Unit-18 IR

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unit-18-ir 1/11

5

Strategic Employee

Relations: Emerging

TrendsUNIT 18 STRATEGIC EMPLOYEE

RELATIONS: EMERGING TRENDS

Objectives

After going through this unit, you should be able to understand:

G the new perspectives of 1990s and implications of post-modernism for

employment relations;G the management of new IR and the compatibility of HRM and new

IR strategies; and

G the implications of latest developments in HRM for industrial relations issues.

Structure

18.1 Introduction

18.2 The New Perspectives of 1990s

18.3 Implications of Post-Modernism for Employment/Industrial Relations

18.4 Management and Industrial Relations Strategies

18.5 Industrial Relations Strategy

18.6 Summary

18.7 Self-Assessment Questions

18.8 Further Readings

18.1 INTRODUCTION

“They have besides a new system of strategy which has out-maneuvered and

overwhelmed all the armies of Europe” - Lord Wellington about French troopsThe moral of the above statement is: “however good may be your troops and your tactical movements, effective strategy is essential to success in the military sphere.”

This is what exactly is happening in the battlefield of business world in the wake of globalisation. Business organisations are locked in a neck-and-neck competition vying

with one another to push their products and services, to wean the customers away

from their competitors and to continuously enlarge their own customer-base. Goneare the days when business organisations enjoyed State protection and patronage in

the form of high rates of import duties on foreign goods, which helped them to thrivein the market even when the products manufactured and services rendered by them

were of sub-standard quality. The consumers had little choice in the market place and

were at the receiving end for a long time. This scenario underwent a radical changewith the opening of Indian markets to foreign players. The free-flow of foreign direct

investment (FDI), the setting up of manufacturing facilities in India by foreign business houses, the outsourcing of business processes, and the increasing focus on

customer-satisfaction and service, all point to one phenomenon – gaining competitive

advantage in the market place. Business strategies are being devised by corporationsall over towards achieving this goal.

‘Strategy’ can be defined as the “framework which guides those choices thatdetermine the nature and direction of an organisation”; “a comprehensive plan of

action that guides allocation of resources to achieve long-term organisational

objectives.” Strategic management can be defined as “leading the process of

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


6

Trends in Employment

Relationsformulating and implementing strategies to achieve long-term organisational success.”

The two important strategies, which the business organisations generally opt for, are:

(a) differentiation, i.e., seeking competitive advantage through uniqueness of productor service, and (b) cost leadership , i.e., seeking to achieve lower costs than

competitors by improving overall efficiency of operations. Both these genericstrategies have implications for human resource management of which ‘employee

relations’ is an integral part.

In this fast changing business world coupled with advances in information technology,

every conceivable aspect of business can be copied, be it the organisation structure,technology or process. The only thing that cannot be copied easily is the uniquehuman factor and the innovation and creativity which people are endowed with. It

therefore follows that in the changing dispensation, human beings are considered as aninvaluable resource and an asset that can give sustainable competitive advantage to

the organisation. This approach to employees as assets has vital implications for the

strategic human resource management, which can be defined as“the process of developing a consistent, aligned set of policies and practices, which facilitate the

realization of organisation’s strategic objectives.” Viewed in this perspective,several concepts which held sway over personnel and industrial relations function

during the major part of 20th century have either been stripped of their traditional

meaning or have been replaced by new concepts. ‘Employee relations’ is no

exception to this turbulent change. The manner in which the relationship had evolvedup to the 1980’s with a sharp focus on collectivism, trade union rights, job security,etc., no longer retains its traditional flavour in the wake of changing business

environment on a global scale.

