Compare and Contrast Employment Relation System in Britain and America
The history of employment relations is dominated by the changing relationships between workers, trade unions, employers and the state. The concept which started from the rights for sufficient payment and good working conditions now has evolved in much broader areas.
Coming from mid 19th century to this date, employment relation has evolved a lot as a concept and practice. Employment relation in Britain and USA has some similarity in its fundamental areas of pay and working conditions; however, there are some differences like in industrial relation, unionism, collective bargaining as well as other HR practices.
What are Employment Relation and Industrial Relation?
Employment relation is the broader term of industrial relation. The term "industrial relations" has developed both a broad and a narrow meaning. When defining broadly, industrial relations, relationships and interactions between employers and employees.
From this perspective, industrial relations cover all aspects of the employment relationship, including human resource (or personnel) management, employee relations, and union-management (or labour) relations.
However, the term ‘industrial relation’ was narrowed in 1950s and 60s to avoid the confusion from word industrial, now , more restricted interpretation that largely links it with unionized employment relationships. In this view, industrial relations relate to the study and practice of collective bargaining, trade unionism, and labour-management relations, while human resource management is a separate, largely distinct field that deals with non-union employment relationships and the personnel practices and policies of employers. Thus, employment relations can be said to encapsulate both HRM and industrial relations.
UK history
Employment relation, as we now know, essentially grew from the trade union with the need to improve pay and working conditions, in particular around issues of health and safety and quality of life for the workers. To understand the issues today it is important to remember the past and the origins of the Trade Union movement and, in particular the role that women played in that process.
Trade unions in the industrialization in the 18th century existed as artisans' guilds; but trade unions did not formally (or legally) come into existence in Britain until the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. Employers used to determine the wages of an individual worker. Trade unions were not legal, also legislation prevents their existence.
Workers were able to form friendly societies and trade clubs, but were hindered by the legislation. The Six Acts of 1819 extend the magistrates' powers and restrict meetings and the distribution of leaflets. Trade Unions Act of 1825, allowed trade unions to exist, but not to strike, picket, or intimidate the workers who did not go on strike.
The legislation 1824–25 enabled organizations of workers to engage in collective bargaining. In 1851 the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE) was formed. It was followed by unions in a number of crafts, such as carpentry, bricklaying, and boiler making These ‘New Model unions’ offered schemes against sickness, unemployment, and old age, and did not wish to change the nature of society. They did not support strikes, and tried instead to negotiate with employers. They were well organized and, since they recruited from skilled workers, well financed.
In 1868 thirty‐four delegates representing 118,000 trade unionists met at a ‘congress’ in Manchester; the Trades Union Congress (TUC) gradually became accepted as the central organization for trade unions. Under the Trade Union Act of 1871 unions were fully legalized and union funds were protected from dishonest officials. The Criminal Law Amendment Act (1871) allowed peaceful picketing during strikes.
19th century saw the growth of ‘new unionism’– unions for unskilled workers. The new unions concentrated on fighting for better wages and against unemployment. Strike action undertaken by unskilled workers' unions was more successful, such as the London Match Girls' Strike, led by Annie Besant in 1888; the Glassworkers' Strike, led by Will Thorne in 1889; and the Dockers' Strike, led by Ben Tillett in 1889.
After the 1890s the organization of unskilled labour spread rapidly. The trade union movement was involved in the formation, in 1900, of the Labour Representation Committee, a predecessor of the Labour Party. Successive acts of Parliament enabled the unions to broaden their field of action; for example, the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 protected the unions against claims for damages by their employers, and in 1908 the miners secured an eight‐hour day for their members, after industrial action.
By 1918 unions were stronger than ever before with a membership of 8 million. In 1919 miners, railway workers, and transport workers formed the ‘Triple Alliance’, agreeing to take joint action if any one union was threatened... Under the Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act of 1927 general strikes or strikes called in sympathy with other workers were made illegal, and union membership slumped. During the depression of the early 1930s, the unions were weak, since employers could call upon a vast pool of unemployed people who were happy to work under any conditions.
Because of coalition government of union leaders, trade unions raised to 8 million by 1944. The restrictive 1927 Act was repealed under the Labour government in 1946 resulting increase in unionism among white‐collar workers.
From the 1960s onwards there were confrontations between the government and the trade unions. In 1965 the Labour government set up a royal commission to examine the role of trade unions. The succeeding Conservative government's Industrial Relations Act (1971) included registration of trade unions, legal enforcement of collective agreements, compulsory cooling‐off periods, and strike ballots. The Employment Protection Act (1975) and the Trade Union Act (1976) increased the involvement of the government in industrial relations.
