An important aspect in the human resource is employee relations, which shows the efforts which are put in by the companies for managing the relationships which they have with their employer and employees. A good employee relations programme provides fair and consistent treatment of the employees by the organization, which in turn allows the employees to be committed towards being loyal to the organization and towards the job (Gennard and Judge, 2005). Through effective employee relations, the issues raised in the workplace owing to diversified reasons can be resolved and even prevented. This is the reason why employee relation programs are deemed as an important part in the strategy adopted by the human resource department, in order to make sure that the people, as a resource, are used in the most effective manner, and are aligned with the objectives of the organization (Aylott, 2014).
The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices is deemed as a very ambitious attempt towards addressing the changes in the economy of the nation, in which the shift from the traditional way is presented (Walsh, 2017). It examines the relationship between status of the worker, tax and employment law. This report has been prepared for the HR Director in order to focus on the legal implications of the employment relationship, particularly in context of the Taylor Review.
The past decades, particularly since the industrial relations of 1980s in UK have seen a major reform. These key changes include the decline in the recognitions of trade union, membership density, reduced strike activities, increase intervention on law and even the demise of collective bargaining. There have been a number of reforms in the organizations related to new management practices being adopted by employers, and even in restructuring of the labour market. This makes it more important to look at the historical background of employment relations before 1980s, in order to see how they evolved (Gennard and Judge, 2005).
Before 1980s, the main theme of the employee relations for Britain was based on the concept of free collective bargain, which was a term brought forward by Webbs and which had been developed in practice through the trade unions. As per this, the employees’ rights included the determination of wage, and these rights were supported by the organization’s trade unions. Due to the widespread presence of the trade unions during the periods of 1960s and 1970s, they contributed towards the decline in the economy of UK, as the trade unions led to lower productivity and rising unemployment. The employers had faith in the old traditions of unscientific management in which the capital and the costs associated with the technical staff, was kept on the lowest. Any such system where the work had to be organized in a different manner or the labour had to be controlled in a different manner was deemed as a risky venture (Turner, 2013).
The state was never seen as a part of the employee relations, and even as a contributor to the strength of the labour as a result of the trade unions and employers implying voluntarism or collective bargaining, where they did not want any sort of legal interventions. It was believed by the unions that law being present in this regard could take away the workers from being unionised. As the employers wanted productivity and cooperation from the employees, they continued with encouragement of the trade unions. As a result of these issues, till 1960s, the employee relations in UK looked like a problem owing to high strike activities, low wage and low productivity (Honeyball, 2012).
With 1980s and 1990s, the Conservative Governments contributed towards the development of law’s participation in employee relations, along with the Labour Party beyond 1997, where the move was beyond the traditional voluntary approach in the organizations. The Conservative Government denied the approach of pluralists regarding state not being made a part of the employee relations. This led to the trade unions being curbed and the collective bargaining being eradicated as the goal was to restrict the individual employment rights and to provide more freedom to the employers. With the directives of EU and the impact of these on the domestic laws of UK, there was a mismatch of UK and EU policies. All these led to changes being brought in the employment relations (Gennard and Judge, 2005).
Technology also has played a crucial role in the changed dynamics of employment relationship. The evolution of technology has shaped working practices post 1980’s, where along with the changes brought through the different governments, the changes in technology brought new aspects to the working practices. The biggest impact of technology has been the role of majority of the labour work, as the same could be done by the developed machinery (Daniels, 2004). The shift from paper to desktop raised the requirement of change in skill set and reduced issues in the matter of strikes by labour force, as the same was replaced by machinery, which never needed breaks or strikes. However, this does not mean that the human element was eliminated with technology. Instead, with technology, the businesses have grown. Since 1980s, there has been participation of female workforce, which is another crucial change in the human resource segment. However, technology was not a sole factor in this and various socio-economic and political factors also played a crucial part in it (Murray, 2016).
The British had been famous as being notorious for the walkouts and industrial disputes. This was a common parlance back in 1960s and 1970, in such a manner that the employee relations were deemed as a problem through which the governments were brought down. Through the intransigent unions and weak management, industrial chaos was created which resulted in the manifestation of hostility towards change, low productivity, and the high publicized disputes, which weakened the economic power of UK in a fundamental manner. The reputation of the British personnel managers was not improved during 1980s. When human resource management came in 1980s, the personal management became bogged down in form of industrial relations being characterized as fire-fighting, which undermined the claim to being proactive or strategic. This situation was changed in a dramatic manner in the 1990s. The New Right politics, recessions, massive restructuring of majority organizations and restrictive legislation on industrial action resulted in reduced role and power of unions. With the advent of the Employment Relations Act, 1999, the trade union recognition, along with a number of other rights, was revised (HRM Guide, 2017a).
