Should managers or business owners be able to exercise their managerial prerogative without interference from the other actors in the employment relationship?
Number of Words: 1304
In the modern time, managerial prerogative is an essential system for most society’s managers or business owners to run their business, managerial prerogative which is defined as the right of managers or business owners to make decision about all aspects of their business without interference from government, workers or union. Employees seek to resist managerial control over organization of work. In a circumstance, while in the specific function of management of remuneration, managers or business owners should be able to exercise their managerial prerogative without any other actors’ interference. Some say that without involve by the state, employees, and trade union, it will make the organization more difficult to effectively implement practice. To a large extent, this essay will argue about the issue of managers or business owners can be able to exercise managerial prerogative with an involvement of states, workers and union while using the example of remuneration to prove it.
Power is diffused among the main bargaining groups in such a way that a party dominates others. The aspects of pluralism would also linked to industrial relation approach which known as IR. Industrial Relation approach can be defined as “problem solving in behalf of equity in the employment relationship”.(Wheeler, 1988, p136-137). This also can refer to pluralism. Pluralism suggests the employment relationship is open- ended, and indeterminate, creating an underlying structural antagonism that has the potential to produce conflict in both the labour market and workplace. It sees the role of state as to guard public interest, protect weak, and restrain power of the strong. The aim is to reconcile conflicting opinion and keep the conflict within acceptable bound so that the conflict does not destroy the enterprise. Union is viewed as the legitimate representatives of employee interest at work with the right to challenge the right to manage, but also with the responsibility to seek compromise. Pluralism sees conflict as inevitable and a legitimate consequence of the variety of interest in the workplace. The characteristics of the pluralist are totally different from those of unitarism. According to Allen et al (2008), conflict in pluralism is to be regulated, even if it cannot be resolved. (p.11). Moreover, Allen et al (2008) claimed that government is obliged to intervene in the public interest. The form this intervention takes is the establishment of rules to prevent or regulate conflict. (p.11). And also Allen et al (2008) mentioned about that the rules need to be interpreted and enforced through legitimate agents of the government (e.g. industrial courts and tribunals). (p.11).
States is one of the actors in employment relationship, which is defined as a “balancer” of the interest of employees versus the employers ( Alexander and Lewer, 2005, p17). The function of states is used to set up rules or parameter in which the two principal parties accommodate their differences. Moreover, the government can include arbitration tribunals or commissions for example like AIRC. And also, the government have the right that they can legitimise union and their role. Therefore, state has a stronger role in IR approach which is support to pluralism. In Australia, approximately 25% of nurses in the aged care sectors are dependent on the Australian Industrial Relation Commissions (AIRC) which will decide increase wages of living wage case and also ask for review the level of the minimum wage. (Nick, 2005, p13). And also Nick (2005) claimed that the state (AIRC) pay an important role which is able to continue with its important responsibility on the issue of minimum wage. (p13). All we can see is that the government involvement in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document