Compare and contrast unitary and pluralist approaches to the employment

relationship.
According to Kochan and Katz, The primary thread running through industrial
relations research and policies is that labour is more than a commodity, and more
than a set of human resources. Moreover, a critical assumption underlying
industrial relations research is that there is an inherent conflict of interests between
employers and employees. Conflict is inevitable because employers are looking to
extract the maximum effort from employees at a minimum cost, but on the other
hand employees concern on receiving better wages and limit the amount of work
they are expected to undertake.
The dynamics of how relationships between employers and workers operate can
be seen through different perspectives. Budd recognises there are four different
frames of reference in employment relationships. This perspectives work as an
internal guide for action inside an organisation. Different types of managers are
inclined for different perspectives depending on their values and beliefs. These
perspectives are: (1) The egoist, (2) The Unitary, (3) The Pluralist and (4) The
Radical. Next Im going to focus on making a comparison between 2 and 3, the
unitary and the pluralist.
The unitary perspective embraces a unitarist view if the employment relationship.
According to Bacon and Fox, workforce and management have a unity of
interests, and any conflict in practice occurs due to poor employment practices.
This frame of reference is the dominant one of contemporary employers. Thus, this
perspective also underlies contemporary HRM, which focuses on creating policies
that simultaneously benefit employers and employees, trying to reconcile both
parties.
Unitarist perspective rejects the idea that a basic antagonism between employers
and employees exist, because the aim of this frame of reference is to devise
human resource policies that are seen as aligning the interests of employers and
employees. Some examples of these policies include valid and reliable selection
measures to hire and promote employees, training and development opportunities,
respectful methods of supervision, compensation that provides more than a living
wage, rewarding performance, benefits that enable personal and professional
growth.
As we can observe, the emphasis is on the employee and the reason is because
workers are the weak-end on the employment relation. However, it is interesting to
see that the emphasis is in the worker as an individual and not as a collective
entity. In fact, in the unitarist perspective labour unions are unnecessary. Actually
this is one of the reasons why this frame of reference is so popular amongst the
modern managers. Nowadays, the power of labour unions is not as strong as it
used to be; many ER systems all over the world have shifted from the collectivist
(trade union-led) paradigms to individualist paradigms, including the UK.

Guest and Peccei recognise that a major strength of the unitarist perspective is
that it explicitly wants to integrate employer and employee interest, so that it can
enhance employment commitment and loyalty. This can be used as a basis for
stakeholder management where employees are seen as important stakeholders of
the organisation, and so their well-being is carefully considered.
The unitarist also emphasizes the role of managers in attaining win-win situations
for employees and organisations, where their interests can be aligned. Giles
believe that managers are also enhanced to go beyond simple managerial styles
and emphasise their leadership capabilities. If they can be convincing and
influential leader, there will be no strong demand for trade unions.
However, there are also disadvantages when using the unitarist frame. Kessler
and Purcell recognise that the major weakness of this theory is the lack of
realization that there is power imbalance between employers and employees,
which will eventually generate different kinds of conflicts.