115. Follow the instruction to write 3000words essay on topic of Employment Relations

User Generated

daarqh

Business Finance

Description

115. Follow the instruction to write 3000words essay on topic of Employment Relations

All the work must be based on previous coursework which are are last two attachments.

Please read all instructions very carefully to make sure the essay follow the instructions perfectly.

All the work must be original

Turn it in report is required

Unformatted Attachment Preview

COURSEWORK ASSIGNMENT Academic Year 2018/19 Module Code: BHM 349 Module Name: Employee Relations in Context Module Leader: Dr. Vidu Badigannavar Coursework Title: A 3000 word essay on the following topic: Critically examine the role of the State (government) as an actor in employment relations. Task Details/Description: Students are expected to write an essay not exceeding 3000 words on the given essay topic. Module Learning Outcomes Assessed: 1. Demonstrate understanding of basic concepts, theories and perspectives of employee relations 2. Critically evaluate the impact of local, national and global contexts shaping employee relations. 3. Examine the roles and functions of different groups or stakeholders in employment relationship Presentation Requirements: Word Count: 3000 Font Size: 12 Line Spacing: Double The word count includes citations within the main body of your essay. However, it excludes the list of bibliographic references at the end of your essay, any tables and graphs. Submission Date & Time: 14 December 2018 by 12 noon. Assessment Weighting for the Module: Percentage: 100% Assessment Criteria 1. Ability to engage in a critical review of relevant literature 2. Demonstrate wider reading and ability to engage in independent research which goes beyond lecture materials. 3. Ability to think laterally across topics covered on this module to answer the essay question 4. Argue analytically, logically and coherently. 5. Wherever possible, support arguments with evidence from published sources 6. Cite and/or quote sources of information appropriately in the main body of the essay. Provide full list of bibliographic references at the end of the essay. Ethical Requirements Students are not expected to collect primary data for this essay. However, if they choose to do so, they will be required to follow the University’s ethical regulations and seek written approval from the tutor. Essential Reading for Coursework Task (if in addition to reading provided in the module outline): Please note that this is not intended as an exhaustive or definitive list of readings for this piece of coursework. Instead, the articles/chapters listed below should be viewed as core or essential readings that may act as a start point as you prepare to tackle this assignment: Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (2013) ‘Comparative Employment Relations in the Global Economy’ Routledge, London and New York Williams, S. (2014) ‘Introducing Employment Relations – A Critical Approach’, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Dundon, T. and Rollinson, D. (2011), ‘Understanding Employment Relations’ 2 nd edition, McGraw-Hill, Berkshire, England. Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (2004) ‘Varieties of Unionism – Strategies of Union Revitalization in a Globalizing Economy’ Oxford, Oxford University Press. Badigannavar V. (2017) ‘Is Social Partnership the Way Forward for Indian Trade Unions? Evidence from Public Services’ International Labour Review, Vol.156 (3-4): 367-394 Badigannavar,V. and Kelly, J. (2012) ‘Do Labour Laws Protect Labour in India? Union experiences of workplace employment regulations in Maharashtra, India’ Industrial Law Journal vol.49 (4): 439-470 Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2011-12. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relationsstudy-wers Website of the Trades Union Congress UK http://www.tuc.org.uk/ Website of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) http://www.ituc-csi.org/ Website of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFLCIO) http://www.aflcio.org/ China Labour Bulletin http://www.clb.org.hk/en/ Solidarity Federation http://www.solfed.org.uk/ European Trade confederation Union Confederation http://www.etuc.org/european-trade-union- Confederation of British Industry (CBI) http://www.cbi.org.uk/ Involvement and participation association of UK http://www.ipa-involve.com/ Institute of Directors www.iod.com Institute of Employment Rights www.ier.org.uk This is not an exhaustive list of readings or internet sources. Please do your own independent research in addition to the readings & information sources listed above. Please refer to the module outline/specification for a list of useful journals recommended for this module. Critically examine the role of the Government as an actor in employment relations Post financial crash there was an increase in job insecurity despite the unemployment rate being better than initially expected (Gardiner, 2013). This is often linked to the rapid growth of the number of workers who were on less hours than they needed to support themselves, a group frequently referred to as the ‘working poor’ (Bell and Blanchflower, 2013). Popular opinion, supported by statistics, links this rise to the concurrent rise in the use of zero hour contracts (ZHCs). A ZHC is where there is no obligation for the employer to provide work, due to there being no working hours stated on a contract, and no obligation for the employee to accept work that has been offered (Williams, 2014). Individuals on ZHCs are deemed ‘underemployed’, explaining the better than expected unemployment figures postrecession. Figures indicate a rise from 2.3 million workers on ZHCs in the UK in 2008, to 3.3 million in 2012 (TUC, 2012). Public opinion, trade unions and a vast number of employees on ZHCs felt they suffered a detriment in comparison to those on permanent contracts with guaranteed hours, and historically had hugely limited rights. The