18.2 NEW PERSPECTIVES OF 1990s

There has been a significant change in the industrial relations management during the

1990s, which can be studied with reference to the three major perspectives, whichdominated the scene:

i) Liberal individualism and neo-laissez faireii) Human resource management

iii) Modernism vs. Post-Modernism

i) Liberal individualism and neo- laissez faire

The advent of conservative governments and the product-market imperatives resulting

in an onslaught on trade unionism heralded a new era of liberal or laissez faireindividualism more reminiscent of early 19th century but adapted to late-20th century

conditions. The characteristics of liberal individualism are:

a) That economic conflicts of interest should be freely entered into by individual

employees and employers operating in competitive markets. b) That collective relationships between trade union federations and employers’

associations upset the working of the free market mechanism and should beavoided.

c) That in order to ensure the greatest benefit for all, individual workers should gainwith individual employers over the contract of employment and any conflicts

arising between them at that stage should be resolved.

d) That once the employment contract is consummated, the employment relationship

should be entirely free of conflict and the employee should accept the authority of the firm in the best interests of all.

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


7

Strategic Employee

Relations: Emerging

Trends

e) That any combination by trade unions or employers’ associations to influence the

terms of employment was to be deplored because this would upset the

competitive market forces which determine a fair price for labour and ensure thegreatest efficiency in terms of production and allocation of resources.

f) That it is best for individuals, in a free society, to take responsibility for their

own actions and not to rely on others such as trade unions and the State.

g) That there should be no intervention by the state in private sector collective

bargaining where market forces should dominate;

h) That there should be no intervention in the labour markets to the detriment of

labour flexibility and efficiency;

i) Deregulation of labour markets by dispensing with legal and other restrictions;

j) Privatisation of many public sector industries thereby ‘liberating’ them from

state control and exposing them to market forces; and

k) ‘Contracting out’ of local authority services to private companies.

ii) Human Resource Management

a) The growth in the uptake of HRM has coincided with a steady decline inimportance of industrial relations as a central feature of economic performance

and policy. It also coincided with a decline in the membership and influence of trade unions.

b) HRM has been applied to a diverse range of management practices and strategiesand the term is often used by many employers as a more acceptable substitute for

personnel or industrial relations management.

c) The importance of HRM for our understanding of industrial relations and

industrial relations change ‘lies in its association with a strategic, integrated andhighly distinctive managerial approach to the management of people. (Salamon,

1998, p. 19).

d) The ‘hard’ version of HRM focuses on human resource strategy and employee

utilisation; and the ‘soft’ HRM focuses on the ‘human’ aspects of management

and concern with people in organisations.

e) HRM approaches emphasise the individual rather than the collective regulationof the employment relationship and the direct relationship between management

and its employees.

iii) Modernism vs. Post-modernism

‘Modernism’ refers to the era in which factory system of production flourished duringthe 19th century and throughout the major part of 20 th century. This era was

characterized by social organisation of production, the division of labour and

assembly line of operations coupled with narrow specialization. During 1980’s and1990s, these traditional systems have been gradually replaced by technology-driven

production systems with a shift in focus from ‘skill’ to ‘knowledge’. ‘Post-modernism’is a new concept, which took birth in 1980s and 1990s, embraces the notion that

advanced capitalist societies are experiencing monumental and significant changes,

and movements away from the previous ‘modernist’ era. More specifically, the‘post-modernism’ represents a change in assumptions as detailed below:

G Knowledge work as against skill work,

G Customised products as against standardised products of mass production era

(which is often referred to as ‘Fordism’ ),

G Multi-skills as against narrow specialisation in one particular functional area,

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


8


RelationsG Flexible workforce as against workforce which was rigid in terms of skills and

abilities, and

G Consumerism and customer-orientation.

18.3 IMPLICATIONS OF POST-MODERNISM FOR

EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

The post-modernist approach to human resource management has far reaching

implications for employment relations as detailed below:

G The outlook for IR is very pessimistic.

G Industrial disputes are likely to diminish with the move away from Fordism, withan increasing emphasis upon work, which is flexible, more skilled and

challenging.

G As a result of the permanent decline in conflict, employees will find union

membership increasingly irrelevant.

G ‘Working class’ will become increasingly fragmented and this will make it

difficult for the union movement to represent these disintegrated interests and itsrole as a political actor is therefore likely to diminish. Post-modern analysis

suggests that the trade union movement is in terminal decline.

