the collective bargaining structure (Stanojevic, 2014). It is evident that as a labour market institution, trade unions within Germany can provide institutional acting regulation at a national level, as proven through German trade union involvement in policy-making. The United Kingdom is positionally unclear with no truly centrally-regulated industrial relations system, and with Brexit jeopardizing the influence of EU membership on domestic employment legislation (Coulter & Hancké, 2016), defining a clear union identity is proving to be problematic.

Using Hyman’s eternal triangle, you can identify trade unionism in the United Kingdom along the Market-Class line. The ‘Market’ annotation describes union interests as a focus on the standardization of terms and conditions of employment, with an emphasis on collective bargaining. Whereas, the ‘Class’ annotation portrays unions as ‘schools of war’ meaning they are used as an instrument to generalize class demands within states possessing anti-capitalist ideologies (Hyman, 2001). The United Kingdom has traits of the ‘Class’ principles, with increasing merger activity; three of the biggest British trade unions are a result of various mergers which highlights the idea of creating a generalized viewpoint from various unions combining. Relating this to the collective bargaining stance, the majority of workplaces are covered in ‘single-table’ bargaining (Kelly & Frege, 2013) where unions all negotiate together, highlighting the ‘Market’ ideologies of the prominence of collective bargaining and ensuring the standardization of the terms of employment (Hyman, 2001).

German trade unionism adopts a similar approach, employing aspects of the ‘Market’ orientation with the introduction of the 1949 Collective Bargaining Act to establish bargaining at industry and company level. However, Germany differs to the United Kingdom and interprets unions as social partners as well; focusing on the importance of a social dialogue between labour and capital and the emphasis on integration through institutional mechanisms (Hyman, 2001). This is made apparent through the rebuilding of trade unionism in Germany after 1945, whereby the new program had the objective of reorganizing the economy and society based on the concept of ‘social ownership’. (Behrens, 2013). This was comparable to the Hungarian industrial relations model, that focused on creating a social dialogue within its public sector. Nevertheless, this system was not based on collective bargaining, and state decree was much more prominent (European Trade Union Institute, 2016), which was conflicting of relations in Germany where state intervention was minimal thanks to the autonomist approach of its bargaining actors when negotiating the conditions of employment.

The effect of globalization on the labour market, in particular the presence of multinational corporations emerging as powerful political actors allows us to explore regulatory relationships on an international level. Globally, these is no central regulator or national laws where multinational operation is weak, poorly enforced or simply non-existent (Scherer & Palazzo, 2008) which draws these firms into roles with greater political influence (Ruggie, 2017) carrying out legislation traditionally associated with the state. Drawing on Piazza’s (2005) work, globalization fuels international competition which in turn, can promote wage restraints. Hungary is an example of a country that has bared the negative effectives of multinational competition and globalization in general. German organizations setup their Central European subsidiaries in Hungary due to low labour costs (Meardi, et al., 2009) and its ability to operate in an isomorphic manner with Germany as a result of similarities in industrial relations models. Firms from the United States opted to invest in business subsidiaries in Hungary as well, allowing German firms to operate under the American model for employment practice, meaning the codetermination style adopted in Germany was not meaningfully implemented in Hungary (Meardi, et al., 2009). This influence of macroeconomic forces has an effect on trade unions and workers (Piazza, 2005), decentralizing the wage bargaining structure and negatively manipulating union density and creating a labour quiescence. German employers operate with extremely competitive strategies, relying on high quality and efficient production which is evidence particularly in the automotive industry. This strategic approach means that the firms are immensely reliant on stable relations at company level, also increasing their vulnerability to ‘overt industrial strife’ (Thelen, 2000; Thelen & Kume, 1999). This draws from Hall and Soskice’s (2001) ‘institutional complementarities’ concept which explores the idea that two institutions can complement each other if the presence of one increases the returns from the other. However, this is a notion that is highly critiqued with Frege and Kelly (2013) asserting that it ‘understates the nature of conflict and power within capitalist social relations and attacks welfare and employment rights.

Conversely, the United Kingdom has an industrial relations system that is very liberal, meaning societal trends and working life remain relatively consistent. Therefore, globalization in this case is prolific; there is growth in foreign direct investment and a multinational company presence containing isomorphic employment practices. Furthermore, like Germany and Hungary, globalization is standardized by the fact all three nations have membership to the European Union meaning there is influence on labour practices and standards. Although, the aforementioned impact of Brexit on employment and industrial relations is still unclear.

Looking towards the future of systematic European industrial relations, the weakening of collective actors appears to be the defining threat, along with the positioning of bargaining structures. In the German model, trade union density has declined from 30-40% in the 1970s to 21% in recent times (Eurofound, 2015). This may be a result of the increasing autonomism amongst unions that are attempting to establish an identity with increasing competition from confederal unions. The employers themselves are gradually moving away from employers’ associations and new firms are not joining these associations at all. Financial capitalism has been the driving force of German industrial relations in recent years thanks to the liberalization of financial markets and the changing or corporate strategy and state regulation (Brinkmann & Nachtwey, 2013). Increasing shareholder-value orientation of German multinationals and the privatization and liberalization of industries owned by the state created a tendency toward bargaining decentralization. This collective bargaining system and the decline of overall coverage resulted in an increase in wage dispersion, particularly in the lower third of society (Lehndorff, 2009) has resulted in a growing low-wage economy with ‘precarious’ employment affairs (Brinkmann & Nachtwey, 2013) and rebuilding those relations is Germany’s biggest challenge; the introduction of a uniform national minimum wage in 2015 infers the intent from the state to rectify this.

In the current context of Hungary, trade union density is very low at 12% and membership has halved over the last 20 years (European Trade Union Institute, 2016). The union movement is fragmented into 4 separate federations which although provides a plethora of options for workers, the lack of standardization in relations is unsettling for workers in regard to employment security. A further challenge is that political affiliations are a dominant actor within industrial relations. Socialist parties are weak, with the conservative FIDESZ government operating under an overwhelming majority; there are vast constraints on the independence of the judiciary (Stanojevic, 2014) meaning it is legislation reform and labour market regulation is problematic. The inevitable result of a system where regulation is needed but the state possesses the overruling power is affirmative action. However, the government’s abolishment of the tripartite negotiating body and its statutory rights make it practically impossible to call a strike legally (Toth, 2015) leaving workers in a motionless position.

Another challenge unions will encounter incorporates political uncertainty which is mainly ostensible in the case of the United Kingdom, but also within Hungary. Hungary’s criticism of the European Union, hailing the European model as ‘doomed to decline (Toth, 2015) separates the country from the rest of the continent and potentially weakening its negotiating position within the European union. Political uncertainty within the UK ha also affected trade unions with much of the discussion concerning employment rights, industrial policy and corporate governance reform being marginalized by the focus on exiting the European Union. UK unions are already struggling to establish a clear identity and Brexit will place restrictions on their attempts to urge for legal reforms as the state will be largely unreceptive (Sippitt, 2016). The role of unions in the will therefore be reduced to the simple representation of members in the workplaces of the UK, facing potential periods of cut backs in the initial economic uncertainty of Brexit.