rise in use of ZHCs and the increasing coverage of their use caused Labour to commit to banning ZHCs in their manifesto for the 2015 general election. This notion was due to negative public opinion, employees, and trade unions wanting them banned, despite employers valuing them and wanting to maintain the freedom they had in their use due to a lack of imposed regulations. It became clear that anger was rising surrounding the Conservative Government’s inaction. Because of the above, the Government at the time were compelled to play the role of the mediator between both parties, employees and employers, and did so through the introduction of the legislation change in 2015. This change aimed to allow employers to continue the practice of offering ZHCs, whilst protecting employees from the financial and sociological effects of being on a ZHC. The change ensured that employees on ZHCs can work for multiple employers, as opposed to being confined to working for one employer, even if no hours are provided over a period of time. The necessity of this Government intervention will be discussed, through a consideration of the positives and negatives of the Government’s previous inaction for employees and employers. Employers benefitted from the governments’ previous inaction on the matter for a variety of reasons. Most notably, having employees on ZHCs enables employers to be able to organise workers hours around changes in demand for their products/services (Williams, 2014). This creates a much more cost effective way to deploy staff as it gives employers the ability to reduce the wage bill in periods of lower profit, therefore reducing their labour costs considerably (ibid.). It creates a flexible culture and variable wage bill, in which staff only need to be paid for the specific hours of work that they do. Research suggests that flexibility is the biggest benefit for employers, as demonstrated by Dickens (1997) who found that out of the 36 organisations surveyed that used ZHCs, 94% gave ‘the ability to deal with fluctuations in work’ as their rationale for doing so. ZHCs don’t only reduce the employers fixed wage bill, they also reduce costs for employee benefits as it is less likely someone on a ZHC would receive benefits such as sick and holiday pay, company pensions etc, than someone on a permanent contract (Brinded, 2014). It is clear, therefore, that employers benefitted from these contracts, and therefore from the lack of regulations imposed by the Government. One could argue that the Government’s inaction indicated support for the employers, as we know that another one of the Government’s role in the labour market is one of an economic manager. The Government’s action in 2015 to impose a regulation on ZHCs does not affect employers wage bill, because the regulation simply means employees are able to, and cannot be penalised for, working for another employer. Therefore the company will not be paying increased wages, or increasing their spending on employee benefits, but may suffer from employees on ZHCs being less available to work, thus stifling the company’s flexibility. The Government’s decision to regulate ZHCs will have no negative impact on the small pool of employees who value the flexibility the contracts provide. These individuals value the ability to only work when suitable to them, as they are able to work around other commitments and family responsibilities more than they would if they were full time (Williams, 2014). This group of people are more likely to be students, for whom ZHCs work well due to the fact they are less likely to be solely dependent on the income received through wages, as they may be supported by family or student loans. Brinded (2014) discusses survey evidence from the CIPD, which found that those on ZHCs are more satisfied with their work-life balance (65%) than those on permanent contracts (58%). It is clear, therefore, that there are pools of employees who value the use of ZHCs, and these people will not suffer a detriment from the new regulations. Had the Government banned ZHCs, these individuals would not have been able to work as flexibly. It is likely the Government considered this factor in implementing regulations, and recognised that a ban would have reduced the work life balance and flexibility for those employees who value the benefits of ZHCs. Finally, for the argument against an outright ban, Gardiner (2015) reminds us not to overplay the effect ZHCs have on the labour market as those on ZHCs are only a small minority, which Koumenta and Williams (2016) highlight is contrary to popular opinion and what is portrayed in the media. Based on this, it was not the Government of the day’s priority until the opposition party pledged to ban ZHCs entirely. Additionally, ZHCs are not always negative, even for those who are solely dependent on the income they bring. De Graaf-Zill, Van den Berg & Heyma (2011) found that temporary jobs, in this case including ZHCs, had a positive effect on an employee finding regular employment. In other words, it was a good stepping stone onto something more stable (ibid., 2011). The effect was more pronounced for the low rather than highly educated unemployed. There are, however, strong arguments against ZHCs, leading to criticism of the Government’s initial inaction, an increased discussion in the media and awareness in the public, and the Labour party to include it in their manifesto. These arguments outline the reasons for which employees wanted, and in some case needed, action, whether that be an overall ban or the introduction of employer regulations. The first of these is the issue of Diversity. The food and agriculture business make use of ZHCs as the work is typically seasonal, with demand increasing at different points of the year. Using ZHCs in these businesses is advantageous for the employers as above, however migrant labour is relatively highly concentrated in this line of work (Williams, 2014). Unfortunately, this means that migrants are more likely to be