Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations
Collective bargaining, according to Boone and Kurtz (1999) is the process and practice of negotiations among the management and union representatives to come up with considerably fair and acceptable wage and employment conditions for the workforce. The ever changing dynamics of business necessitates the development of collective bargaining systems among countries so as to deal with the emerging trends and challenges of the global business setting. Roberts, Okamo, and Lodge (1979) identified the strong establishment of collective bargaining among nations covered. According to them, the important role of collective bargaining is seen on its function in maintaining harmonious working relationships among the companies and their employees especially in managing differing interests in employment relations. The OECD Employment Outlook (OECD 1997) reports that the there are significant changes in the collective bargaining institutions among countries. Various literatures supports that these changes are driven by some comparative economic merits of varied bargaining systems (Golden and Wallerstein 1996; Katz 1993. In European countries, van Ruysseveldt and Visser (1996) and Crouch and Traxler (1995) documented the emerging changes and development. Such changes may initiate major alterations not only in union structure but also in the particular goals that are set and the approach employed in collective bargaining processes.
In employment or industrial relations, the theory of liberalism, which is about protection of personal rights over government intervention is applied on probing the growth of workforce as it provides clues to better understanding the changing concept of work. Industrial relations analysts, according to Ramia and Wailes (2006) have long been interested in employment conditions as minima and as rules or regulations which may limit labour market inequalities in various ways. The OECD Employment Outlook (OECD 1997) also states that “there is a fairly robust relation between cross-country differences in earnings inequality and bargaining structures”. With this fact, the welfare of employees as well as employers in a global environment must be the ultimate focus and that regulations in industrial relations are deliberately implemented.
The current belief that the general tendency will be toward an upgrading of the employment structure is supported by recent trends in the skill or functional distribution of the labor force. On this aspect, worldwide collective bargaining systems and structure affects the development of the existing industrial relations philosophies. For example, conflict management requires bargaining strategies that will uphold the principles of industrial relations as it pertains to fair employment welfare. There are several ways for two parties to negotiate their sides; these methods are most often used for labor relations especially when unions are attempting to discuss with the other parties concerning their wants and needs to be applied in their work. These bargaining strategies are extremely helpful especially in the organizational setting; as such discussions can lead to the overall improvement of the industrial relations regulations and policies. However, at the same time, these negotiations may also be disadvantageous when used in the inappropriate setting, especially when it has the potential to become a major battle between the parties, with several groups of people being directly and indirectly affected by their conflicts (Margolis 1998). Collective bargaining mechanisms are identified to be an important determinant of national economic capabilities and conditions in relation to international industrial relations regulations as well as the organizational or corporate initiatives.
Collective bargaining structure affects the nature of industrial relations as collective bargaining systems are dependent on the existing industrial relations regulations and vice versa. Among different countries, the difference in terms of collective bargaining structure is a result of national economic considerations as well as organizational or corporate applications. To illustrate such differences, a newsletter article published by the European Industrial Relations Observatory (2004) states that “collective bargaining coverage is on average almost four times higher in the European Union than in the USA and three times higher than in Japan”. Nevertheless it is also important to not that the centralization and decentralization of collective bargaining structures is the main determinants of protecting the welfare of both employers and employees. Although in most countries, the percentages of workers who are covered by collective agreements are higher than those who belong to trade unions, it is still practical to evaluate the coverage of industrial relations. There are many different employment and economic factors that differ in every country and can possibly affect the nature industrial relations. These unobserved differences are important indicators of overall condition of the global workplace and its immediate environments. The OECD Employment Outlook (OECD 1997) recognized the presence of institutional factors and policy instruments that affect the labour market performance. It is also vital to see that some collective bargaining systems are independent to the existing policies and regulations of the government or any governing body or maybe collective bargaining systems interacts in various ways – easy or complex – and includes bargaining variables. From the viewpoint of the collective bargaining relationship, human work force must be treated in the most objective ways possible – without sacrificing any aspect of industrial relations. Procedures for hiring, layoff, transfer, and reassignment as well as wage and remuneration packages must established in terms of incremental effects of identified changes on the size and composition of the work.
Because human labour force is considered to be fuels of the national economy, it is very primary to take care of their rights and welfare. The effects of any collective bargaining procedures to the performance of their duties and responsibilities can be reflected to economic productivity. Thus, it is recognized that institutional capacity among players of any bargaining agreement must see to it that bargaining considers macro-economic implications at hand. The classification of the collective bargaining structure and practice is also crucial in nation decision making and taking. according to Piskulich (1992), critics contend that The understanding of collective bargaining for more than a half-century indicates that the economic and social costs of people’s actions by now be more important than the benefits. Henceforth, all industrial relations practitioners and experts should keep an eye to the growing needs of both employers and employees.
Beyond the need for consultation with individuals and groups with experience of discrimination, research on gender equality and trade unions emphasizes the importance of training individuals from underrepresented groups to participate in trade union activities and collective bargaining (Government of Australia, 1994a). Here, insights from the gender domain are pertinent to other disadvantaged groups. Democratic participation in trade union activities and involvement in other workplace-related questions require individuals to know how to operate effectively within the union and at the workplace. Without direct training and education, this may remain beyond the reach of many women workers and minority workers.
