Gains Perspective on Workplace Partnership †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Gains Perspective on Workplace Partnership. Answer: Introduction An employment relationship is considered as a legal link that binds an employee and an employer. This type of relationship exists between people that form the relationship in work under conditions and in return for earning remuneration. According to McDonald and Thompson (2016), employment relationship has become a major and recurring issue in the modern world as the employees lack protection based on certain factors. However, changes in rules and regulations have developed that have managed to maintain a proper relationship between employees and employers. The essay analyses these changes and the manner in which it has affected the lives of the working class people in the Australian industries. The focus is on the introduction of work choices that have helped in amending the Workplace Relations Act of 1996 have managed to contribute heavily to the changing demands of the Australian industry. The types of changes made and it effectiveness are discussed to understand the impact of the legislation in Australia. Neo-institutionalism is a political approach that covers the study of behaviour in organisations, economic growth and sociology particular in the United States. The institutional structure that rules the cultures and forms a competitive tradition in the market involves identifying the approach to this method. Based on this method approach has been made to the political scenario in Australia and the manner in which the Workplace Relations Act has been implemented in the country. According to Valizade et al. (2016) stated that managing the employees in an organisation is essential so that an organisation can remain productive. Without proper motivation, employees cannot manage to continue effective work and consequently fail to improve the success of an organisation. The concept of employment relations come into effect in this case. Employment relations help employees and employers to establish a link between the two and maintain a proper communication for the effectiveness of an organisation. Stokes, Bryson and Bewley (2017) have stated that employment relations are effective in creating rights and obligations between employee and employer. The labour laws and social security numbers that are provided judge the assessment of the rights of a worker. In this regard, it can be said that the reference for determining the nature of work of the employees are addressed by the rights and obligations it possesses towards the workers. Conway et al. (2016) stated that some of the features of the employee-employer relationship involve collective relations and interdependence on one another. A successful organisation needs a harmonious relationship to exist between the employers and the employees. This can help the organisations to gain competitive advantage and ensure that associations with the trade unions mutually exist for both the parties. However, McBride, Hebson and Holgate (2015) stated that one of the major drawbacks of the employment relations is the fact that the concept is dynamic and is still at a developing stage. Regular changes in the constitution of employers and employees contribute to the downfall of an organisation and at the same time create a mismatch between the concepts of employee and employer. The concept decays with the changes that are particularly made in the economic and social institutions. These forces try to provide shape and content to the concepts. As such, some of the parties that are involved in the employment relations in an organisation include: Employees: The employees are considered as one of the major parties in the employment relationships. This is mainly because of the fact that the employees are the chief stakeholders of an organisation and proper relationship with them can help employers continue with productive management (Godard, 2014). Employers: The employers are the major decisional heads in an organisation. For an organisation to succeed, the decisions taken by the employers in terms of recruiting, motivating, controlling and maintaining strategies are important. The relationship between the employers and employees are solely based on the manner in which they are treated. Thus, it can be said that the importance of the employers is as crucial as the employees. Unions: The union leaders act as a third and consulting party between the employees and the employers (Rosenbloom, 2014). Mostly these leaders represent the employees, however, an understanding is developed with the employers so that both parties can meet their demands. Thus, these three major parties dictate the relationships between the employees and the employers. In a competitive environment like Australia, the concept of employee relationship has had its significant impact. Bamber et al. (2015) stated that the concept of employee relationship in Australia had to follow certain rules that can help the country to maintain a proper dynamics in the employee-employer relationship. The issue of an employment relationship in Australia has become important because of the widespread phenomenon that workers are largely dependent on the employers. Other aspects