Employment Relations
Physiological contracts have been given so much importance in the recent years because there has been a bulging gap in the employment industry for such a long time involving what the employers expect from the employees and vice versa. However, the physiological contract which clearly states the expectations from the employee and the employer to provide a proper working condition and the maximum output realized at the end of a working day (Rose, 2008). This contract may be written or at times just implied. A reasonable employer would impose a manageable workload, an agreed clear role and involvement in issues regarding the employee among other conditions depending on the job description and the workplace (Mullins, 2005). Communication and fulfillment of both the employer and employee bring about trust, which is a very crucial element in both large and small organizations.
On the other hand, legal contracts when one is being employed are also vital to employees’ job security. A legal contract in most occasions may involve the personal details of the employee and the terms and conditions of employment. Rights and obligations of the employee for example, the rights to safe working conditions, employment termination notice periods, the payment package, and the duty to obey the rules of the company among others are some of the details found in a legal employment contract (Mullins, 2005; Saunders, and Thornhill, 2006). Such contracts provide job security to employees and give employers a forum to lawfully punish deserving employees.
Conflicts in the working areas are expected, and it is a risk that employers take up whenever they take in a new employee. They occur due to violation by either party of the employment contract, which may come up because of lack of communication, disagreements, conflict of personalities, and poor management technique. Conflicts caused by friction in compensation are the far most common form that arises when the employee is dissatisfied by the work compensation they may be receiving. However, also another common conflict manifested when the trust between the employer and the employee is broken when the employee repeatedly violates the physiological contract and fails to perform their duty (Saunders, and Thornhill. 2006). This often pushes the employer asking the employee to leave for another company in order to restore fairness at the workplace.
The unitarism perspective on industrial relation is an attitude that assumes that all members of staff in a company whether upper or lower level employees share the same objectives, vision, and aspiration therefore work together towards a common goal. This perspective requires entirety in loyalty from each employee. In such systems, trade unions are viewed as pointless because conflicting ideas are viewed negatively.
However, the employer’s viewpoint is angled in a different direction. To their understanding, the conflicts encountered at the work place are seen to arise from poor communication and insufficient explanation of the expectations by the managers. Therefore, the company’s objectives should be appropriately communicated to the staff to avoid unnecessary confrontations.
Stone (2007) argues that pluralism is a more realistic approach whereby the employers understand that conflict is inevitable in every society and so whenever there are conflicts, they embrace them and view them as a chance to improve on the working conditions. In this perspective, trade unions stand for employees and help in resolving issues between the company and the employees (Mullins, 2005).
In this approach, arbitrators are used in conflict resolution. Unions are also recognized, encouraged, and allowed to engage in their activities freely. Finally, the companies should allocate legal advisors to the managers who provide legal services when negotiating agreements with unions, which should be comprehensive in order to avoid similar scenarios.
Wrapping up, when most companies are being opened, the owner always imagines the unitarism perspective, but the reality is that most firms operate in the pluralistic direction. This shows that whichever path the employers choose, there are always bound to be misunderstanding leading to conflict.
Reference List
Rose, E. 2008. Employer Relations. Financial Times Prentice Hall
Morrell, F., 2011. 90 Steps to Employee Engagement & Staff Motivation. Forest Gate
Publishing. Available at http://www.90stepengagement.com. [Accessed 22 May
2012]
Mullins, L. J., 2005. Management and Organizational Behavior. FT Prentice Hall.
Saunders, M.N, and Thornhill, A. 2006. "Forced employment contract change and
the psychological contract,” Employee Relations, 28 (5), pp. 449 – 467
Stone, K. 2007. ‘Revisiting the At-Will Employment Doctrine: Imposed Terms, Applied
Terms, and the Normative World of the Workplace. Industrial Law Journal, 36,
pp. 84-101