Furthermore, if workers from disadvantaged groups are included in negotiating teams and are chosen to participate in collective bargaining, this will help reduce the risk of the needs and concerns of minority groups becoming marginalized during the collective bargaining process. It is particularly useful to have representatives of a minority community who are able to consult effectively with their group. It is also important to ensure that those elected properly reflect the diversity of the workforce they represent, so that leadership positions are shown to be accessible to all.
Questions of representation of diverse interests and groups are complex. How should the various groups be defined? To what extent can individuals from groups historically subject to exclusion and disadvantage at work represent their own group’s interests? For membership of a particular group does not necessarily mean that one holds the same values or ideas as others in that group (Phillips, 1991). How can one guard against problems of tokenism and the legitimation of inequality through an unequal structure of group representation (Mahon, 1977)? Moreover, consultation and participation are only effective if there is an audience willing to listen to and take seriously views and voices that are usually silenced or marginalized (Sheppard and Westphal, 2000, pp. 345-346).
Ensuring that the interests of historically disadvantaged groups are not traded off in the heat of collective bargaining is another challenge. Human rights legislation can play a significant role here, by setting a non-negotiable floor of human rights protection, which both employers and unions must respect. Collective bargaining can then focus on how best to implement human rights guarantees, rather than requiring the parties to bargain about what should be non-negotiable, namely, respect for the rights of equality-seeking groups.
Like any other conditions, the industrial relations and collective bargaining structures are subject to emerging trends that affects the global marketplace. With the era of globalization, stiff competition and technology revolution, it is expected that aspect and conditions of employment are directly or indirectly affected. The welfare of the international human labour force is the main consideration of many countries in devising their national collective bargaining structures that is associated with the globally acceptable principles of industrial relations.
References
Addison, JT & Siebert, S 2002, “Changes in Collective Bargaining in the U.K”, in Addison, JT & Schnabel, C (Eds.) 2003, The International Handbook of Trade Unions, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Boone, LE & Kurtz, DL 1999), Contemporary Business. Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX, pp. 424-425.
Crouch, C & Traxler, F (Eds.) 1995, Organized Industrial Relations In Europe: What Future?, Avebury, Aldershot.
Delaney, JT & Huselid, MA. 1996, “The Impact Of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp.949-69.
de Silva, S 1996, “Collective Bargaining Negotiations”, International Labour Organisation (ILO) Publications. Retrieved September 23, 2008 from http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actemp/papers/1998/srscbarg.htm
European Industrial Relations Observatory On-line (eiro) 2004, “Higher collective bargaining levels in EU than Japan and USA”, Communiqué, issue 1. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/press/communique/2004/february/newsletter2.htm
Flanagan, RJ 1999 “Macroeconomic Performance and Collective Bargaining: An International Perspective”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 37, no. 3 (Sep.), pp. 1150-117.
Golden, M & Wallerstein, M 1996, Reinternpreting Postwar Industrial Relations: Comparative Data on Advanced Industrial Societies, University of California at Los Angeles and Northwestern University.
Hassel, A 1999, “The Erosion of the German System of Industrial Relations”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 483–505.
Katz, HC 1993, “The Decentralization of Collective Bargaining: A Literature Review and Comparative Analysis”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 47, no. 1 (Oct.), pp. 3-22.
Margolis, H 1998, “Avoiding Special Education Due Process Hearings: Lessons from the Field”, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9 (3), 233.
Millward, N, Stevens, M, Smart, D & Hawes, W 1992, Workplace Industrial Relations in Transition, Aldershot, Dartmouth.
Morishima, M 1991, “Information Sharing and Collective Bargaining in Japan: Effects on Wage Negotiation”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 44, vo. 3 (Apr., 1991), pp. 469-485.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 1997, “Chapter 3 – Economic performance and structure of collective bargaining”, OECD Employment Outlook, OECD, Paris. Retrieved September 23, 2008 from, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/60/2080431.pdf
Piskulich, JP 1992, Collective Bargaining in State and Local Government, Praeger Publishers, New York.
Ramia, G & Wailes, N 2006, “Putting Wage-Earners into Wage-Earners’ Welfare States: The Relationship between Social Policy and Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand”, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 49+.
Roberts, BC, Okamoto, H, & Lodge, HC 1979, Collective Bargaining and Employee Participation in Western Europe – Task Force Report #18, The Trilateral Commission.
van Ruysseveldt, J & Visser, J (eds.) 1996, Industrial Relations in Europe, Sage Publications, London.
Sims, RR 2002, Organizational success through effective human resources
management, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Ulman, L & Gerlach, K 2003, An essay on collective bargaining and unemployment in Germany, (May 2), Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper Series (Paper iirwps-092-03). Retrieved September 23, 2008 from, http://repositories.cdlib.org/iir/iirwps/iirwps-092-03
Ulrich, D 1998, Human Resource Champions: The next agenda for adding
Value and delivering results. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp.88.
Wallace, H & Wallace, W (eds.) 2000, Policy-Making in the European Union,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zagelmeyer, S 1997 “Collective bargaining coverage in western Germany”, European Industrial Relations Observatory On-line (eironline), December 28. Retrieved September 23, 2008 from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/1997/12/feature/de9712140f.html
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment