A Social Partnerships in the New Millenium

There is also a huge amount being written about the issue, some Industrial Relations commentators have even hailed this as the most exciting thing to happen to UK industry in years. However, not every group completely agrees with this. For example, some groups believe that Social Partnership has had a very negative effect on British Trade Unions. At www.labournet.org.uk a group have named a bulletin board ‘Solidarity’. It is a page dedicated to ‘challenging social partnership’ and it’s apparent corrosive effects on union power. It is very typical of the types of arguments put forward by groups that are oh so against social partnerships. Stakeholders like the authors of solidarity believe that social partnerships tie unions to the coat tails of employers. What they want is a ‘new unionism’ which opposes subordination to the ‘global market’ and builds on the experience of the Liverpool Dockers. This group is completely opposed to any kind of privatisation and really wants more from unions than just a concern for working conditions. They want a break â€Å"..with the narrow work place concerns of ‘non-political’ trade unionism† and believe that unions should fight † for the interests of the working class and oppressed as a whole†. They also see a need for a repeal of all â€Å"anti-union† legislation and an end to state interference into unions, such as social partnership agreements. Taken from ‘Solidarity’, the journal that openly states it’s purpose is to challenge social partnerships in trade unions, here are some ‘facts’ that display how social partnerships have had a harmful effect on British trade unions: In Rover and the car industry, where the unions have identified the interests of workers with commercial success in the ‘global market’, they have been gravely weakened and meekly accepted massive job cuts. USDAW has reached a ‘Partnership Agreement’ with Tesco which takes away the right of the union members as a whole to vote on pay deals. The TUC has collaborated with a privatised utility in the Energy Industry and set up a company with them – Union Energy – thus effectively abandoning the fight for re-nationalisation. They are collaborating with a privatised utility which has decimated trade union members’ jobs. The unions have swallowed ‘Investors in People’ which identifies the interests of union members with the ‘business aims’ of private companies. The TUC and most unions have accepted that the increased competition of the ‘global market’ means unity with ‘our employers’ and competing with workers in other countries. Stakeholders like these aim to challenge social partnership by campaigning for complete independence of the unions from the employer. They reject globalisation and counterpoise to it a working class internationalism which recognises that workers have more in common with those in other countries than they do with ‘our own’ bosses. It is a very Marxist standpoint . They feel that for those in the unions who support their independence from the employers and the state, a systematic struggle against ‘social partnership’ in all its manifestations is a central task if they are to break the unions from the employers’ coat tails. They are insistent that this outlook has only been adopted by union leaders. It has though percolated down to many workplaces, reinforced by the fear of unemployment. This far left view contrasts greatly with those unions that actually see social partnership in a very positive, if slightly unclear light. Unions like FIET, The International Federation of commercial, clerical, professional, and technical employees see social partnership as a â€Å"new and challenging area of work for the union.† For unions that see the millennium as a time to accept social partnership, it will mean unions and companies learning to do things differently, rather than trying to campaign against this change. Some unions like FIET have accepted that we now have a government committed to promoting the partnership approach, and to ensuring that it becomes a permanent feature in the workplace. Unions like this have therefore accepted that social partnership is going to be around for a long time. I think that left wing reactions to social partnerships, like that of ‘Solidarity’ is very much a reactive one rather than considered. I think that those stakeholders set so strongly against this issue need to understand that the government’s political commitment to partnership goes far beyond the UK. We now have a new and positive approach to Europe and this social partnership model is at the heart of the EU’s approach to all Industrial Relations. Indeed Social Partnership does mean long term changes to the Industrial Relations scene in Europe and in Britain, all that unions need to work on is understanding what these changes will mean for their members and the companies that they work in. Looked at from this more positive, optimistic standpoint then social partnership has the potential to deliver some very real benefits: Potentially it means that employers will be working with the trade unions to bring about improvements in the quality of work. It means that employees, through their trade union, will be given a much greater say in how their company is run. Social partnership should give unions the opportunity to be consulted earlier, more often and on a wider range of issues than has happened before. Surely the growth in partnership at work can only be a welcome one, if not somewhat overdue? However, these encouraging and upbeat pointers can only be achieved if the unions get themselves involved in equal terms right from the