G The term ‘employee relations’ and the ‘individualistic’ preoccupation of HRM

are both part of a post-modernist project.

18.4 MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

STRATEGIES

Industrial relations strategies and policies are concerned with influencing and directing

the employment relationship in the medium to long term. However, the managementof industrial relations has traditionally been low in the order of organisational

priorities and smaller firms generally have an unstructured and day-to-day approachto industrial relations management. Much of the industrial unrest of the 1960s was

attributed to the inadequate conduct and management of industrial relations at

corporate headquarters frequently ignorant or out of touch with what was going on atthe workplace. Corporate industrial relations should therefore be reviewed and

appropriate strategies and policies devised and implemented, which would reconstructworkplace industrial relations through the operation of positive personnel policies,

formalisation of industrial relations procedures concerning dispute, discipline and

grievance handling, creation of orderly collective bargaining machinery and theformal incorporation of the shop steward within the negotiation process. The

traditional antipathy of managements to the formation and formalisation of effective policies, procedures and practices in industrial relations can be

explained in terms of:

G Fear of sharing power with trade unions as this may threaten the decision makingauthority and legitimacy of management.

G Lack of managerial expertise in industrial relations is indicative of a lack of

commitment to managing IR at the senior levels as, for example, Board level

appointments hardly find an IR expert being inducted.

G There is no ‘one best way’ to manage conflicts, only different routes to partialfailure, which forces one to conceptualise managerial strategy ‘as the pragmatic

choice among alternatives none of which can prove satisfactory’.

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


9

Strategic Employee

Relations: Emerging

Trends

18.5 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS STRATEGY

Industrial relations strategy can be defined as the ‘long-term goals developed bymanagement to preserve or change the procedures, practices or results of industrial

relations activities over time’. The existence of such strategies is based on the

following assumptions:

G Corporate management determines overall strategies to achieve the

organisational goals;

G Strategic thinking is a prerequisite for organisational success;

G Top management have some choice in the matter;

G The choice of industrial relations strategies and policies rationally implies that

they be limited to other objectives and policies; and

G There should be a direct relationship between industrial relations strategies and

business strategy;

‘New IR’ and the Compatibility of HRM and New IR’ Strategies

What is new Industri al Relations?

New industrial relations represents three ideological images propagated by thecontemporary state: first , the promotion of the managerial prerogative, employee

compliance and a low strike level; secondly, a rejection of collective bargaining andtrade union recognition as public policy and their replacement with managerially

determined regulation and individualism in the employment relationship; thirdly, a

prescription for management of labour to use strategies centered on flexibility andextra-contractual commitment through human resource management. Each image

evokes the formative influences of libertarian laissez-faire . . . and rejects influencescentered on pluralism, collective bargaining and trade unions. The practices

associated with the ‘new’ IR are diverse, although it is possible to identify three

distinct patterns of industrial relations arrangements, which comprise:

a) The ‘Japanese model’ b) Union avoidance and de-recognition

c) The challenge of HRM

a) The ‘ Japanese Model’

This is exemplified by the original Toshiba Consumer Products factory set up in

Plymouth in 1981 and contains the following elements:

G Sole bargaining rights for a single trade union;

G A ‘no-strike’ agreement with binding ‘final offer’ arbitration as a last resort in‘interest’ disputes;

G A broadly-based forum for consultation and employee participation;

G Complete freedom on the part of management to organise work.

b) Union Avoidance and De-Recogni tion

The second component of the ‘new’ IR relates to the complete and continuingavoidance of trade union involvement. Union avoidance at new workplaces was far

less controversial and thus attracted much less public attention. In many privatesector industries, particularly those dominated by small independent firms, the absence

of trade unions has always been the common pattern. However, it is not clear whether

union avoidance has become a more common feature of newer workplaces.