on ZHCs and therefore experience the unpredictability and low income to be discussed shortly. Similarly, as ZHCs are predominantly used in low skilled jobs, those on ZHCs are likely to be women as UK women in the labour market are more likely to be in the lower skilled, lower paid jobs than men are. Over half of the organisations surveyed by Dickens (1997) reported that the majority of employees on ZHCs in their companies were women. Koumenta and Williams (2016) found that ZHCs are concentrated in jobs involving physical tasks, with one in 5 ZHC jobs in the home carer/care assistant profession, which is a largely female dominated profession. This is the case despite EU Flexible working policy which highlights the need to “enhance equal opportunities between men and women” (Perrons, 1999). Finally, young people are more likely to be on a ZHC than older people (Koumenta and Williams, 2016), which is in line with the belief that ZHCs work best for younger individuals who are not dependent on them as their sole income. Importantly, the samples used in Koumenta and Williams’ 2016 study were small, so care needs to be taken when generalising. The introduction of the Government regulations is unlikely to solve the problem in diversity, as the concentrated groups in certain industries is a symptom of the wider society. In this way, the Government’s action had no effect. However, there are various other arguments against ZHCs, on which the new regulations have a positive effect. One of the main problems of ZHCs was often cited as the pay disparity between those on ZHCs and those on permanent contracts. Brinded (2014) described a two tier workforce; it was found that ZHC workers earn approximately £300 a week less than those on permanent contracts. Although this data is unpublished ONS data, and therefore requires careful application, it points to a problem that anecdotal evidence would support. This is linked to the research above that those on ZHCs are typically in lower skilled, lower paid jobs, however differs from the above situation, which outlines a symptom of society on which the new regulations cannot change, and upon which the legislation change could make a difference on pay disparity. This is because, previously those on ZHCs could not work for multiple employers, even if they had no, or very few hours offered week on week. The Government’s decision to take action on ZHCs - by introducing the regulations – has not changed the fact that ZHCs are typically low paid, but it has meant that employees are able to increase their income by working for more than one employer. This gives employees on ZHCs more opportunity to increase their standard of living by earning more money. Similarly, since the Government’s introduction of the regulations, the uncertainty and unpredictability is reduced, again because employees can now work for multiple employers, reducing this problem considerably. Irregular and uncertain income were causes of stress for those on ZHCs (Shelley, 2007). The work is not guaranteed, which often leads to exploitation, and the unpredictability of hours makes it hard to plan family life, commitments and activities, for example arrange childcare, around the hours as there is no guarantee and certainly no routine (Williams, 2014). Blyton and Jenkins (2012) conducted interviews with those on part time, flexible contracts including ZHCs. The effects of unpredictability were highlighted by an interview of a hotel receptionist, who spoke about cancelling health appointments last minute due to a last minute request for work, and being completely unable to book a future one due to not having a schedule (Blyton and Jenkins, 2012). A BBC newsnight programme in 2012 drew attention to the problem of ZHCs and the lack of guaranteed regular income. The documentary featured two individuals, one who only found out 2 hours before a sift was about to start whether she was required to go into work, and the other who worked for McDonalds and explained that only managers were given guaranteed, regular work (Williams, 2014). The uncertainty stretches further than in regards to which shifts employees can work and be paid for, as there is also uncertainty surrounding employment status, as employment can be terminated with little or any prior notice from employers (Lavery, 2014). Although, as above, the new regulations do not resolve this issue in its entirety, the new regulations mediate the issue of certainty as employees can look for a job with more regular, guaranteed, routine hours, while working on a ZHC too. This reduces employees’ flexibility in a positive way, as we know that employees suffer financially and sociologically from the lack of predictability and guarantee of work. The sociological impact of ZHCs are another reason employees and trade unions wanted a ban or regulation on these contract types. Lavery (2014) categorises ZHCs as a form of “precarious employment” because they are ‘atypical’, unlike contracts involving standard, regular hours which are ‘typical’. Sociologically, precarious employment is linked to feelings of isolation, insecurity and uncertainty (Lavery, 2014). Lopes and Dewan (2014) looked at these effects in higher education, a field where there has been an increase in the use of ZHCs. They conducted interviews and focus groups with lecturers and tutors on ZHCs and found experiences of “job insecurity, exploitation, lack of support, research and opportunities for career progression and feelings of exclusion” (ibid., pg 40). The authors recommend an increase in support for these individuals, in addition to an attempt to increase continuity and integration of those individuals (Lopez and Dewan, 2014). Although Lopez and Dewan (2014) note that in the higher education sector a significant minority as opposed to majority are on ZHCs, Butler (2013) reported the headline that universities are twice more likely to use ZHCs than other employers. The sociological problems still exist with the prevalence of ZHCs, however the