Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Allan Flanders
The regulatory output of Industrial Relations is
generally seen as rules. This emphasises the
fundamental consensus between the parties
regarding both the need to establish and maintain a
system(processes and institutions) through which
they may resolve their differences and the need for
both sides to reach and abide by outcomes from that
system. Needless to say what is warranted that the
requirement of an organised social structure to
established formalised norms of behaviour among its
member.
A flaw in just viewing IR as an output brought
about by inputs of the three actors
Does not provide a framework for understanding either
the integrative nature of the parts which comprise IR
or its relationship to the wider contexts within which it
operates.
How does the Systems framework define Industrial
Relations (IR)
Industrial relations is an analytic subsystem of societies
located in the same plane as an economic system. The system
logic follows from a functional differentiation of the system into
4 subdomains- economy, polity, law and social control
institutions.
Following the above differentiation IR’s study encompasses the
concepts, structure, function, practices, outcome and the
institutions that are constitutive of the employment
relationship have paved the way in the establishment of the
main framework of an industrial relations system.
What are the basic components of the wage labour
employment relationship?
Dunlop identified as the basic components of
an IRS three groups of actors (managers,
workers and their respective representatives,
and government institutions dealing with
industrial relations), three different
environmental contexts (technologies, markets,
and power distribution), and ideology "that
binds the IRS together”.
The Context of the IRS Explicated
By ideology Dunlop implies that it is a “set of ideas and beliefs commonly held by the
actors that helps to build or integrate the system together as an entity.” Its body of
common ideas that defines the role and place of each actor and the ideas that each
actor holds towards the place and function of the others in the system. The ideology of
a stable system involves a congruence or compatibility among these views and the rest
of the system.
Ideology not only circumscribes the role of each actor or a group of actors but also
defines the roles of other actors within the system. If the views of the roles, one with
another are compatible then the system is stable,. If the views are incompatible then
the system is unstable.
Actors operate within constraints.
The actors to recapitulate are a hierarchy of
managers and their representatives, a hierarchy of
non-managerial workers and their spokespersons, and
specialized governmental agencies.
These rules are organized within the system and consist of (a)
procedure and authority for making rules
(b) substantive rules - related to market or budgetary
constraints and related to distribution of power in larger
society such as compensation, duties and discipline as well as
the rules of discipline. They pertain to the rights and
obligations of the employer in the contractual wage or work
bargain.
Procedural rules define the conduct of the relationship
grievance, discipline, union recognition, CB etc.
(c) administrative rules governing work place and the work
community which involves policies of management hierarchy,
laws of worker hierarchy, regulations / decisions/ orders by
government agencies, collective bargaining agreements and
the customs and traditions of work place and work community.
Within the above dichotomy of rules there underlies an
undercurrent of differing degrees of formality in the
determination and recording of rules ranging from
informal and unwritten custom and practice to
codification in formal written documents(policies
procedures and documents)
The Industrial Relations system is the at the centre of analysis
and is not an outcome. The How question.
The Marxist approach to industrial relations accepts that conflict exists but that
at present there is little balance between organised labour and capital, especially
in an era of globalization. When there is a huge difference in power between
different groups in society, including the work-place, the group with the greater
power rarely has to use it. This is because excessive power regularly transforms
itself into a legitimate authority in the thinking of those it seeks to control.
Therefore workers often come to believe that there is no alternative to the way
their world is. The status quo becomes legitimate, and workers come to accept
that “what is” means “what must be.”
The labour or capital relationship is essentially one of
exploitation wherein surplus value from work activities accrues to
capital.
The logic of accumulation requires capital continually to develop
the production process and cheapen the process of production
Continual development of the production process requires the
establishment and maintenance of general and specific structures
of control
The resultant structured antagonism relationship includes
systematic attempts by capital to obtain co-operation and consent
and a continuum of possible and overlapping worker responses
from resistance to accommodation on temporary common
objectives, to compliance with the great power of capital and
consent to the production process{Braverman 1977}
Where is the conflict perspective leading us toward?