Is the state an independent umpire that aims to reconcile competing interests about employment?
Privatization is the best parameter of government efforts to depoliticize economic management. The trend is inherent in a desire to play a reconciliatory role in economic management and provide basic leadership. According to the New Zealand Journal of industrial relations, the government has a role to play in the employment sector indirectly. Depoliticizing the public sector through privatization does not exempt the government from responsibility, rather provides it with opportunity to put such organizations in the spotlight, hence, keenly, following the introduction of market mechanisms, the vitality of competitiveness and reduction of bureaucratic inefficiency. This only makes the de-capitalization of state-run corporations more of increasing their efficiency and productivity.
The government cannot manage the economy through a political format and strategy. The Australian government’s realization that the economy needs a dynamic and more inherently efficient form of corporate governance led to the removal of bureaucratic constraints in the public service corporations. This led to the creation of conditions for competitiveness and consumer choice, where the citizens are the consumers and are directly engaged in profit-zing their own institutions. The state uses privatization as a central framework to structure social change. The state uses contingently, enshrined commoditization to interact with the society, extend property rights, foster the role of the state as an enabler not a producer and promote markets ascendancy.
This shows that the government is directly responsible for creating an environment that facilitates growth and development by depoliticizing state-run agencies and other core drivers of the economy. The outcomes of reconciling competing interests about employment are varied due to an uneven pattern of economic restructurings. However, the government provides particular policies to provide the economic opportunity for consistent monetary growth, ideological orientation, and balanced political power. This environment provides employers room to develop proper working environment, policies and employment.
Downsizing of the workforce takes place after changes have been enacted and prior to privatization about government depoliticizing state corporations. The complex nature of how government efforts to restructure economic and legal frameworks and environment cap the employment context. However, the government provides industrial relations guidelines to cushion workforce redundancy. The government also acts as a facilitator in creation of corporate image for organizations to make them attractive to investors through forcing significant changes to make conditions more like those in the private sector. This makes the employees have a good working environment, better pay, and benefits.
In a bid to make working conditions for employees favorable, governments have adopted a stance. Forcing greater managerial assertiveness, workplace reforms, and advancing technology capacity to increase efficiency. As such, by providing legislative frameworks, governments ratify employer-employee relations and avail provisions that allow each to function without prejudice or shortchanging each other. Still, providing a better working environment provides employees a health and security. The roles of the government are more of facilitating rather than producing. The support it provides to the state in terms of legal and legislative guidelines allows employment values, processes, and tenure to be well defined and comprehensively undertaken n principle.
Trade unions do have a role in the workplace and the broader society and they must work with employers
For the past 30 years, trade unions’ popularity has spiraled downwards. Government and private sector learn from past mistakes and implement core policies to provide employees with better pay, working conditions, and terms making the trade union movement have less to say about it. All this time, the unions rather worked against the employer hoping to draw immense support from the representatives and members (employees). The trade unions drew momentum and energy through campaigns and riots. Conversely, the spirited almost violent protests in the clamor for workers’ rights, collective bargain and netter workplace and rights.
The public sector saw government depoliticize it and state corporations became privatized. Legislators saw privatization as an efficient management policy and those who took office in these corporations did a good job to provide insurance schemes, pension schemes, improved workplace conditions, and better terms for workers. This began to become a prevailing challenge to the trade unions with massive loss of members who were not interested in joining unions anymore. Turning around members’ losses is challenging amid rising unemployment. Unions have rather changed tack and make it a critical project to work with employers.
Current technological advancements require restructuring of approach. The trade unions might find themselves defunct in a world where the workplace is âvirtual‘. However, against this backdrop, working with employers to provide essential amenities to employees can go a long way to endear unions to workers. In countries like Kenya, South Africa, and Brazil, trade unions have opted for a cooperative society platform to an aggressive rights minority set-up. Members, under the umbrella, save, seek enactment of policies that protect them, and most importantly, work with employers to make the working terms and conditions favorable.
This approach in turn connects the distinctiveness between employers and social movementâs unity. This narrows the gap of disparity, with both employer and union working cohesively to provide the employee the best working conditions. The trade unions should narrow their conception as trade unions and pursue the status of a social partner seeking common ground with employers. This will increase their appeal in spite of unemployment that decreases their bargaining power. Pursuing this partnership approach with employers and government will help the unions make broad gains. Worker solidarity and long-term insulation against loss of appeal to employees will also become a benefit.
Unions making inroads in broader partnership with employers is vita since only then can they meet their role as per why employees join them. Joining a union is seeing insulation. The union claims responsibility for better salaries, better working conditions in the workplace and shorter working time for the members. This, as an incentive could be easier to achieve if pursued with the employer and government. Rather than confronting the employer, the trade union will find breeding ground through partnership with their arch-foe. Besides, employees will find value and sense in joining the unions since, the democratic context provides opportunity and coherence of unions’ aims. The degree of centralizing their authority to make members become able to achieve objectives means they own these strategic priorities. Unions will look set and willing to be effective in their objective for better worker initiatives.
How work and employment have changed in the past 30 years
From an autocratic system of management renowned ‘personnel management’ to human resource management, the office has turned into a team playfield transforming how people work completely. The much-loved traditional core worker system is completely eroded and replaced by human capital portfolios. What has been popular across the world was Standard Employment Relationship, viewed as vital. Unfortunately, changes in how management and human resources perceive employment from the human capital viewpoint have reduced quality of employment. According to a study carried out by the Chifley Research Center, quality employment has faded. Casual labor, supplied by the demand for human output in rapid industrials has become popular. Casual labor has no rights. It does not provide basic leave, medical cover, or pension. However, employment has turned into a monster that we want less of. The cause of the shift in paradigms about employment is because effects of work on social and family life. Work has generally been viewed as vital unfortunately; most jobs seem to be taking away one’s rights to live an active social life. Many are viewed as causes of constraints in marital life today and others isolating one from his social life.
Conversely, the context of employees seeking to optimize their benefits is seen to be another shift in viewpoint. Over the years, there has been a gradual shift in perspective regarding positions as propagating a struggle between employee and employer forcing either to have related through performance contracts. Nowadays, many employees hope to maximize their earnings while providing less output with the employer seeking the opposite. In the recent past, employment was prestigious and a guideline was in place to guide both employer and employee regarding how they could work. Notably, the entry of women into the labor market has been instrumental in changing operations management. More employers struggle to provide a basic schedule tacit with family needs. Unfortunately, constraints observed during maternity leave are forcing the employer to seek only committed employees. A relatively high number of people remain unemployed and majority of those employed work as casual laborers in industries and factories. Those employed as officials in companies feel either unsecured or short-changed by the employer.
Over the years, people aged 16-24 are engaging in casual employment to seek passive income. Though viewed as a way to supplement income for those still learning, casual work has become popular yet it has no rights. There is an increase in casual employment, with those beyond the mentioned age bracket also going for these jobs. Opportunities that offered quality employment have dried up. Casual labor provides respite to millions who are desperate, yet these casual jobs are an evolution of quality employment. Employers rather revised their policies due to the increase in human capital availability and turned into casual employment policies to reduce cost of labor. There are sets of negative impacts from these developments. Careers are now shunted by insecure employment and human capital is being misused. Employers are finding it hard to sustain casual workers. They cannot sustain these casual workers hence resulting in poor wages as a resolve. Skills and career development are a waste since more people are taking jobs and working in a particular workplace for long, without the development of their skills. Concerns about occupational health and safety are on the rise concerning casual labor. Employees have no morale, rights, are low-paid, and are abused. This is indicative of negative changes and trends in employment in the recent past.