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


10


Relationsc) The Challenge of Human Resource Management

According to one survey conducted in 1992, it was found that HRM had exercisedsignificant impact on industrial relations in both the unionised and non-unionised

situations as detailed below:

i) Multiple channels of communication more likely to be used in unionisedworkplaces.

ii) Non-union workplaces are characterised by authoritarian and hierarchical

management practice.iii) Non-unionised workers had few opportunities to influence their working lives.

iv) Workers in unionised companies received more information about their conditions of work than employees in non-unionised companies.

v) ‘Financial participation’ was as common in unionised as in non-unionised firms.

vi) The most anti-union employers were least likely to offer financial participationschemes.

vii) Unionised employers were more likely to collect information on the generalcomposition of their workforce and pursue equal opportunities policies.

Activity A

List out the differences between new and old IR strategies. Explain the advantages anddisadvantages of new and old IR strategies.

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

Implications of these Developments for Industrial Relations Issues

The developments identified above have affected industrial relations issues in thefollowing ways: In organisations where HRM is well established and demonstrates

high levels of management involvement and employee commitment, it is more likelythat elements of the ‘new’ IR will be incorporated into HRM and operated relatively

successfully. Within unionised contexts, it has already been established that individual

unions are modifying their approaches on both individualistc and collectivistdimensions. Within non-unionised contexts, most UK organisations do not have well-

developed HRM. There was sizeable minority of UK green-field site operations,whose industrial relations were largely integrated within HRM.

Explanation: Greenfield sites are those places, where there is little or no union

activity and where the employers are free to offer employment on the condition thatthe employees will not join or form a union.

In so far as collective bargaining is concerned, the evidence of 1980’s and 1990’sindicates that the coverage of collective bargaining has contracted substantially; the

scope of bargaining has narrowed; the depth of union involvement has diminished; andthat organisational security offered to unions by employers has deteriorated. However,

there is no evidence to support the view that the new IR and the non-unionised labour

market, where it has emerged, has really improved organisational competitiveness.The changes, the reasons behind them and the impact of them upon industrial relations

have helped to create a new climate in which industrial relations operates. They have

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


11

Strategic Employee

Relations: Emerging

Trends

undoubtedly encouraged managements to take HRM initiatives and adopt human

resource strategies geared towards improving employee productivity and commitment

and fostering a more harmonious and co-operative employee-oriented organisationalculture.

Styles and Strategies in Small Businesses

Small businesses are extremely diverse in composition of employment and within the product markets of the many industrial sectors in which they operate. They tend to

experience highly fluctuating levels of performance and business fortunes and alsohigh incidence of bankruptcy. Collectively, they employ a high proportion of theworkforce whose skills range from high and non-transferable (the minority) to low and

highly substitutable (the majority). The styles and strategies which owner-employersuse such as paternalism, fraternalism and benevolent autocracy would appear to be far

more characteristic of non-union firms than unionised firms, although it is possible to

expect some overlap of styles between the two categories. The particular styleadopted will vary according to the extent of the employer’s economic dependence on

employees and the ability of employees to resist the exercise of the employer’s prerogative.

Style and Strategy in Medium-sized Firms

Medium-sized firms are reported to have been following styles and strategies as

detailed below:

G The HRM approach is only one of the several approaches to regulating the

employment relationship in non-union firms and establishments.

G Newer establishments are more likely to be non-union than older establishments

irrespective of whether they are British or foreign owned.

G Firms that have recently de-recognised unions within their workplaces andestablishments are more likely to retain a collective orientation toward certain

aspects of the employment relationship concerning, for example, employee

representation and pay determination, albeit on management’s terms.

G Firms and establishments which have been ‘union-free’ since their inception arelikely to adopt one of two employer regimes:

G A ‘soft’ or ‘traditional’ HRM approach whereby employees enjoy superior payand conditions and have a measure of job security and therefore do not perceive

any need for trade union representation; and

G An approach which is deliberately hostile to any trade union presence and

representation where employees enjoy the flexibility of a disposable workforceand regulate by fear.’