In conclusion, this paper addresses the role and status taken up by trade unions within the industrial relations systems of three nations that contain variables within the macro and micro environment which affect the identity and actions of said unions. In general, it would appear that aspects from pluralist and corporatist approaches to industrial relations result in the most positive outcomes. Hungary’s radical, authoritarian government and state-controlled legislation places major constrictions on the role of unions and this fragmented system creates vulnerability in terms of regulation. The Hungarian industrial relations system does promote multinational corporation connections, with many western industries building their subsidiaries in central European countries with a similar system to Hungary. Due to the financial influence of multinational corporations, the structure industrial relations within the ‘host’ nation is altered to accommodate that of the ‘home nation’ meaning new reforms to legislation can transpire and benefit the industry workers of that country. The positioning of a nations bargaining structure diminishes the power of trade unions, however, this is not a uniform concept; the United Kingdom and Germany have both seen a dramatic decentralization of collective bargaining in recent decades, however, the degree and timing of this process has significantly differed between the two countries and in turn, affected the level of power retained in the respective unions. Bargaining coverage is almost twice as high in Germany compared to Britain and the German unions have been more successful in maintaining low wage differentials within industries (Wergin-Cheek, 2012). This is a result of external factors such as the political environment, institutional infrastructure, and the economy, all of which vary greatly between Germany and the United Kingdom. So, from this, it is inferred that the institutional context of a nation will affect its implementation of a model of capitalism such as trade unionism. We can attribute the vast decline in trade union membership to the structural alterations many countries have seen in the last few decades; Hungary are a key example of this process hence their reference in this paper. The nation has historically and politically fluctuated to a huge degree over previous decades; for example, the move toward an economic and political liberalization were met with the Soviet invasion, the collapse of the union in the 1990s resulted in a move to a market economy resulting in trade union developments and mass privatization. Additionally, the country has joined the European Union and had a financial crisis, all of this causes volatility in regard to the role and status of trade unions hence the underlying theme of this paper deliberates the ideology that union challenges are comparative to industrial actors and the state frameworks in which they operate.

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiating the working conditions and terms of employment between employees and their employer. These negotiations come up with a final agreement or amend certain parts of an existing contract that are in disputes. Parties representatives ends up with a written contract or otherwise. Some of the issues covered in the agreement are employees’ rights and privileges as well as responsibilities. The process of deriving an agreement is systematic (Kearney, and Carnevale 23).

Therefore each party representative has to collect views of their subject prior to a negotiation. A public sector collective bargain differs in certain aspects from private sector, where negotiations are bipartite. For instance the environment here is more influential in terms of public interest and macroeconomics policies, effects. Under these conditions, collective bargaining in a public sector forum is more likely to be heated and divisive.

The first cause of division in this kind of arrangement arises from diverging interest between parties and sticking with such a contradicting position. An example of diverging interest in this case is employee pursuing a raise in retirement package, while employer insists on contract basis employment terms. Employees’ interest in this negotiation is job security and employer wants to maintain productivity.

Dispute can occur where employees can employ tactics like strikes to push for their position and employer takes advantage of the situation to bring in other workers on contract while these are on strike. In most cases, negotiations will not end up in a win-win situation (Kearney, and Carnevale 44). However, going into a negotiation with a good faith will help to build consensus in these situations.

Choice of negotiator and tactic employed can be a second cause of division. A collective agreement is a product of effective negotiation. Negotiators are expected to articulate their parties’ positions in an effective manner. Basing arguments on reasoning, rationality and substantiating claims with evidence. Tactics employed include humor, persuasion and emotional appeals.

A public sector collective bargain will be affected by macroeconomic policies, and thus influence negotiators tactics and reasoning. Inflation and government revenue can be a factor considered by employer, while employees’ will do comparison with other sectors. In either cases hostility can arise and calmness can only be restored if there are breaks and truthfulness in negotiations.

Conclusion

Two factors make this negotiation divisive. One is parties’ position and second one is negotiators themselves. In both cases collective bargain can be positive if there is good faith and respect for each party.

Work Cited

Kearney Richard C., and David G. Carnevale. Labor Relations in the Public Sector. 4^th ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001. Print.

Introduction

It has been mentioned by Cooper in the book titled, The Responsible Administrator that a lack of character is almost like treason for an individual occupying an administrative position (2012). This is because ethical leadership combines both ethical behavior and ethical decision making (Hussein, 2005).

For this reason it has been suggested that in order for leaders to possess the ability to effectively manage others, they must first understand how to manage themselves. This suggests a form of self awareness that allows the leader understand how to work with individual strengths and weaknesses to overcome various challenges.

This self awareness is supported by habits such as strong personal character, passion to do right, proactive behavior among others (Stennes n.d.).The complication in this scenario implies the Deputy Sheriff should take on the habits of a strong leader to guide the collective bargaining to a safe and satisfactory conclusion for all.

Discussion

The work of the deputy sheriff thus should entail using a step by step approach to arriving at an ethical decision. It has been observed that the first step in such a decision making process involves stating the problem (Davis, 1999). In this case the issue is concerned with making pay of the deputies equal to what is in the guidelines provided by the county charter.

The second step in making an ethical decision on the issue would require that the facts of the issue are evaluated a second time (Davis, 1999). In this regard not choosing and not acting are indecisiveness and as such has consequences (Pgaliana, 2010). It has already been mentioned that delays in acting may lead to some staff joining Law Enforcement Professional Association (LEPA) with far more adverse consequences.

Therefore at this stage it would be wise to begin dialogue with the sheriff to inform him of the issue and the role it plays on staff morale. It is also necessary the sheriff is made aware of the fact that considering staff complaints can help increase staff loyalty.

The third task to undertake in solving this problem would be to identify relevant factors of the case (Davis, 1999). This stage will involve discussion of issues such as the instructions of the county board to avoid tax increases. Other relevant factors include potential to boosts staff morale and loyalty. Following the identification of relevant factors it becomes necessary to develop a list of options (Davis, 1999).

During this stage it is god to be imaginative and avoid fixed answers and target goals such as identifying persons who can help address the issue (Davis, 199). For this reason an option to consider would be the gradual increase of pay for the deputies. Another option would be to enter dialogue with the county to create awareness on discontent within the department.

Once a list of options has been identified the Deputy Sheriff should test the options (Davis, 1999). To achieve this, the Deputy Sheriff can use various tests such as the harm test which helps determine the option that does the least harm (Davis, 1999).

The options can also be weighed using the publicity test which determines whether one would be confident with public knowledge of this choice (Davis, 1999). In addition to these tests one can utilize the defensibility, reversibility, colleague, professional or organization tests (Davis, 1999).

