Comparative analysis of employment relations in Australia and the US
Executive summary
Globalization has contributed to the changing nature of employment relations. Over the last five decades, developed countries have witness a change in the labor market and laws that regulate equal employment opportunity. This report is prepared for the federal government of Australia. In the report, key concepts are analyzed through a comparison of labor relation practices in the US and in Australia. The implementation of EEO plans by small enterprises is the main issue discovered about EEO that is practiced differently in the two countries. The recommendation made in the report is meant to allow changes in employment relation laws of the Australian government.
Introduction
The issue about employment relation is essential for any system of industrial relation. The dealing between employees and employers is partially not within the confines of forces of the labor market. This implies that workers have to be protected from unfair outcomes through the trade unions. The main focus of this paper is to create a comparative analysis of equal employment opportunity as one of the major issues in employment relations. The analysis specifically focuses on two countries: the US and the Australia. The paper begins by defining the regulations of equal employment opportunities existing in the two countries. This is followed by a descriptive comparison of legislations in the two countries through review of relevant literature materials.
Definitions and theoretical issues
Support for equity in employment at government institutions is universal in every developed country. Both the US and Australia have laws that emphasize on this issue. Not long ago, organizations both within the government and the private sector supported the notion of inequity in employment especially in relation to gender. However, the developed countries have witnessed a transition marked by introduction of anti discrimination and equal opportunity policies. The kind of messages and directives that organizations respond to, impact the development and implementation of equity policies in both Australia and the US. Some of the main issues of concern include legislations on human resource management, affirmative action, equal opportunity, work place relations, and industrial relations.
Equal employment opportunity laws in the US apply to almost all organizations including: labor organizations, employment agencies, education institutions, local government, state governments and private employers. Equal employment opportunities focus on race, color, religion, sex, disability, national origin, and age. The legislations protect employees from discrimination when it comes to hiring, promotion, discharge, referral, classification, training, compensation, and other aspects of employment.
One of the most important theories of employment relation is that work is fundamental to the human condition. Work allows everyone to engage with others within the society through the various forms of interactions. The main focus of equal employment opportunity is based on this theory of employment relation. The idea of discrimination is one of the major reasons that cause conflict in the work place. Conflict is an inevitable thing and people have to learn proper ways of managing it. The regulations set forth to ensure equal employment opportunities are one of the ways in which conflict is reduced in the work place.
Descriptive comparison
Equal employment opportunity, in the US, focus on preventing specific types of discrimination in the work place. There are two federal agencies that are charged with the mandate monitoring the US labor market to ensure that all employees and organizations being covered by the laws comply with the provisions of the law. The civil rights center, and the office of the federal contract compliance programs are the two main bodies mandated. From the laws, employers can be deemed responsible for any form of harassment that takes place within their organization. This is irrespective of the size of the organization. As long as an organization contracts with the federal government, it is required to have plans in place for equal employment opportunity. The plans which include affirmative action are required to be formulated on annual basis on the grounds of gender and recruitment of minority groups. Also, every year, all organization has to conduct a survey of the equal employment opportunity and present it to the EEOC which compiles and does a national reporting.
In Australia, every state and federal organization is required to implement the laws of equal employment opportunity. It is mandatory for every public organization but private firms have also joined in because the law requires that organizations with more than 100 employees to implement the equal employment opportunity policies. The state laws cover the issue of anti discrimination and equal employment opportunity in the work place. The regulations require that every employer creates an environment that is free of any harassment and discrimination. Australia also has the anti discriminatory legislations which are based on the provisions of the international labor organization agreement that was ratified in 1973. The Sex Discrimination Act forbids discrimination against issues pertaining to sex such marital status, pregnancy and sexual harassment. In addition, the laws also cover other areas where discrimination is possible such as age, disability, race, and religion.
Explanation of the differences
The main difference that is apparent from the discussion above is the issue of implementation of EEO plans by private sectors especially the SMEs. The lack of much focus on SMEs is mainly because of their sizes. From the American point of view, there is no single accepted definition of a small firm. With this mind, all of the American organizations that contract with the federal government have to implement the plans of equal employment opportunity. In Australia however, companies are classified based on the sizes. The criterion used relates to the number of employees in the organization. This explains why the country does not ensure small sized companies, with less than 100 employees, implements plans of equal employment opportunity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both the US and Australia have anti discrimination laws that govern the employment relation. Support for equal employment is universal in every developed country. Equal employment opportunities in both countries focus on preventing discrimination in terms of gender, age, race, disability, and religion. This is in accordance to theories of employment relations where all humans have a right to occupation. Occupation is fundamental to the human condition; meaning that it provides them with the opportunity to engage with others as a basic need. The implementation of EEO plans by small enterprises is the notable difference in the issue of EEO from the two countries. In the US, small companies are required to have EEO plans implemented in order to contract with the federal government while in Australia, it is not mandatory for any company with an employee base less than 100 to implement EEO plans.
Recommendations
Abbott, K. (2006). A Review of Employment Relations Theories and their applications. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 187-198.
Agocs, C., & Burr, C. (1996). “Employment Equity, Affirmative Action and manpower diversity: assesing the differences. International Journal of manpower, 30-45.
French, E., & Strachan, G. (2000). Equal Opportunity Outcomes for Women in the Finance Industry in Australia: Evaluating the Merit of EEO Plans. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 34-40.
Hoyt, N. W., & McCledon, J. (1998). Employment relation in the US. International and comparative employment relation, 63-88.
Liff, S. (2000). “Diversity and equal opportunities: room for a constructive compromise. Human Resource Management Journal, 65-75.
Turner, T. (1999). International labor markets and employment systems. International journal of man power, 15-26.
Wilkinson, A. (1999). Employment relations in SMEs. Employee Relations, Vol 21 No. 3: 206-217.