include the legal activities of the country that provide narrow interpretation of the laws that exist in the country. As stated by Stokes and Wood (2016) the rules of the Australian Government need to distinguish between the objectives of the employees and the compliance and enforcement that are required for continuing with business. In this regard, an analysis can be conducted that tries to analyse the changes that have been in the laws of Australia regarding the implementation of the concept. One of the concepts that were formulated by the Government of Australia is the work choices. According to Dau-Schmidt, Finkin and Covington (2016), the name was given to the changes made in the industrial relations laws that are formulated by the Australian Government. It came into existence due to the changes that were made in the Workplace Relations Act of 1996. The amendments implemented in the act came into effect in 2006. The major aim of designing the work choices was to ensure that the level of employment and performance of the economy in Australia are maintained. Any laws that were unclear to a company were removed. For example, the laws related to the unfair termination of the employees were made clear so that no disadvantage remained for the employees (Sobral, Chambel Castanheira, 2016). Such a decision was taken by the Prime Minister of the country with the intention to reform the industrial relations law that exists in Australia. It has been seen that the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005 rewrites the legal laws that existed in the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 1996. The provisions of the new act took into effect during March along with three more sets of operation. The importance of this transformation is the fact that it dealt with many important issues that were a cause for concern in the Australian industry (Winter Jackson, 2014). Some of the changes that were brought about by the constitution include the formation of a sole national industrial relation system. This is in regard to the incorporated corporations so that the act of separate state and a federal system can be replaced. The establishment of the fair pay commission of Australia to determine minimum wages is another important change that had taken place in the constitution. According to Gilpin (2016), this particular change is important to assist employees to get the minimum wage that they deserve for working in an organisation. Another important change that had been implemented due to the change is the fact that the agreement that existed between the Australian Workplace Agreement and the Certified Agreements were streamlined. This provided an opportunity for increasing the length of contracts from three years to five years. Thus, the contract signed between the employers and the employees can be valid up to five years unless there is a sudden termination due to insubordination or any other misconduct. Walsh (2015) had also stated the importance of motivation and the fact that to motivate employees, non-financial rewards can be provided. The effectiveness of providing awards to the employees by reducing the number of benefits can help employees as well as the organisations. This is mainly because of the fact that the employees prefer to be recognised in the organisation to claim their self-actualisation need rather than gain benefits that does not help in increasing their reputation. At the same time, the o rganisations can also benefit by getting more productivity from the employees. Shields et al. (2015) stated that the work choice changes also put forward the condition that companies need to have a minimum of 101 employees. Once a company is in operation for six months, 100 employees are the required target that needs to be reached. Otherwise, it can be difficult for the companies to maintain its stature in the business environment. The new law has promoted the notion of exempting companies with fewer than 101 employees with the laws related to the unfair dismissal of employees. This has provided new organisations with an opportunity to be relieved from legal consequences. At the same time, secret ballots have been a necessary factor so that any decisions regarding an industry or organisation can take secretly and unanimously. Thus, these changes had brought about relief in the mind of the employees and had increased the scope of implementation of the system. The Howard Government aimed at bringing more employees under the work choices so that the power of the employees can be both constitutional as well as governmental. Some of the changes can be discussed in a more detailed manner: According to Kaufman and Taras (2016), the changes in the work choices are related to containing provisions that provide a relief from unlawful termination and unfair dissimilar from work. As stated earlier, the changes in the work choices allow companies with less than 101 workers to be exempted from any unlawful dismissal act. However, the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission war retained in hearing the cases that deal with the unfair dismissal of workers and unlawful termination of the workers. The case from both parties is heard and proper verdict is given without violating the changed rules as laid