If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on collective bargaining. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality collective bargaining paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in collective bargaining, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your collective bargaining paper at affordable prices with cheap essay writing service! I see collective bargaining, in its most basic form, as the process by which an organised group of employees, in the form of trade unions, negotiate with employers, their representatives or their associations in relation to any aspect of employment within the employers organisation. The reason that collective bargaining and trade unions are used is the reason cited in the first paragraph; Theres strength in numbers. The individual threat by a single employee to withhold labour is not very great. But when the majority of a workforce in an organisation threaten to strike, or threaten any other form of industrial action this threat becomes altogether more substantial. Collective bargaining gives redress to the imbalance of power between individual workers and employers (Gunnigle et al, 15). This is the main purpose that collective bargaining is used in industrial relations, and essentially gives collective bargaining a political purpose; the equalisation of power. Once this extra power is attained, collective bargaining is then used for primarily economic purposes. It is only in recent times that social issues have been included in the negotiations in collective bargaining. As this process tends to lead to equal pay for all workers doing the same work, there is as a consequence a social benefit; equality amongst the workforce. While this can have its downside, namely complacency among the employees as there is little incentive to do better in work, this disadvantage has been partly eroded in recent times with the advent of productivity deals, which I will discuss in more detail later in this essay.
Collective bargaining is also a political institution in that it regulates and defines the interaction between trade unions and management. In a social context, the consequences of this is a system for regulating industrial conflict. This can help ensure that any industrial conflict is kept within reasonable bounds, and that in most cases the more militant elements in trade unions are kept under control by virtue of the fact that the majority of the workforce see an alternative avenue of dealing with disputes. I believe that this consequence of collective bargaining contradicts the optimistic Marxist view that trade unions and collective bargaining are a school for socialism and a potential revolutionary force. It does confirm the pessimistic view that it ensures that trade unions will never be any more than trade unions, and that collective bargaining oils the wheels of capitalism. But thats not a bad thing at all, and is one of the great social benefits of collective bargaining. So how exactly does collective bargaining oil the wheels of capitalism?
Collective bargaining provides management with a method for dealing with employees in an equitable way. But not only equitable, but also seen to be equitable. If areas of common interest are maximised, and stressed in the collective bargaining process, this can reinforce a an acceptance of common interest by the workforce (Purcell, 17). The process of collective bargaining also legitimises trade unions within the company or employing organisation. Purcell also contends that this legitimacy can give trade union members a sense of belonging to the organisation (17). These three things; the sense of equality, common interest and belonging will make workers more content, minimise conflict and create a feeling of stability within the company. Collective bargaining, when agreements that come from it are for set time periods, can allow management to plan for the future based on those agreements and the knowledge that the unions are likely to cooperate. All of the above oil the wheels of a capitalist society. And as I both live in and believe in a largely capitalist society, this has to be a good social influence.
Collective bargaining also has its disadvantages as far as capitalism is concerned. In cases where radicals have managed to hijack the unions side of collective bargaining then unreasonable demands can lead to severe conflict. The same can be said of the employer side. Inflexible and uncompromising employers can cause severe disharmony, and possibly cause irreversible damage to the employee-employer relationship. But this will only occur in a minority of situations. The greatest disadvantages of collective bargaining in a capitalist society lie mainly in the financial arena. Collective bargaining in the form of wage rounds leads to both wage and grade drift. Wage drift leads to higher wage costs for employers and higher inflation within the economy, which in turn leads to higher interest rates and lower investment. Lower investment means that fewer jobs are created, unemployment rises, social welfare payments increase and possibly an increase in the national debt. Following these consequences there would be less money in the economy overall in real terms. Grade drift is a problem for employers which is linked to wage drift. Grade drift occurs where secure jobs are one of the trade unions aims in collective bargaining. As jobs become more automated with the advance of technology, employers are forced to keep staff to keep to previous agreements. As companies no longer need as many staff the workforce tends to get older, with rising wage costs and mainly static skill levels.
Cheap University Papers on collective bargaining
In Ireland over the last 5 years, the focus of collective bargaining has been widened to a nation-wide one from localised and industry level, with various degrees of success. This focus on the nation-wide picture has led to 7 national wage agreements, national understandings, and three other agreements or programmes; the Programme for National Recovery (PNR), The Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. It is my opinion that centralised collective bargaining has evolved in much the same manner as collective bargaining itself; focusing on purely economic issues, and then steadily including more social issues. While the national wage agreement secured certain pay increases, the real value of those wages dropped. It was during the era of the National Wage Agreements that inflation rose to 0%, days lost through strikes increased and unofficial strikes increased (Gunnigle et al, 15). Although this may seem that this type of collective bargaining had a bad social influence, it must be noted that the OPEC recessions of the 170s would have had been a contributing factor to all of the above.
In 187 the government, trade unions and the FUE negotiated the PNR. Other than the provisions for pay increases, social issues were taken into consideration The programme was to cover the period up to the end of 10 and entailed the following provisions -The creation of a fiscal, exchange and monetary climate conducive to economic growth. This included a commitment that the ration of debt to GNP should be reduced to between 5 and 7 percent; -movement towards greater equity and fairness in the tax system -measures to generate employment opportunities -Reduction of social inequalities (Gunnigle et al, 15; 11..1)
Overall the PNR proved to be a successful venture, although it was helped along by the boom period of the late 80s. There was substantial economic growth, a reduction in the debt to GNP ratio and a decline in strike levels (Gunnigle et al, 15).
