Labor and Work in the Global Economy

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

In Great Britain, a labor accord is not an obligatory contract by law. As such, any breach of the contract, either by the union or the employer, has no lawful consequences. Moreover, there is no such provision in the labor contract that prohibits strikes. The unions in Great Britain are very much prevailing and authoritative. Incidents of strikes are very common and, ironically, the British people have become accustomed to such strikes.

On the other hand, the American government discourages unions and due to a special provision in the US labor contracts, abrupt or unlawful strikes rarely happen in the country. Any differences between the employers and the employees are settled amicably. Most of the time, such differences are found at the lower levels of the chain of command. In cases of serious controversies, the union and the management get involved.

There are seldom cases, when in spite of the intervention of the union and the management, the disputes are not solved. In such circumstances, the mediator and arbitrator are involved. Both parties are bound to accept the decision of the mediator and arbitrator.

But this is only while the contract is valid. If a new contract is not signed after the expiry of the old contract, the workers have the freedom to either continue working or walk out. In circumstances where the new contract hasn’t been signed, even the management has the right to expel the workers but it seldom happens.

However, the unions in both the countries always strive for the betterment of the workers. They claim that the interests of the workers are not compromised by the management (Bamber, Lansbury, & Wailes, 2010).

French Employment Relations System v/s United States’ Employment Relation System

The French government plays an important role in representation of workers in commercial organizations. France has experienced low financial growth during the last few decades, and it has resulted in mass unemployment. To cope up with the situation, the French government started various employment schemes and also imparted vocational training to people. Unions were legalized in France in the year 1884.

The unions in France are considered to be generally affected by pluralism, competition and disintegration. It means that there is more than one union in any particular organization. Each union has its own policy and wants more employees under its banner. This has resulted in disintegration of the members.

There is a communication gap between the union leaders and the members. Workers are skeptical about the unions and their cause. The managements of organizations prefer direct approach with their workers. Since both the managements and the workers are against unions, the existence of the latter has become questionable.

Since the managements of organizations have a direct communication link with their workers, the disputes are also solved amicably and at a fast pace. This has resulted in less number of strikes throughout the country. The French government employs a huge number of workers, and as such it has a control over the pay scales of workers in the private sector.

And since the government has great interference in the affairs of organizations, the organizations are restricted to a great extent from usurping the interests of workers. The government ensures that its labor laws are strictly followed by the organizations (Bamber et al., 2010).

On the contrary, the United States’ government is not involved in the workings of organizations. As mentioned earlier, any disputes between the employers and the workers are settled amicably or by the intervention of mediator and arbitrator. The unions in the United States are strong enough to fight for valid demands of the workers.

German Employment Relations System v/s United States’ Employment Relation System

In Germany, the employee unions are very strong. Usually, there is one union in an organization. But the membership to these unions is not mandatory. Workers have the free-will to register with the unions. Those workers who don’t opt for becoming union members have the freedom to negotiate with the management directly. They even have the freedom to negotiate their wages that have been mentioned in their labor contracts.

Likewise in the United State of America, strikes are prohibited in Germany. As in the United States of America the workers are bound with the contract, similarly in Germany also workers cannot go on strike until their labor contract is in force. But once the contract expires, they have the freedom to go on strike. But they can do so only until a new contract hasn’t been signed.

But again, such incidents seldom happen due to the fact that the labor relations have a legal structure and the organizations are bound to follow them. It is mandatory for organizations to follow the labor laws whether they have unions or not. The German labor law entitles employees with representation within the company board. As such, organizations usually have a good rapport with their workers.

In Germany, the unions don’t have a national standing. They are at the industrial level only. This is a drawback for the German workers because they cannot have a national consensus on their issues (Bamber et al., 2010). On the contrary, in the United States of America, there are national labor organizations that fight for the workers on a national level and advocate for collective agreements on behalf of all the workers.

Chinese Employment Relations System v/s United States’ Employment Relation System

China is a communist country, and labor laws of the country are totally different as compared to those of the United States of America. In China, the government is not concerned with the performance in organizations, their financial aspects and/or their labor relations. Organizations in China are regulated by different policies concerning their workers.

The trade unions are controlled by the government, and as such the unions cannot take steps towards the interest of the workers. In the order of preference given to disputes, the government comes first, then the organizations and lastly the employees. The union leaders are appointed by the party in power and not elected by the members of the union. The collective bargaining has to follow orders from the government and as such the spirit of collective bargaining doesn’t exist.

This is in contradiction to the situation in the United States of America where employers, employees and the unions promote the cause of collective bargaining. This has a positive effect because major conflicts are avoided. In the United States of America, employees are given their due respect, whereas in China the employers have an upper hand on their employees. The Chinese government does not interfere with the workings of organizations. This is the reason why there is so much of labor exploitation in China. This is not the case in the United States of America.

Moreover, even the trade unions in China work towards maintaining the status quo. So, indirectly it means that the unions in China function in a manner so as to amuse the management and the government. On the contrary, the trade unions in the United States of America fight for the workers’ cause and ensure that their rights are not usurped (Bamber et al., 2010).

South Korean Employment Relations System v/s United States’ Employment Relation System

Until early 1960s, the economy of South Korea was basically agriculture oriented. Majority of the labor force (63%) was engaged in this sector. The government gradually undertook schemes of industrialization and started export oriented projects. Until 1987, the labor relations were influenced by the government and it was done with the aim of having cheap labor.

They were not allowed to go on strike for whatever reason. The labors were prohibited from forming unions. The wages of workers were decided by their employers unopposed. But after the ‘Great Labor Struggle’ of 1987 the government had to bend before the demands of the trade unions. The unions were given powers to bargain with the managements. As a result, the living conditions and wages of workers improved.

But even today, the government of South Korea is the main employer and as such has great control over the labor relations. But likewise the United States of America, the South Korean government ensures that the professional relation between the employers and their employees is healthy. The government promotes healthy relations between the managements and the unions as well.

Likewise the United States of America, the collective bargaining is controlled by the unions in South Korea. But unlike in the American employment relation system, there is the labor management council in South Korea which is charged with the provision of a channel through which communication and co-operation is bettered between employees and employers.

In the United States of America, the government doesn’t interfere in the salary structure of the workers. On the contrary, there is a wages commission in South Korea that sets minimum wages for the workers. This is done to ensure that the workers are not exploited by their employers (Bamber et al., 2010).

Reference

Bamber, G.J., Lansbury, R.D., & Wailes, N. (2010). International and comparative employment relations: Globalization and change. London: Allen & Unwin.

Click Here To Order Now!