Industrial Crisis In Pronto Shoe Company: An Analysis Of Actors And Application Of Pluralist Theory

Overview of the Crisis in Pronto Shoe Company

Question:

Describe a Current Crisis of Your Choice involving at Least two types of IR Actors.

The report is the analysis of the industrial relations. The issue is in connection with the problems that are related to the workers and the reaction of the management towards the issues. This report deals with the industrial crisis that has occurred in the powerful business sector. In this particular report the issue that has occurred in the Pronto Shoes which belongs to a business sector that has been taken into account. The actors therefore in this sector are the corporate and the business actors. Pronto shoe is one of the leading shoe manufacturers of Egypt. The concept of industrial relations is dense and there are different scopes of the same. It deals with the problems that are related to the disputes between the manager and the employees in the workplace. It is completely a business sector therefore the problems are between the workers and the business directors. There are certain issues that can be applied in order to solve such issues. The theories include the pluralist theory, the utilitarian theory and the Marxist theory. The report concentrates on the Pluralist theory to solve the issue that has occurred in the organization. Towards the end of the report there is a detailed analysis of the theory. The report also consists of the role of the actors of the situation.

There has been a continuous issue in Pronto shoe Company. The issue has been consistent for a longer period of time. The issue has led to innumerable strikes and protests. The common form of protest was the strike. The issue remained as a perennial problem. The actual reason of the essay was an incident that occurred in the company. The incident occurred on 7^th October 1995. It one happened that a labor in the Pronto shoe company named Abasi, in a meeting was assaulted and was abused by the business head in a group huddle. He was unethically accused for something he has not done and was later debarred form the yearly bonus and he was not given a chance initially to justify himself and defend himself (Light, Margot and Arthur John Richard Groom). There is a background of this incident. The background was that the directors of Pronto shoes were planning to sell of their shares to the other franchisee holders. The posting of the labors were not thought by the directors and this infused anger in them as this led to insecurity in them (Jackson, Robert and Georg Sørensen). This could lead to unemployment. The labors were not given any kind of job guarantee for this. The labors raised their voice against this and therefore a meeting was held for this. The labor named Abasi was the leader of their Union. He was therefore charged for provoking the other labors and was assaulted for the same reason in the meeting in front of all other labors. This was however a wrong action done by the business head. The business head was however reacted in a passive manner. He was neutral to the situation. He did not react to their demands and was did not pay any heed to the demands of the labors. It was the director of the company who reacted to the situation and paid attention to the needs to the needs and claims of the workers. The director, Mr. Pronto was made efforts to listen to the

The Role of Actors in the Crisis Situation

demands of the workers and conducted meetings with them. He took notice of the situation and he made efforts to reduce the heated situation that was there after the issue. He made efforts to resolve the angers of the workers and justify the reason of their action. He conducted a personal meeting of the labor and the business head. He managed for apology from the business head to the labor for his partial and arrogant behavior. The pluralist theory has been applied here. The perspective of the labors and the labor union has been focused on in this case (Ferguson and Yale).

Any industrial crisis situation includes actors. Actors are basically the persons who are the main concerns of the situation and for whom the issue has raised. In this case there have been many players. The players in this case are the labors and the managing bodies of the company. The crisis occurred because of the decision made by the managing body of the company which includes the stakeholders of the company. The factory owners and the decision makers of the company were responsible for the situation. However the managing director has played a major role in this by intervening and solving the problem Therefore he is another player in this situation. Al the players had a major role to play in this. All the players had their own perspectives and own point of view which was to some extent justified (Booth, Ken and Toni Erskine).

