PERSPECTIVES ON THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP AND CONFLICT

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP AND CONFLICTIntroductionToday industries view as belowgone a great change in calls of the kind of force they deploy as they look for maximization of their occupation and profits. There is bemoan selection of means of production especially specialized toil and hence this means that todays employer is much more cerebratee on what he require in the process of production (Fredman Gillian 1989, p.48). There be increased agreements and conflict procedures which use to be forced on the slews unions by employer association roughly time ago, but the bargaining ability and liberty has called for diversification of employers functions and restructuring of the cover agreements (Bach Sisson 2000).Management of the patronagees has in addition changed with regard to todays need and is being performed by nonice of governors (Guest 1991, p.153). There ar two aspects of employer dealinghip namely market dealings and managerial relat ions. A market relation refers to terms and conditions on which fag come in is hired and is economic in char meeter. Managerial relations refer to deployment of hollow force by the instruction and how this deployment is to be done. Before trading unions, single(a)ist role player could chose to perish or go elsewhere if he or she is non satisfied with employers terms of piddle. And because an individual actor was weaker than the employer, on that point came a regulated accomplishment market with change over unions where employees atomic number 18 allowed to collude with curse word conkers for a corporal bargaining. The primary justification of clientele union is that it protects the take shapeer in the economic aspect of his employment (Gintis 1987, p.68).In job regulatings, employers and employees cover an agreement strike. These contracts have rules over a wide-eyed variety of work rigs. They contain an individual hobby which necessarily ignores the econo mic reality do-nothing the bargain because the transgressies ar simply not equal (Wedderburn 1986, p.8). This one sided interest of contract of employment is the bone of contention in the work role family.The contract requires the employer to pay rents, provide work, exercise c atomic number 18 and cooperate while employees are anticipate to obey reasonable order, exercise reasonable care and competence, keep up fidelity, honesty, protect confidential information, be accountable and not to sabotage employers business among an an otherwise(prenominal)(prenominal) provisions. These provisions are just mere protection on managerial rights. However, the actual cooperation of legal rights in work places depends on the occasion, familiarity and organization of the parties as well as on the statute record book (Edwards 1987, p.15).The agreement of work mustiness take into ingestation that what is offered by the worker to the employer is the capacity to work, which only the ca pitalists make maximum use of, but the output signal benefits only the capitalists (Braveman 1998, p.37). This paper seeks to examine the leash mental attitudes that have been a wide reference regarding industrial relations, their take on how these conflicts whitethorn abstract and how they are understandd chthonic separately system. In the discussion we impart also seek to see how managers to a lower place these perspectives seek to gain require for stiff circumspection.The perspectivesThere are three perspectives on the employment relationship that send word contribute in analyzing the nature of conflict in work place Unitarism, Pluralism and Marxism. Most writers and theorists have written on these schools of thought and have used them from different perspective to analyze well-disposed issues. Here they will be used to test their take on the nature of conflict in the workplace and the dash managers or human resource managers seek control and effective guidance i n exercising their vested authority.UnitarismThis is the system whereby a focus is placed upon one source of authority without negotiation. It assumes a kind of league teamwork in its operationalization. In a genial unitary system, members are expected to seek as a unit and pursue a common address and every unit component does its part to the best of its ability ( fox 1966, p.2). Members are expected to exhibit discipline, royalty and effective communication because the organized consistence is supposed to be an integrated and harmonious whole. Following the centralized lead members accept their place and function and this means antagonist groups and rivalry in leadership are not accommodated.Unitarism holds the idea that conflict in the work place should be a two trend because the Leaders, who expect verity and watch from members, must first exhibit and expose the same to individual members. correspond to Fox (1966, p.3), the success and impetus of the team inheres from personal relationship and just like a football team there is no divided spirit especially with worry authority. In this system also, it is commitd that the anatomical structure and the organization of work and purpose is unitary and individual employees or make out unions are not expected to argufy the management. Worse still is that trade unions are comprehend to be an il current entity that sabotages the residual of the whole unit and. As Unitarism assumes that workplace conflicts are non existent collectable to the organization and symbiotic relationship among workers and managers, the idea of trade unions is conceived to be foreign.Unitary system consequently denies conflict in workplace and just assumes that the conflicts are only due to personal differences, faulty communication and works of inciters from without. Managers in this system believe that workers conflicts mickle be managed inwardly the system than involving trade unions (Fox 1966 p.10). Unions are seen as achieving nothing for employees but sabotaging progress, pushing up cost and constantly spoil the owners of production enterprise in the guise of resolving workplace conflicts (Fox 1966, p.11).The political orientation also endeavors to integrate employees into organization based on employee dedication to attribute production, customer need and job flexibility.It and then serves three purposes in the management self reassurance as an instrument of persuasion and as a technique of seeking legitimization of authority. Adopting the unitary view of industrial organization is one of managers simulated military operation. This gives a motivation that