A major change in the labour law of UK was brought through the act of parliament, i.e., through the Employment Relations Act, 1999. Through this act, the employment rights in context of collective, individual and family friendly were set out in Fairness at work in the Labour government (Williams, 2017). This act establishes different rights at work and these include maternity leave, parental leave, unfair dismissal of strikers, industrial action ballots, trade union recognition de-recognition, employment tribunal awards, time off for dependants, employment agencies, and the right to be accompanies at disciplinary and grievance hearings. This act is seen as the most significant, as well as, wide-ranging piece of employment legislation for the nation. The aim of this act is to promote the best practices in employment by helping the parent to combine their work with the family responsibilities, providing minimum standards for employees, and in promoting partnerships between the employers and the workers (Lockton, 2005).
This act was particularly helpful in managing the employment relationship due to the different features offered through it. This act provided the recognition procedure which operates in a smooth manner as the cases are decided in less than half time, in addition to the rarity in legal challenges and inter-union disputes. Through this act, a voluntary settlement of recognition claims was encouraged and this is widely used by the unions and the employers. Through this act, changes were brought in order to bring clarity to law in addition to the efficiency. This included the provisions of early access rights to the unions in the recognition cases. This act also clarified the right to be accompanied which allows the companions to contribute towards the grievance or disciplinary hearings (HRM Guide, 2017b).
This act also provided for a new legal right for the workers for accessing the services of unions. This act has allowed the strengthening of rights to belong to a union in a manner which is fair for both the employer and employees. This allows the employer to continue the work without the threat of strikes and at the same time giving the employees the right to be accompanied during disciplinary meetings, so that their rights can be safeguarded (Collins, 2010). This act also provides for reforms being brought into the tribunal awards for the unfair dismissal, which again ensures that the rights of the employees are safeguarded and they are not dismissed from the workplace without proper procedure being followed. Thus, the employee relations are effectively managed through this act and at the same times this act allows to curb the menace present before 1980s, particularly in context of the trade unions (Barnett and Scrope, 2008).
The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices, in words of Richard Fox and Graham Farquhar has come at the right time and has examined the different aspects of employee relationship. It has been argued by some factions that the adoption of this review proposal would allow the employment law of UK to be more accurately reflective of the modern workplace. These two have welcomed the findings of it as it would allow the employers in being fair and transparent to their employees (Fox and Farquhar, 2017). However, there are certain flaws in the proposals presented by Taylor.
The first shortfall is one related to self-employment. Taylor has rightly identified the changing labour market, which has resulted in self-employment being on rise, particularly due to the innovative ideas causing the policy makers to question on the present norms and the manner in which the present legislative framework fits such developments (UK Government, 2017). There is thus a need for flexibility in the labour market. But in bringing these talks about labour market, Taylor failed to clarify on what exactly self-employment is. Taylor has been right in stating the flexibility is require both ways and that the businesses and consumers, along with the economy of UK benefit from the flexibility offered by gig economy workers, freelances, self-employed and the zero hours contracts. Self-employment had to be able to decide on how a person works and when they would work, where fitting is done around responsibilities and commitments like childcare. To show the advantage of self-employment, Taylor refereed to the rise in freelancing mothers by 79% in past 8 years. However, there is a need to clarify where individuals can be misclassified as self-employed. Even though the report goes towards it, the report requires clear legislation on status and also requires a statutory definition of self-employment. At present, this is a default category assigned to the ones who are neither workers nor employees. But to take someone s genuinely self-employed, there is a need to get clarity on what exactly is self employment (Chamberlain, 2017).
Another problem with the Taylor review is that there is an absence of serious suggestions towards enforcement as there are no measures which can address the breaches or could remove the obstructive fees for the employment tribunals. Another issue which is worrying is that the review suggests that the introduction of piece rate legislation would result in the minimum wages being undermined (Taylor, 2017). The platforms would compensate the workers on the basis of output provided they can show that they have availability of average individual, working averagely hard through their output, which clears the National Minimum Wage where there is 20% margin of error the problem with this stems from the companies involved in gig economy having history of data obstruction. An example of this is Uber using the Greyball tool where false information had been provided to the enforcement officials. This leaves very little chance of accurate information having being used in such calculations. It had been claimed by Taylor at the start of this process that Theresa May would be told regarding what exactly is wrong in the modern work. However, after the publication of this review, Taylor argued on the work done in the report being brilliant and that the criticism on this was people not getting the review (Woodcock, 2017).
