Relationship Between an Employer and Employee - Management Assignment Help

Assignment Task

Task
The relationship between employer and employee is a contested jurisprudential terrain. It has been a subject of heated debate among scholars due to vicious and unabated power struggles between employer and employee. It is trite to vindicate that traditionally the employer is clothed with dominant and sweeping powers to ensure his overriding control and power at the workplace as the employee occupies a weaker position which is relatively inferior to his superior. This is evidenced by theories such as Pluralism, Radicalism and Marxism. However there are some cases where the employer and employee relations is good as evidenced Unitarism. This essay seeks for one to evaluate the relationship that exists between an employer and employee in an organization. Points mentioned above shall be further explained as the essay explores. Key words to be defined are employer and employee.
An employer is person or body of persons whether corporate or incorporate who employs a workman under a contract of employment and includes the government and any statutory authority unless otherwise stated expressly in this Act (Industrial Relations 1967). In simpler terms an employer is a person or an organization that specifies of employing people. In Nicaragua, an employee can be described as a person working under the employer’s direction and in direct or delegated subordination to the employer. An employee is defined in Chile as a person who works in conditions of dependency or subordination.
To begin with the pluralism, it focuses more on compromising and collective bargaining as it recognises different interests within sub-groups that can cause conflict. Pluralism recognise the importance of conflict and negotiation. Pluralism can be explained in three approaches which are systems theory and strategic choice theory. To begin with systems theory as the basis of explanation, it is the most famous theory drawing on a pluralist frame of reference propounded by Dunlop’s (1958). It argues that industrial relations are best regarded as a sub-system of the wider social system. The theory holds work to be governed by a wide range of formal and informal rules and regulations by the employer which covers everything from recruitment, holidays, performance, wages, hours and a myriad of other details of employment. In so doing it clearly paves way for one to conclude that the relationship between the employer and employee, is like that of a horse and rider a the horse(employee) does all the work that benefits the rider(employer).
In addition to that, the strategic choice theory also explains the horse and rider relationship on employment relations under pluralism. Kochan, Katz and McKersie’s (1986) propounded the strategic choice theory. In organizational theory, Strategic Choice Theory describes the role that leaders or leading groups play in influencing an organization through making choices in a dynamic political process. For instance, may influence a company's long-term investment strategy, particularly if it believes such changes will affect bank interest rates thereby leading to employees being paid low wages. A major limitation of the pluralism is the power and control that managers possess that brings about the horse and rider relationship where the employer gets to detect the dos and don’ts to the employee. The significant imbalance of power between capital and labour, effects the employee’s performance toward the company (Adigun 2014). This emphasises the primary power belongs to the manager, thus could increase the frustration of employees within a company. Consequently the notion that the relationship between an employer and employee is like that of a horse and rider becomes valid.
Apart from that, another approach which explains the relationship of an employer and employee is Marxism. Marxism can be explained in two different theories, firstly the labour process theory. One of leading authorities in employment law, Gwisai (2016) pioneered that in essence there is no social justice and democracy at the workplace. Employees are perceived as subordinates with little powers to challenge the authoritarian nature of their employers. Gwisai’s (2016) inclinations and perceptions are in line with the prominent ideas developed by Karl Marx as he postulate that Labour law is not designed to further the interests of the society at large conversely it is designed to protect and ensure the inherent interests of the ruling class. He reinforced his theory by asserting that labour law is calculated to ensure consistent exploitation and suppression of employees. This can be buttressed by arbitrary working standards, poor and low wages and massive ill treatment at workplace. This theory postulated a strong and convincing sentiment that labour law is canvassed to ensure that property is owned by few people particularly the working class in the society. Karl Marx (1978) aggressively deploys that labour law is a tool of the state that is used to protect their dominance in the economic set up alienating the poor and the peasant. Henceforth the relationship between an employer and employee is like that of a horse and rider.