At this time, UK trade union membership had reached a peak of 13.5 million, representing 54% of the workforce. However, the 1980s saw a sharp setback in union fortunes, caused by severe economic repression, a shift in the economy towards the poorly‐unionized service industry, small firms, part‐time and self‐employed sectors, and a hostile Conservative government Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made the reduction of union power a key priority. Consequently, by 1989 union membership had fallen to 9.7 million, or 40% of the workforce, while working days lost to industrial action were around 3 million per annum. By 1996 union membership had fallen further, to a level of 7.9 million, of whom four‐fifths were affiliated to the TUC.
The Labour government which came to power in 1997 ,announced, in 1998, that an employer would be required to recognize a union if a minimum of 40% of the total workforce vote in favour of union representation.
It also introduced a statutory minimum wage, which unions representing low‐paid workers had campaigned for.
However, although still an important paymaster of the Labour Party, trade unions' influence over the party's policy and decision‐making was far less than during the 1970s. There still existed, in 1999, around 230 trade unions. Now, the trend has been towards union merger to create a small number of ‘super unions’.
US History
Trade unionism in USA was always opposed by employers and government, situation for unions was hostile than in UK, even using police and armed guards to harass pickets and protect strike breakers, which led to series of violence and bitter conflict.
Although the Democrat New Deal administration provided the right of workers to organize freely and bargain collectively, US legislation such as the Taft‐Hartley Act (1947), prohibited the closed shop (an agreement between employer and union that only the union's members could be employed), and the Landrum‐Griffin Act (1959) outlawed picketing of a related firm's premises.
Starting in the early 1960s, the New Deal industrial relations system, with its emphasis on collective bargaining as the major institution for determining wages and labour conditions in the economy, began to erode and be replaced by a new system.
Bad economic conditions from the 1970s onwards, and a shift in the balance of the economy away from manufacturing towards the service industry, where unionization rates were historically low, resulted in a progressive fall in union activity in the USA.
The new system that emerged, and then became consolidated in the 1980s and 1990s, featured a much smaller role for collective bargaining with a much-expanded role for personnel management now called human resource management and direct government regulation of employment conditions.
The new deal system in the US became the bases on which Human Resource management prosper as a separate filed of study and profession and influence of trade union decreases.
Serials of events from 1960s to 1990s lead to the present situation where Human resource management is popular and power of trade union is neutralised. It is not that there was only t entirely negative for unions, however. The most positive development was the spread of collective bargaining to the public sector. After liberalization of state and federal laws in the 1960s and 1970s, union coverage in the public (government) sector greatly expanded, from 11 percent in 1960 to 37 percent in 2000.
However, during 1960s, personnel/human resource management started coming major force in industrial relations, this is due to decline of the unionized sector of the economy, these new ideas and practices in human resource management allowed companies, in turn, to effectively take advantage of this opportunity. Personnel management by this time started to be recognised as tools of motivating people at work, increasing job satisfaction thus increasing the productivity.
These new insights were gradually integrated into personnel management, leading to a shift in both its name to human resource management and its approach to managing employees (from viewing employees as a short-run expense to a long-term asset). As a result, human resource management gradually replaced labour-management relations (increasingly thought of as synonymous with industrial relations) in the eyes of academics and practitioners as the locus of new and exciting workplace developments.
With the practices of human resources, came the new employment practices into selected plants and facilities, culminating in the development of what is often called a "high-performance" work system.
With package of employment practices, self-managed work teams, gain sharing forms of compensation, promises of employment security, formal dispute resolution systems, and a democratic organizational culture. These work systems not only boost productivity and employee job satisfaction, leading to reduced interest in union representation. Companies have also become much more adept at keeping out unions, not only through progressive human resource management methods but also through more aggressive and sophisticated union-avoidance practices.
Besides that, Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed numerous laws relating to other employment areas, such as pension plans, family and medical leave, and the portability of health insurance. It is widely considered that these laws and attendant agencies, courts, and attorneys have to some degree served as a substitute for unions, thus also explaining a portion of the union decline in the late twentieth century.
By 1999 only a seventh of US workers were union members, and in an effort to attract new members, particularly from the service sector, unions have placed increased emphasis on special benefits they can offer members, such as low‐cost credit cards, legal aid, travel discounts, and health‐ and child‐care.
Comparing and Conclusions
Looking at the history of industrial relations of both the countries, it seems that with the industrial revolution came the labour issues regarding pay, working condition and health and safety. Workers’ union, employers, and government were in constant battle, in this process there were lots of reforms in the employment act and collective bargaining in both the countries. However, the differences in these two development was, USA government become more hostile towards unionism where as in UK, with the raise in the power of labour party , Trade union prosper , till the conservative government of Margaret Thatcher reduces the power of trade union by breaking it down.