The identification and testing of options is important as it helps in choosing the best option among a number of options (Davis, 1999). Once the testing is completed to satisfaction, the deputy sheriff should then make a choice based on the steps completed.

In this case it appears the best option would be to allow the salary be increased in phases. This will satisfy the workers and ease the burden of increasing taxation on the county. Once the choice has been made then it is important to monitor the impact of the choice and make amendments as necessary (Pgaliana, 2010).

It is believed that decisions that are made in this fashion are often ethical and can also minimize the complications caused by varying issues within an organization. This approach based on observing participants as stakeholders can help keep organizations on track to meet organizational goals (Freeman & Stewart, 2006).

References

Cooper, T. L. (2012). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Davis, M (1999). Ethics and the University. New York: Routledge. P. 166-167. Web.

Freeman R. E., & Stewart, L. (2006). Developing Ethical leadership. Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics, 1-17. Web.

Hussein, M. (2007). Ethical leadership makes the Right Decisions. Journal of Technology and Business, 1-9.

Pgaliana. (2010). Short Version ethical Decision Making Process. Web.

Stennes, D. (n.d.). Ethical Decision Making and Ethical leadership. Web.

Introduction

The Work Choices legacy has been one of declining unionization and less collective bargaining in workplace relations. Conversely, the Fair Work Act (FW Act) 2009 is seen as a tool for reinstating enterprise wide collective bargaining. In this proposal, it shall be argued that the FW Act is a far better legislation for collective bargaining than previous legislations through an analysis of the core values in the legislation and some of the particular workplace changes that have been and will be altered through implementation of this law.

The current situation on collective bargaining

Collective bargaining in Australia has often been viewed as an adversarial relationship. The battle is often between workers, their unions or representatives and their employers. There has been little room for consensus and this has led to excessive arbitration as well as continual mistrust between parties in workplace relations.

There is a need to move from these hostilities to a more harmonious approach to collective bargaining (Forysth and Stewart, 2009). Although things are changing after instatement of the Fair Work Act in 2009, the workplace arena is yet to undergo a paradigm shift from the old way of viewing industrial relations to this new one.

Prior to the passing of the FW Act, statutory individual agreements were the main way of bargaining between employers and their workers. This was especially enforced through the Work Choices Act of 2005. The latter legislation made it okay for employers to refuse to negotiate with unions if and when the need arose. Individual agreements were the order of the day and employers often had the upper hand. Currently, this has changed slightly because the new legislation does not encourage these approaches to collective bargaining.

Why laws regulating collective bargaining are important

One cannot fully exhaust the reasons why legislating collective bargaining is important because the matter is quite lengthy. However, at the heart of it, is the need to protect the rights of employees. These rights should not merely be thought of theoretically because they often translate into practical applications for workers.

Workers who enjoy union membership or who have applied collective bargaining often benefit from better working conditions; which is an important process of these expressions. They also gain the advantage of having better pay at work and employers who listen to them (Cooper and Ellem, 2009).

Making laws on collective bargaining can potentially increase the level of productivity at work. This is because if employee’s rights are protected, then chances are that they are likely to concentrate at work and this may affect their outcomes. Eventually, high productivity among individuals translates into higher productivity nationally thus contributing to greater competiveness globally.

Industrial action is always a potential problem in the workplace setting. Sometimes employees may try enterprise bargaining to no avail and this may reach an impasse. To this extent, they may choose the industrial action route. It is always necessary for the law to have a clear cut definition of matters that can legitimise an industrial action.

Furthermore, legislations on collective bargaining can also lay out the procedures that employers can follow during a strike. To this end, the degree of industrial action can dramatically reduce once legislations are clear on them (Mc crystal, 2008). Arbitration during industrial action can also arise so it is always important to have laws that clearly lay out the processes for arbitration or the conditions thereof.

In order for Australia to be viewed as progressive in terms of human rights, then it needs to accord its workers decent working conditions. It should also be such that it encourages fair treatment at work as well. These are all key elements that are covered in collective bargaining laws and should therefore be highly encouraged.

Why the Fair Work Act 2009 should be retained

One of the most important reasons why the Fair Work Act 2009 should be retained is that it advocates for cooperation within the workplace relations setting.

These specifics can be found in clause 577 (d) of the FW Act. Furthermore, it looks towards restoring some balance in workplace relations by focusing on productive relations over and above any other arrangement. To this end, it is likely that unions, employers and employees will develop constructive relationships between themselves as they continue to interact with one another.

This represents a shift from past approaches and therefore marks a hallmark in the future of collective bargaining (Forysth and Stewart, 2009). Cooperation in this Act is to be achieved through the good faith principle. The FW Act advocates for the replacement of arbitration with good faith. This means that emphasis should be given to the process rather than the outcomes of collective bargaining.

It is likely that parties will show good faith because the legislation even gives specific ways of how this can be achieved such as through information disclosure between bargaining parties, giving responses to requests and avoiding unfair conduct. The explicit nature of these obligations is what is likely to lead to such great success in implementation of the FW Act in the future thus streamlining collective bargaining (Cooper and Ellem, 2009).

It is also interesting to note that the Fair Work Australia body will only be consulted in cases where the said stakeholders illustrated that they were not willing to abide by the good faith principle. In this regard, parties are expected to look for other alternatives to making an agreement work before they can make a declaration that a breach has been reached.

Before a declaration can be made, Fair Work Australia must not only ensure that all alternatives have been sought but that there is no hope for consensus in the future. Even after the FWA have decided on a declaration, they still allow for a twenty one day period where the parties are to sit down and discuss their contentious issue so that they can try and reconcile.

Once this has failed then it is only at this time when the Fair Work Australia body will declare a workplace determination. As can be seen the process of getting a serious breach is very complicated and this causes many parties to look for internal ways of coming to agreements and therefore enforces harmony at the workplace (Cooper and Ellem, 2009).

On the other hand, some critics might look at these immensely complicated processes for reaching agreements as an obstacle to real bargaining because they may force parties to concede to decisions. However, does not occur because hard bargaining is allowed as was seen in the case of National Union of Workers versus ACCO Australia Pty Ltd 2009. These two groups had reached an impasse and there was a need to establish whether the parties were exercising good faith by trying to reach an agreement.

The presiding Commissioner asserted that the respective groups were entitled to hard bargaining which was separate and distinct from not trying to reach an agreement. This case therefore illustrates that the legislation still leaves enough room for tough negotiation and that parties need not be forced to take on positions that they do not desire. It is indeed a fair legislation.

The Fair work legislation also accords freedom for employees engaging in collective bargaining to a certain extent. This is because it allows workers to select any party as a representative during bargaining. In this regard, employees are allowed to select individuals or groups such as unions.

Therefore, this legislation is an improvement over past regimes when it comes to collective bargaining because it allows for union formation. It should be noted here that unionisation is not explicitly stated because the emphasis in the Fair Work Act was on individual’s rights at the workplace. However, because in the process of collective bargaining, unions must come in, then this matter is effectively handled in the Act. The doctrine of good faith is sufficient to cover aspects of unionisation.