The actors are the players of the situation and the vice versa. The actors play a huge role in this situation. The situation intends to the crisis situation in this case. The highlighted actors in this case are the labor who was unethically accused and the business head that was responsible for the industrial crisis that occurred. The crisis can clearly be termed as the Industrial crisis. The labors represented the entire workers as he spoke of against the decision that was made by the managing committee. Another reason behind this was the same class that the workers belonged in. The business head had the power to manage and take the initial decision regarding the factory. This is the reason the labor was dominated and he was penalized (Dunne, et al). The labor however was restored his job back with complete honor. Apart from this it was same in the case of shutting down of the factory and the takeover of the same by other company. The shareholders made the decision without giving prior notice to the workers. The labors were the biggest sufferers in this case. The important actors in this case were the shareholders and the workers. The ultimate sufferers of the situation were the labors and the reason of their sufferings was the stakeholders of the company. However the actors that are to be highlighted are the labor that was unethically treated and the business head that was the real reason behind it. This crisis was more unethical and a more important issue than the other issues (Dunne, et al).

Application of Pluralist Theory in the Situation

The reaction of both the actors was extreme. The two actors were the labor and the business head that can be highlighted in this situation. The labor refused to agree to the situation and he denied obeying the decisions of the management of the company. This was the reason he raised voice against the situation as his future was at stake. He was the leader of the union of the labors (Ludwig and David). Therefore he was the one to ask for the security of the labors. After this when he was supported by the other labors he was unethically accused and he was debarred from few facilities. He protested through the means of strikes in front of the factory of the company. The reaction of the business head was passive. He was not ready to listen to the demands of the labors. He showed an adamant behavior towards the labors. The reaction of labors was violent and it ultimately was able to bring about a change in the decision of the management. The business head had to finally to apologize to the union members. This was the final reaction of the manager (Battaly, Heather).

It is while analyzing the behavior of the actors it can be stated that the theory of the pluralists has been applied and it can be suggested to be applied in this case. The pluralist theory is that the organizations comprises of individuals who form distinct sectional groups which has their own area of interests, objectives and leadership (Smith et al). This theory can be applied when there are conflicts between the management and the workers which is the result of the industrial and organizational factors (Ludwig, David). This comprises of not only the industrial disputes and strikes but also the entire range of whole range of opposing and different behaviors between the owners of the industry and the decision makers on one side and the working people and their organization and union on the other side. The theory can be applied in this crisis (Ackers, Peter). The crisis occurred between the managers and the worker unions. It has laid over-emphasis on the interest alone. It overlooked the importance of the values and the cultures (Jørgensen and Knud Erik). The workers in this case show a common interest but they do not share the same value and ethics. The pluralists’ theory is therefore applicable in this case. The interests and the values play an important role in uniting the groups and also in dividing them. However from the analysis of the situation this can be stated that it is not necessary for the identity of the group to be deep rooted on any particular common group interest as some particular common value a significant role in such construction (Acharya, Amitav).

Conclusion

Therefore from the above analysis it can be concluded that conflicts in industrial relations are a common forms of crisis that is observed in almost all industrial sectors. The theories are applied to resolve such issues. The theories are applicable in all crisis situation and they are effective in maximum situations. The actors or the players play an important role in such crisis. The relation between the players is therefore essentially important and it is important to keep the working environment healthy. They are dependent on each other in any situation.

References

Acharya, Amitav. Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge, 2014.

Ackers, Peter. “Rethinking the employment relationship: a neo-pluralist critique of British industrial relations orthodoxy.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25.18 (2014): 2608-2625.

Battaly, Heather. “A Pluralist Theory of Virtue.” Current Controversies in Virtue Theory. Routledge (2015): 7-21.

Booth, Ken, and Toni Erskine, eds. International relations theory today. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. “The end of International Relations theory?.” European Journal of International Relations 19.3 (2013): 405-425.

Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. International Relations Theories. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Ferguson, Yale H. “Diversity in IR theory: Pluralism as an opportunity for understanding global politics.” International Studies Perspectives 16.1 (2015): 3-12. Wallace, Helen, Mark A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young, eds. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015.

Jackson, Robert, and Georg Sørensen. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press, 2015.

Jørgensen, Knud Erik. International relations theory: A new introduction. Springer, 2017.

Light, Margot, and Arthur John Richard Groom, eds. International relations: A handbook of current theory. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.

Ludwig, David. A Pluralist theory of the mind. Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015.

Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne, eds. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford University Press, 2016.