USA in 1960s and 1970s , had raise on service industry, which brought the new concept of personal management, in addition to this the US’s market driven economy portraits trade unions as a barriers as a result more individualistic employment relation and HR practices start taking place instead of collective unionism. During 1970s and 1980s, this new individual employment deal started comes in practiced. Highly influenced by USA’s market economy, Thatcher’s government paved the road for individualistic rather than collective form of employment relations.
Purcell & Sission (1983) with their theory of management style and employment relation gave 4 different management style Sophisticated Human Relations, Consultative, Traditional and Constitutional, these 4 dimensional of management style is based on degree of Individualism and Collectivism present in management style. Seeing from this model USA seems to have Sophisticated Human Relation having low on collectivism and high individualism, where as UK is moving from Constitutional towards US style of Sophisticated Human Resources.
With the change in time , there has been changes in employment relation and way people are managed, now with globalization and fast communication technology, outsourcing is becoming common, besides that with free movement of labour in EU, employment relation’s definition might be change in near future.. What ever the situation might be it is certain that no one system can last forever, collectivism which was the based of labour movement thought the UK history is now moving to individualism, therefore, as I see , Human resource management might come up as very strong factor for success and failure of the company.
Bibliography
Bennett, James, and Bruce Kaufman the Future of Private Sector Unionism in the United StatesArmonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 2001.
Derber, Milton. The American Idea of Industrial Democracy, 1865-1965 Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1970.
Dunlop, John. Industrial Relations Systems New York: Holt, 1958.
Jacoby, Sanford. Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
Kaufman B.E. Human Resources and Industrial Relations: Commonalities and Differences."Human Resource Management Review 11, no. 4 (2001)
Kochan, Thomas, Harry Katz, and Robert McKersie the Transformation of American Industrial Relations New York: Basic Books, 1986.