beginning, otherwise employers could try to do things without the unions. As stakeholders like ‘Solidarity’ state I think that there is indeed a risk that social partnership may be used to try and undermine trade union organisation in the work place. Employers could potentially claim that they can have a partnership directly with their staff and do not require the union’s participation. If the unions are excluded in this way then not only could there be disastrous consequences for union members but social partnership will not work for employers either. Partnership can only be successful when employees as partners are properly supported and resourced through a dependable trade union. To illustrate this point further, let us consider what may happen if the retail sector tried to introduce partnership without trade union involvement : Most employees in this sector work part-time. There are increasingly complex and unsociable working hours in retailing which in turn means that most employees may have very little contact with anyone beyond their shift. In these circumstances employees have less of an opportunity to form a collective view. Simply meeting together can be extremely difficult in such organisations, let alone having the resources and confidence to develop their own ideas and concerns. Therefore it is clear that in most cases employees are unlikely to become equal and effective partners when they do not have the time or the means to generate their own agenda. A dependable and experienced trade union means that employees can enter into partnership properly supported and resourced. To achieve this, a real commitment is required from employers to supporting trade union membership, as the best way for their staff to be given a voice and more importantly the confidence to use it. Basically partnership needs partners. But how will social partnership actually change things in real terms for employees and the unions? By answering this question I will hopefully be able to assess if social partnership is a viable way forward in the new millennium. Firstly, unions need to take a positive approach, for them social partnerships should be about: Co-operation, not confrontation. Improving the quality of working life. Employers listening to and respecting unions and vice versa. Employees developing their own agenda through their trade union. If they agree on the above terms then hopefully it will mean: Moving away from the common practice of the union only talking to companies once a year. At the moment, even with companies with whom there exists a good relationship, unions often only talk to the organisation at the time of the annual wage negotiations. Many unions feel that the annual wage round sometimes becomes a little tired and predictable, with companies offering the lowest increase that they feel they can get away with. However, partnership is different. For the unions, it means talking to companies throughout the year. It means having a constant dialogue with employers about what is happening at all levels of the company. It should also mean that the union is consulted on a wider range of issues. Companies are used to contacting unions when they are implementing redundancies or sell offs. Mainly because there is a legal obligation on them to do this, but unions have not in the past been consulted on the overall direction of a company or about strategic decisions that may affect employees. A Social Partnership means that the union should be consulted on a far wider range of issues than they have been used to. It means earlier and better consultation sessions, theoretically no more being told about something when it has already been implemented. A Social Partnerships in the New Millenium There is also a huge amount being written about the issue, some Industrial Relations commentators have even hailed this as the most exciting thing to happen to UK industry in years. However, not every group completely agrees with this. For example, some groups believe that Social Partnership has had a very negative effect on British Trade Unions. At www.labournet.org.uk a group have named a bulletin board ‘Solidarity’. It is a page dedicated to ‘challenging social partnership’ and it’s apparent corrosive effects on union power. It is very typical of the types of arguments put forward by groups that are oh so against social partnerships. Stakeholders like the authors of solidarity believe that social partnerships tie unions to the coat tails of employers. What they want is a ‘new unionism’ which opposes subordination to the ‘global market’ and builds on the experience of the Liverpool Dockers. This group is completely opposed to any kind of privatisation and really wants more from unions than just a concern for working conditions. They want a break â€Å"..with the narrow work place concerns of ‘non-political’ trade unionism† and believe that unions should fight † for the interests of the working class and oppressed as a whole†. They also see a need for a repeal of all â€Å"anti-union† legislation and an end to state interference into unions, such as social partnership agreements. Taken from ‘Solidarity’, the journal that openly states it’s purpose is to challenge social partnerships in trade unions, here are some ‘facts’ that display how social partnerships have had a harmful effect on British trade unions: In Rover and the car industry, where the unions have identified the interests of workers with commercial success in the ‘global market’, they have been gravely weakened and meekly accepted massive job cuts. USDAW has reached a ‘Partnership Agreement’ with Tesco which takes away the right of the union