The Australian Labour Party firmly believed that industrial action was a serious problem and that the regulation of illegal strikes needed to be implemented thoroughly and without any compromise. Similarly, the Coalition agreed with these sentiments hence explaining why little has changed in terms of industrial action within the Fair Work Act. This minimal changes work well for the legislation because opposing parties had a consensus on industrial action prior to the FW Act so maintaining it is quite wise (Mc Crystal, 2008).

Another important feature about the FW Act is its ease of use. It is quite uncomplicated to go through the legislation and most of the elements regulated are clearly laid out (Forsyth and Stewart, 2009). This means that there is indeed no need to include certain micro legislations later on that may eventually compromise the intention of the Fair Work Act. Simplicity in any piece of legislation often implies that the persons using it can effectively understand their obligations and their rights and this harmonises workplace relations.

The FW Act ought to be retained because of its ability to incorporate flexibility and fairness within the workplace. It has managed to tackle the issues of discrimination while at the same time considered the concerns of managers because most of them are needed in order to make the idea workable.

In this regard, the issue of a national minimum wage has always been a central issue in collective bargaining. Consequently, a legislation that establishes a fair way of regulating the national wage is always laudable. In this law, the FW Act has stated that the Australian Fair pay commission will be responsible for conducting an annual review of the country’s wages (Stewart, 2009).

This means that the reinstatement of certain employment standards will be restored and this will contribute greatly towards the restoration of worker’s collective rights. Forysth and Stewart (2009) note that this was a concept borrowed from overseas i.e. the British who have a Low Pay Commission in charge of determining the statutory minimum. If the latter model worked well for Britain then perhaps the same thing may be said of Australia.

Some opponents to the Fair Work Act have stated that the core principles inherent in this legislation are not new in industrial relations around the world. The concept of good faith was borrowed from the United States yet there isn’t much to say about unionisation and collective bargaining in the latter country.

These sceptics have affirmed that perhaps Australia will head in such a direction if it continues to do the same. However, what they have not considered is that the collective bargaining in any country cannot succeed without the right institutional structures. In the United States, there is a lack of supportive jurisprudential structures for their good faith concept hence explaining why the idea was not workable there.

Perhaps another crucial strength that can be linked to this Act is the issue of National Employment Standards. The manner in which issues have been clearly outlined in the legislation is quite commendable and they all demonstrate how the needs of employees have been placed at the centre of the Act.

This legislation has tried to achieve a balance between family issues as well as work related responsibilities. In other words, work life balance has been brought on by the Fair Work Act. For example, parental leave has been redefined in order to include gay couples such that minimal discrimination in the workplace can be instated. Parents are allowed to ask for combined leave if they so wish. Additionally, working extra time has also been regulated with employees being granted the rights to reject unreasonable hours.

There are many more issues that have been added to this legislation to make it quite proactive in terms of worker’s rights. It is likely that employers and employees may disagree over issues like parental leave, working extra hours and entitlements to couples, by explicitly stating what is the national employment standard, the Fair Work Act has gone a long way in simplifying matters during collective bargaining because individuals now know what to expect and what not to expect after negotiation (Stewart, 2009).

It should be noted that this legislation does not just favour members of one group over another because it would seem as though employer’s concerns have been pushed aside. However, this legislation is quite fair. First of all, employers possess the right to be heard. Unions and employers ought not to assume that they have a smooth ride because all the rules support their side.

Bargaining needs to be done fairly enough as was seen in the case of Australian postal Corporation versus CEPU (2009). In this case, the union wanted to stop independent contracting by the Australia Post. Fair Work Australia found against the union and declared that employers had their side of the story and ought to be heard.

This case demonstrated that the FW Act has redefined how bargaining is to be carried out. Employers can also be aggrieved parties in negotiations and they need to be protected. Sometimes employers may need to make changes in their workplaces while a negotiation is going on; this legislation allows for managerial changes during such processes.

This makes sense because the negotiations may be going on for a long time and yet those workplace changes may be needed immediately. This legislation is therefore not one sided in that it does not overly lean towards the concerns of employees without bothering about employers. Such a quality is always very critical in ensuring the success of a given Act.

When one side is overly favoured over the other then this may result in opposition from the other party and may eventually translate into failure of that legislation. In fact the concept of balance has an important part of the fair work act 2009. It was not just seen as a law for protecting worker’s rights or union assertions; it was also seen as a platform for merging the latter concerns with those of businessmen.

Political leaders from the opposition and the government often have their endorsements of some of the regulations that need to be made in collective bargaining. Some of them may support business interests over and above workers needs while others may be more interested in restoring union representation. The Fair Work Act reconciles both types of political leaders because none of their needs have been totally met but also none of them have been totally ignored. It struck a balance in meeting these interests.

The latter law is also important because it has been able to restore affirmative action into collective bargaining realms. Although not explicitly stated in the legislation, Fair Work Australia has the prerogative to order equal remuneration for males and females if it has been shown that the latter parties are doing the same work.

Although such a provision was made available in the past through the Workplace relations Act, the Fair Work Act is different because it stretches the mandate of Fair Work to make these orders concerning equal pay.

It is interesting how this law was able to strike a balance between employer’s need to manage (either through instatement of certain workplace related changes or through their right to be heard during negotiations) and employees’ rights. The issue of unfair dismissal has been thoroughly discussed in the legislation and should therefore result in more effective outcomes in the future.

Lastly, the multi enterprise provision in the Act assists employers by eliminating some of the excessive procedures that they may go through when negotiating through the use of single enterprise agreement. This creates simplicity in bargaining and therefore enhances business interests.

Conclusion

The Fair work Act does a lot for employers and employees alike. At the heart of it is the move towards cooperation at the workplace such that adversarial relationships can be eradicated. Furthermore, the legislation propagates the principles of work life balance and minimal workplace discrimination.

It also advocates for social inclusion and enhances workers rights through the parental leave provisions as well as through unfair dismissal provisions. On the other hand, employers concerns have also been addressed through provisions of the nature of bargaining and through the multi enterprise agreement.

References

Forsyth, A. (2007). ‘Worker Representation in Australia: Moving Towards Overseas Models?’ Australian Bulletin of Labour , 33

Forsyth, A. And Stewart, A. (2009). (Eds), Fair Work: The New Workplace Laws and the Work Choices Legacy, The Federation Press, Sydney

Stewart, A. (2009). ‘A Question of Balance: Labor’s New Vision for Workplace Regulation’ Australian Journal of Labour Law 3: 29

McCrystal, S. (2008). ‘A New Consensus: The Coalition, the ALP and the Regulation of of Industrial Action’

Cooper, R. & Ellem, B. (2009). Fair work and re-regulation of collective bargaining. Australian journal of labour law, 22, 284-306

Introduction

Hayter (1) defines collective bargaining as a process through which employees negotiate their terms of payment. The demands of the employees are presented to the worker’s unions and they relate to health insurance, retirement benefits, overtime payments, occupational hazard compensation, and payments relating to safety in the workplace. Before the bargaining procedures, employees normally hold discussions about the terms of payment that would promote their quality of life. Similarly, Clark, Delaney, and Frost (1) report that the process enhances industrial affairs and the relationships between the workers and the employers. Hayter (2) notes that the worker’s unions have mutual interests since the negotiations benefit their members. According to Colosi, Thomas, and Berkeley (2-3), the unions usually select members to represent them during the negotiation procedures, which are held between the employers and the worker’s union committees. Legally, it is mandatory to have a contract outlining the agreements after the collective bargaining process. In the United States, for example, the majority of workers in the public and private sectors have the right to collective bargaining (Ameglio and Blanpain 2).

