Employment Relations In Singapore

The importance of a positive employment relationship

In today’s business environment, a positive relation is necessary to maintain between employer and employee. It plays a major role in an organisation success and satisfying its employees at the workplace. Employment relationship means the contract between the employer and the employee (Siebert, Martin, Bozic, & Docherty, 2015). It is the contract to take the output from employer’s ability to work. The relationship often comes into a dispute or the collaboration within an organisation. There are certain issues that the Singapore is facing are unemployment rate and layoffs that has hit a 7-year high (Malay, 2018). There has been number of jobs has been retrenched by the companies like oil and gas, financial and marine services (Min, 2018). There are certain issues have also been reported like harmonious work culture and conflicts between the employers and employees (Maitra, 2016). These issues have questioned the Singapore approach in dealing with the employment relations. It will be analysed whether the Business in Singapore are often portrayed as adopting the Unitary or the pluralist approach. It will also be analysed in this essay that whether the employment relationship in Singapore is justified or it will change according to the time with the illustrated examples.   

The employment relationship issues in Singapore can be discussed by the two approaches, as the first approach is the Unitary that states relationship between the employer and the employee runs on the cooperation and on the harmony of the interest (Yip, 2016). The objective is to state that both employer and the employee targets are Universal (Nash, & Hann, 2017). In accordance, with the theory, management are the authority and they can take the decision that will not be hindered by the government, workers, trade unions and the others (Yea, 2015). However, it can be said that Singapore has failed to follow this approach. The issue of the retrenchment of employees has been rise due to failure of the unitary approach. They are required to work in cooperation and the decision comes from the management has not worked in the favour of the companies. The trade unions are considered for not interfering in the harmony of the organisation. The unitary theory is moreover considered as the one happy family in that management and the employee shares a common goal. The result of this view the conflict between the management and the employee has not been recognised (Fry & Mees, 2014).  

The current issues facing Singapore’s employment relations

According to the pluralist approach, the conflicts arise between the management and employees are not avoidable. The organisation is made up of a bunch of individuals that has different goals, direction and interests (Williamson & Ravenswood, 2017). The pluralist approach says that the regulations are required to prevent the damage of the diverse interest. It can lead to the institutionalisation of the conflicts (Zhang & Zhu, 2014). It can also lead to the equal distribution of the power among the stakeholders. The Trade Unions in this allow the employee to put the views on the concerns they are facing in the organisation. This approach ensures that the power has been equally distributed among the stakeholders (Bleiker, 2015).

On comparing of these two approaches, it can be said that the unitary approach states the corporation of both management and the employee whereas the Pluralist is consist of different people with different interests (Godard, 2014). These two theories are comprised of different groups with their interest. The unitary approach further states that the decision comes by the top management and the power is with the management and whereas the pluralist approach states that power has been distributed between the management and the employee (Gilbert & Sels, 2015). Another difference of the trade union in the unitary has been considered as an intruder whereas in the pluralist theory it has been considered as a legitimate body.  The unitary does not encourage the conflicts and does not considered it as the part of the workplace, whereas the pluralist says that conflicts can arise in the workplace and the organisation must do planning to prevent from the damages that arise from the conflicts (Colfer, & Baldwin, 2016).

In Singapore, the business has been adopting a unitary approach rather than the pluralist approach. Organisation thinks that for the benefit of business there must been a unitary approach rather than a pluralist approach. The organisation approach regarding trade unions that it will lead to conflicts and thus there is no need of trade unions. Trade Unions are an important for the employees and in accordance with the pluralist approach, it can be said that what is good for employees is good for the organisation. However, the unitary approach says that what is good for the organisation is good for the employees. However it can be said that the employment relation in Singapore are time changing because the current issues like lay-offs by the companies and the unsatisfied employees. Therefore, it can be said that the pluralist approach is better than the Unitariast approach. There are reasons for the pluralist approach in Singapore is after the formation of the NTUC that consists of the representatives of the employees (Menon, 2015). In NTUC, the employee has been given the opportunity to negotiate and voice over the terms and conditions of their employment (Lee & Chan, 2015). The opinions of the employee have also been taken into consideration the decision of the management. The representatives of the NTUC branch are involved in collective bargaining (Shams, & Huisman, 2016). The feedback of employees has also been gathered on the related or the concerned issues. Another trade union called Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) has been set up to represent the interest of the employer’s. Singapore Pluralist approach can be seen from the example of the companies of Singapore where employers and the employee relations having a pluralist approach. The company like Accenture where it has been reported that the cooperation between the management and the employees helped the company to become among the top companies in the world (Marginson, 2016). Accenture has maintained good relations by clear communications with trade unions in Singapore. It can be analysed that Accenture has understand the value of trade unions that has helped them to being a successful organisation and has implemented the pluralist approach. It can also be analysed that adoption of unitary approach has increased unemployment and mass layoffs in the Singapore companies.

The Unitary and Pluralist approaches towards employment relations

In comparison with the other countries of Asia, Singapore has been considered as the pro-employer labour and the employment regime. In Singapore, the terms and condition of the employment are flexible, so it becomes easy for both to accept. The law is strongly followed in Singapore as if any of the employer breaches. Overall, the policies and the labour compliance regime are simpler and Singapore adopts the light touch if it will be compared with the other Southeast Asian countries Jurisdictions. It can be said that that the Pluralist approach is justified in the Singapore (Ford & Gillan, 2016).  