new legislation helps to resolve the feelings of isolation, insecurity etc as employees can now apply for more stable work to conduct alongside their ZHC job. Given, however, the severity of these issues and the psychological effect they are bound to have had on employees, it is surprising that the Government did not choose to intervene sooner. Finally, the confusion with and concerns around employment status, and therefore employee benefits, was another reason for the Government to impose a ban or some regulations on the use of ZHCs. Dickens’ (1997) survey indicated that zero hours employees were often not given non contractual benefits such as sick pay, car allowance and company pension, despite the fact that 80% of the employers surveyed that used ZHCs said that those on them were employees. This demonstrates that typically, those on ZHCs do not just suffer financially due to a low pay for few hours, but they also suffer financially by having to fund amenities that an employer would fund if they were permanent, ‘typical’ employees. The new regulations, again, fail to address this, however by enabling employees to work for multiple employers, individuals can earn more to be able to afford benefits themselves, for example a private pension. Also, if they have an additional job where they are treated and rewarded as ‘typical’ employees through employee benefits, they have access to otherwise missing benefits from this employer. It is clear from the above that both parties, employees and employers, had different demands and concerns around ZHCs. For employers, ZHCs provide a cost efficient, flexible solution to supply, demand and the link with wage bill. ZHCs increase the variable wage bill while reducing the fixed wage bill, a positive for employers who want to dominate a market by increasing their profit and market share. One of the state’s roles in employment relations is as an economic manager, therefore by advocating the use of ZHCs through their inaction, the Government have helped to boost the flexibility of the labour market post-recession. There is an argument to say that this inaction, paired with the rise in the use of ZHCs gave the economy the boost it needed at this time, but we can see from the above that it had largely negative effects on affected employees. Employees on ZHCs suffered from sociological effects of isolation and uncertainty, the financial effects of unpredictable and unguaranteed hours/income, heightened pay disparity between themselves and permanent equivalents and a lack of rights. This rise of underemployment and uncertainty among the labour market caused the Government to play the role of the mediator, as the argument prevailed that the Government had been supporting employers as opposed to employees. The regulations the Government brought in served as somewhat of a compromise. Had the Government banned ZHCs altogether, the effects on the labour market could have been negative, and would likely have increased unemployment levels which would have impacted the welfare budget. The regulations brought in have no negative impact on employers, therefore avoid the dangers outlined, whilst giving employees an opportunity to find additional work should ZHCs not suit them. This additional work gives employees an opportunity to earn more, gives them a more predictable and stable routine with a guaranteed outcome and should also have a sociological impact. Unfortunately, to improve the diversity of those on ZHCs, the Government needs to take a wider look at society as a whole. Above all, this change in legislation mitigates the negative effects outlined, whilst maintaining the positives for employers, however, the Labour Government’s leaked 2017 manifesto allegedly promises an outright ban on ZHCs if Labour win the general election. This will move the Government’s role from a mediator to an enforcer, and it will be interesting to see how employers and the economy reacts. The fact that it is still a major election promise for the second election running may indicate that the previous Government’s action on ZHCs, the removal of exclusivity clauses from ZHCs, was not perceived as action enough. References – Employee Relations Essay Bell, D. N., & Blanchflower, D. G. (2013). Underemployment in the UK Revisited. National Institute Economic Review, 224(1), F8-F22. Blyton, P. and Jenkins, J. (2012). Life after Burberry: shifting experiences of work and nonwork life following redundancy, Work, Employment and Society, 26(1), 26-41. Brinded, L. (2014). Zero-Hour Contract Workers Earn£ 300 Less per Week Than Permanent Staff. International Business Times. Butler, S. (2013). "Universities twice as likely to use zero-hour contracts than other employers." The Guardian. de Graaf-Zijl, M., Van den Berg, G. J., & Heyma, A. (2011). Stepping stones for the unemployed: the effect of temporary jobs on the duration until (regular) work. Journal of population Economics, 24(1), 107-139. Dickens, L. (1997). Exploring the Atypical: Zero Hours Contracts. Industrial Law Journal, 26(3), 262-264. Gardiner, L. (2015). The rise and rise (?) of zero-hours contracts. British Politics and Policy at LSE. Koumenta, M., & Williams, M. (2016). An Anatomy of Zero-Hour Contracts in the United Kingdom. Lavery, S. (2014). The Politics of Precarious Employment in Europe: Zero Hour Contracts and The Commodification of Work. Precarious Employment in Europe içinde, FEPS Young Economics Network Working Paper, Brussels, 6-16. Lopes, A. and Dewan, I. (2014) Precarious pedagogies? The impact of casual and zero-hour contracts in Higher Education. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, 7 (8). pp. 28-42. Perrons, D. (1999). Flexible working patterns and equal opportunities in the European Union. European Journal of Women's Studies, 6(4), 391-418. Shelley, T. (2007). Exploited: Migrant Labour in the New Global Economy. London: Zed Books. The Guardian, (2013), ‘Zero hour contracts cover more than 1,000,000 UK workers’, The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/05/zero-hourscontracts-cover-1m-uk-workers Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2012). Underemployment Crisis – A TUC Analysis of Underemployment Across the UK. London. TUC. Unite the Union (2013), ‘Research uncovers growing zero hour subclass of insecure employment’, http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/research-uncovers-growingzero-hour-subclass-of-insecureemployment/ Williams, S. (2014) ‘Introducing Employment Relations – A Critical Approach’, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. MEGATRENDS The trends shaping work and working lives Are organisations losing the trust of their workers? WORK WORKFORCE WORKPLACE Championing better work and working lives The CIPD’s purpose is to champion better work and working lives by improving practices in people and organisation development, for the benefit of individuals, businesses, economies and society. Our research work plays a critical role – providing the content and credibility for us to drive practice, raise standards and offer advice, guidance and practical support to the profession. Our research also informs our advocacy and engagement with policy-makers and other opinion-formers on behalf of the profession we represent. To increase our impact, in service of our purpose, we’re focusing our research agenda on three core themes: the future of work, the diverse and changing nature of the workforce, and the culture and organisation of the workplace. WORK WORKFORCE Our focus on work includes what work is and where, when and how work takes place, as well as trends and changes in skills and job needs, changing career patterns, global mobility, technological developments and new ways of working. Our focus on the workforce includes demographics, generational shifts, attitudes and expectations, the changing skills base and trends in learning and education. WORKPLACE Our focus on the workplace includes how organisations are evolving and adapting, understanding of culture, trust and engagement, and how people are best organised, developed, managed, motivated and rewarded to perform at their best. About us The CIPD is the professional body for HR and people development. We have over 130,000 members internationally – working in HR, learning and development, people management and consulting across private businesses and organisations in the public and voluntary sectors. We are an independent and not-for-profit organisation, guided in our work by the evidence and the front-line experience of our members. cipd.co.uk/megatrends #megatrends MEGATRENDS Are organisations losing the trust of their workers? Foreword In our recent Megatrends publication, we set out some of the big economic and social trends that have helped to shape work and working life in recent decades, such as deindustrialisation and demographic change. While the future is uncertain, it seems likely that many of these trends will continue to have an impact for years or even decades to come. Equally, past trends can stop having an impact – or even go into reverse – and new trends will emerge. In this turbulent and changing environment, organisations need to be agile – to spot changing trends affecting them, work out how to respond to them and by doing so make them work to their benefit and thus maintain an advantage on the competition. In Megatrends, we identified four potential emerging trends – issues where the data suggest there might have been a shift in practice, attitudes or outcomes that would have a significant impact on work and working lives. However, precisely because these are relatively new developments, it is still unclear whether these really are new trends or whether they are short-term disturbances to established patterns due to factors such as the economic difficulties that the UK and many other countries have faced in recent years. In this series of publications, we take each of these four potential emerging trends and review the relevant evidence, discuss the potential explanations and explore the potential implications for work and working lives – including for business, for HR practice and for policy-makers. The aim is to draw the attention of our stakeholders to these issues, present the relevant facts and provide a platform for further discussion. employees think trust in senior management is strong at their workplace. Trust is particularly lacking in the public sector. The recession and its aftermath damaged trust and the improvement in measures of trust that we have seen recently in both public and private sectors may be due to economic recovery. A lack of trust is costly. Managers and employees spend time making sure they cover their own backs. More checking is needed because people feel nervous about relying on someone else. Employees are much less likely to be engaged and go the extra mile for their employer. Many will be looking to move on. The world takes notice of how employees are treated – just ask Apple about the scrutiny given to working conditions and employee well-being in its supply chain. Discontent and distrust in the workforce can erode public trust with potentially catastrophic effects. Precisely how employers maintain and improve trust among the workforce will depend on the organisation and the context in which it operates. However, there are some common steps involved in repairing trust. In particular, regular and honest communication and a culture that encourages behaviour in line with corporate values and holds senior leaders to account as much as those on the shop floor. In this publication, we provide more evidence on these issues as the basis for a strategic conversation. We encourage every reader to say what you think. This second publication in the series asks whether we are seeing a breakdown in trust between organisations and the people who work for them. Trust in many organisations is weak – the latest survey findings show that just 29% of MEGATRENDS The trends shaping work and working lives Chief Executive, CIPD 1 