In reference to Magda, Marsden, and Moriconi (608-609), a collective agreement is a contract that stipulates the pacts made between the employees, union representatives, and employers, and it outlines the agreed terms of payment. All the parties must participate in compiling the collective agreement, and its major purpose is to renew the terms, conditions, and rates of payment (Kriechel, et al., 3). In summary, collective agreements constitute; coverage clauses, mechanisms to solve future problems, conditions relating to the agreement, and the expiry dates. The current research aims to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of collective bargaining.

Advantages of collective bargaining

Ameglio and Blanpain (2-4) note that the success of worker’s unions would be hindered in the absence of collective bargaining. This is because the process enables them to look out for the best interests of their members. Additionally, collective bargaining allows the workers to get better salaries and benefits. Although the unions still require the workers to pay membership fees, Dimitriu (489-490) indicates that they improve the future of the employees and the society. The renewal of the agreements after some time ensures that the employee’s benefits continue increasing and hence meet the demands of their families. The notice to bargain is a document that marks the beginning of the procedure. It guarantees that the employees have sufficient time to think about the kind of benefits and terms of payment that they desire. Ameglio and Blanpain (3) argue that mutual agreements ensure that the needs of the unions and the workers are met as representatives of the union and the employees are usually present in the process. Following the negotiations, the benefits spill down even to the non-unionized workers. Lewin, Keefe, and Kochan (750-753) also indicate that the agreements allow all the parties to participate and share the benefits of the contracts.

According to Hayter (3-4), past patterns of solving disputes through conflicts destabilized the workforce. In this view, collective bargaining is essential as it ensures that the demands of the employees are solved through dialogue and consensus. Conflicts between parties are settled through dialogues and the collective agreements ensure that employers adhere to the matters outlined in the contract. Moreover, workers know beforehand that they have a means of solving conflicts peacefully and effectively rather than through trade union actions. The bargaining process eliminates arbitration and makes sure that the negotiations are based on the demands and needs of the workers. In the case of arbitration, a third party is involved in deciding the employee’s working conditions. Clark et al. (3-5) report that collective negotiations safeguard social partnerships, which are crucial for the survival of industrial relations. Social partnerships involve relationships between the worker’s unions and the employers in organizations. Moreover, the bargaining improves relations between the workers and their employers. Lastly, Dimitriu (490-491) argues that bona fide dealings between unions and employers promote trust and stabilize the union memberships.

Disadvantages of collective bargaining

Despite the involvement of workers and union representatives in the collective bargaining process, Cloutier, Denis, and Bilodeau (1020) note the possibility of some employees being dissatisfied with the terms of payment. Thus, the perception of the workers toward the terms of payment determines whether their attitudes toward their employers and co-workers are affected. As a result of low job satisfaction, their productivity and profitability within the organization are affected. The low level of job satisfaction is likely to affect the overall competitiveness of the organization. In an effort to ensure that all the parties are satisfied during the negotiation process, Lewin, Keefe, and Kochan (750-752) suggest that the worker’s unions ensure that all the demands of the employees are catered for. Also, Krieg et al. (621-622) acknowledge the wealth of research regarding the association between low job satisfaction and union membership. Therefore, it is unlikely that the collective negotiations would promote motivation and job satisfaction among the workers. Lewin et al. (751) also note that collective bargains have not been effective in some settings in regard to the prevention of strikes in the workforce. According to Hayter (5-6), another disadvantage of collective bargaining is the fact that it is least likely to benefit the low-income employees. This is because the worker’s union committees and the influential employees within an organization are less likely to fight for the rights and interests of other employees. Moreover, conflicts within the management of the unions are likely to limit the success of the negotiations. Ameglio and Blanpain (6-7) state that collective bargaining does not cater to the interest of the public regarding the control of the prices of various commodities.

Conclusion

Collective bargaining refers to the procedures through which the terms of payment within the workforce are negotiated. Such negotiations involve the worker’s unions committees, employees, and the employers (Hayter 1). Additionally, a collective agreement is a contract that contains the information about the agreed terms of payment. All the members have to come to a consensus and sign the collective agreement document. Collective bargaining procedures occur in both public and private organizations in the United States. Moreover, they allow workers to settle their disputes peacefully. The advantages of collective negotiations include; improvement of working conditions, provision of better salaries and benefits, prevention of conflicts and strikes, and safeguarding social partnerships. On the contrary, the disadvantages of the agreements include; inability to promote job satisfaction, collective negotiations do not necessarily prevent strikes in the workforce, and conflicts within the management may limit their success. Nonetheless, collective bargaining has been effective in the past regarding improving the working conditions and negotiations for better salaries.

Works Cited

Ameglio, Eduardo J and Roger Blanpain. The actors of collective bargaining: A world report- Xvii World Congress of Labor Law and Social Security, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2003. Print.

Clark, Paul F, John T Delaney and Ann C Frost. Collective bargaining in the private sector, Champaign: Cornell University Press, 2002. Print.

Cloutier, Julie, Pascale Denis and Henriette Bilodeau. “The dynamics of strike votes: Perceived justice during collective bargaining.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 34.6 (2013): 1016–1038. Print.

Colosi, Thomas, Thomas R and Arthur E Berkeley. Collective bargaining: How it works and why: A manual of theory and practice, Huntington, New York: Juris Publishers, 2006. Print.

Dimitriu, Raluca. “Centrifugal trends in collective bargaining.” Accounting and management information systems 12.3 (2013): 489–503. Print.

Hayter, Susan. The role of collective bargaining in the global economy: Negotiating for social justice, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2011. Print.

Kriechel, Ben, et al. “Works councils, collective bargaining, and apprenticeship training: Evidence from German firms.” Industrial Relations 53.2 (2014):199-222. Print.

Krieg, John M, et al. “Collective bargaining and faculty job satisfaction.” Industrial Relations 52.3 (2013): 619-644. Print.

Lewin, David, Jeffrey Keefe and Thomas A Kochan. “The new great debate about unionism and collective bargaining in U.S. State and Local Governments.” ILR Review 65.4 (2012): 749-778. Print.