Strategy and Style in Large Organisations

Numerically, large non-union firms are in a minority, but have a high profile in theHRM, and, increasingly, industrial relations texts and other publications. Companies

such as Marks and Spencer and IBM ‘have always been held up as exemplary non-

union employers’. More recently, companies such as Hewlett Packard, TexasInstruments, Gillette, Mars, Eastman-Kodak, Polaroid, Digital Equipment

Corporation, Wang Electronics B.V. and Verbatim have joined the ranks of large non-union organisations.

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


12


RelationsActivity B

What do you understand by new IR strategies? Do a study in about five companies inyour vicinity and see how many of these companies are implementing new IR

strategies.

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

Generic Characteristics of Large non-union Firms

Large non-union firms are generally characterised as:

G American and privately owned;

G operating mainly in non-manufacturing and service sectors;

G employing mainly non-manual, skilled or partially skilled workers;

G profitable or highly profitable and commercially successful in expanding productmarkets;

G have ‘covertly non-union personnel policies’;

G justifying their non-union status by substituting alternative forms of employeerepresentation and providing higher rates of pay and better conditions of work

than unionised organisations;

G claiming to have enlightened and progressive personnel and HRM policies and

‘people centered’ managerial styles making unions and collective bargaining inirrelevancy;

G have ‘single status’ for employees, employment security, promotion fromwithin; and

G have careful selection and training for management, especially atsupervisory level.

In order to understand the motives of non-union managements in keeping unions out of

large organisations, Flood and Toner (1997) identify a number of perceived

disadvantages on the part of management within three broad categories concerningcommunications, work organisation, and conflict, which are listed below.

a) Communications

The major disadvantage in this category is that the presence of unions makes

communication more difficult, impedes personal contact, and gives rise to

bureaucracy.

b) Work organisation

The disadvantages in work organisation could be:

G unions make change more difficult;

G unions give rise to demarcation and inter-union argument;

G unions impose restrictions on production;

G unions cause general lack of flexibility;

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


13

Strategic Employee

Relations: Emerging

Trends

G unions impose higher manning levels;

G unions protect unsatisfactory workers;

G unions inhibit individual and reward systems.

c) Conflict

The following have been identified as the disadvantages in this category:

G unions give opportunities for radicals to stir up trouble;

G unions promote an adversarial climate;

G unions encourage pursuit of trivial grievances; and

G unions cause strikes and stoppages.

18.6 SUMMARY

The emerging trends in respect of strategic employee relations present a highlycomplex picture. In USA, the non-unionised firms seem to be consistently on the

increase and have clearly outnumbered unionized firms. This phenomenon is largely

because of the very large number of small and medium sector enterprises which fall inthe non-union category. The two extreme styles and strategies of non-union firms

have been described as anti-union ‘bleak-house’, where management deliberatelyseeks to deprive workers of their rights, most notably to trade union representation, or

the more progressive ‘happy house’, where management lavish benefits on workers

with the result the workers fail to perceive any need to join a trade union.

Viewed from a historical perspective, the concept of non-unionism is not strange to

Indian industry. A large majority of small-scale, proprietor-managed enterprises inthe contemporary scene furnish ideal example of non-union units. Some of the reputed

Indian companies in the medium and large-scale sector have, like: their Americancounterparts, attempted to thwart unionism by employing a range of techniques

including threats and intimidation. Given the option, employers as a general rule

prefer non-unionism for reasons, which are too obvious to need explanation. It was theunstinted support of Government through its regulatory framework in the context of

‘Welfare State’ that facilitated the growth of trade union movement to its present level.If the Indian industry has learnt to live with trade unions, it is not out of its volition,

but notwithstanding it. Insistence on non-unionism has only become more pronounced

and visibles in the wake of liberalisation and the entry of MNCs. Motorola,Proctor & Gamble, Perfetti, ICI (Thane unit), Samtel and SRF, among others, are

reported to be pursuing the policy of non-unionism. From a sectoral point of view,Information Technology industry is patronising non-unionism vigorously. IT industry

is, however, in a class by itself with a large proportion of white-collar professionals

and high turnover rates, which attributes it does not share with other industries and,hence, cannot form a sound basis for drawing generalised inferences.