members as a whole to vote on pay deals. The TUC has collaborated with a privatised utility in the Energy Industry and set up a company with them – Union Energy – thus effectively abandoning the fight for re-nationalisation. They are collaborating with a privatised utility which has decimated trade union members’ jobs. The unions have swallowed ‘Investors in People’ which identifies the interests of union members with the ‘business aims’ of private companies. The TUC and most unions have accepted that the increased competition of the ‘global market’ means unity with ‘our employers’ and competing with workers in other countries. Stakeholders like these aim to challenge social partnership by campaigning for complete independence of the unions from the employer. They reject globalisation and counterpoise to it a working class internationalism which recognises that workers have more in common with those in other countries than they do with ‘our own’ bosses. It is a very Marxist standpoint . They feel that for those in the unions who support their independence from the employers and the state, a systematic struggle against ‘social partnership’ in all its manifestations is a central task if they are to break the unions from the employers’ coat tails. They are insistent that this outlook has only been adopted by union leaders. It has though percolated down to many workplaces, reinforced by the fear of unemployment. This far left view contrasts greatly with those unions that actually see social partnership in a very positive, if slightly unclear light. Unions like FIET, The International Federation of commercial, clerical, professional, and technical employees see social partnership as a â€Å"new and challenging area of work for the union.† For unions that see the millennium as a time to accept social partnership, it will mean unions and companies learning to do things differently, rather than trying to campaign against this change. Some unions like FIET have accepted that we now have a government committed to promoting the partnership approach, and to ensuring that it becomes a permanent feature in the workplace. Unions like this have therefore accepted that social partnership is going to be around for a long time. I think that left wing reactions to social partnerships, like that of ‘Solidarity’ is very much a reactive one rather than considered. I think that those stakeholders set so strongly against this issue need to understand that the government’s political commitment to partnership goes far beyond the UK. We now have a new and positive approach to Europe and this social partnership model is at the heart of the EU’s approach to all Industrial Relations. Indeed Social Partnership does mean long term changes to the Industrial Relations scene in Europe and in Britain, all that unions need to work on is understanding what these changes will mean for their members and the companies that they work in. Looked at from this more positive, optimistic standpoint then social partnership has the potential to deliver some very real benefits: Potentially it means that employers will be working with the trade unions to bring about improvements in the quality of work. It means that employees, through their trade union, will be given a much greater say in how their company is run. Social partnership should give unions the opportunity to be consulted earlier, more often and on a wider range of issues than has happened before. Surely the growth in partnership at work can only be a welcome one, if not somewhat overdue? However, these encouraging and upbeat pointers can only be achieved if the unions get themselves involved in equal terms right from the beginning, otherwise employers could try to do things without the unions. As stakeholders like ‘Solidarity’ state I think that there is indeed a risk that social partnership may be used to try and undermine trade union organisation in the work place. Employers could potentially claim that they can have a partnership directly with their staff and do not require the union’s participation. If the unions are excluded in this way then not only could there be disastrous consequences for union members but social partnership will not work for employers either. Partnership can only be successful when employees as partners are properly supported and resourced through a dependable trade union. To illustrate this point further, let us consider what may happen if the retail sector tried to introduce partnership without trade union involvement : Most employees in this sector work part-time. There are increasingly complex and unsociable working hours in retailing which in turn means that most employees may have very little contact with anyone beyond their shift. In these circumstances employees have less of an opportunity to form a collective view. Simply meeting together can be extremely difficult in such organisations, let alone having the resources and confidence to develop their own ideas and concerns. Therefore it is clear that in most cases employees are unlikely to become equal and effective partners when they do not have the time or the means to generate their own agenda. A dependable and experienced trade union means that employees can enter into partnership properly supported and resourced. To achieve this, a real commitment is required from employers to supporting trade union membership, as the best way for their staff to be given a voice and more importantly the confidence to use it. Basically partnership needs partners. But how will social partnership actually change things in real terms for employees and the unions? By answering this question I