Magda, Iga, David Marsden and Simone Moriconi. “Collective agreements, wages, and firms cohorts: Evidence from Western Europe.” ILR Review 65.3 (2012): 607-629. Print.

Management and unions play a great role in today’s society because they provide their members with an opportunity to improve their lives. Basically, the task of management in this framework is to meet those purposes and objectives that were previously set. It deals with the representatives of the general public directly because the focus hiring and firing processes are in focus. In addition to that, it deals with the review of employee performance, scheduling, promotions, and issue resolution. As a result, workers become more efficient, and their working environment is positive and safe. Management concentrates on employees who are gathered in unions, and this connection links them. It defines and directs the way a company and its personnel work for them to reach mutual objectives and accomplish all tasks. Thus, it also ensures that workers operate effectively and efficiently.

As a result, it is critical for management to maintain constant improvements so that companies can overcome those barriers that prevent them from streamlined development. Focusing on organizational operations, management can define a company’s main issues and offer solutions. Unions, in their turn, ensure that employees are not negatively affected by such activities. They protect people’s rights, assist them in the case of violations, control the organizational environment, provide benefits, and take part in conflict resolutions (Bakke, 2010). Previously unions helped to deal with the racism and sexism that were commonly observed in the workplace, which appealed to society. But today these issues are not that critical already, and people start noticing that unions do not trigger significant changes anymore. They can prevent a strike and can also lead to the bureaucratization of work and corruption.

With the help of their unions, employees can negotiate with employers. In this way, they maintain the process of collective bargaining. In its framework, they can identify employment terms, such as wages, health insurance, and pensions. Employees gather and define their priorities for bargaining collectively. This type of interaction between management and unions is rather frequent, and it allows to ensure the advantageousness of the contract. The history of unions affects current negotiations greatly. For example, a voting procedure for the certification of a bargaining agent was established in 1935, and in three years child labor was banned and minimum wage defined. Even though some elements altered with the course of time, unions protect the workers on the basis of the major labor legislation of the 20th century even now (Labor unions and collective bargaining, n.d.). Five years ago, unions had to deal with the fiscal crisis and the Republican attacks. In addition to that, they are focused on the promotion of female workers for them to obtain more white-collar and leading positions.

Today, the private sector becomes less active in the framework of the union membership; still, it contains a great part of it. The negotiation process that involves a public sector union would likely differ from the private one because their priorities tend to differ even though the main purpose of the union remains the same. The representatives of the private industry focus on bargaining power. They emphasize that employers and employees are uneven and try to achieve compensation and split up profits. Public-sector unions, in their turn, would not focus on this difference. Tending to generalize, they would not try to divide mutual profits equally but would try to benefit more, negotiating against those who pay taxes and obtains advantage from governmental expenditures (Public and private unions, 2011).

I believe that this exercise improved my understanding of the collective bargaining process greatly. I received an opportunity to get to know more information about its history, which gave me a chance to realize what actually was done due to the collective bargaining during the last decades and how it affected current labor relations. What is more, I explored this process from the perspective of public and private industries, which also turned out to be rather beneficial because I received a chance to use my critical-thinking skills. In addition to that, I realized that management and unions represent different parties (organizations and their employees) but have similar objectives that are beneficial for the personnel. It can be even claimed that in some cases unions help management to work with employees, which turned out to be rather unexpected to me. I concluded that mediation and arbitration are rather useful in the framework of dispute resolution. Objectiveness and an opportunity to explore the issue deeply not affected by personal emotions preferences ensure the possibility for both company and its personnel to benefit.

A collective bargaining agreement is a contract that points out employment conditions. It is established between two parties: management that represents a particular company and union that represents its personnel. This document is legally enforceable during a specified period of time. A collective bargaining agreement is extremely important because it consists of information that is critical for every employee. It reveals information about wages, schedules, working environment, vacations, etc. In addition to that, it discusses the way dispute resolution will be maintained during the time this contract is enforced. The agreement should include as many details as possible because in this way companies and workers will have fewer chances to abuse their authority. Thus, both an organization and its employees will be able to resort to the collective bargaining agreement and prove that their point of view is the one to be taken for granted.

The collective bargaining process requires efficient utilization of organizational leadership competencies for a successful negotiation. In this framework, communication provides an opportunity to influence stakeholders and appeal to them. Problem-solving ensures successful resolution of discussed issues and grievance settlement, which is likely to lead to the improvement of the relationship between management and employees. Decent teamwork is critical for collective bargaining because it provides the representatives of the unity with a chance to define their priorities so that everyone remains satisfied and mutual goals can be considered.

Analytical skills ensure that a range of complex issues is decently articulated so that the opposite party clearly understands what is required and why. It allows us to make well-considered decisions and to break arguments that support the claim. Legal and ethical practices are rather advantageous because they ensure understanding and effective utilization in the practice of professional standards and consideration of management’s and employees’ interests. The strategic approach makes communication during this negotiation process strategic so that all its steps are identified beforehand, and the maximum impact can be achieved. It also allows us to avoid misunderstandings and confusion. Finally, research gives a chance to refer to authoritative information and ideas of other professionals to support the personal argument and make it sound stronger for stakeholders (Grant, 2011).

References

Grant, A. (2011). Developing a competency framework for labor relations professionals. Web.

Labor unions and collective bargaining. (n.d.). Web.

Public and private unions: What’s the difference exactly? (2011). Web.

Introduction

Over the years, collective bargaining has helped employees achieve better working conditions and favorable pay in the workplace. In most cases, the workers use representatives to engage the employer in negotiations. The aim is to make sure that their needs are addressed (Budd, 2010). Trade unions represent workers in collective bargaining. The organizations exist in both the private and public sectors. However, there are differences between the two sectors as far as collective bargaining is concerned.

In this paper, the author will provide a comparative analysis of collective bargaining in the private and public sectors. To this end, the bargaining power of stakeholders across the divide will be compared. Finally, the economic weapons used by employers and employees in the two sectors will be analyzed.

Collective Bargaining in the Public and Private Sector: Differential Analysis

The two sides share some similarities concerning collective bargaining. However, there are also differences between them. To start with, the incentives behind negotiations in the private sector and government are different. A case in point is a union representing workers in a company owned by private investors. Such negotiations may lead to high wages for the employees. The increase in salaries would lead to a rise in the prices of products sold by the company (Elvander, 2002). The reason behind this is that the owners of the business would pass the cost of labor to the consumers. Here, the economic disadvantage of collective bargaining in the private sector is made apparent. An increase in prices may prompt customers to shift to other cheaper products. As such, in private-sector bargaining, the choice and welfare of consumers are given priority. Given the competitive nature of the modern market, the demands made by the labor force during negotiations must be reasonable. In the public sector, competition is relatively low. For example, when the demands for high wages are presented, the public entity may not necessarily suffer economically (Schnabel, Zagelmeyer & Kohaut, 2006). The money used to fund the operations of such a firm comes from the taxes paid by members of the public. For this reason, bargaining in the public sector may be unrestrained.

