Dear Mr Abbott..

After travelling around the world and looking at the various employment relations adopted in countries including Denmark, China and India, we have reached our final destination - our home. This week, we were challenged to write a letter to our current Prime Minister, reflecting on our current employment relations.

Dear Mr Abbott,

I am writing this letter as part of a university course where I have had the opportunity to study employment relations on an international spectrum. This has been quite interesting, not only looking at the different dynamics among countries, but particularly in assessing the effects globalisation has had on their employment relations. Whilst some have thrived or remained strong, some have struggled and are currently in need of major reform. Personally, I feel Australia's employment relations are still relatively strong, however there is one aspect that has been adversely impact and that is the unions.

The union density in Australia has been on a continuing decline for past two decades and is not showing any great signs of an increase in the near future. This decline in membership has only further weakened their power, resulting in unions looking insignificant within the employment relationship. This is only exemplified by statistics such as the fact that in 1990 union density was at 49%, compared to 2007 where it had dropped to 19.5%. The disappointing reality is that unions were very important within the history of our employment relations, however they appear to have failed to keep up with the transformations caused by globalisation, leaving them weak and leaving employees somewhat weak.

Majority of the reasons associated with this significant decline in density and power are indeed ones that are unfortunately caused by the unions themselves. Firstly, unions have failed to keep up with globalisation and rather than adapting, they initially tried to fight or ignore this ideology. Secondly, the anti-unionism sentiment expressed by employers  has made it more difficult to maintain a strong position. The most important factor however, is the changes that globalisation has brought, particularly the decline in full-time employment and the increase in part-time and casual work. Rather than restructuring and targeting both full-time and part-time/casual employees, unions maintained their position focusing solely on full-time employees. This was severely detrimental to their membership numbers. Similarly, with these changes it meant changes in employment demographics including the average age of workers and an increase in the presence of female employees - yet unions continued to focus on middle-aged men, meaning they were missing a large portion of the workforce.

In my opinion, Australia's unions need to attempt to rebuild their power in order to become a key player in employment relations once again. The introduction of the Fair Work Act was the perfect opportunity for the unions to undergo a reform and to re-emerge as a strong party, however I do not believe they took advantage of this.

I feel that Australia needs to adopt a similar approach to Denmark when it comes to our unions - their 'Danish model', otherwise referred to as the 'negotiated economy' refers to the internal coordination that exists between the state, the unions and employers. I understand that this will not be an easy task, however I feel this would be effective in the long-term in securing the position of unions and fostering better employment relations in our country.

At the end of the day, it comes down to two questions:
1. Is there any point joining a union who will not adequately represent you?
2. If there is no union presence, who will protect us workers or should we be left to fend for ourselves?

I hope this letter provides an insight into our employment relations and the need for the restructuring of our unions.

Kindest Regards,

Sian Bothman

Employment Relations In China

Hey guys!
So after a week off uni (not much of a week off with all the assignments due soon) it's back into blogging again this week, and this week we are going to China!

So to start it off, similar to that of our last topic where we looked at Korea vs Japan, China is another country that is considered quite different in regards to their employment relations. There are many aspects to compare and contrast but I'm going to focus on human resource management in particular this week.

"Human resource management and labour-management relations in China are different from those in other countries because of different political and economic systems and social and cultural backgrounds."

Firstly, it is crucial to recognise the importance of Confucianism in China as this has an effect on all aspects of their lives, including their employment relations and the way they do business. The general theme of this system of values focuses on the 'importance of proper human relationships'. This is relevant as human resource management is primarily concerned with how people in organisations are managed. Of these values, harmony is one of the more instrumental in shaping Chinese HRM.
That is, for the Chinese it is essential that employees and management have a harmonious relationship where aspects such as criticism must be handled very gently, in order to not upset this harmony between the two. This has a huge impact on human resource management as it encourages a greater relationship between the two and means that activities such as performance appraisals or dismissals would be carried out very differently in comparison to Western countries such as Australia.

