Employee Relations
Name
Institution Affiliation
Employee relations has become mostly used in recent years to refer to a specific thing of the subject matter. Initially, the mechanical connection was commonly used. Employee relation is thus, the organization’s effort to create a positive relationship with its workers. Generally, workers relation includes leaders and their representatives, employees and their representatives, including the state (Guest, 1987). These are commonly known as the three characters playing an essential act in the employment relation. The three actors comprise of employee relation and rely on each other in the employment process. Absence of an actor means that employee relations are unfinished. In this essay, we will analyze the employee relation system in Japan, the United States and Germany, which portray several similarities and opposing issues. Our principal concern is comparing and contrasting the three key characters; workers’ associations, the act of the state and trade unions. Emphasis on other essential elements of industrial relations like ER Legislation, the changes that occurred since the 1980s and the dispute resolution systems is a critical aspect. The final focus is a study regarding pacific island that brings out features of employee relation found in the three countries then finalize with a summary of the employee relations key components (Blyton & Turnbull, 2004).
Developing economic globalization and competition in Germany is increasing economic integration, which means the European Union is inclined to compare itself in most areas of two major economies of the globe, the United States and Japan. The comparison is essential in gauging Germany commitment among the most competitive and diverse knowledge founded marketplace in the world able to sustain economic growth with good jobs and high social cohesion. Employee relationship plays a vital act in determining economic, social, including employment results, thus a significant area of analogy. Germany has a unique social model which differs from the models of controlling society, economy and labour market present in the USA and Japan. Germany model, however, includes the institution and procedures of industrial relations (Guest & Conway, 1998). Worldwide comparison aid in making a precise on Germany model and how it is different from the model that distinguish other countries.
Trade Unions
Trade Union has been the initial present actor, and its principal aim is to oppose mistreatment and mishandling workers. The core logic for the presence of trade union is to substitute workers without control in their workplace, developing the power to defend their interests. The features of trade union present in Japan, Germany and the United States differ and are similar in various ways. The advanced framework of trade union in Japan was vacillated development identical to that of Germany and the USA. Trade union in present Japan have been in existence from the 1880s and began declining during World War II. Still, accelerated growth was noted following the closure of World War II. In Germany, trade union evolved after the 1814 Revolution and was dissolved by Hitler in 1933 but rose again after World War 11. The first trade union in the United States was formed in 1794 in response to socio-economic impacts of the Industrial Revolution. The unions however collapsed and emerged post the World War II. It is seen that in the three countries, trade unions’ growth has fluctuated and was impacted by World War 2. The trade union in the three states developed swiftly after world war two due to external direction and support. Japan trade union evolved as an outcome of the USA support while Germany trade union was directed by affiliated power guided by the UK and the USA (Chand, 2017). External forces for trade union growth influenced Germany and Japan.
Trade union amidst the United States, Germany and Japan differs regarding density. As per the OECD statistics in 2017, it showed that the trade union density of Japan was at 22.2% in 1999 and Germany at 25.3% including 13.5% for the United States. In 2013, Japan trade union density stood at 17.8%, Germany at 18.1% and the United States at 13.2%. Germany has a maximum density compared to the two countries. The industrial trade union is common in both Germany and the United States, while Japan has an enterprise trade union. These bring out the difference between trade unions’ in the three countries (Chad, 2017). Enterprise trade serves workers from one enterprise expelling other workers from a separate company. Industrial trade union stands for workers based on the jobs, for instance, metal workers found in Germany get characterized by the Metal Industry Trade Union. Another distinctness is Tu evident in Germany, which means control and influence in an ER in comparison to the United States and Germany. It is why the United States and Japan trade union was an industrial trade union but not a small enterprise union. Thus, the trade union was a major party that was found in the United States, Japan, including Germany that brought out differences and similarities of the three countries.
Employer’s Associations
Workers’ association came into being to safeguard the workers interest contrary to a trade union. As per Plown (1978), workers associations are views as certain responsive to the offset influence of trade union. In the United States, Germany and Japan, the management association is act compliance and contrast in various means.
Employer’s association is a role on industrial and regional levels in the three nations. Japan, for instance, the manager association was aligned in a region including industrial association to oppose labour offensive later in 1945. Germany, on the other hand, had a personal employer association which represented organizations regarding industries and areas (Legge, 1995). In the United States, had organized labour unions to fight for the rights of marginalized workers. Management association was an overall bargaining accompanying trade union founded on employment terms. Thus, an employer’s association with trade union came together to resolve and come up with conditions, including disputes to make it in a unified boundary. As per the National Employers’ Association found in the three nations, they are not part of cumulative bargaining like the confederation’s German employer, including Nikkeriren.
The collective bargain was actualized and practised at a various level in the three countries. In Germany with the United States, the industrial association was responsible for a mutual agreement as a collective bargain in Japan took place on an enterprise-level excluding the national levels. Germany had a high employer association federation density more than Germany. According to the International Labor Office, 1994, Nikkeriren, which is the Japan Federation of Employers’ Association has 46 prefectural and 53 industrial associates covering the entire 30,000 enterprises. BDA found in Germany is made up of 47 branch associations aligned in 15 areas associates making up to 75% of the nation’s private sector. The United States, unlike Germany and Japan, lacks an identifiable state intersectoral employer body possessing an industrial relations duty. A unique organization was created to give US employers and an opportunity to be represented by one intersectoral agency in fora and other international organizations. Key business organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) including the US Chamber of Commerce are not concerned with trade union regardless or having a similar role of growing policy regarding labour issues. The United States has fewer employer bodies possessing bargaining role as bargaining happens predominantly in the enterprise level (Bjorklund, 2014). Therefore, Germany, Japan and the United States have similarities and differences regarding employer association.
The State
The nation was seen as the last and essential party in an employment relation and its objective to enhance a good relationship between the two odd characters. However, the task of state can be the same and different in some nations such as in the United States, Japan, including Germany.
All states act as employers, employing civil servant. It is a similar role to the government in various countries. The primary purpose of the country is ensuring a lawful framework to direct and manage the accord of the workers and the employer and their delegation. Coming up with a legal framework is similar to the three nations where the state issues an ER to control the employee relationship. Japan passed a Public Order Act in 1900, an act of anti-labour act which did not allow employees to come together and create trade union. Germany was different as the nation issued work council acts in 1952 to initiate the commencing of work council in companies and allow delegation of workers in Directorate in a Company Boards. It portrayed the essential role the country was working in enhancing a social relationship within an employee relation. The United States issued the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, where employees got the right to bargain collectively over income, working hours and conditions with their bosses. The act came along with some federal, the country and local regulations to increase bargaining rights to 78% of the US employees.
In contrary, Germany was extra active on employee relations compared to the United States and Japan. Even though the United States help represents workers, Germany assisted the employee and employer through ensuring peaceful employee relations environment. For Japan, there was minimal engagement within employee relations. The trade union lacked an intimate relationship, so the link was found on the Social Democratic Party Trade Union to the trade union. It brought out the differences regarding how states got involved in employee relations. Japan industrial relations was seen as an amicable in their history in contrast to other nations such as the US and Germany. Japan was performing a vital act to come up with a conducive environment that would align with the relationship and workers relations (Edwards, 1995). The state of the three nations acted as the origin of employee relations which was contained in the industrial relations to come up with a friendly environment but has had some similarities and differences in some instances.
ER Legislations
ER legislation is vital in employee relations as it provides the state of the country a direction to lead the industrial regulations. There are several ER legislation that was issued by the United States, Germany and Japan. The application of ER legislations may contrast or align with the three countries in the employment process.
The United States, Japan, including Germany, are founded on ER legislation as the country is the chief origin of implementing and enacting the law in the three nations. The states play a vital role in enforcing ER legislation. However, there is a different kind of legislation administered by the state of the three countries such as Public Order Act 1900, among others which were found in Japan. Germany ER legislation issued by the government is the determinant Act for Coal and Steel Industries in 1951. The United states ER legislations are managed by the National Labor Relations Act 1935. Evolution of a union of cobblers in Philadelphia in 1794 known as the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers, initiated the commencing of trade union among workers in the USA. The ER legislation in the three nations is that they contrast the present and previous legislations as the employee’s rights gets increased to them. Japan in the 1900s passed a Public Order Act that stressed on allowing workers their rights to come up with trade union. By 1945 workers were allowed to form a trade union. Germany, on the hand, gave workers reasons for equal worker representative according to Directors in Company Boards (Wailes et al. 2011).