will hopefully be able to assess if social partnership is a viable way forward in the new millennium. Firstly, unions need to take a positive approach, for them social partnerships should be about: Co-operation, not confrontation. Improving the quality of working life. Employers listening to and respecting unions and vice versa. Employees developing their own agenda through their trade union. If they agree on the above terms then hopefully it will mean: Moving away from the common practice of the union only talking to companies once a year. At the moment, even with companies with whom there exists a good relationship, unions often only talk to the organisation at the time of the annual wage negotiations. Many unions feel that the annual wage round sometimes becomes a little tired and predictable, with companies offering the lowest increase that they feel they can get away with. However, partnership is different. For the unions, it means talking to companies throughout the year. It means having a constant dialogue with employers about what is happening at all levels of the company. It should also mean that the union is consulted on a wider range of issues. Companies are used to contacting unions when they are implementing redundancies or sell offs. Mainly because there is a legal obligation on them to do this, but unions have not in the past been consulted on the overall direction of a company or about strategic decisions that may affect employees. A Social Partnership means that the union should be consulted on a far wider range of issues than they have been used to. It means earlier and better consultation sessions, theoretically no more being told about something when it has already been implemented.

Sharing Microeconomic Insights with Non-Specialist Audiences Assignment

Sharing Microeconomic Insights with Non-Specialist Audiences - Assignment Example On 26th February 2013 the New York Times presented an article titled, ‘Are We in Danger of a Beer Monopoly?’ From the article, it’s possible to learn more about formation, pricing, regulation and operation of monopolies. Most companies are established with the primary aim being to maximize profit. A monopoly is a profit maximizer, to do this they reduce supply of the products, and this raises the prices of the scarce products. For firm’s that operate near monopoly condition they enjoy economies of scale that enable them set their prices profitably, and they can control the prices of other smaller companies. In 1988 when Miller and Coors reduced their beer prices AB InBev also reduced the prices of its beer forcing Miller and Coors to abandon their price cut. This shows the firm’s dominance in this industry and all firms have to pay attention to this market leader. This further indicates AB InBev intention to scare away the small existing firms and hence force them to exit this industry. AB InBev has the powers to set its prices if the competitors reduce their prices it also reduces its prices to ensure it competes efficient. AB InBev aims to acquire Grupo Modelo’s Corona since it hinders it from setting high prices. The acquisition was it to happen will hence give AB InBev the powers to raise its price as it wishes and hence operate under monopoly conditions. AB InBev will hence be a price setter. There are different ways that a company can gain monopoly power. First is by government regulations prohibiting entrance of other firms in that industry, they can result from controlling a significant resource. Monopolies may also arise from economies of scale, availability of production technology and capital or mergers and acquisition. In this case AB InBev was developed on the concept of technological innovation and managerial efficiency. Since its establishment in 1999 the company has

Homeland Security Advisory System Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Homeland Security Advisory System - Essay Example This efficient system is used to create structure and context for national discussion regarding threats that oppose the homeland and help in taking proper measures that can play an appropriate role in protecting the country. This system seeks to facilitate and inform proper decision that rate to various levels of government and to local citizens present at work and home (Loeb, 2007). This powerful system was launched on March 11th 2002, by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 3 as a way to secure the conditions after 11th September 2001. It has the initiative to provide a â€Å"comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to federal, state, and local authorities and to the American people." This was said by Tom Ridge, the assistant to the President for Homeland Security on 12th March 2002. However, the role of managing, implementing and developing the system was the duty of the U.S Attorney General (Loeb, 2007). On January 2003, a new department known as Homeland Security (DHS) started administering this system. Now, the decision to â€Å"announce the occurrence of threat conditions is performed by the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.† (Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5) The Homeland Security Advisory System that binds the services various levels of government and other private sectors. In this system, there are five Threat Conditions that identify the description of the threat by the color they have. Each level of threat has a subsequent color which describes the intensity of the expected attack. Each level; from highest to lowest, following is the colors: This proves that the higher the level of Thread Conditions is the greater are the chances of terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks include both; the reason why the attack is occurring and the potential

