The Characteristic Of Employment Relationship Consists Of Indeterminacy Business Essay
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
Published: Mon, 5 Dec 2016
The characteristic of employment relationship consists of indeterminacy (Colling & Terry 2010). Indeterminacy refers to labour contract does not state the capacity of effort to contribute by the workers with the exchange of rewards (Colling & Terry 2010) . Thus, employees are expected to complete the work efficiently no matter how much work given. The next characteristic is that the employment relationship is unequal (Colling & Terry 2010). Employment contract assumes that both party are in a equal way and without any liability involve (William & Adam-Smith 2006). However, in reality worker to be in a much weaker position than the expected employer. For examples, employees do not have much freedom between alternative offers of employment (Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). Moreover, if employees decline an offer of employment, employers can simply offer the job to someone else (Fox 1974 cited in Williams & Adam-Smith 2006).
Unitary beliefs depend on the common objective and possibility of harmony in employment relationships (Burchill 2008) . Management has the right to manage and make decisions regarded as authorized, reasonable and accepted, and any objection to it is seen as irrational (Rose 2009). On the other hand, the principal concern of pluralist is by ensuring that conflict is handled appropriately with a way that prevents it from causing disruption(Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). Additionally, unlike the Marxist perspective, both unitary and pluralist perspectives are viewed on ideologies attributed to managers and employers (Rose 2009). Unitary and pluralist both accept and support the capitalist economic and political system and are therefore not critical of it (Rose 2009). Marxist perspective is the concept that society is necessary divided into two classes which are those who own the instruments of production and those who do not (Burchill 2008). Those who own are concerned with maximising their profits and assume that labour is one factor of production to be exploited and pursuit of their objective (Burchill 2008). Thus, Marxist perspective differs from both unitarism and pluralism. Marxist perspective is not support of capitalist society and its system of production, allocation and exchange (Rose 2009).
The chief executive of Zurich Insurance contented that it ‘is the job of the company to create an environment in which a trade union becomes irrelevantâ€¦ the very nature of the unions, sitting in there in a divisive capacity, stops the employees and managers of an organization getting together as one team'(House of Commons Employment Committee 1994:342 cited in Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). From a unitary perspective, strikes are seen as pathological which causing damaging of the organisation’s purpose and, thus, do not even entertain those who take part in them (Burchill 2008) . Trade unions are treated as an irruption into the organisation from external, challenging with management for the fidelity of employees (Rose 2009). Therefore, trade unions should be resisted within the organisation. In the study of hotels, managers indicate enmity towards trade unions, deny the concept that there was antagonism in the employment relationship, and emphasized the extent to which their organization was a ‘happy team’ (Head & Lucas 2004 cited in Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). On the other hand, in pluralist perspective, trade union’s emphasis on collective bargaining better than penal use of the law as a method of improving employment relationship (Burchill 2008). Within this perspective, employers treated trade unions as a burden, but they are reasonable. Moreover, given the unavoidable conflict, trade unions are essential as way of discontent. In Marxist perspective, trade unions appear as a form of preservation against unruly exploitation (Burchill 2008). Workers associate together to assure a stronger protection against the employer. However, trade unions and their leaders often combine into the management of capitalism and also expand local workplace interest, perhaps resulting competing with each other (Burchill 2008). Workers need to organise a wider base than trade union to effective opposition to capitalism .
Managerial style in unitary perspective emphasizes team spirit, working together and concept of leadership rather than power. Manager based on the assumption that employers and their employees share the same goals, something that given managerial privilege authorized, and trade union indicated unnecessary (Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). Compare to unitary perspective, managers in pluralist perspective cannot assume that the organization is evaluated by sharing interests and same goals because in particular employees will have different interests, and may want to express themselves through their own independent institutions, trade unions (Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). Therefore, management’s role is a balancing act which identifies the legitimacy of the organisation’s conflicting interests and requires the support of the parties, groups or sections involved in the decomposition of conflicts (Rose 2009). Promise is important in managing industrial relations and not as with the unitary perspective through the practice of privilege (Rose 2009). The pluralist organisation has many sources of loyalty and authority in groups, trade unions and other sectional interests and is in a constant state of dynamic tension arising from conflicts of interest and loyalty which require to be managed through a variety of procedures but unitary perspective only consists of one source of fidelity and authority which resides in management (Rose 2009). In Marxist perspective, the employer only interested in maximising their profits (Burchill 2008). So, employer organisations deal with labour only when they need extent. Manager’s duty is to utilize labour (Burchill 2008). Control of labour might require concession and compromise in order to pursuit of completely manipulation. In this model, managers are part of the labour force to which owners devolve some authority, but only as an expedient(Burchill 2008).
State is central to the pluralist approaches, while unitarism has an implicit concept of the State (Sycholt & Klerck 2010). Unitary acts more as a form of managerial authorization and reveal itself as a form of voluntarism (Sycholt & Klerck 2010). The field of production is assumed as an amicable, and thus, unitary is self-maintaining. Any irruption State and Labour Relations from external source is seen as an obstruction. State obstruction into a labour relations would also be viewed with despise. The State does not need to play a role in industrial relations, and it just needs to provide an enabling environment for companies to manage unfettered from external irruption (Sycholt & Klerck 2010). On the other hand, the pluralist perspective stated that the role of state is generally seen to involve keeping a balance between the competing interests of labour and capital, and accommodating the demand of both (Williams & Adam-Smith 2006) . Where an unequal of power appears, the state acts by applying laws and regulations to ameliorate the issues. State regulation is acceptable only in so far as it helps to preserve and support free markets (Dunleavy and O’Leary 1987 cited in Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). In Marx early writing, the state is treated as an instrument of class rule by the leading capitalist interest (Jordan 1985; Pierson 1996 cited in Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). This emphasis is on the coercive and repressive role of the state, and the way in which its offices and policies are designed to destroy trade unions and the interest of labour in general in order to further those of capital (Williams & Adam-Smith 2006). Kelly (1998) suggests that the repression of trade unions, in particular the way in which strike activity is restricted and undermined, demonstrates the importance of the coercive role of the state in employment relations (Williams & Adam-Smith 2006) .
As a conclusion, employment relationship as a contract is unequal between employer and employee. Employment contract is consists of many implied terms that are no stated in the contract. This is because employers have the power to control over the employee and employee only can choose to obey because employee needs job to survive especially in a competing labour market. Therefore, the existence of trade unions and states are needed to protect the right of worker and maintain a harmony employment relationship.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: