Australian Industrial Relations and System’s Theory (Essay Sample)

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SYSTEM
By:
Course:
Professor:
University:
State:
Date:

Introduction
Industrial relations system framework was devised by John Dunlop as an analytical framework with the objective of integrating industrial relations studies. He argued that industrial relations had been studied as a subset of several fields such as labor relations, labor economics, public policy, industrial psychology and labor law (Bellemare 2000). From Dunlop’s perspective, the results from the studies in all these fields accumulated a lot of facts that needed an integrating framework of analysis (Bellemare 2000). He proposed an industrial relations system where institutions and actors could be studied as separate entity of the industrial relations system (Bellemare 2000). According to him, this analytical framework was essential for purposes of policy making and research of the Australian industrial relations system. This essay applies Dunlop’s systems theory through identification of major actors and their roles and objectives, as well as reviews various theories of state that offer an explanation of the nature of pressure groups’ influence on government policies in the context of Australia industrial relations. Finally, reasons for the inadequacy of other state theories in explaining on whose behalf the state acts when it formulates industrial relations policies.
To begin with, system theory comprises of actors such as employers, labor unions and the government (Meltz 1989). All these components of the industrial system are bound together by a shared set of contexts and ideology such as political, economic, market and technological capability (Meltz 1989). In the laying down of the model, Dunlop ascribed equal importance of each actor in this system. Industrial relations system is a completely separate system influenced by socio-economic contexts. Also noted is that, establishment of set rules is the core objective of actors within the industrial relations system (Bellemare 2000).
Australian Industrial Relations and System’s Theory.
During postwar decades, the widely acknowledged industrial relations system of Australia was both institutional and collective. These decades presented the era of high profits, high union density and stable growth levels in Australia (Dastmalchian et al. 2014). The high union density imply that more attention was paid towards the labor problems that were exhibited by numerous number of strikes which lasted briefly as compared to other regions. The managements were production focused with little training, accepting the existence of unions but limiting their roles to the ones outlined by the tribunal system (Poole 2013). Coalition liberal government, media, and activists linked the increased number of strikes to communism spectra and normative values.
Goals of Actors
Labor Unions
The unions in Australia are set up to promote productivity of the employees and increase the share of compensations that employees are awarded (Poole 2013). In the Australian industrial system, employees are currently paid on the basis of capital and labor equivalence. The trade unions have managed a significant contribution to improving workers’ compensations and promoting economic growth (Dastmalchian et al. 2014). The unions exist to ensure that capital owners do not exploit employees at any level.
The bargaining agents and trade unions are able to negotiate agreements for employees who have actively opted for the agreement (Hamilton 2014). The process of setting up different awards for employees take into account numerous bargaining agents representing various workers within the industrial sector of the country. The Fair Work Commission currently operates as an arbitrary body that oversees the award negotiations between employees and their employers in Australia. Binding enterprise agreements are currently negotiated by various bargaining agents and unions. Employers are required to use the results from union negotiations to apply to all workers in the union sector.
Employers, HRM Practices and Policies
This element of industrial relations system is critical to the Australian industrial market. Harmonious industrial relationship exists only in an enterprise where human resource practices and policies are geared towards proper training, recruitment, management style, career development, communication, and motivational systems (Dastmalchian et al. 2014). A number of these activities have had direct impact on the overall industrial relations’ climate in Australia. The best managed enterprises in the country have integrated human resource management policies into their strategies and culture (Hamilton 2014). Since 1980s, Australian managers have placed emphasis in practice and theory, on strategic human resource management (Bellemare 2000). They view human resource as an existing competitive advantage thus, they integrate human resources policies into corporate strategic plans.
The industrial transformation of Australia since the adoption of industrial relations system indicates a number of potential points. First, adversarial workplace relations are not in the interest of either enterprise or employees. Secondly, competitive strategic plans based on low wages and low costs result in high number of management-labor conflicts. The conflicts are impediments to quality, innovation and trust. Thirdly, strategies that are based on traditional industrial relations and technology approaches only, do not achieve high performance levels. However, the performance can be achieved through integration of innovations in human resource management and the new technologies (Poole 2013).
The State
The industrial relations system in Australia was founded on labor law framework. There are three main objectives played by the state in industrial relations through law courts. The first one is support to autonomous system’s collective bargaining power, operations and observance of the agreements made. Secondly, it provides a number of rules that govern the conditions and terms of employment and supplementation of the standards created by third parties. Thirdly, the state prescribes what is permitted or forbidden in an industrial conflict (Poole 2013). It does this in order to protect the parties from each other and the public at large.
Labor law in Australia created the legal framework necessary for organizations, workers and employees to function effectively as an autonomous group in the industrial relations system. The laws protect the freedom of each association in Australia so that all parties in the industrial relations are accorded the guarantees and protections of freedom of association. The other significant objective of the state law is prescription of minimum conditions and terms of employment that the employers need to observe while conducting businesses (Bryson et al. 2003). Australian legal system contains provisions that stipulates minimum conditions observed in areas such as social security, employment age, industrial accidents and safety of employees (Poole 2013). Also prescribed, are the minimum wage and rules followed in terminating the employment agreement with employees.
The third role played by the state in industrial relations is acting as an instrument of social change. The laws change depending on the social values and practices of the contemporary society. The government of Australia at times anticipates the social changes and implement policies that streamline new ideas in running an effective industrial system (Poole 2013). The law also prescribe desirable measures to remedy contract of employment, safety requirements, unfair dismissal and protection against discrimination at work (Poole 2013). These legal prescription provides minimum terms and define permissible boundaries of actions in which the employers and employees in Australia must exist. It ensures that there is no over-regulation through law. This has helped to avoid any adverse consequences on building a sound and reliable industrial relations system through competitiveness of enterprises in Australia.
Theories of State
There are four main theories of state, namely, force, evolutionary, divine right and social contract theories (Bryson et al. 2003). Force theory proposes that states were developed through the use of force. As such, a single person or a group of people claimed control over a certain population in a given area by force. Once this group establishes a rule of law to be followed, the state is established (McAuley 2003). This theory purely bases its argument on war as the force used to develop a given government. For instance, Adolf Hitler used force to Germany and attempted to control the whole of Europe using war.
Evolutionary theory asserts that state evolved over a given period of time starting from primitive families. One person in the family becomes determined to lead the family, and as such, the government was formed on that primitive level. Over the past several years, families became clans and clans became tribes. When these tribes settle in a given place, the government is formed. Divine right theory expresses that God created every state. It explains that God gave some individuals divine right and royal births to rule (Bryson et al. 2003). Since these rulers are accountable to God, the population have to obey them as they are required to obey God. The theory is best applied in countries such as England throughout the Middle age periods.
Social contract theory explains that a specific population within an area decided to give up as much power as needed to the government to promote the well-being of all. The leader and the community have a contract of existence. The state is handed power and authority over the community and in turn, the government provides community with services s...