Conclusion and Recommendations
On the basis of the discussion which took place in the previous sections, it became clear that employee relations, is an important aspect of the human resource department of any organization and even in the subject of human resource. The previous segments highlighted the history of employee relations, particularly before 1980s, where the trade unions wreaked havoc on the economy of UK and the employers were left at the mercy of such unions. However, with changes in government and changes in time, new legislations were brought in. A key piece of legislation which ensured that the interests of both employers and employees were secured was the Employment Act 1999 which provided the employers the freedom of being free of trade unions and at the same time gave the employees the right to have the presence of unions with them during disciplinary or grievance hearings. Thus, the changes in the law changed the course of employee relations to work towards the economy of UK rising, instead of bringing it down. Technology also played a crucial role in employee relations as it eliminated the reliance over workforce, and at the same time, brought forward a more skilled workforce.
Another important discussion which was carried on in the previous segment was related to the Taylor Review which had been presented for improving upon the management of employee relationship. The two proposals which had been discussed in the previous segment were of self-employment and the introduction of piece rate legislation. The reason for criticism of these points were due to the lack of clear definition on self-employment and the history of data obstruction by the companies involved in gig economy. As a result of this, two key recommendations can be chalked out for the company. In absence of clarity on self-employment, there is a need for the company to chalk out what would be deemed as self-employment and what would not be deemed as so. This would bring clarity particularly for the freelancers and even for the employees of the company in being clear on when they can attain the advantages of self-employment. The second recommendation is related to the company following the proposal of Taylor in true sense and not indulging in data obstruction. For this, there is a need for the company to chalk out such a policy which acts as an example for others, instead of being a bad example like Uber. Apart from this, another recommendation for the company is to take the good out of the proposals of Taylor and implement these in the company policies, even when the same is not adopted by the government.
References
Aylott, E. (2014) Employee Relations. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Barnett, D., and Scrope, H. (2008) Employment Law Handbook. 4th ed. London: Law Society.
Chamberlain, A. (2017) The Taylor review overlooks the big issue – clarifying what self-employment is. [Online] The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jul/12/matthew-taylor-overlooks-the-big-issue-clarifying-self-employment-review-modern-working-practices [Accessed on: 07/12/17]
Collins, H. (2010) Employment Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daniels, K. (2004) Employment Law for HR and Business Students. London: CIPD Publishing.
Fox, R., and Farquhar, G. (2017) What the Taylor review says about tax and employment. [Online] CIPD. Available from: https://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2017/07/25/what-the-taylor-review-says-about-tax-and-employment.aspx [Accessed on: 07/12/17]
Gennard, J., and Judge, G. (2005) Employee Relations. 4th ed. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Honeyball, S. (2016) Honeyball & Bowers’ Textbook on Employment Law. 14th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HRM Guide. (2017a) Employee relations in the UK. [Online] HRM Guide. Available from: https://www.hrmguide.co.uk/hrm/chap12/ch12-links2.htm [Accessed on: 07/12/17]
HRM Guide. (2017b) Review finds that Employment Relations Act is ‘working well’. [Online] HRM Guide. Available from: https://www.hrmguide.co.uk/relations/employment_relations_act.htm [Accessed on: 07/12/17]
Lockton, D. (2005) Employment Law. London: Psychology Press.
Murray, A. (2016) Information Technology Law: The Law and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, M. (2017) Taylor Review Of Modern Working Practices. [Online] UK Government. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627671/good-work-taylor-review-modern-working-practices-rg.pdf [Accessed on: 07/12/17]
Turner, C. (2013) Unlocking Employment Law. Oxon: Routledge.
UK Government. (2017) Good Work. [Online] UK Government. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627671/good-work-taylor-review-modern-working-practices-rg.pdf [Accessed on: 07/12/17]
Walsh, R. (2017) Analysis: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices. [Online] Cover. Available from: https://www.covermagazine.co.uk/cover/opinion/3013652/taylor-review [Accessed on: 07/12/17]
Williams, S. (2017) Introducing Employment Relations. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woodcock, J. (2017) What’s Wrong with Modern Work? On the failure of the Taylor Review. [Online] Pluto Press. Available from: https://www.plutobooks.com/blog/modern-work-failure-taylor-review/ [Accessed on: 07/12/17]
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download