Summary of key findings • The latest CIPD data for autumn 2013 show that 37% of employees say they trust their organisation’s senior management and 31% say they do not trust senior management. • Similarly, 29% of employees think trust is strong between employees and senior managers in their workplace and 33% of employees think trust is weak. • A tracking measure collected since 2009 shows that trust levels fell between 2009 and 2011, with some recovery during 2012 and 2013. • Weaknesses in trust appear to pre-date the recession. • Employees working in smaller organisations and in management positions tend to have more trust in senior managers. Public sector employees have much less trust in senior managers than their counterparts in the private sector. Union members have lower trust levels. The vast majority of employees who are disengaged from their employer and/or dissatisfied with their job do not trust their employer. • Trust in general may be in decline. Public trust in big business has been falling for some time and this has implications for the trust employees place in their leaders. • The recession damaged employee trust, especially where the workplace was affected by the recession or its aftermath (for example, through closures, redundancies or cuts in funding). Recent improvements in measures of trust may in part be due to economic recovery. The damage to trust is especially marked in the public sector. • Employees are more likely to trust senior managers when they feel they are listened to and when their views are taken into account when decisions are made. The evidence suggests employers have made modest improvements over the last 10–15 years in keeping their employees informed and listening to their views. 2 • Leadership, culture and behaviour make a big difference to trust. Trust is stronger when management and ‘the system’ are seen to treat people fairly, when people (including senior leaders) behave in line with corporate values and when leaders also show trust in their employees. Across most of these issues, the majority of employees appear to have positive views about management, but this leaves substantial room for improvement. • When trust is lacking, this affects productivity and organisation performance. Employees spend more time watching out for management and covering their own backs. Managers spend more time checking up on employees. Employees who do not trust their employer are more likely to want to leave. • Employees in low-trust environments are discouraged from sharing knowledge and taking risks – wasting innovation potential. Employees may also be reluctant to challenge the behaviour of leaders or colleagues – creating risks for both an organisation’s performance and its reputation. • How a business treats its employees is one of the most important factors the public consider in deciding whether to trust a business. Employees are sometimes seen as more credible sources of information about a business than CEOs. • Rebuilding trust can take time. The first step is to acknowledge trust as an issue – in autumn 2013, 38% of employees said trust is a word often used within their organisation. • Employee surveys suggest key elements in rebuilding trust include improved communication, a stronger employee voice, more meaningful consultation and ensuring that systems and individual behaviour reinforce corporate values. • Economic recovery might see further improvement in measures of trust in the short term. The longer-term outlook is likely to remain challenging and requires an approach based on the elements of trust-building identified above. #megatrends cipd.co.uk/megatrends 1 What does the evidence say? Trust is fundamental to sustainable and effective relationships. In this report, we ask whether organisations are losing the trust of those who work for them. If the degree of trust underpinning the employment relationship is indeed weakening, why has it happened and what are the implications? The focus is on whether individuals trust those responsible for leading their organisation – senior management – rather than trust in the person who directly supervises the employee or in colleagues more generally. We do this for two reasons. First, the evidence shows clearly that employees have much greater trust in colleagues and line managers. Second, the evidence suggests that trust in the organisation’s leadership – or a lack of it – has quite distinct and important consequences both for the individual and for their employer. What do we mean by trust? A definition commonly used in academic research is: ‘Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another.’1 Employees who place their trust in their employer are taking a risk – to their well-being as well as their current and future livelihood. They do this in the expectation that their employer will have regard to their interests and welfare – as well as the organisation’s goals – in how it conducts its business and how it treats them personally. Similarly, employers who trust their workforce take risks – that employees will not abuse the discretion they are granted to pursue individual goals that conflict with corporate objectives or indeed to engage in activities that endanger the financial health or reputation of the organisation (such as treating customers inappropriately, failing to follow procedures, stealing or disclosing commercially sensitive information). In order for someone to place trust in another, there are some common requirements on the person/organisation in whom trust is being placed that feature repeatedly in the research literature: ability – demonstrable competence at doing their job; benevolence – a concern for others beyond their own needs and having benign motives; integrity – adherence to a set of principles acceptable to others encompassing fairness and honesty; and predictability – a regularity of behaviour over time.2 When employees lose trust in their employers, this tends to be because one or more of these requirements are seen