down by work choices. The work choices were aimed at protecting the interests of the employees and the employees were given provisions to launch complains within 21 days from the day of termination. This helped employees to gain the required verdict either in terms of employment or in terms of monetary stability. Stewart et al. (2016) stated that with the change in the work choices the passing of agreement bills had received an advantage. The Collective Agreements and the Australian Workplace Agreement needed to go through a no disadvantage test. This test was conducted to ensure that the employees suffer from no particular disadvantage while working in an organisation. The relevant awards that cover up the potential of the employees are included in this agreement and it forms a unit of a proposal. The advantage of the exemption of the no disadvantage test is the fact that the benefits of the awards provided to the employees are directed at the overall improvement of the welfare of the employees. The new work choice warrants employees to be benefited with five entitlements. These five benefits are the basic compensations that are provided to the employees so that they can benefit from working in an organisation. The five benefits include maximum ordinary working hours, annual leave, parental leave, minimum pay scales and personal leaves. Before the implementation of the work choices, the certified agreements had to be lodged directly in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The new changes had managed to transfer the responsibilities that can oversee the agreements and pass on the process to the Workplace Authority of the country. At the same time, the Workplace Authority had managed to transfer some of the delegations to other areas in the law such as in the Workplace Ombudsman form (Kavanagh McRae, 2017). The legislative changes managed to transfer the responsibilities that can be used to oversee the changes and the parties involved in the agreement had to lodge the agreements with the Workplace Authority. However, one drawback of the new process was that it was criticised by the people that opposed the work choices. This is mainly from the unions as the union people can get fewer opportunities to intervene in matters related to the organisation or in a manner in which drafts have been conducted poorly. Office of the employment advocates survey The new changes even stretched in the Government offices and the employment advocate had managed to conduct a survey. This survey helped in gaining an outline of the results that helped in understanding the benefits that can be gained with the implementation of the work choices legislation. The results of the survey showed that 88% of the employees abolished the rate provided for overtime. 89% of the employees abolished the shift work loading time so that they can have a good time with the family and provide efficient performance in the workplace Pekarek et al. (2017) stated that the modification of the monetary allowances was a major change in the work choice legislation of the employees. This is mainly because of the fact that the employees are said to be rewarded with recognition and other non-monetary benefits so that the finances of the organisations can be saved for a future purpose. However, despite its success in the national court of Australia, the work choices legislation had to face several criticism and anti-campaigns. National days of protest were organised that highlighted the dissatisfaction of the some of the employees. According to Lindsay (2015), the industrial relation changes that consisted of the abolition of the monetary benefits were the main reason for triggering the protests. Anti-legislation campaigns were also conducted by the unions of the organisations in protest that their roles in organisations have diminished because of the introduction of the work choices changes. Leaders such as the Labour Prime Minister of Australia also voiced oppositions against the legislation. The national protests were held for two years in 2005 and 2006 in which about 100,000 crowds from all over the country had joined the movement. Thus, such movements were one of the main reasons behind the unpopularity of the movement. According to Power (2017), one of the reasons for the unpopularity of the legislation was the fact that the unfair dismissal provided the least compensation to the employers. If an employer owns more than 100 employees during the termination of an employee, then no claims can be made regarding the finances that were spent in training and providing benefits to the employees. However, the employee had to be a regular worker that who had been with the office for a period of more than 12 months. One of the main aims of the work choices was to provide employees with an opportunity to create a balance between the trade unions and industrial tribunals. de Flamingh and Bell (2017) stated that the system was criticised keeping in mind the disadvantages that were faced by the low-earning employees and the small business sector. The abolition of the monetary system for the compensation of the employees was a major weak point for the weakness of the Australian small-scale companies. The argument was made on the fact that due to the changes, the