Consumers in the private sector can opt to use their money on alternative products. The case is different in the public sector. The taxpayer funding the operations of the government has no choice but to pay the taxes due (Kleiner, 2001). Consequently, unions in the public sector encounter few challenges when presenting their demands. The bargaining power of the management in government entities is reduced.

Collective bargaining in the public sector involves negotiations with the government (Kleiner, 2001). For this reason, it is possible to find advocates acting on behalf of the two sides. It is one of the reasons why the process of bargaining in public entities becomes long and tedious. The management must comply with government regulations when tackling the demands of the unions. In the private sector, the process does not take long. The management has the last word and does not necessarily have to answer to higher powers. Unions in the private sector are also more organized than those in representing workers in the public domain. Consequently, they may be able to procure the services of a full-time professional negotiator (Schnabel et al., 2006).

The Role of Bargaining Power in Securing a Favorable Contract Settlement

As already indicated, there are differences in the bargaining powers of stakeholders in the public and private sectors. The parties have varying levels of influence over each other. Their power is an important determinant of the outcomes of engagements (Budd & Na, 2000). Generally, bargaining power in the public sector is higher compared to that in the private sector. Unions representing civil servants employees have more influence because the government is their major source of funds. As an entity, the government does not have much to lose. All it needs to do to meet the demands of the employees is increase taxes. As such, the unions find it easier to exert pressure on the government to agree to their demands (Klasa, Maxwell & Ortiz-Molina, 2009). What this means is that managers in the public sector have less bargaining power compared to their counterparts in private entities. Even though private unions may be able to employ such professionals as lawyers to represent them, their bargaining power is still relatively low. Some of their demands may be turned down if they negatively affect the profitability of the firm. In the private sector, the management has more bargaining powers than the unions.

Strategies Used by the Management and Labor Unions to Increase their Bargaining Powers

The basic weapons used by the management in public and private sectors to enhance their bargaining powers include allowances and benefits of their workers. The two strategies give the employer room to maneuver when negotiating with the employees (Kleiner, 2001). The common weapons used by the unions to increase their influence include go-slows and strikes (Elvander, 2002). The threat to derail the operations of the firm forces the management to meet the demands of the workers.

References

Budd, J. (2010). Labor relations: Striking a balance. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Budd, J., & Na, I. (2000). The union membership wage premium for employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(4), 783-807.

Elvander, N. (2002). The new Swedish regime for collective bargaining and conflict resolution: A comparative perspective. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 8(2), 197-216.

Klasa, S., Maxwell, W., & Ortiz-Molina, H. (2009). The strategic use of corporate cash holdings in collective bargaining with labor unions. Journal of Financial Economics, 92(3), 421-442.

Kleiner, M. (2001). Intensity of management resistance: Understanding the decline of unionization in the private sector. Journal of Labor Research, 22(3), 519-540.

Schnabel, C., Zagelmeyer, S., & Kohaut, S. (2006). Collective bargaining structure and its determinants: An empirical analysis with British and German establishment data. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 12(2), 165-188.

The article is about various state boards found in Illinois, whereby the board members and the directors are seen doing very little and on the other hand, receiving a great pay. There is an example given in the article about the meeting that was held in March 17 2011 by the educational labor relations committee.

The writer of the article gives readers a clear picture of that meeting that started at 10 am and ended at 11.16 am (ISB). The board discussed few topics like the labor disputes facing various districts, the reports were read to all the members, and probably came up with the date for the next meeting.

In total, the meeting covered duration of 76 hours and each participant got approximately $7800 as the pay. In addition to such payment per meeting, these board members are also paid monthly salaries, which are accompanied by state pensions.

The writer of the article says that most of the board members rotate in the top government organizations, and some are members in more than one board (ISB). The board members who are politically connected get the best payments for the least time used in several meetings per year.

Some top governors have seen the fact of these board members receiving much money for few hours, but they received much opposition from the majority group (ISB). Some officials did not like the idea of reducing the pay for the board members for the few hours they sit for meetings. The worst part of the idea was that most of the board members are permanently employed in other sectors either public or private sectors.

As an international student and as a reader the issue of these board members receiving such big amount is controversial. Economically, this act can greatly result to unequal distribution of resources in the country (ISB). If some officials are members of more than one board, they end up getting a lot of money.

There are some people who wok hard for the full month, and the salary they receive is not worth their efforts. The people who contribute much to the economy by working long hours end up receiving less amount of money. There should be equal distribution of resources in the country to boost the low earners.

On the other hand, when these board members meet they discuss crucial and very sensitive matters in their meetings. Incase they mess up with such matters; they may end up paying costly for their mistakes (ISB). In connection to how sensitive their matters of discussions they are, the better their pay should be. There are activities that can be done in minutes and they are worth much money.

Most of the board meetings discuss important matters that would earn the whole nation a lot of money, and this qualifies the board members to be paid an equal amount. In the nation, such serious issues of payments should be catered for to make all the citizens enjoy their fruits of their labor accordingly.

Earning much money for some individuals while others are earning very little may widen the gap between the rich and the poor hence dragging the economy behind.

Works Cited

Illinois State Boards (ISB): Little work, great pay. 2011. Web.

Introduction

Currently, trade unions in the United Kingdom pass through a period of crisis because these organizations no longer have a strong influence on the relations between workers and employers. Declining rates in union density and bargaining coverage indicate that employees do not want to be represented with the help of trade unions. This paper is aimed at discussing the current status of these organizations.

In particular, one should review statistical data that can throw light on the role played by labor movement in the United Kingdom. Moreover, this paper will include a discussion of the factors that contributed to the declining influence of trade unions on labor relations. Finally, it is important to explain the possible relevance of trade union representation.

These are the main questions that should be examined more closely. On the whole, it is possible to say that the decline of trade unions can be explained by the willingness of business administrators to meet the needs of workers.

Furthermore, employees believe that they can properly protect their interests without unionization. Nevertheless, the opportunity for union representation is not completely disregarded by British workforce because it can be a useful safeguard against possible infringement on their rights. These are the main arguments that can be made.

Current trends

Overall, skeptical attitude toward trade unions is largely based on the statistical trades that have been observed during the last decade. Much attention is usually paid to the declining union density. For instance, in 2008, more than 70 percent of British employees were disorganized (Pollert 2010, p. 63). Furthermore, collective bargaining coverage fell from 85 to 30 percent (Pollert 2010, p. 63).

It should be kept in mind in the private sector, the unions have been almost marginalized. As a rule, private businesses resist the unionization of employees (Noon & Blyton 2007). Yet, the main issue is that many workers want to be represented by trade unions. In their opinion, they can successfully cope with possible problems without the assistance of labor unions.

They believe that they have a strong bargaining power. These are the reasons why so many researchers have become extremely skeptical about the role of these organizations in the future. Judging from these data, one can say that trade unions can eventually become marginalized.