The 1978 economic reforms that took place in China have resulted in lots of changes for their human resource management. These include:

~The changing nature of education has placed a focus on higher education, meaning the workforce is becoming more skilled and jobs are becoming more competitive
~Chinese workers are now encouraged to be more active in participating in decision-making and in taking initiative within their work
~The Chinese urban and rural township small businesses are now booming and are allowed to recruit employees according to their needs
~Human resource managers have been granted more flexibility in hiring employees, rewarding workers and managers, as well as various other decisions
~Chinese trade unions now play increasing role in labour-management relations, especially in joint ventures

The article this information was taken from was published in 1994 so 20 years ago now. Although outdated, it considers the history of China and their human resources, whilst making predictions for their future. They identified that managing human resources well and paying close attention to harmony are key aspects in achieving successful human resource management.
Their predictions included:

1. Trade unions in enterprises will play an increasingly active role in employment relations
2. Chinese enterprises will soon be competing against each other to  employ highly qualified workers and motivating them and retaining them with better salaries, fringe benefits and greater opportunities for career development will be essential

Considering what you have read in this weeks readings - do you believe these predictions were accurate? 

Hope everyone enjoyed their 'study' break!

Sian :)

Reference: Zhao, S (1994) 'Human Resource Management in China', Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 3-12.

International Labour Standards

So another week and another blog post as the end of semester is fast approaching!
The topic for this blog (and next weeks tute) is international labour standards, and this is one I feel quite strongly about!
First, some key definitions!

International labour standards are "aimed at promoting opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and dignity". In my own words, I see it as the aim of achieving equality in organisations by ensuring that there are minimum work standards such as pay. In saying this, you can see the difficulties that may arise, particularly in regards to corrupt countries/politics.

Secondly, the ILO or International Labour Organisation which was founded in 1919, is an organisation that aims to promote equality by achieving international labour standards for all countries to abide by. They follow the motto 'Promoting jobs, protecting people'. They desire to achieve social justice for all people.

"According to the ILO, there are 3 billion poor in the world existing on $2 per day."

This shows the mistreatment that employees experience in some countries, particularly those considered third world. The international labour standards are intended to remove, or significantly reduce such occurrences. It has been identified that the rise of multinational corporations as a part of the globalisation process have had a significant impact on on key labour standards. This impact has not been a positive one - these companies the power to import workers from other countries as they are able to pay them low wages (lower than the National Employment Standards), give them longer working hours and less than acceptable employment conditions in comparison to what we may be used to. This is because, in comparison to the countries they have left, the treatment they receive here is considered better.

Although I appreciate the aims of ILO and their successes, I do feel there are many things that need to happen in order to truly try to achieve international labour standards. Suggestions include:
-the developing countries need to be assisted to help set up official standards that must be followed by employers and monitored closely by the government (body similar to the Fair Work Ombudsman)
-stricter penalties need to be put in place for those that are found to not be abiding to the laws regarding international labour standards
-employees need to be better educated on their rights and the minimum standards they deserve; employees should be knowledgeable in order to help protect themselves

Relevant links:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53480/1/MPRA_paper_53480.pdf
http://ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm

Employment relations in Europe: The debate surrounding the European 'social model'

Hey everyone! 

So this is my second blog post for International Employment Relations and this week we are looking at employment relations in Europe! 

Just to give a quick background, I'm going to be referring to the EU frequently which stands for the European Union that consists of 27 member states. The EU was created to politically and economically integrate these member states of Europe in order to create a closer union between them and to create better living standards and higher levels of employment.

There are several different forms of the European social model however the Continental model is considered the most predominant. The five characteristics of this model are: fundamental social rights, social protection, social dialogue, social & employment regulation, and state responsibility.