harmony of purpose exists. Ideology also is a weighty instrument in which employers persuade their employees and public at large that assiduity is a harmony of cooperation which only trouble mongers choose to disrupt (Fox 1966, p.5). This way they make their work easier by convincing their employees and winning public support, sh ould management be challenged by their workers. Moreover, management creates a situation where their interest and those of other employees are similar and legitimizes the regime. Therefore drawing from this assumed legitimacy, their government sanctions and rigour become legitimate (Edwards, 2003, p.34).In their bid to gain authority under this perspective, managers are also likely to adopt measures that are aimed at drain trade union and favoring the company and this triggers make headway resentment from the trade union (Fox 1966, p.11). Moreover, Managers holding Unitarism perspective belief that collective bargaining, negotiation and reconciliation foster the wrong attitude amid the two sides in industry. They therefore term any resistance and conflicts to be due to stupidity, wrong headedness or overage class rancor and they work toward inculcating such ideology to their subordinates who by quest the ideology are easily controlled (Fox 1966, p.12). Managers also utilize c onformist origin whereby they focus on acquiring expertise that will enable them to demonstrate a ending relationship between their activities and organizational success criteria (Thornley, 2003a, p.83). This is loosely attained through specialization in personal management. This influences the reaction of workers and their management becomes easier.The assumptions of the unitary position, with its emphasis on managerial prerogative, and its attempt to deconstruct realities of diverging work group attitude and values in the interest of real unified team renders it weak under modern conditions especially in their obsolete view on the nature of conflict in the work place. Unitarisms view on the nature, cause and how to handle workplace conflict is short conservative and time tested. This organized grind is challenged when it comes to the process of organizing and assigning work to members as well as sanctioning the labor force. The failure to consider common interest leads to fa ulty communication or misunderstanding and at that time conflicts at workplace become a challenge.PluralismPluralist perspective is a system with a political analogy whereby many groups with divergent interests and beliefs act as one organization, and the government depend on their consent and cooperation. The lowest authority in pluralism lack moral bargain to arrive at final decision without relying on members unity (Clegg 1979, p.454). In this system, trade unions are legitimate institutions that represent collective interest of the workers and are granted federal agencys to challenge management. There is therefore minimal authoritarianism because conflicts in the work place are viewed at as inevitable and as a phenomenon that is intimidate to occur without head word.Pluralism views Industrial relations as much stable and universal as a result of collective agreement and it is very herculean for the management to sabotage trade unions unlike in the Unitarism (Clegg 1979, p. 454). In the regulation of pluralism, conflicts induced by the trade unions are infixed so the question of how to contain them triumphs over how to constrain the unions operations.In pluralist view, the organization is seen as a plural ordering with related but separate interests and headings which should be tamed to a kind of equilibrium through conflict if workers are expropriated. Fox (1966, p.3) analyses that the running of a pluralism system is aimed at striking a balance of members activities of the group for the highest degree of freedom. This is done in line with general interest of the lodge as it is.The system is kept alive by the accompaniment that sectional groups with divergent interests aim for a common goal and are mutually depended. Under this view, managers are expected to deploy many tactics in their professional functions should they expect to gain any accepted authority. These pertain organizing work people and technical resources, fateholders, customers, the government and the local community. Managers who hold this perspective dearly seek to acquire or so control through acting in the best interest of all stakeholders.Pluralist workers and other stakeholders, on the other hand, maintain their relations with managers as their source of information to deliver their goods and operate to their satisfaction and to minimize work place conflicts (Clegg 1979, p.455). The effectiveness of managers under pluralism in their job is also, highly determined by their good relation with those who negociate with them on behalf of the workers. Therefore it can be deduced that pluralism views workplace conflicts as indispensable and as a part of work relation hence trade unions are requisite institutions. Under this perspective the only way managers can be at ease is to strike a balance between their interest and that of workers by establishing good rapport with negotiators. In many organizations with pluralist approach, managers relate collec tive negotiations, procedures of dispute sinktlement, formal and informal consultation as tools of their position control.MarxismMarxism in its proper form is a general theory of society and social change with implications for analysis and industrial relations capitalism. Marxism has since its inception served as a tool for social research into power relations and a discourse in which other phenomena and reality are examined.Class conflict, a macrocosm of work place conflict, according to Marxists is there to stay within the system as far as profit is made out of exploitation of labor by the owners of production. Class divisions that inhere in society are closely intertwined with the bourgeoisie structure of industry and a wage labor (Hyman 1975, p.28). The capitalist, according to Marxism, has introduced social features that dominate labor process which is a property of the worker and this forces the worker to sell their labor power in concert with their interest. This alienates labor from the owner and makes it to be controlled by the capitalist. Karl Marx, the initiator of Marxists school of thought, storied that ones labor is equal to his or her humanity and one would be put pig once someone else controls his or her labor (Braveman 1998, p.39). Since the owner of labor is nerveless and the buyer powerful there is a possibility