Germany ER legislations are controlled by Directors in company boards to be a worker representative. It is different from the United States and Japan with most legislation in Japan direct to the individual worker. Law in Germany concentrated on the representation of employees via director in company board and included Legislation Works Council Act of 1952 including the Co-determination Act of 1976. The difference was seen as the main factor that existed in the three countries.
Dispute Resolution Systems
Disputes are conflicts that arise among the employer and the worker and the management and association, including the trade union as a result of a misunderstanding on rights, conflicting ideas or disputes over the dismissal of a worker. Dispute resolution systems are implemented by countries to handle conflicts before worsening. The policies vary or are different depending on a state. The dispute resolution of Japan, Germany and the United States is very different and lacks conformity for each other. Workplace conflict and resolution use various forms depending on the country (Martin &Andreas, 2015). Resolution systems include procedures such as conciliation, mediation, a reconciliation system, arbitration and labour relations commission. Germany emphasizes on dual system founded on delegation of the interest through a collective bargain. Trade union and worker organizations have joined the dispute resolution agreement in the three countries. When the collective deal fails, there is a joint dispute resolution process used to hinder industrial actions. The three countries have various dispute resolution systems.
Changes Since the 1980s
Change is part of growth; when there is no change, development does not occur. Regarding employee relations, change occur that result in contemporary that prevent the employment process. The changes occur to ensure organizations are flexible and able to face problems recent to organizations. The changes have been evident in the US, Japan, including Germany in industrial and employee relations. In Japan changes within the employee relations such as loss of jobs as an outcome of delocalization of Japanese companies abroad, the turndown of trade union membership, growing part-time employees who were a danger to full-time employment, it became hard to locate jobs to the recent graduates, developing labour mobility, legalizing migrants to work in the country and use of innovative technology in several industries. In Germany, a lot of changes were seen in employee relations. Changes in The United States and Germany were notable after 1945 as there was massive legalization of ER systems, but it alternated in the 1990s (Sisson,2006). The changes that prohibited ER systems in Germany was because of the pressure following the unification with East Germany globalization as employees saw the urge for change. The development in manager association included labour market workability liberalism the business regulations and liberalism of labour laws.
Case Study
Samoa is among the pacific country used as a case study on employee relations where Japan, the United States and even Germany are present. Samoa involves the three actors of employee relations as driven by employee and industrial relations. The trade union was an approved framework where workers had lawful rights to arrange a trade union based on Integrated Society Act of 1952. The act was present in the three countries in 1952, which increased the employee rights to come up with a union. Trade union were only in the public sector (the Western Samoa National Union of Workers 1915) and represented 800 states. Samoa consisted of a trade union, the worker, legislation including the state.
In summary, employee relations entails actors that mould the relationship as an entire process. The three countries share different and similar characteristics. Trade union are identical, and the development structure and were all impacted by World War 2 but are increasing growing with help from external forces. Trade union differ in density, the kind of trade union which include enterprise and industrial trade union. The influential country was Germany than the US and Japan with ER. The employer association in the three countries contrast through industrial and regional terms through a collective bargain. Employer association differ regarding a joint contract conducted in the three countries. The state is similar in employment via civil servants and the IR legislation. It is evident that employee relations exist in the three countries but acts differently on in the same manner regarding the context of the state.
References
Blyton, P., & Turnbull, P. (2004). The dynamics of employee relations. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Bjorklund, A. K. (Ed.). (2014). Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2012-2013. Oxford University Press, USA.
Chand, A. (2017). Industrial relations in the South Pacific. Journal of Pacific Studies, 9, 301-316.
Edwards, P. (1995). The employment relationship. Industrial relations: theory and practice in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell, 256.
Guest, D. E. (1987). Human resource management and industrial relations [1]. Journal of Management Studies, 24(5), 503-521.
Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (1998). Fairness and work and the psychological contract. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.
Legge, K. (1995). Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities in Macmillan. Basingstoke, Hants.
Martin, B. & Andreas, P. (2015). Conflict, Complementarities, and Collective Action? Towards a Comparative Analysis of Workplace Dispute Resolution. Melbourne (Australia): The University of Melbourne.
Sisson, K. (2006). Responding to Mike Emmott: What’Industrial Relations’ Suggests should be at the Heart employee Relations’. Industrial Relations Research Unit, Warwick Business School.
Wailes, N., Bamber, G. J., & Lansbury, R. D. (2011). International and comparative employment relations: An introduction. In International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalization and Change (pp. 1-35). Allen & Unwin.