The PESP contained similar, but widened social commitments to the PNR. While not as entirely successful as the PNR, the PESP had its positive social influences in the form of low interest rates and low inflation, in spite of the recession of the early 10s. Industrial peace also continued throughout this period.
The PCW, like the two programmes before it, focused on social issues in increasing strength. As this programme is still running, we can say little about its success or otherwise, other than to say that there is still relative industrial peace, sustained economic growth and low inflation and interest rates.
In the above discussions on the three programmes, I have only considered the more obvious social benefits, i.e.. those which the programmes set out to achieve. There are other social benefits which follow on from those discussed above. One of the most important of these is confidence in the Irish economy. With industrial harmony, low interest rates, low inflation and sustained growth comes confidence in the economy. One indicator of the fact that the programmes inspire confidence is this In 187, when the PNR was being negotiated, the Federated Union of Employers had to be coerced into the negotiations. Yet in 1, 5% of senior personnel managers were in favour of a further PESP style agreement. (Gunnigle et al, 15). The stability of the agreements has provided management with a situation where they can be reasonably sure of what is coming and can plan ahead based on that. The programmes have also allowed successive governments to plan ahead, something normally unheard of. Previously, governments had tended to plan for one fiscal year in the form of the budget, but now we have a situation where they are planning for three years with the programmes. The programmes have also provided a sense of continuity, as successive governments from all political parties have continued the programmes. This form of planning ahead has allowed significant progress in the areas of debt reduction, social welfare and taxation.
It is not only in an Irish context that collective bargaining has been seen as desiring an effect on social aspects of the economy. In the UK, where there has been little, if any centralised collective bargaining, Fox states [Collective bargaining] has often been seen as, though not by all pluralists, not only as levelling up employee power to an acceptable approximation of that of management, but also as reinforcing government social welfare and redistributive policies in gradually reducing class difference. (Fox, 185) But it would seem that the lack of any centralised bargaining has reduced this impact of collective bargaining; Collective bargaining has not substantially shifted the proportion of the national product going to wages and lower salaries, nor have welfare and other so-called redistributive policies had the equalising effects imputed on them (Fox, 185;) In Ireland, while there have been few dramatic changes with regard to social welfare, there have been significant cuts in the effective tax rate in favour of the lower paid. If we take the 14 budget as one example, the effective tax rate for a single person earning £10 per week was cut by % from 0.6% to 17.6%. For the higher paid, if we take the example of someone earning £600 per week, the effective tax rate was only cut by 1.5% (McCarthy and Tansey, 14). While this cannot be directly attributed to the success or otherwise of Collective bargaining, I maintain that the stabilising effect of the three agreements, along with the commitment therein would have had a distinct influence. This reduction in taxation will have a social influence to re integrate larger numbers of the unemployed back into the labour market, it is clearly desirable that the taxation burden on earned income be reduced (McCarthy and Tansey, 14;67)
Centralised collective bargaining didnt actually do away with localised collective bargaining. Instead it changed the focus of collective bargaining. Gunnigle and Flood contend that the focus changed from pay increases towards employment conditions, pay anomalies and productivity. (15). This is another of the good social influences of collective bargaining in Ireland. Now, rather than haggling over minimal wage increases, localised collective bargaining is instead working at improving working conditions, reducing grievances and increasing productivity. This change in focus has led collective bargaining away from the adversarial win-lose situation to a more cooperative model, with management and unions working together to achieve common goals.. While management have had to pay out more to improve working conditions and fund productivity deals, they have gained increases in productivity, worker flexibility and industrial harmony. In the negotiation of these win-win deals, one added bonus is the extension of trust. Where both parties to the negotiation stand to gain, communications between them tend to be more open than would occur in an adversarial situation. If agreements are made under good faith, both parties to the negotiation may feel a moral obligation to follow the agreement. This can cause dual loyalties in staff, that is loyalty to both the Union and the company. This can become a problem should the good relationship between management and unions break down. (Fox 185).
I must say that although I believe that collective bargainings origins lie mainly in an economic arena, had it been a social invention it would have been a good one. In an Irish context, where the prevailing ideology and public opinion has allowed collective bargaining to flourish, its social impact, while not as great as some would have hoped, has been for the better. When collective bargaining addresses a range of issues which are inter-related, and addresses the interactions between them, the benefits can be great. But when collective bargaining focuses on one issue, without regard for its effects on other issues that the effects can be disastrous, as seen in the case of the national wage agreements..
Collective bargaining is not however, and never will be, a revolutionary force. As Fox wrote in 185 Collective bargaining... emerges as a process through which employee collectives aspire, not to transform their work situation, but to bend it somewhat in their favour (Fox, 185;15) In conclusion then, while I believe that collective bargaining has many good social influences, it cannot hope to change society in any dramatic way.
Please note that this sample paper on collective bargaining is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on collective bargaining, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on collective bargaining will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment from cheap essay writing service and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