value of the workers diminished. The motivational factors of the employees were taken away and despite the fact that the no disadvantage test was abolished and five mandatory benefits were allowed to the employees, the legislation underwent major changes that proved to be a huge disadvantage for the companies. Pekarek et al. (2017) were of the opinion that unfair dismissal of workers became a recurring phenomenon for companies having less than 101 employees. This is mainly because of the fact that these companies were exempted from the laws of the unfair dismissal and are given the authority to terminate employees if they are do not provide productivity at work. Thus, this is considered as a major drawback for the implementation of the work choices changes in the organisations. The fact that the protestant rallies headed by the Labour prime minister were conducted proved as an excess factor for the continuation and popula rity of the legislation. Conclusion Thus, it can be said that employment relations is an important factor and it is necessary that the employees and employers understand one another well enough for implementing the concept in the organisations. The major parties involved in the employment relations are the major stakeholders of a company and it is necessary that the employers ensure that the satisfaction of the employees is protected. The work choices legislation that was amended by the Workplace Relations Act, 1996 provided certain advantages for the employees. However, the reaction of the employers towards these changes was opposing and because of this, the system did not receive much popularity in the constitution and the legal system of Australia. Hence, it is necessary that the employers and employees form a mutual collaboration that can help in ensuring productivity in the business organisations. Reference Bamber, G. J., Lansbury, R. D., Wailes, N., Wright, C. F. (2015).International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalisation, Regulation and Change. Sage. Conway, E., Fu, N., Monks, K., Alfes, K., Bailey, C. (2016). Demands or resources? The relationship between HR practices, employee engagement, and emotional exhaustion within a hybrid model of employment relations.Human Resource Management,55(5), 901-917. Dau-Schmidt, K. G., Finkin, M., Covington, R. (2016).Legal protection for the individual employee. West Academic. de Flamingh, J., Bell, C. (2017). Employment law:'Corporate avoidance'of the'Fair work Act'.LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (39), 74. Gilpin, R. (2016).The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press. Godard, J. (2014). The psychologisation of employment relations?.Human Resource Management Journal,24(1), 1-18. Kaufman, B. E., Taras, D. G. (2016).Nonunion employee representation: history, contemporary practice and policy. Routledge. Kavanagh, M., McRae, E. (2017). Employment law: Protecting vulnerable workers amendment to fair work act.Governance Directions,69(4), 241. Lindsay, R. E. (2015). Fair Work Ombudsman v Pocomwell Ltd (No 1)[2013] FCA 250.Austl. NZ Mar. LJ,29, 75. McBride, A., Hebson, G., Holgate, J. (2015). Intersectionality: are we taking enough notice in the field of work and employment relations?.Work, employment and society,29(2), 331-341. McDonald, P., Thompson, P. (2016). Social media (tion) and the reshaping of public/private boundaries in employment relations.International Journal of Management Reviews,18(1), 69-84. Pekarek, A., Landau, I., Gahan, P., Forsyth, A., Howe, J. (2017). Old game, new rules? The dynamics of enterprise bargaining under the Fair Work Act.Journal of Industrial Relations,59(1), 44-64. Power, C. (2017). The Fair Work Commission's new approach.Governance Directions,69(9), 540. Rosenbloom, D. H. (2014).Federal service and the constitution: The development of the public employment relationship. Georgetown University Press. Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., Dolle-Samuel, C., North-Samardzic, A., McLean, P., ... Plimmer, G. (2015).Managing Employee Performance Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge University Press. Sobral, F., Chambel, M. J., Castanheira, F. (2016). Managing motivation in the contact center: The employment relationship of outsourcing and temporary agency workers.Economic and Industrial Democracy, 0143831X16648386. Stewart, A., Forsyth, A., Irving, M., Johnstone, R., McCrystal, S. (2016).Creighton and Stewart's Labour Law. The Federation Press. Stokes, L., Wood, S. J. (2016). Employer Support For Worklife Balance In Recession: Findings For Britain From The Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Stokes, L., Bryson, A., Bewley, H. (2017). Older workers and the workplace: evidence from the Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Valizade, D., Ogbonnaya, C., Tregaskis, O., Forde, C. (2016). A mutual gains perspective on workplace partnership: Employee outcomes and the mediating role of the employment relations climate.Human Resource Management Journal,26(3), 351-368. Walsh, D. J. (2015).Employment law for human resource practice. Nelson Education. Winter, R. P., Jackson, B. A. (2014). Expanding the younger worker employment relationship: Insights from values?based organizations.Human Resource Management,53(2), 311-328.