The Singapore government has also taken various steps to provide the harmonious work environment and to stop layoffs of the employees by the companies. For the various aspects of the employment relationship, various guidelines have been issued by the government (Woolfson, 2017). The government has issued guidelines in recent times is the Tripartite Standard on the Contract Employees Employment for the better conditions for the work, Fixed-Term Workers, arrangements for flexible work and on the handling of the grievance (Ward & Mouyly, 2016). These guidelines have been strongly advised by the government on the implications of the government (Adascalitei, Khatiwada, Malo & Morano, 2015).

It can be analysed that certain steps has to been adopted by the organisations in Singapore so that employment relation can be improved. Organisations must communicate with the employee and understand their problems. The employees must be guided with organisation mission and vision. Employees must been praised for their work, it will motivate the employees. These steps can help to improve the employment relations in Singapore (Woolfson, 2017).

There are certain laws by which the employment relationship is governed in Singapore. The Employment Act 1968 is predominantly governing the employment relations in Singapore. Certain other legislation covers the other aspect of the employment that includes the Industrial Act 1960, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act 1990, the Trade Union Act 1940, the Retirement and Re-employment Act 2012, the Child Development Co Saving Act 2016, the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 and the Holidays Act 1998 (Singapore Statues Online, 2018)

It can be concluded that there are different approaches has been used by the different mind. The Unitarian and pluralist approach has been expressed the views on the employment relations in Singapore. The two approaches have different angles and have a different approach. After differentiating the two approaches it can be been analysed that the pluralist approach is most appropriate for the employee relations in Singapore based on planning and laws of Singapore. It can be analysed from the companies such as Accenture who is running successfully with the pluralist approach that the pluralist approach is justified. The Singapore government has taken certain steps to resolve the issues of layoffs. It can be also said that the companies are required to implement the conflict management to avoid the conflicts in the company.     

Comparison of the Unitary and Pluralist approaches in Singapore

References

Adascalitei, D., Khatiwada, S., Malo, M. Á., & Morano, C. P. (2015). Employment protection and collective bargaining during the Great Recession: A comprehensive review of international evidence. Revista de Economía Laboral., 12(1), 50-87.

Bleiker, R. (2015). Pluralist methods for visual global politics. Millennium, 43(3), 872-890.

Colfer, L. J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2016). The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(5), 709-738.

Ford, M., & Gillan, M. (2016). Employment relations and the state in Southeast Asia. Journal of Industrial Relations, 58(2), 167-182.

Fry, S., & Mees, B. (2014). Culture as grand theory in East Asian employment relations. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20(4), 603-617.

Gilbert, C., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2015). Strong HRM processes and line managers’ effective HRM implementation: a balanced view. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(4), 600-616.

Godard, J. (2014). The psychologisation of employment relations?. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(1), 1-18.

Lee, J. S., Back, K. J., & Chan, E. S. (2015). Quality of work life and job satisfaction among frontline hotel employees: A self-determination and need satisfaction theory approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(5), 768-789.

Lexology. (2018). Managing the employment relationship in Singapore. Retrieved from: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e159993f-e6d2-463c-bea8-2fd91278d10a

Maitra, B. (2016). Investment in human capital and economic growth in Singapore. Global Business Review, 17(2), 425-437.

Malay, M. (2018) Singapore needs to address its treatment of migrant workers. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/apr/21/singapore-address-treatment-migrant-workers

Marginson, P. (2016). Governing work and employment relations in an internationalized economy: the institutional challenge. ILR Review, 69(5), 1033-1055.

Menon, S. (2015). Building Sustainable Mediation Programs: A Singapore Perspective. Disp. Resol. Mag., 22, 42.

Min, C. (2018). Singapore Budget 2018: Time to relook foreign manpower restrictions? Retrieved from: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/singapore-budget-2018/time-to-relook-foreign-manpower-restrictions

Nash, D., & Hann, D. (2017). Organizational Innovators: A Study of Workplace Intra-Employee Conflict Management Strategies. Management Education, 71(6), 84-89

Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2016). The role of institutional dual embeddedness in the strategic local adaptation of international branch campuses: Evidence from Malaysia and Singapore. Studies in Higher Education, 41(6), 955-970.

Siebert, S., Martin, G., Bozic, B., & Docherty, I. (2015). Looking ‘beyond the factory gates’: Towards more pluralist and radical approaches to intraorganizational trust research. Organization Studies, 36(8), 1033-1062.

Singapore Statues Online. (2018). Industrial Relations Act. Retrieved from: sg/Act/IRA1960“>https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/IRA1960

The Straits Times. (2018). Parliament: Tighter rules to support Singaporeans and raise quality of foreign workforce. Retrieved from: https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-tighter-rules-to-support-singaporeans-and-raise-quality-of-foreign-workforce-lim

Ward, K., & Mouyly, V. (2016). Employment relations and political transition in Cambodia. Journal of Industrial Relations, 58(2), 258-272.

Williamson, D., Rasmussen, E., & Ravenswood, K. (2017). Power in the darkness: Taking a historical and critical employment relations approach in hospitality. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 33, 134-141.

Woolfson, C. (2017). The ‘Singapore scenario’: the uncertain prospects for labour standards in post?Brexit Britain. Industrial Relations Journal, 48(5-6), 384-402.

Yea, S. (2015). Trafficked enough? Missing bodies, migrant labour exploitation, and the classification of trafficking victims in Singapore. Antipode, 47(4), 1080-1100.

Yip, M. (2016). The Resolution of Disputes Before the Singapore International Commercial Court. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 439-473.

Zhang, M., Di Fan, D., & Zhu, C. J. (2014). High-performance work systems, corporate social performance and employee outcomes: Exploring the missing links. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 423-435.