of expropriation of the worker by the employee and hence trade unions are formed. commerce unions in Marxism are legitimate vehicles in challenging the excesses of property owners whenever they disrupt the distribution of national products as a result of power differences. Marxism therefore holds that workplace conflicts are destined to be there but measures should be put to tame them. Trade unions are therefore looked at as institutions that conjure up as a result of painful exploitation of employees by the owners of means of production and therefore as a collective bargaining person (Clegg 1979, p.455). A long history of con flicts has proved that they can be contained if positively perceived and handled. Marxism is the ultimate conflict theory that criticizes Unitarism and pluralism because of their leniency on handling workplace conflicts. Research demonstrates that Marxists and pluralists differ in their industrial relation analysis and further in their definition of its exit matter and nature (Hyman 1975, p.20). What is common in both schools of thought is that both are concerned with conflict and perceptual constancy acquisition. This means in both perspectives conflict in workplace is unavoidable just as in any other sphere of social life.In most work places management asserts its authority and control down wards from above while work groups assert their independence and control upward from below (Coffey Thornley 2009, p.93). This reverse expectation is the one that projects a strange capitulum where balance has to be struck radically to the benefit of neither of the side. According to Clegg (1979, p.454) Marxist account of industrial relation has that, trade unions may become integrated in the institutions and operations of capitalist society.This strategy, which managers under Marxism may deploy to gain authority, is the greatest evil that can bedevil trade unions under Marxism because once that is accomplished unions cease to act as instruments of social class welfare. This integration may assume terms as economism, internalisation and institutionalization. As much as this is not consistent with trade unions objective it does not favor the employee who is supposed to be represented.Collective bargaining employs freedom for workers to organize independent trade unions to bargain independently and effectively with the employer. To deal rid of persistent subordination, workers have freedom to organize autonomous trade unions (Wedderburn 1986, p.7).Integration of trade unions into capitalist society, midwifed by managers, influences all representatives, who interact with managers and employers association, to relinquish their duty to serve employees. To avoid this trade unionists are not advised, under Marxism to make a binding agreement with their employers.In Marxism it is expected that conflicting employee and employer prefer a settlement of their differences in an amicable manner close to each companionships objective. This settlement is mostly to be achieved after a serial publication of meetings (Clegg 1979, p.453). As the two sides also push each other to the wall, they must keep in mind that they are mutually depended on each other and that collective bargaining is the backbone of their industrial relations.This however does not imply that trade unions representatives always yield to the pressures of the enterprise. Marxism believes that workers ability to deliver their labor productively lies in the damage they cause to their employers whenever they strike. Further institutionalization of trade unions makes them not to be seen in the old goggles as tools of radical refuse and revolt (Clegg 1979, p.454). Trade unions in Marxist setting are adjust to a political party with wider support, greater funds and more activists. Marxism therefore entrenches politicization of workers by action that workers must learn to deploy the mass power of the union as an instrument of revolt should a need arise (Clegg 1979, p.454).ConclusionHowever, debates on Marxism, pluralism and Unitarism no longer dominate in the labor market today but a new orthodox under the promising enterprise duped human resource management (Guest 1991, p.149) for managers to control power at the work place they adopt enhanced motivation and commitment at work that leads to high performance and therefore managers are expected to dig into it.Rules in an employment sector are either adjectival or substantive and do not just follow some theorized routes as those established in Marxism, Unitarism or Pluralism. This is usually found in the spirit of collecti ve agreement that is usually constituted in a body of rules. The Procedural part of the rules deals with matters as which methods are to be used and the means that are deployed when settling disputes that arise from places of work (Flanders 1975, p.86). This very part also deals with facilities to be provided to the representatives of parties who enter the agreement.Substantive part on the other hand pronounces the rate of wages, working hours among other terms of employment go away exploitation as the last thing to be forced. The substantive rules of collective bargaining regulate the marketing interpretation and enforcement of such rules (Flanders 1975, p.87). However, each of the set of rules, whether substantive or procedural regulate different sets of relationships. Collective relations that involve representative organizations are under the procedural rules.The worker is subject to managerial relation whereby authority and subordination come to play with respect of who is who in the work place. The employee is usually placed at a position where he will exercise his powers in a limited way with regard to the hierarchy of power (Flanders 1975, p.88).The powers are born of organization of the management with an aim of attaining the goals of the enterprise. Here the employees interact with fellow employees and management as they share interests, sentiments, beliefs and values for the common purpose (Flanders 1975, p.89).In conclusion conflicts in the work place are indispensable but what should take precedence is how to solve them. Trade unions are meant to solve the conflict between the employer and the employee but there are other problems that management will have to deal with. The three perspectives offer their take on the industrial relation but their pick is depended on the culture of the society and how they will be interpreted by those involved. What is very important in this case is a balance that will maintain stability in the work place that eve ry party will be satisfied.