Some of the factors which have a bearing on this issue in the Indian context are:a) The aggressive approaches of Indian employers in the service sector to trade

unionism;

b) The growth of BPO organisations, a majority of which are of American origin

and which are manifestly anti-union;

c) The declining membership of trade unions, as, for instance, from 92 lakh

members in 1989 to some 30 lakh members in 1997;

d) The decline in the number of ‘skill’ workers and their replacement by

‘knowledge’ workers; and

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


14


Relationse) A perceptible change in the attitude of the Central and State Governments

towards trade unions and trade unionism.

The aforesaid trends taken together lead to the inference that Indian industry is

proceeding on the same lines as its western counterpart in formulating its employeerelations strategies. It, however, remains to be seen whether the decline in union

membership and the consequent weakening of trade union movement is a permanent

feature or whether this phenomenon is merely cyclical with the likelihood of its bouncing back sooner or later.

18.7 SELF-ASSESSEMENT QUESTIONS

1) Explain the new perspectives of 1990s. Discuss the implications of post-

modernism for employment relations.

2) Discuss the role of management in the era of new industrial relations strategies.

3) Explain the latest developments in HRM for industrial relations issues.

18.8 FURTHER READINGS

Salamon, M. (1998): Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. London, PrenticeHall

Storey, J. (1995): Human Resource Management: A Critical Text . London, Routledge

Kelly, J. (1998), Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and

Long Waves. London, Routledge

Nicholls, P. (1999): ‘Context and theory in employee relations’, in Hollinshead,

G., Nichols, P. and Taily, S. (eds): Employee Relations. London, Financial Times-Pitman Publishing

Donovan (1968): Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations1965-68, Report . Cmnd 3623, London, HMSO

Hyman, R. (1987): ‘Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control’,Work, Employment and Society , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 25-55.

Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1995): Understanding Industrial Relations.

London, Cassel

Thurley, K. and Wood, S. (eds), (1983): Industrial Relations and Management

Strategy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Clark, I. (1997): ‘The state and new industrial relations’, in Beardwell, I.J.

Contemporary Industrial Relations: A Critical Analysis. Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress, p. 42.

Trevor, M. (1988): ‘Toshiba’s new British company: competitiveness through

innovation’, Unpublished paper, University of Cardiff, Wales, pp. 221-42: cited by EdRose, op. cit., p. 258.

Millward, N. (1994): The New Industrial Realtions. London, Policy Studies Institute,

p. 2.

WIRT (workplace industrial relations in transition] survey (1992)

Bacon, N. Storey, J. (1996): ‘Individualism and collectivism and the changing role of

trade unions’, in Ackers, P., Smith, C. and Smith, P. The New Workplace and TradeUnionism. London, Routledge

Guest, D. and Hoque, K. (1994): ‘The good, the bad and the ugly: employmentrelations in new non-unionised workplaces’. Human Resource Management Journal ,

vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-14

7/30/2019 Unit-18 IR


15

Strategic Employee

Relations: Emerging

Trends

Brown, W. (1993): ‘The contraction of collective bargaining in Britain’,

British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 189-200

Metcalf, D. (1993): ‘Industrial relations and economic performance’ , British Journal

of Industrial Relations, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 255-83.

Ed Rose (2001) Employment Relations, Financial Times Prectice Hall, p. 428.

Hyman, R. (1997): ‘The future of employee representation’, British Journal of

Industrial Relations, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 309-36zx

Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (1997): Employee Relations. London, IPDEd Rose, op.cit., p. 436.

Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1995): Understanding Industrial Relations. London,Cassell

Flood, P.C. and Toner, B. (1997), “Large non-union companies: how to they avoid acatch 22?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 257-77.

Rao, E.M. (1998), “Indian Trade Unions: On the Brink of Extinction?”,

Personnel Today, Vol. XIX, No. 2, Jul-Sep, p. 17.

Unit-18 IR

Documents

Transcript of Unit-18 IR