London School of Economics & Political Science, Blackwell Publishing British Journal of Industrial Relations, Volume 45, Number 3, September 2007
雇佣关系工作 在英国和美国的比较和对比雇佣关系系统 雇佣关系的历史主要是由工人，工会，雇主和国家之间关系的变化。足够的支付和良好的工作条件的权利开始的概念现在已经在更广泛的领域发展。 从19世纪中叶到这个日期，雇佣关系已经发展了很多作为一个概念和实践。在英国和美国的雇佣关系在其基本工资和工作条件方面具有一定的相似性，但是，也有一定的差异，如劳资关系，工会主义，集体谈判，以及其他人力资源管理实践。 就业关系和劳资关系是什么？ 雇佣关系是劳资关系更广泛的术语。术语“劳资关系”制定了一部广义和狭义。广泛的定义时，劳资关系，关系，雇主和雇员之间的互动。 从这个角度来看，劳资关系涵盖的雇佣关系的各个方面，包括人力资源（人事）管理，员工关系，工会与管理层（或劳务）关系。 然而，收窄的“劳资关系”一词在20世纪50年代和60年代，以避免混淆字工业，现在，更严格的解释，在很大程度上与工会的雇佣关系链接。这种观点认为，劳资关系与集体谈判，工会运动和劳资关系的研究和实践，而人力资源管理是一个独立的，泾渭分明的领域，涉及雇佣关系与非工会人员的做法和政策雇主。因此，雇佣关系，可以说是人力资源管理和劳资关系封装。 英国历史 雇佣关系，因为我们现在知道，基本上增长从工会的需要，提高工资和改善工作条件，健康，安全和工人的生活质量问题，特别是围绕。要了解今天的问题，重要的是要记住过去和工会运动的起源，特别是妇女在这一过程中发挥的作用。 工会在18世纪工业化工匠公会存在，但工会没有（或合法）正式生效的存在在英国，直到19世纪的工业革命。雇主用来确定单个工人的工资。工会是不合法的，法律禁止他们的存在。 工人能够形成友好的社会和贸易会社，但立法受到阻碍。 1819六行为扩大裁判司的权力和限制会议和散发传单。 1825年工会法“ ，允许工会存在，但不罢工，纠察，或恐吓谁没去罢工工人的。 1824至1825年启用的立法组织工人进行集体谈判。工程师（ ASE ）在1851年合并学会成立。其次是工会在一些工艺品，如木工，瓦工，和锅炉提供的这些新型号工会计划对疾病，失业，年老，并没有想改变社会的性质。他们不支持罢工，而不是试图与雇主进行谈判。他们良好的组织，因为他们招募熟练的工人，资金充足。 1868年34 118,000工会会员代表在代表大会在曼彻斯特见面的交易逐渐成为联盟大会（TUC ）为中心组织工会接受。 1871年工会根据“工会法”完全合法化，工会经费免受不诚实的官员。刑法修正案（1871）在罢工期间允许和平纠察。 19世纪看到的“新unionism'工会非熟练工人增长。新的工会集中在争取更好的工资和反对失业。由非熟练工人的工会进行罢工行动是较为成功的，如伦敦比赛女子打击，于1888年由安妮贝费特领导;的Glassworkers的罢工，导致在1889年由威尔·索恩和码头工人罢工由Ben蒂利特的领导于1889年。 1890年后的非熟练劳动力的组织迅速蔓延。参与工会运动的形成，在1900年，劳工代表委员会，劳动党的前身。历届议会法案使工会行动扩大自己的领域，例如， 1906年的贸易纠纷法保护工会的损害赔偿金由他们的雇主，并于1908年获得其成员八小时矿工后，工业行动。 到了1918年的工会比以往任何时候都强前800万会员。在1919年矿工，铁路工人和运输工人，形成“三国同盟” ，同意采取联合行动，如果其中任何一个工会威胁...在贸易争端和“工会法” ， 1927年的总罢工或罢工呼吁同情与其他工人被定为非法，工会会员颓然。 20世纪30年代初的经济大萧条时期，工会疲软，因为雇主可以呼吁失业高兴能在任何条件下的人谁是一个巨大的游泳池。 由于工会领导的联合政府，工会提出由1944年的800万。限制性1927年法令下被废除工党政府于1946年增加工运白领之间。 从20世纪60年代起，政府和工会之间的对抗。在1965年工党政府成立一个皇家委员会来研究工会的作用。随后保守党政府工业关系法“ （1971年） ，包括工会，法律执行集体协议，强制性冷静期，罢工的选票登记。 “就业保护法” （ 1975年）和“工会法” （ 1976年）增加了政府在劳资关系中的参与。 这时，英国工会会员已达到高峰，为13.5万，占劳动力的54％ 。然而， 20世纪80年代在工会的命运，造成严重的经济压制，朝向不佳工会的服务业经济的转变，小企业，兼职及自雇行业看到了一个挫锐，一个敌对的保守党政府总理撒切尔夫人减少工会力量的一个关键的优先事项。因此，工会会员由1989年已经下降到970万美元，或40 ％的劳动力，工业行动而损失的工作日每年约300万。工会会员由1996年进一步下降到790万的水平， ，其中五分之四下属职工大会。 上台的工党政府在1997年宣布，在1998年，雇主将被要求承认工会，如果最低表决赞成工会代表劳动力总数的40％ 。 它还推出了法定最低工资，工会代表低薪工人的竞选。 然而，尽管仍然是一个重要的军需官工党，工会的影响力，党的政策和决策是远远低于20世纪70年代期间。但仍存在着，在1999年，大约230个工会。现在，这一趋势一直向工会合并，创建一个小的“超级工会。 