This social model was introduced post World War II however it has recently come under attack, largely due to the rise of globalisation and its consequences. This is demonstrated through this cartoon depiction of the EU as it struggles to balance fiscal stability with economic flexibility, as well as trying to maintain their social aspects of the policy. Although it may be easy to question why they cannot achieve both together, there is evidence from member states such as Germany and France that suggest this is a very difficult task. It appears that they have chosen to focus more on stability than flexibility (as demonstrated by the cartoon) however achieving economic flexibility is crucial for the European Union in order to retain a competitive force within the world. There are fears that without reform, this social model may be inadequate and could have serious adverse impacts for Europe.

In contrast to this, there are other scholars who suggest the European social model can be sustained, however it does mean there are changes that need to be made. An executive summary made by the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) states "the European social model is not doomed and the idea that only free market approaches are consistent with sustained prosperity are clearly wrong." It is stated within this source that one of the core policy changes is to achieve economic flexibility with better social protection in order to create an environment capable of making the best use of the opportunities offered by globalisation. 

It is easy to argue either side of this argument regarding the future of the European social model however the difficulties lie in actually implementing changes to help balance these conflicting interests. Stability and flexibility are both important for the EU to achieve, however it is also essential to uphold these social practices that have been set in place to help protect individuals within each of the member states of the EU. The one factor that can be agreed on is the fact that changes have to be made. 

I have attached the link to the executive summary made by CEPS as well as the link to the article that the cartoon was taken from which from The Economist. 

I welcome you to let me know your opinion on what the EU should do in regards to the social model - should they get rid of it completely, should they keep it as it or should they make changes to it and if so, any suggestions you may have.

Hope this gave you a good introduction to next week's tutorial where Louise and I will be presenting!

Links: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_situation/docs/simglobe_fin_rep_exec_sum.pdf

http://www.economist.com/node/6768443

Labour movements in the age of globalisation

Welcome to my blog for International Employment Relations!

I hope you enjoy reading my fortnightly posts, and comments of any sorts are welcome :)

My first post looks at labour movements in the age of globalisation, where I have looked specifically at the effect of globalisation on unions in the United States. 

The rise of globalisation has effectively meant a decrease in union activity and therefore, in union power. Some of the key reasons for the decline in union density can be attributed to factors that are associated to globalisation including:

- Government policies: anti-union labour laws had made it harder for unions to recruit, bargain & represent workers.

-Neo-liberal restructuring: the rise of non-standard forms of employment such as part time and casual work (in the past, unions did not recruit part time/casual workers normally). This meant unions were neglecting a large demographic within the workforce.

-Employers were against unions and substitute strategies (alternative voice mechanisms) which led to management occasionally undertaking non-union activities to remove/marginalise unions.

However recently unions have made an effort to fight back and regain their position within employment relations. In regards to this cartoon in particular, it looks at the effect of globalisation in America and how it benefitted certain parties but disadvantaged others. In particular, middle-class US workers and workers abroad were among those that suffered the most.

Within the article attached at the bottom of this post, it is said that unions do in fact recognise the important role of free trade within the global economy; however they also recognise that if it not ‘properly regulated, it will continue to spiral out of control and worsen the labour situation’.

In an attempt to combat this, unions had adopted a new approach which saw the need for expanding and joining together union forces in order to protect offshore workers. They believe that this will in turn, help regain control over the rapid loss of jobs that is occurring within the US. In order words, by focusing on protecting foreign workers they hope to achieve greater protection for both American and foreign labour. Ultimately, by doing so they hope to increase their power which will strengthen their ability to combat the issues that workers face which can be accounted for by the rise of globalisation.

Although this is an older post from 2009, I believe it is still relevant as unions continue to face obstacles in regaining their status and position within employment relations. However I do believe one of the key factors needed for unions to overcome this is the need for unions across the globe to unite and stand together, and to work with globalisation rather than to try fight it.

For anyone that wants the link to the article for any background information: http://overflow.umwblogs.org/labor-and-globalization/