This is one of the possible outcomes that should be considered. In the United Kingdom, trade unions played an instrumental role in the seventies and eighties when more seventy percent of the workforce was unionized. Therefore, one should understand the underlying causes of this dramatic change.

The factors which diminish the role of trade unions

These changes can be explained by several factors. In particular, modern managers in the UK prefer to communicate directly with workers without involving any mediators (Purcell & Hall 2012, p. 4). In particular, they organize regular meetings during which workers can express their opinions about various aspects of employment relations (Noon & Blyton 2007).

In many cases, this strategy has been helpful for avoiding conflicts and strikes which produce detrimental effects on the performance of many companies (Noon & Blyton 2007). Furthermore, business administrators use opinion surveys in order to understand the challenges that workers encounter (Purcell & Hall 2012, p. 6). Certainly, this approach is not always effective, but it can be used as a substitute to trade unions.

Overall, one can argue that modern managers have become more attentive to the needs of workers. In this way, they attempt to minimize the influence of labor unions on managerial decisions and long-term policies of businesses. To some degree, their strategies have been rather effective.

Apart from that, it is critical to remember that workers look for alternatives forms of labor representation. Such initiatives are also supported by business administrators who do not want to negotiate with independent trade unions. There are different approaches to non-union representation.

For example, many employees are willing to work consultative committees that discuss various aspects of HR policies with the management (Purcell & Hall 2012, p. 6). Such groups must be informed about future managerial decisions, and they can take part in the development of policies that can better suit the needs of workers. This is one of the examples that can be considered.

Furthermore, in many businesses, there are employee councils or groups of workers that could represent the interests of other staff members (Lloyd 2001). The members of these councils are selected by other workers, and they should help the management better consider the needs of employees.

Therefore, many workers believe that they can properly protect their interests without the support of trade unions. Such an attitude is widespread among people who believe that their bargaining power is very strong. As a rule, such people are very skilled professionals. This is another trend that should not be overlooked.

Additionally, one should not forget about the increasing unemployment in the United Kingdom. Under such circumstances, employees are extremely concerned about their job security (ACAS 2010, p. 1). This is why they do not to oppose the decisions of managers or take part in strikes (ACAS 2010, p. 1).

Therefore, external economic environment also influences the attitudes of workers toward trade union representation. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about low-skilled employees whose compensation is not very high. These are some of the major issues that should be taken account by researchers.

Overall, one can argue that managers are able to exclude trade unions from negotiating if they pay attention to the concerns or arguments of employees (Butler, Glover, & Tregaskis 2011).

Furthermore, the labor legislation in the United Kingdom minimizes the risk of significant conflicts between managers and workers (Butler, Glover, & Tregaskis 2011). These are the main factors that are important for explaining current status of trade unions in the country and their future role.

The need for trade union representation

Yet, there is some evidence which can demonstrate that trade unions cannot be completely dismissed. For example, one should speak about the increased number of collective disputes in the United Kingdom (ACAS 2010, p. 2). It should be kept in mind that during recessions, many employers may take advantage of workers’ position (ACAS 2010, p. 3).

In turn, trade unions can help employers and workers to resolve such tensions with managers and protect their rights. Therefore, it is possible that in the future, a greater number of employees may require trade union representation because more people can be affected by the recession. Moreover, one should keep in mind that there are still at list six million union members in the United Kingdom (Purcell & Hall 2012, p. 2).

These people work in governmental and non-governmental organizations. These people work in the public sector, automotive companies, or financial institutions (Purcell & Hall 2012, p. 2). In most cases, these individuals belong to such groups as frontline personnel or first-level management. These people believe that without trade union representation, they will become more vulnerable.

Thus, even considering current trends, one cannot say that the trade unions will become completely irrelevant to British workers. Thus, the role of trade unions can be better understood, if one looks at the functioning of specific industries in which workers tend to be more organized. This is one of the limitations that should be considered.

Apart from that, these organizations can help employees resolve various issues related to work-life balance, for instance, scheduling or working hours (Rigby & O’Brien-Smith, 2010, p. 216). Furthermore, these organizations are critical for supporting employees who have children. In many cases, people’s discontent with their job originates from the failure to establish the balance between work and personal life.

Sometimes, they can rely on the assistance of trade unions. To a great extent, these agencies can help the managers and workers to develop solutions that can suit both sides (Rigby & O’Brien-Smith, 2010, p. 216). Thus, it is important to speak about the benefits that trade unions can bring to employees, even though these improvements are not necessarily related to compensation.

Moreover, it is vital to remember that lack of representation can eventually enable employers to dictate their terms to workers. Many of them can face various forms of victimizations such as unfair termination or long working hours without compensation.

These difficulties are encountered by low-paid employees. This situation can be observed in various businesses such as cleaners, hospitality industry, small factors, or care homes (Pollert 2010, p. 80). Therefore, it is possible to say that such individuals will eventually seek the assistance of labor unions in order to protect their interests.

Discussion

Admittedly, the role of trade unions has decreased in the United Kingdom. However, one should not suppose that these organizations have been come completely irrelevant.

Employees can use the assistance of these organizations, if they believe that their rights are violated. At present, they do not require union representations, because employers are more willing to resolve potential conflicts and minimize the risk of strikes.

Currently, there are many workers who want to negotiate the terms of their on an individual basis. Nevertheless, U.K. workers can still consider labor unions as one of the solutions to their conflicts with the management.

It is vital to remember that the importance of trade unions can become apparent at the time when the bargaining power of workers declines (Simms, Holgate, & Heery 2012). So, the declining rates of union density are not sufficient for demonstrating that labor representation is not important for workers.

Conclusion

Overall, the discussion indicates that the relations between workers and employees can be described as the continuous search of compromise. At present, businesses and workforce try to reach an agreement without assistance of the mediators such as trade unions.

However, it is critical to remember that these organizations remain as a valid alternative which can become of great value to workers at the time when their bargaining power declines. These are the main details that can be singled out.

References

ACAS 2010, Riding out the storm: managing conflict in a recession and beyond. Web.

Butler, P., Glover, L. & Tregaskis, O 2011, ‘When the Going Gets Tough’… : Recession and the Resilience of Workplace Partnership’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 49, no.4, pp. 666–687.

Lloyd, C 2001, ‘What do Employee Councils do? The impact of non-union forms of representation on trade union organisation’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 313-327.

Noon, M & Blyton, P 2007, The Realities of Work, Third Edition, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Pollert, A 2010, ‘The Lived Experience of Isolation for Vulnerable Workers Facing Workplace Grievances in 21st Century Britain’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, vol. 31, no.1, pp. 62-92.

Purcell, J & Hall, M 2012, Voice and Participation in the Modern Workplace: challenges and prospects. Web.

Rigby, M & O’Brien-Smith, F 2010, ‘Trade union interventions in work-life balance’, Work, employment and society, vol. 24, no.2, pp. 203–220.

Simms, M, Holgate, J, & Heery, E 2012, Union Voices: Tactics and Tensions in UK Organizing, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.