Employment relationship Essay

Unitarism is a process assumes that everyone in an organization is a member of a team with a common purpose representing the goals and policies of a company. The Unitarism has a univocal concept for every individual associated with the company right from managers to lower-level employees, should share the same objectives and work together for a common gain. The various staff levels involved in the company from the unions, the relationship managers and the top line management was actively leveraged for an equal representation through all levels. The groups were accepted only as a part of the reflecting loyalty. The managers were the two way communicators between the workers to the management. The management or the ownership was not allowed to force the loyalty factors. The free market orientation introduced by Margaret Thatcher has elevated the roles of the three levels of the employee relationship. The team representation of various levels have had shifted to more personal attention. The equal employee group representation in a company gradually diminished with management focusing on the individual excellence. The relationship manager who acted as a mediator lost his significance with new profile evolved at the same level of designation. Initially in the early 80’s the personal management scenario was not well defined and without any confined objectives. The personal management system has lot of unanswered concerns like tuning up of the individual performance management concerns with their respective team performance levels. The personal management was general and it was not customized according to the functional and industry specifications to make the personal management more effective. The main concern of Unitarism is, the organization is more inclined towards the organization goals and objectives and may not concentrate on the personal career aspects. The employee may not find it comfortable to tune up the organization goals with his personal individual goals. Pluralism: The pluralism provides freedom to tune up the individuals career goals with the organizational goals. The organization values the employees feedback and encourages the employees to be a part of the decision making process. Every level of the employees has the right to sound his voice in the organization. The employees were thus made responsible to the organization’s performance and profitability. The managers have to play a versatile role in motivating and teaming up the employees. The decision making process can be complex as different brains focus on the concerns and there would be possibility of not arriving at concrete decision The influence of the unions, governing bodies will be more on the management. The influence can swing in both the extremes resulting in the profitability or decisions in favor of a particular sector. Marxism: The Marxism refers the labourers’ welfare and representing their concerns. The low level working class is the prime resource and the Marxism exerts more pressure on upliftment of the working class. The working class was prime resource of production which uses the resources for the prosperity of the organization. The Marxist theories strongly condemn the gap between the operating cost incurred and the profits incurred on the products. The dominance of the top level management and ownership is not accepted. The ownership making considerable profits is not accepted are forced to carry the gains for the benefits of the working class. The modern development has decreased the involvement of the manual labour with the advent of machinery to push the productivity index to a considerable extent. The employee job responsibilities were handled by the machines with the artificial intelligence which in turn does not enhance the skill sets of the working class. The employees at some point of time may perceive the same job profile as monotonous and may loose the expertise. The ownership may start ignoring the skills sets of the workers which in turn lead to termination of labourers. The capitalist dominance was widely disregarded in the later half of the 19th century and many experts has drawn various implications on reformatting the Marxist principles to suite the modern challenges. Among them include Rubery, Braveman, Littler and Paul Edwards, who presented various directions of the labor and employee relations. The main implications drawn by these experts revolve around enhancing the employee relations by activily considering processes like: By Elevating the conflicting raising issues and initiating extra circular efforts like incentives, games and recreation that sooth the workers pressure(Burawoy). The Burawoy definition was vital part of the human resource management in many companies in the today to make the employee feel that the company cares the resources in may other ways. †¢ Bridging the gap between the ownership control and the workers resistance for a mutual profitable accord †¢ A more robust job design keeping on view of the employee growth accepts with equal representation of the control leading to a satisfactory employee relationship(Littler). The management has to tune up the workers with abilities required for the productions(Rubery). The experts have had strongly disregarded the employee coherent methodology with asserting more on mutually acceptable strategies for sustainable business and economic growth. The contemporary organization were now-a-days more proactive in providing the employees with more freedom and flexibility to retain them. The compensatory systems were broadened with more virtual incentives along with salaries wooing the employees to stick to the organizations.