美国历史 工会制度在美国由雇主和政府，形势对工会一贯反对敌对比在英国，甚至使用警察和武装警卫，以骚扰纠察队和保护罢工破坏者，从而导致一系列的暴力和激烈的冲突。 虽然在民主党新新政管理规定的权利工人自由组织和讨价还价统称，美国的塔夫脱 - 哈特利法案“ （1947年） ，禁止（雇主和工会之间的协议，只有工会的成员可以被雇用的封闭车间等立法）和格里芬兰德隆法“ （ 1959年）纠察取缔相关企业的处所。 在20世纪60年代初开始，新政的劳资关系制度，集体谈判决定工资和劳动条件，在经济的主要机构，其重点，开始蚕食和取代一个新的系统。 从20世纪70年代起，糟糕的经济状况和平衡的经济从制造业转向服务业，加入工会的比率处于历史低位的转变，导致在逐步下降，在美国工会活动。 出现，然后成为巩固在20世纪80年代和90年代，新系统的特点是集体谈判的作用要小得多，人事管理现在叫人力资源管理和政府直接调控的就业条件大大膨胀的作用。 新的交易系统在美国成为人力资源管理作为一个单独的领域的研究和专业和影响力的工会跌幅繁荣的基础。 系列事件从20世纪60年代至20世纪90年代率先现时的情况，人力资源管理是受欢迎和电力工会瓦解。这并不是说有只用-t工会完全是消极的，但是。最积极的发展是公共部门集体谈判的蔓延。在自由化的州和联邦法律在20世纪60年代和70年代，工会在公共部门（政府）的覆盖面大大扩大，从1960年的11％到2000年的37 ％ 。 然而，在20世纪60年代开始，人事/人力资源管理未来劳资关系的主要力量，这是由于工会部门经济下滑，人力资源管理使公司这些新的思路和做法，反过来，有效地利用这个机会。人事管理开始认识到这个时候，作为激励人们工作的工具，提高工作满意度，从而提高生产力。 这些新的见解，逐渐融入到人事管理，导致其人力资源管理的方法来管理员工（查看员工作为一项长期资产的短期开支）的转变。因此，人力资源管理逐渐取代劳资关系（越来越多想与工业关系的代名词）作为新的和令人兴奋的工作场所发展的轨迹，学者和从业者的眼中。 随着人力资源的做法，来了新的就业机会，到选定的植物和设施的做法，通常被称为“高性能”的工作系统的发展高潮。 包就业的做法，自我管理的工作团队，共享形式的补偿，就业保障的承诺，正式的争端解决制度，民主的组织文化。这些工作系统，不仅提高生产力和员工工作满意度，导致减少利息工会代表。公司也变得更善于保持了工会，不仅可以通过渐进式的人力资源管理方法，而且还可以通过更积极和更复杂的工会避税。 此外， 1964年的民权法案通过了许多有关其他就业领域，如养老计划，家庭和医疗休假和健康保险可携性的法律。它被广泛认为，这些法律和随之而来的机构，法院和律师都在一定程度上担任工会的替代品，从而也说明工会在二十世纪后期下降的部分。 只到1999年的七分之一，美国工人是工会成员，并在努力吸引新的成员，特别是从服务部门，工会已经越来越重视对特殊利益，他们可以提供成员，如成本低的信用卡，法律援助，旅游折扣，保健和儿童保健。 比较和结论 这两个国家的工业关系的历史来看，它似乎与工业革命来了劳工问题，就工资，工作条件，健康和安全。工会，雇主和政府在不断的战斗，在这个过程中有很多的改革在这两个国家在“就业法”和集体谈判。然而，在这两个发展的差异，美国政府更加敌视工运在英国，在劳动党的力量的提高，工会繁荣，直到由撒切尔夫人的保守党政府减少了工会的力量打破它。 美国在20世纪60年代和20世纪70年代，曾提高服务行业，带来的新概念，个人的管理，除了美的市场驱动经济的肖像贸易工会由于一个障碍更个人主义的就业关系和人力资源管理实践开始，而不是采取地方集体工运。在20世纪70年代和80年代，这个新的个人就业协议开始实行。美国的市场经济高度影响，撒切尔的政府铺平了道路，集体形式的雇佣关系，而不是个人主义。 赛尔Sission （1983）与他们的管理风格和雇佣关系的理论给了4个不同的管理风格，复杂的人类关系，咨询，传统和宪法，这4维的管理风格的基础上的个人主义和集体主义的管理方式中存在的程度。看到从美国这个模型似乎有复杂的人类关系，集体主义和个人主义，高有低，而英国正在从宪法对美国风格，先进的人力资源。 随着时间的变化，有已经被人被管理，现在全球化和快速通信技术在雇佣关系和方式的变化，外包正在成为共同的，除此之外与自由运动的劳动欧盟就业关系的定义可能是在不久的变化未来。因此，什么情况可能是可以肯定的是，没有一个系统可以永远持续下去，集体主义，认为英国历史现在已进入个人主义的工人运动的基础上，我看到的，人力资源管理可能出现了非常强该公司的成功和失败的因素。 参考书目 贝内特，詹姆斯和布鲁斯·考夫曼的未来私营部门的联合主义在美国纽约州Armonk ： ME Sharpe出版， 2001 。 Derber ，米尔顿。美国工业民主理念， 1865年至1965年香槟： 1970年伊利诺伊大学新闻。 邓禄普，约翰。劳资关系系统纽约：霍尔特， 1958年。 雅各比，桑福德。用人官僚经理，工会和改造工作的美国工业，纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社，1985年。 考夫曼B.E.的人力资源和劳资关系：共性和差异。 “人力资源管理回顾11 ， 4号（2001年） 科昌，托马斯，哈利·卡茨和罗伯特McKersie美国纽约劳资关系转型： Basic Books出版社，1986年。 伦敦经济及政治科学学院，英国Blackwell出版产业关系杂志，第45卷，第3号2007年9月
15012858052
153688106