to be lacking. MEGATRENDS What is the current state of employee trust? Since its inception in 2009, the CIPD Employee Outlook survey has included a tracker question measuring employees’ trust in their senior leadership.3 The latest data using this question, collected in a special CIPD Employee Outlook Focus survey in autumn 2013, found that 37% of employees expressed a degree of trust in their senior management and 31% expressed a degree of distrust, with the remainder neutral or in the ‘don’t know’ category (see Figure 1).4 For every employee who says they trust their senior managers, there is another one who does not trust them, with roughly as many waiting to be convinced one way or the other. Alternative survey questions expose how fragile trust can be. In the autumn 2012 survey, when presented with the statement ‘I am not sure I can fully trust my employer’, 15% of employees agreed with it to ‘a great extent’ and 40% of employees agreed with it ‘to some extent’. This suggests that many people who are neutral according to the tracker question still have misgivings about the trustworthiness of their employer.5 The autumn 2013 Employee Outlook Focus survey also found that 29% of employees rated the overall level of trust between employees and senior managers in their organisation as strong or very strong – but a higher proportion (33%) rated it weak or very weak.6 What has happened to employee trust over time? The tracker question can be used to assess how trust in organisations has changed since 2009. A summary measure of trust – the net difference between the proportion of employees saying they trust their senior managers and the proportion of employees saying they do not trust their senior managers – has varied between plus and minus 10% for most of the period since 2009 (see Figure 2). The trends shaping work and working lives 3 Figure 1: Employee trust in senior management by sector, autumn 2013 100 90 80 % of employees 70 60 Strong distrust Distrust 50 Neutral 40 Trust Strong trust 30 20 10 0 All employees Private sector Public sector Voluntary sector Totals do not add up to 100% because of small numbers of ‘don’t know/not applicable’ responses. Source: CIPD Employee Outlook Focus survey, autumn 2013. Figure 2: Employee trust in senior management by sector, 2009–13 Net balance (% expressing trust minus % expressing distrust) 40 30 20 10 0 –10 –20 –30 –40 –50 –60 Total Private sector Public sector Voluntary sector * This is a bespoke Employee Outlook Focus survey using a larger sample than usual but with the identical tracker question. Source: CIPD Employee Outlook survey. MEGATRENDS The trends shaping work and working lives 4 Figure 3: Employee perceptions of management trustworthiness, 2004–10 60 % of employees in agreement 50 40 2004 30 2007 2009 20 2010 10 0 Management at the workplace can be relied upon to keep their promises Management at the workplace are sincere in attempting to understand employees' views Management at the workplace deal with employees honestly Source: British Social Attitudes Survey. The data show significant differences between public and private sectors.7 Trust among private sector employees edged down slightly between 2009 and 2011 before it started to improve in early 2012. The private sector net balance in autumn 2013 – at +12% – exceeds the net balance when the survey commenced in spring 2009. Public sector employees are much less likely to profess trust in their senior leaders. This appears to be a longstanding trend.8 Nevertheless, the deterioration of trust in the sector between 2009 and 2011 was especially sharp. By winter 2011/12, three-fifths (61%) of public sector employees said they did not trust their leaders. This finding is consistent with the Institute for Leadership and Management’s (ILM) Index of Leadership Trust, which found that employees in the public sector had lower levels of trust in their CEO than employees in the private and voluntary sectors, with the gap widening between 2009 and 2011.9 Trust measures in the public sector also improved during 2012 and 2013 although the net balance remains negative. Previous research has suggested that weakening employee trust is an issue that pre-dates the recession.10 Over the period between 2004 and 2010, the British Social Attitudes Survey found that just over half of employees thought the management at their workplace 5 dealt with them sincerely and honestly, although a somewhat smaller proportion agreed they could be relied upon to keep their promises (see Figure 3). Who trusts the most – and who trusts the least? Trust in senior management varies greatly across the workforce (see Figure 4). While gender makes little difference, employees are more likely to trust management if they are under 35, as are those with higher qualification levels (up to honours degree level) and those with relatively short length of service with their current employer. The relationship between trust and earnings is ambiguous. Union membership is associated with distrust. The public–private sector difference shows itself in the strong negative net balances for public administration, education and healthcare with trust levels greatest in hotels and catering and in real estate and business services. There is also a clear relationship between organisation size and trust. Employees in small organisations are much more likely to trust their leaders, possibly because they tend to have much closer personal contact with them than their counterparts in large organisations. Greater personal contact may also explain why senior managers are more likely to trust their leaders than those in more junior positions. #megatrends cipd.co.uk/megatrends Figure 4: Employee trust in senior management by personal and workplace characteristics, spring 2013 Personal characteristics 20+ years 15 –20 years 10–15 years 5–10 years 2–5 years 1–2 years 6–12 months
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Outline
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
Reference