Organization behavior class in the news report Essay

Organization behavior class in the news report - Essay Example The author pointed out the openness of Grove to learn from his audience, his students. Being an educator at Stanford University, Grove have laid down a realistic case, very truthful indeed because it pertains to the future of his very own company. Tedlow used this incident to show his readers the leadership style of Grove. He wrote a brief biography of the CEO by accident, how, from being an engineer, he strove to become one of the most admired corporate leaders using his past experiences to as guides and educational tools. Tedlow also highlighted Grove's reliance on data during decision-making. He finally pointed out Grove's advocacy in independent thinking. Thinking for one's self using data and previous experiences (and mistakes) as references are cornerstones of Grove's leadership style. In the other article, "Peter Drucker On Leadership" Forbes author Rich Karlgaard used his personal interview with the management guru in plotting out the latter's basic leadership principles. The first point that the author raised is Drucker's emphasis on the question "What needs to be done" For Drucker, knowing what a leader needs to do, as opposed to the asking one's self "What do I want to do," is the key for successful management. Checking one's performance based on the things they ought to do is the next success factor of effective leaders. Drucker further emphasized that effective leaders are mission driven and are willing to turn down other irrelevant tasks to their mission. They also make clear what their current priorities are to their subordinates. A unique leadership style is also required. Focusing on strengths and delegating tasks you are weak at. To save time and money, Drucker also advised leaders to refrain from too much travelling and instead use the power of modern technologies to facilitate communication with subordinates. Karlgaard further warned leaders that misuse of charisma is detrimental to one's leadership. Better be a reliable silent leader than a deceitful charismatic one. Google's CEO Eric E. Schmidt narrowly focused strategy is what author Ben Elgin examines in his article "Google: A $50 Billion 'One Trick Pony'" in Business Week. Elgin showed how the search engine giant preferred to stick with its existing method of generating income than to diversify its advertising product line by exploring other income opportunities. The author commented that Google's singularity in its focus to its text advertisements might hurt the company in the future. Article Comparison These articles show three different perspectives on leadership. The first one is about the hands-on leadership principles accumulated by Andrew Grove. As a practicing business leader, Grove pointed out his first-hand wisdom on how to drive an organization to the top. Based on his past experiences of Grove's failures and successes, Tedlow gave us a picture on how the CEO riskily responded to the leadership problems that he encountered. The second article is more conservative and theoretical. It concerns more on the wisdom gained by an academe and business book writer, Peter Drucker. Drucker based his writings on his researches about CEO's. Being a business professor he gives us theoretical pointers rather than practical wisdom in leading an organization. Karlgaard's article is more of a commentary concerning the soundness of Schmidt's strategy. By limiting is focus on a single product line, Google has become a towering leader in that particular market. Despite these contrasts

Business Operations of Ford Motor Company Essay - 1

Business Operations of Ford Motor Company - Essay Example According to the research findings, it can, therefore, be said that today, Ford Motor Company is the second largest vehicle manufacturer in America and ranks fifth in the world. The company initially introduced Ford Fiesta in the American market during the 1970s. However, this new product failed to grab a large percentage of the automobile market. Although Ford Fiesta did not sell in the American market, the product grabbed a place in the market of Europe and its sales volume has been good for more than four decades now. The Fiesta car is changing the preference of buyers in fairly quicker rate. Particularly, in Britain, Fiesta car model has the largest market compared to other car models. Based on the results of recent researches that customers are more willing to buy low CO2 automatic and low-cost vehicle, Ford has used Fiesta strategy to accommodate these preferences. The Fiesta’s gearbox is different from traditional torque converters. It is a dual-clutch transmitter and t his enables it to drain less power, thus having a decent fuel economy. The Ford Fiesta car has a kinematic design. Ford Company uses this design to ensure minimal noise, harshness, vibration, and smooth ride. This product also has many features like 6-Speed Powershift Automatic Transmission (SPAT), Ti-VCT Engine (Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing), ESP (Electronic Stability Programme that has TSC (Traction Control System), fuel efficiency, easy fuel, seductive center console, and Bluetooth that has voice control. The company represents this new brand with a better warranty and services. The buyers of Ford Fiesta are given a 3-year warranty that is only valid when the vehicle is in the appropriate condition prescribed in the owners’ manual that is authorized by Ford Service Center.