Secondly there’s the Feminists theory. Although there is a range of interpretations in this school of thought, the common characteristic in each seeks to highlight how men act in ways that confine women to inferior positions in the patriarchal society. Marx is of the view that this theory explains how the gender based value system serves to legitimise the dominant position of men’s interests one of which just happens to be the ownership and operation of the means of production. Feminists are of the view that women are viewed as passive, belittle themselves to men and be prone to exploitation. It is a common cause that there is no democracy at the workplace, it is an environment characterized by massive exploitation of men by women arbitrary working conditions and severe oppression of fundamental women’s rights. By so saying most of the females are employees in an organization as they are expected by society to acquire a low status as compared to men. Consequently, the view that the relationship between the employer and employee is like that of a horse and rider becomes valid.
Apart from that, radicalism also supports the quotation noted above. The radical approach to IR suggest that employs and employers are bound to have conflict due to the result of capitalism. Wood and Elliot (1997) are in support of that when they concurred that, this practice focus on the idea of control as most important, to the industrial relations and the employment relationship. Trade unions according this theory are the order of the day and inequality of power towards the employers. This clearly proves that employees are prone to long working hours, low and poor wages, no vacation to only mention but a few. As a result the horse (employee) does all the work which benefits the rider (employer) who receives interest the most.
However it is wholly lure to submit that the relationship that exists between the employer and employee can only be viewed as that of the horse and rider due to the presence of the Unitarist approach. The Unitarist approach consists of all members sharing the same interest and being homogenous. Unitarism consist of management and staff members sharing a common goal, through their loyalty towards the organisation (Fox 1966). Companies who use this approach depends their workplace on strong sense of cooperation between the employer and employee, which allows workers to focus on the primary aim. This approach can be explained in two forms which are Human relations and scientific management.
The Scientific management approach was propounded by Frederick Taylor (1974). Taylor applied for concepts which an organization must apply to keep the relationships between an employer and employee on good terms. These include replacing the use of thumb with machinery, clear division of tasks and responsibilities, high pay for high-performing employees and a hierarchy of authority and strict surveillance of employees. Companies subscribing to this form of management practice reduce work to its basic elements, such that the skills of workers necessary to undertake tasks are kept to a minimum. Employees in this approach are treated impersonally and collectively, with any workplace issues being referred to management. Under these conditions the management approach to employee relations is one that seeks to suppress internal tension over the distribution of organisational power by ensuring that management retains superior knowledge about the structure and organisation of work. Henceforth the above notion boils down to nothing as employees and employers are involved in a 50/50 diplomacy.
Lastly there’s the Human relations act. The second theory. In this case the reduction of organisational tension is held to rest on the ability of individuals to achieve self-fulfilment in the workplace. Workers are regarded as qualitatively different to other resources used in production. For example if workers are denied autonomy on the job, are reduced to acting as mere extensions of the machinery they operate and are given work that inhibits their capacity to create and think, it is argued that they will invariably find ways to subvert the methods of control that enforce these conditions. The principal task of management on this conception is to manipulate workplace relations in ways that enable employees to feel personal satisfaction with being involved with the organisation. According to this approach, organizations or companies consider the employee’s rights of being heard and have a say in the way they are governed. Therefore, the aim of this managerial approach to employee relations is one that seeks to reduce internal tensions by developing the sense of workplace satisfaction felt by employees through techniques that involve them in the organisation and regulation of work. Upon saying that, it becomes evident that the relationship that exists between an employer and employee can be explained on good terms.
In conclusion, it can be reiterated that the relationships between an employer and employee is like that of a horse and rider to a larger extent as employees are exploited, work for long hours only to receive peanuts, denial of vacancies and the absence of promotions. However worker’s rights are pivotal and must be sufficiently protected as depicted above. The recognition of workers’ rights is one of our founding values that underlines the root and progressive nature of our prestigious Constitution. Democracy must reign supreme and prevail unhindered at the workplace as explained in the essay above.
 

This PSYH124 Management Assignment has been solved by our Management Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.
    
Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment Experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.