Running head: THE STATE AS AN ACTOR IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

Course Title
Student Name
Institution Affiliation

1
THE STATE AS AN ACTOR IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
The State as An Actor in Employment Relations
Introduction
The state is a system mandated with regulating a territory or a community's internal affairs
and their relations with other countries, providing it with an identity and cohesion. It is the only
entity that can legitimately use physical or brute force within its clear territorial boundaries to
control the country's internal affairs on the political, economic and even social arena. This paper
will focus on the law and its changing roles in the employment relations by giving a detailed
overview of the state as a regulator of employment relationships and as an employer, changing the
economic and political philosophies within its territory at will, and therefore changing the people's
attitude in an attempt to enhance economic development and political might. The state can be
deemed as the third most important actor (after the managers and the employees) in the system,
determining and regulating the labor market, labor market institutions and other actors in the labor
market; acting as a third party referee to employers and employees, hence being a significant
employer of labor and striking a direct relationship with most of the country's employees.
The Main Objectives of the State in Employment Relations
It has always been a common assumption that the state gets involved in employment
relations with the intention of achieving social and economic prosperity for the country as a whole.
The government's main mandate is to ensure that the economy becomes stable and capable of
sustaining the entire population of the country and to manage this, the state has four main economic
policies in a steadfast manner to prevent them from conflicting with each other. These policy
objectives include maintaining high-quality employment levels, ensuring price stability of
products, protecting the exchange rates and maintaining a balance of payment surplus. Despite the
evident desire of the state to improve its economy by achieving these policy objectives, the

2
THE STATE AS AN ACTOR IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
different political parties that make up the state tend to view them from a different perspective.
While some parties agree with these objectives, others tend to prefer other alternatives (Hodder,
2015). The state, therefore, has to come together as a whole to fight some of the ideologies brought
forward by the conflicting views of its parts (the political parties) that might derail its main
objectives to ensure economic and social prosperity of the entire country. Since these differences
often reflect on the main ideologies of the government, it is essential for the state to tailor them in
a way that fulfills its objectives, or at least most of them, in a wholesome manner.
The previous labor government was largely regarded as pro-business compared to the
earlier labor government. However, the former had its own different approach to employment
relations. For instance, it attempted to implement an economic culture of competition and
partnerships which was further stamped into place by the legal rights which were afforded to
workers. On the other hand, the conservative labor governments not only removed the legal labor
rights that were fiercely fought for by the earlier employees but also attacked the stance of the
labor unions with the aim of curtailing their involvement in the employment arena. The state used
its legislative authority to control labor rights that were created to protect the employees' from
exploitation and tried to discard the labor unions which were implemented to ensure that every
employee within the territory of the state receives good and equal salaries, excellent working
conditions and non-exploitative allocation of tasks in the workplace (Barry, 2015). Legislative
control and power isn't the only weapon that the state can use to bend the economy to satisfy its
will, it also has other techniques up its sleeve which it can use to intervene in the employment
relations within its territory.
The Main Methods of State Intervention in Employment Relations

3
THE STATE AS AN ACTOR IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
Different governments all over the world apply the use of political influences to shape the
employment relations within their respective territories. They use different techniques to fulfill
this ob...


Anonymous
Great! 10/10 would recommend using Studypool to help you study.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags