Employment Relations: Frames Of Reference And Technological Advances

1. Introduction

Over the years, there has been a surge of interest placed upon Human Resource Management. In Human Resource Management, due to rapid increase in technology and internationalization of business, the employment relationship is an essential factor in the running of an organisation. Employment relations, which concerns how work and employment relationships are regulated, experienced, and contested, affects most people who live in advanced, industrialised societies (book reference). According to Dundon & Rollinson (2011), employment relations is a field of study that deals with the formal and informal relationships between an organisation and its employees by which the parties to the relationship adjust to the needs, wants and expectations of each other in the employment situation. The employment relationship is between primarily employers (management) and employees (staff members) but also the state (as a regulating body) and trade unions. The terms employment relations, employee relations and industrial relations are used often interchangeably. It is generally accepted that the term ER (employment relations) has replaced the term IR (industrial relationship). This reflects on the increased individualisation of the employment relationship which is partly to the trade union decline. The rapid technological changes impact various fields of the business including employment relations. This study will utilize Fox’s frames of reference to provide a background for understanding employment relations. The impact of automation and monitoring on different organisations as well as the implications for the employment relationships will be analysed and explored in this report.

2. Four frames of reference

The unitary outlook is characterised by an emphasis on mutual relations at work. A unitarist sees employment as a relationship between groups who share a common purpose. Fox (1974) stated that holders of unitary beliefs rely on the liberal use of team or family representations when theorising the nature of the employment relationship. When managers are asked for their views on the nature of employment relationship, they would articulate a unitary perspective, emphasizing on the importance of any conflict of interest between the employer and employee. These beliefs of course affect their behaviour, most notably the significance of upholding managerial prerogative, and of resisting what they see as trade union interference in the operation of their organisations (Cullinane & Dundon, 2012). The pluralist frame of reference is a perspective which recognises the existence of a basic opposition in the employment relationship, and hence the unavoidable potential for conflict. Employees and employers in pluralism have dissimilar interests, which need to be settled if the organisation is to function effectively. The main concern of pluralism is to ensure that any disagreement that arises from differences of interest is managed appropriately, and controlled in a way that presents it from causing disruption. From a pluralist perspective, government regulation in employment relations, is also acceptable on the grounds that, like trade union organisation, it helps to rectify the inherent imbalance of power in favour of employers (Badd, 2011). However, interactionist frame of reference supports that employers and employees have different interests but where conflict in pluralism has to be contained and managed in such way that it avoids too much disruption, interactionists believe that conflict is an essential and positive force that stirs improvements and rises effective performance. The radical frame of reference shares with pluralism a belief in the opposed nature of the employment relations. However, they do not agree with the assumption that conflict can be resolved by the development of procedures, or even that it is necessary to attempt to do so. One of the most obvious perspectives that come under the radical label is that of Marxism. Kaufman (2011) observes that the ‘essence of the employer-employee relationship under capitalism, from Marxist perspective, is domination, control an exploitation of labour in order to provide profit so firms can further accumulate capital’. As mentioned above, Fox’s frames of reference provide a background on the mechanisms underlying employment relations. These frames of reference are critically essential perspectives that can be applied to employment relations. Fox (1966) identified them as ideologies of management or beliefs held by managers on how employment relations should work

3. Technological Advancements

Does technology make work easier or more difficult? (ACCAS ARTICLE)

Organisations introduce technology with the idea that productivity will increase by either cutting costs, facilitating in greater output or refining the quality of their finished products or services. This will not only benefit the organisation but the workforce as well as they have a natural interest in their employer becoming successful and productive. Since technology solves problems that workers faced it will in turn make their working lives easier. Anthony Bruce, Partner at PwC who leads on workforce analytics, figured out a common view among experts that ‘where work is low value, highly repetitive and transactional in nature, technology is and will just take it away.’

3.1 Automation

Case study – NHS Whittington Trust

The NHS Whittington Trust case study provides compelling evidence on the various ways in which technology can potentially simplify the work of employees. For instance, NHS Whittington Trust nurses are using iPads to fill out notes instead of using paper notes. This is a considerable time-saver for nurses and other employees so, all members of staff can benefit from it as it provides an easier access to documents. IPads have also helped staff to work from home and have allowed them to have additional time for their lunch break. This case study shows that by technology having a positive impact on employee’s work lifestyle this can in turn can have a positive impact on employment relations, notwithstanding its negative consequences which will be discussed below.

Artificial Intelligence in the workplace

It is without doubt that Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation overall have a great impact on individual’s jobs as well as working relationships compared to other new technologies. However, despite the great impact, it is important to mention that AI has drawn some negative attention recently. Many theorists have argued that the new generation of AI has a huge impact on individuals’ employment as ‘’robots taking over’’ jobs can potentially lead to mass unemployment. This will of course impact employment relations massively as employers will have to let employees go and create a tense environment where workforce may feel they’re next to go. According to Frey and Osborne (2013), there are some threats of automation. Their study has revived concerns that technological change might cause widespread technological unemployment. Frey and Osborne (FO) triggered a public debate by claiming that 47% of US jobs are at risk of being automated and that might be an increase of unemployment. More specific, based on Aghion and Howitt 1994, technological unemployment is likely to exceed what has been called the capitalization effect. This effect refers to the growth-enhancing and job-creating effect of technological developments that in the past outweighed the labour-saving effect of technology. Since the speed at which human labour is becoming possibly obsolete is high attempts to improve skills and education may no longer suffice to win the “Race Against the Machines” as titled by Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2011). Hence, unexplainable levels of technological unemployment may arise. FO focuses on the technological advances in Machine Learning (ML) and Mobile Robotics (MR). Machines are becoming progressively capable of performing non-routine cognitive tasks such as driving or legal writing. Advances in the field of Machine Learning (ML, e.g. computational statistics and vision, data mining, artificial intelligence) allow for automating cognitive tasks, while the use of ML in Mobile Robotics (MR) also allows for automating certain manual tasks (FO, Date). However, tasks that are likely to remain the domain of humans are related to creativity and social intelligence. According to FO (date), creativity is the ability to develop new and meaningful ideas such as new concepts or theories. Although certain parts might be automatable, FO beieve true creativity that relates these new ideas to the cultural and contemporary context of changing societal perceptions as a field that is expected to be dominated by humans in the foreseeable future. Also, tasks that require social intelligence remain a highly challenging domain from an engineering point of view. Tasks such as persuading, negotiating or caring for others are likely to remain genuinely human even in the long run. (the risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries : a comparative analysis ARTICLE) Research conducted on Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has shown that the picture is more complex. AI has more positive to offer and despite AI and automation potentially removing jobs, there is also a great potential to create space for new positions in the working industry. This statement provides further evidence that AI and automation are not simply another technological innovation but stand to quite radically change the shape of work tasks and jobs which without doubt will improve employment relations. Lastly, it is worth mentioning, that workforces need to be prepared for the future by connecting their technology strategies to well-developed people strategies. In a CIPD (date) survey, finds showed that employers mostly see performance benefits from AI and automation. They are more likely to increase revenue than other technologies and, combined with the likelihood for reduced costs, this points to a major opportunity to improve organisation productivity. When productivity increases, the employers overall attitude benefits which in turn increases workforce moral and creates a positive employment relationship. (Performance benefits of AI and automation CIPD REPORT).

With all these technological advancements it is empirical that managers find new ways to improve employment relations within the business. This will not only benefit the moral of the company but in turn help productivity levels to rise and thus profit too.

3.2 Monitoring

Another important key technological factor of employment relationship is monitoring and other technological factors such as surveillance. Based on Strickland (1958) and Krunglaski (1970), low trust management increases monitoring and surveillance. This might have a negative impact on the employment relationship as employees might interpret it as managerial mistrust. In a recent research, the relationship between Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance (EMS) in the workplace and employees’ trust in management was examined. The outcomes of this case study proposed that the trust in the employment relationship must be acknowledge as an important factor when EMS is applied in the workplace, especially with regards to manual employees. However, education and jointly developed policy approach in organisations, might be able to minimise that negative effects of EMS (Colucci, 2002; Cozzetto and Pedeliski, 1997).

To support this approach, Hartman and Bucci (1998) argue that EMS raises questions of decision-making and empowerment, further arguing that the development of moral systems, hasn’t been able to keep pace with technological developments. In this context, the need to implement decisions and/or the extent of EMS mechanisms can be an important factor in maintaining trust and confidence in the workplace, remaining a lively area for future research.

[Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace]

According to the local authorities that adopted EM, the introduction of EM in homecare delivery is inspired by a will to safeguard users, ensuring physical safety of care workers and, by policing compliance, to improve the quality of care. The research presented suggests that EM goes beyond the recording of working time (Cockoburn and Ormerod, 1993). The key drivers are financial when referring to austerity and cuts. This supports Zureik’s conclusion which states that the surveillance of work can’t be severed from the surrounding political and economic environment (2003). By delivering through commissioning process, episodic working time is facilitated. However, paid working time is unclear as it does not clarify whether travel time and down time between visits are considered paid working hours. Although most homecare salaries are at National Minimum Wage, there is an increasing proportion of unpaid working time. Based in Guardian, this is also an issue faced by Sports Direct where warehouse workers are also on ZHC’s. To simplify invoicing, it is best for local authorities to use EM. In this manner, homecare workers are protected from missed and late visit allegations. However, there is still little evidence to support EM and the potential it has to empower workers (Zureik, 2003). In some authorities, EM enforces a spatial and temporal description which works against workers. In order for EM to prevent unlawful travel time claims, they prevent workers from leaving early. EM filters through unproductive labour as workers are aware that they are not paid to ‘hang around’. This avoids temptation to work up until cut-off time for the wrong reasons. . [monitoring taking worker productivity]

Monitoring can also be in the form of managerial control and not necessarily surveillance.

Managers could easily seek to exercise control in workplaces such as offices and factories. On the other hand, home-located work (such as social media marketing), is a very big issue for managerial control. Primarily, visibility is challenged. Working from home is a private space that creates personal identity although it is not fixed or immutable (Davidoff 1979; Davidoff et al. 1979; Davidoff and Hall 1983; Saunders 1990; Dupuis and Thorns 1998; Chapman and Hockey 1999). In the above conditions, home-located work could avoid any managerial overview, as a result employees might feel abandoned from the managerial gaze (cf. Sullivan 2000; Sullivan and Lewis 2001). The reduced presence of those who work at home weakens corporate cultural engineering exercises that are rooted in time spent at the workplace. Finally, another big issue of managerial control could be the absence of members from these relationships which may generate fractures within teams between workplace-based employees, who are always present, and home-located employees, who are not.

Overall, if there was a good employment relationship between employees and employers, the employees would not feel threatened of been monitored. If these conditions do not exist, managers and more importantly employers would have to find new ways of improving the employment relations.

References:

1. Dundon, T & Rollinson, D 2011, Understanding Employment Relations. 2 edn, McGraw-Hill, Inc., London.
2. Cullinane & Dundon, 2012 file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/IJHRMUnitarism2013.pdf