Paternity civil case and calculation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Paternity civil case and calculation - Essay Example These include the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) markers used in DNA evidence. Butler (2006) indicates that markers were first described as an effective tool to ascertain human identity in the early 1990’s. Since then they have become important tools which have been employed in order to resolve numerous paternity testing cases. Identigene (n.d.) indicates that genetists developed this set of markers to ensure a level of consistency in identifying individuals and named them according to their chromosomal location. Each of the marker location shows two alleles (variation values) represented by the numbers in the table below. In this case Identigene (n.d.) indicates that the alleles are measures of short tandem reports (STR). One of the STR alleles is from the mother and one from the father. If at least one of the markers for each STR locus matches then there is assumed to be a high probability of a paternity relationship. On the oth er hand if at least one of the markers for each STR locus does not agree with the alleged father’s then this is an indication that there is no paternity relationship. A paternity index that is greater than 100 yields a CPI of 99.0000%; one that equates to 200, yields a CPI of 99.5%; and one that equates to 1000 yields a CPI of 99.9900%. Identigene (n.d.) indicates that immigration cases require a CPI value of 200 or better. The International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) has a number of recommendations on biostatistics in paternity testing. These include: the importance of a statement of a hypothesis; information on how the calculations are done, considerations for the possibility of mutations whenever a genetic inconsistency is observed; guidance relating to the possibility of a single allele in a tested subject; as well as the details that should be presented in test reports. According to Gjertson et al (2007) the International

Hilda Polacheck, I Came a Stranger Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Hilda Polacheck, I Came a Stranger - Essay Example The aspect of citizenship manifest strongly in the Hilda Polacheck of â€Å"I Came a Stranger.† The narration by Hilda about her life experiences gives us a view of the historical perspectives of citizenship in America. When arriving in USA with the mother and the siblings, Hilda Polacheck experienced the problem of gaining access to the American social system. Hilda narrates how the immigration officers in America confined her family and immigrants in a camp with deplorable conditions. The reason for the treatment was to prevent entry of people who become a public charge, and burden the government. The American authority of the time only allowed entry to immigrants who could support themselves. This experience by Hilda Polacheck helps us understand the history and significant of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 2008. A clause in the Act prohibits issue of citizenship to immigrants who can become a burden to the public. 1The immigration officials have the responsibilities to examine skills, financial resources, physical abilities, health status and education of the immigrants before allowing entry into the country. During the historic America, there was a belief that poor immigrants would flood the country with anticipation to enjoy the economic prosperity. 2To become an American citizen through naturalization is never easy or automatic. A person has to undergo various screenings, and must have stayed in America for longer time. The given immigrant applying for naturalization must proved with authentic documentation that they have stayed in America longer enough to warrant issue of citizenship. This aspect of citizenship is evident the narration of Hilda Polacheck. In the book, Hilda mentions that her father died without having gained citizenship despite having applied. The reason given for the reluctance by the US official was that the