Has its roots in the industrial revolution which created the modern employment relationship by spawning free labor markets and large-scale industrial organizations with thousands of wage workers. As society wrestled with these massive economic and social changes, labor problems arose. Low wages, long working hours, monotonous and dangerous work, and abusive supervisory practices led to high employee turnover, violent strikes, and the threat of social instability. Intellectually, industrial relations was formed at the end of the 19th century as a middle ground between classical economics and Marxism, with Sidney Webb and Beatrice
Webb’s Industrial Democracy (1897) being the key intellectual work. Industrial
relations thus rejected the classical econ.
Institutionally, industrial relations was founded by John R. Commons when he created the first academic industrial relations program at the University of Wisconsin in 1920. Early financial support for the field came from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. who supported progressive labor-management relations in the aftermath of the bloody strike at a Rockefeller-owned coal mine in Colorado. In Britain, another progressive industrialist, Montague Burton, endowed chairs in industrial relations at Leeds, Cardiff and Cambridge in 1930, and the discipline was formalized in the 1950s with the formation of the Oxford School by Allan Flanders and Hugh Clegg. Industrial relations was formed with a strong problem-solving orientation that rejected both
the classical economists’ laissez faire solutions to labor problems and the Marxist solution of class revolution. It is this approach that underlies the New Deal legislation in the United States, such as the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Theoretical perspectives Industrial relations scholars have described three major
theoretical perspectives or frameworks, that contrast in their understanding and
analysis of workplace relations. The three views are generally known as unitarism,
pluralist and radical. Each offers a particular perception of workplace relations and
will therefore interpret such events as workplace conflict, the role of unions and
job regulation differently. The radical perspective is sometimes referred to as the
"conflict model", although this is somewhat ambiguous, as pluralism also tends to
see conflict as inherent in workplaces.
Radical theories are strongly identified with Marxist theories, although they are not
limited to kosala Unitary perspective In unitarism, the organization is perceived as
an integrated and harmonious whole with the ideal of "one happy family", where
management and other members of the staff all share a common purpose, emphasizing mutual cooperation. Furthermore, unitarism has a paternalistic approach where it demands loyalty of all employees, being predominantly managerial in its emphasis and application. Consequently, trade unions are deemed as unnecessary since the loyalty between employees and organizations are considered mutually exclusive, where there can’t be two sides of industry. Conflict is perceived as disruptive and the pathological result of agitators, interpersonal friction and communication breakdown. Pluralist perspective In pluralism the organization is perceived as being made up of powerful and divergent sub- groups, each with its own legitimate loyalties and with their own set of objectives and leaders. In particular, the two predominant sub-groups in the pluralistic perspective are the management and trade unions.
Consequently, the role of management would lean less towards enforcing and controlling and more toward persuasion and co-ordination. Trade unions are deemed as legitimate representatives of employees, conflict is dealt by collective bargaining and is viewed not necessarily as a bad thing and, if managed, could in fact be channeled towards evolution and positive change. Marxist/Radical perspective This view of industrial relations looks at the nature of the capitalist society, where there is a fundamental division of interest between capital and labour, and sees workplace relations against this background. This perspective sees inequalities of power and economic wealth as having their roots in the nature of the capitalist economic system.
Conflict is therefore seen as inevitable and trade unions are a natural response of
workers to their exploitation by capital. Whilst there may be periods of acquiescence, the Marxist view would be that institutions of joint regulation would enhance rather than limit management’s position as they presume the continuation of capitalism rather than challenge it. Employee Relations Today By many accounts, industrial relations today is in crisis In academia, its traditional positions are threatened on one side by the dominance of mainstream economics and organizational behavior, and on the other by postmodernism. In policy-making circles, the industrial relations emphasis on institutional intervention is trumped by a neoliberal
emphasis on the laissez faire promotion of free markets. In practice, labor unions
are declining and fewer companies have industrial relations functions. The number
of academic programs in industrial relations is therefore shrinking, and scholars are
leaving the field for other areas, especially human resource management and organizational behavior. The importance of work, however, is stronger than ever, and the lessons of industrial relations remain vital. The challenge for industrial relations is to re-establish these connections with the broader academic, policy, and business worlds.
Titany answered the question on December 3, 2021 at 05:11