Current practices in Employee relations between the UK and Nepal
- Employee relations address the development of mutually beneficial relationships between employers and employees, (Dundon & Rollinson, 2007; Strauss, 2006).
- The United Kingdom has a very different culture from Nepal and the two countries are also on very different economic statuses. While the UK has a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (nominal) of $36,728 (Wilkinson, et al, 2004), Nepal has a GDP (nominal) of $1,400 (Adhikari, 2000).
- Nepal has a more than 100 ethnic groups that speak about 92 languages (Guru-Gharana, Dahal & Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies, 1999), as opposed to the UK which has one dominant ethnic group and language.
- The differences in economy growth and the cultures present impact on the employee relations in the two countries (Allen & Loseby, 1993).
- In the UK Industrial Relations (IR) were in the past concerned with “the institutions of job regulation” and the generation of employment rules which led to exceptional focus on collective bargaining and trade unions (Bryson, 2005).
- In Nepal, the Labour Act of 1992, lays down the legal framework containing the rules, regulations and the guidance to the management of all establishments that have employed more than 10 persons (Adhikari, 2000).
- The Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI)’s National Employers’ Forum (NEF) ensures that the Act addresses issues relating to employment and the security of employment, welfare of employees, working hour and minimum wage, settlement of disputes arising from employment relationships among other issues (Adhikari & Gautam, 2010).
- In the 1970s, employers in the UK were encouraged to recognise trade unions and conciliate rather than confront their staff (Dundon & Gollan, 2007). Trade Unions became very powerful and the voice of employees gained root.
- After former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher left power in 1979, the support to the old “adversarial” industrial relations declined. The British government implemented moves to curb the power of trade unions.
- There was a re-establishment of managerial prerogative against a backdrop of high unemployment and the weakening of bargaining power of trade unions (Wilkinson, et al 2004).
- The 1999 Employment Relations Act revamped British trade unions and made provisions for statutory trade unions recognition if 21 workers and more link to the trade unions.
- The Employment Relations Act emphasised on better employee relations in the UK by addressing discipline and grievance procedures, unfair dismissal, leaves for family and domestic relations and part-time workers (Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998).
Positive and negative aspects of employee relations in Nepal
- The employee relations between employers and employees in Nepal are marked by relatively low cases of labour unrest in the form of strikes and lockouts. This is unlike other developing countries that face numerous challenges in labour management. According to Adhikari and Gautam, (2010) Nepal has elaborate laws that provide for a harmonious development of industrial and employee relations.
- In Nepal there are other strong points of cooperation between employers and employees in terms of the high number of leaves granted to employees and accompanying conditions that are employee-friendly. For instance workers are entitled to 12 public holidays, one day leave in every 20 days, 15 days of medical leave and a 1-month leave every year. For female employees, they are entitled to 45 days of maternity leave with full pay (Siddiqui, 1990). These developments increase cooperation and commitment of employees to their work.
- However in cases where work is highly sensitive to employee changes, the numerous leaves granted to employees could cause disruption and increase the likelihood of overt conflict.
- The wages paid to workers in Nepal are comparatively low (Anker et al, 2002). The employees are compelled to live in low standards which affect their morale and therefore lower their productivity (Himalayan News Service, 2010). Though the government has set a certain wage rate for all Nepalese employees, very few employers adhere to the set standards.
Aspects of employee relations that the UK can borrow from Nepal
- The advancements in employee relations that the UK can borrow from Nepal include the flexibility to offer British employees leaves. Giving employees time off from work has a huge impact in enhancing employee relations by boosting the morale of the employees and thereby enabling them to be more productive (Solomon & Schell, 2009; Hofstede, 2001).
- The UK labor department should also consider the age dynamics of its population and make the necessary adjustments to consider uniqueness of different age profiles.
- The UK departments of labour can borrow the revamping and remodelling of trade unions in order to address upcoming challenges in remuneration, working conditions and the contemporary dangers that workers are exposed to.
- The UK can also review its regulations and rules regarding employee relations to ensure that they are individualised and given a personal and human touch.
- Work relations in the UK should also reflect the demographic and technological changes. These includes the impacts of recession and the choices that government institutions make in relation to social and economic policies.
- Though the UK has very few ethnic groups, the government should devise labor and employee regulations that reflect ethic and cultural considerations and uniqueness among the different ethnic groups in the UK.
- Employee relation between managers and employers are mutually beneficial when the interests of both parties are adequately addressed. Principally, employees need to be commensurate fairly and given working conditions that are conducive.
- Employees on the other hand are entitled to obtain maximum productivity and services from their employees.
References
Adhikari, D. R. 2000. Developments in the Management of Human Resources in Nepal, Innsbruck: Leopold-Franzens-University, Innsbruck.
Adhikari, D.R. & Gautam, D.K. 2010. Labour legislation for improving quality of work life in Nepal, International Journal of Law and management, Vol.52, No.1.
Allen, P. & Loseby, P. H. 1993. No layoff policies and corporate financial performance, S. A. M. Advance Management Journal, 58, 1, 44-48.
Anker, R., Chernyshev, I, Egger. Mehran, F. & Ritter, J. 2002. Measuring Decent Work with Statistical Indicators, Working Paper No.2 , Geneva: ILO.
Bryson, A. 2005. Union effects on employee relations in Britain, Human Relations, 58:111 39.
Dundon, T. & Gollan, P.J. 2007. Reconceptualising voice in the non-union workplace, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7):1182–98.
Dundon, T. & Rollinson, D. 2007. Understanding Employment Relations, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
Guru-Gharana, K. K., Dahal, N. R., & Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies, 1999. Industrial relations system in Nepal. Nepal: Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies.
Hardy, C. & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. 1998. The power behind empowerment: Implications for research and practice, Human Relations, 51: 451–83.
Himalayan News Service, 2010. Employee-Employer good relation a key. Retrieved 12 May 2013 from: http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullTodays.php?headline=Employee-employer+good+relation+a+key&NewsID=244709
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [i.e.: Sage Publ.
Siddiqui, A. M. A. H., Asian and Pacific Regional Centre for Labour Administration., & ILO/ARPLA Regional Seminar on Effective Implementation of Labour Laws in Small and Medium-Sized Establishments.1990. Labour laws and the working poor. Bangkok: International Labour Organisation, Asian and Pacific Regional Centre for Labour Administration (ARPLA).
Solomon, C. M., & Schell, M. S. 2009. Managing across cultures: The seven keys to doing business with a global mindset. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Strauss, G. 2006. Worker participation – some under-considered issues, Industrial Relations, 45(4): 778–803.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M. & Ackers, P. 2004. Changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland, The Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3): 298–322.
