COMPARE AND CONTRAST

7

COMPAREAND CONTRAST

Employeevoice is regarded as an important factor to consider by themanagement due to its purpose. It is believed that one of the vitalpurposes for employee voice entails articulating personaldissatisfaction with an organization. The voice also acts as anexpression of having collective organization to the organization.Besides, it contributes to the decision making of the management anddepicts the mutuality of employee-employer association (detert &ampBurris, 2007. Pp 52). Employee voice can be explained through twoframeworks, which are the two-spectrum model and silence and voicemodel (Batt &amp Keefe, 2000. Pp 64). The practices of collectivebargaining and joint consultation can be used in reacting towardsemployee voice. The two compare and contrast in terms of employeevoice and framework, which will be discussed in this assignment.

Collectivebargaining entails an approach that is used by employees in gettingorganized and negotiating on the working conditions with theemployers. Workers use this method in discussing their expectationsof employment conditions, wages, and working hours (Colosiet al, 2006. Pp 90). On the other hand, joint consultation is anapproach where unions and employers establish committees that promotecooperation in resolving workplace issues. In this case, mediatorsfrom the labor division meet with unions and employers in reaching ata common ground for the issue under discussion. These two practicescompare and contrast in employee voice framework and theory.

Whenit comes to the frameworks, both collective bargaining and jointconsultation are similar in that they support the active constructiveframework in the two-spectrum model. In this case, the partiesinvolved in resolving a workplace issue make suggestions on theissue, union bargains, and a principled solution emerges. However,nowadays, the collective bargaining has decreased the issue of unionbargaining. One of the strengths of employees using this frameworksupported by both collective bargaining and joint consultation isthat there is participative decision making, which implies that thesuggestions made by employees and employers are considered. Besides,the framework has a strength point in that it allows discussions totake place amid the involved parties in order to find an agreeingpoint to the issue. On the other hand, the framework has a weak pointin that it allows protests and only issues that have principleddissent can be discussed. Although both practices can employ thisframework in a two-spectrum model, the collective bargainingsometimes may take the form of active destructive, passiveconstructive, or even passive destructive framework. These frameworkshave a weakness in that they do not encourage participative decisionmaking.

Onthe basis of the voice and silence model, the joint consultation andcollective bargaining have a similarity in that they embrace thismodel since the behavior of employees can be different. According tothe model, an employee can have self-protected, disengaged, orother-oriented motives. Besides, the model proposes that an employeemay have three kinds of silence and voice, which include ProSocial,defensive, and acquiescent (McCabe &amp Lewin, 1992. Pp 78). The twopractices accept this model because employee behavior may changedepending on the motive that he/she has.

Thetwo practices also have a similarity in that they adopt the mediationvoice. In this case, the mediator is usually seen as the channel forvoice. In the mediation voice, the mediator usually enters into adispute amid two conflicting parties and assists in settling andresolving the workplace issue that is under dispute (Sharp,2003. Pp 68). Here, the mediator does not necessarily come up withthe resolving decision, but rather encourages workers to ultimatelydecide. The mediator under consideration in these two practices isthe trade union, which acts as the middleman amid employees andemployers in resolving issues (Kaufmanet al, 2003. Pp 84). The use of this voice has strength in that ithelps in resolving issues in a quick manner, when the issues underdispute do not have much weight. Besides, employees are left with thefull discretion of resolving the issue that is under dispute withouttheir decisions being influenced.

Besides,both the collective bargaining and joint consultation have asimilarity in that both can adopt arbitration voice. In someinstances, there may emerge a workplace dispute, which the mediatormay not be in a position to convince employees to make a judgmentthat resolves the workplace dispute. In such a scenario, thearbitrator becomes involved and helps in resolving the dispute underconsideration by making a binding decision, which is final.Arbitration is usually perceived as the final step in a complaintprocedure and should fully comply with the standards, procedures, andpolicies of employees as spelt in the handbook (Albrecht,2010. Pp 28). In other cases, the two practices embrace the use oftribunals and peer reviews. Just like in the arbitration, thedecision provided is final and binding. Besides, it should be withinthe scope of the employee’s handbook. A strength point of thetribunals is that workers prefer to have a judgment from a jury oftheir peers instead of the decision coming from a manager oradministrator. However, the arbitration and tribunals have a weakpoint because they may take a long time in solving an issue.

Inaddition, both collective bargaining and joint consultation followrepresentative participation approach. The representativeparticipation entails a formal method, which permits employeerepresentation concerning issues of mutual interest it functionsmore like a partnership amid employee and employer that solves issuesin a cooperative manner (Patil,1993. Pp 106). Staff associations or trade unions are examples of therepresentative participation. Although employee voice is usuallyheard, it has to be through an organized channel. Furthermore, thetwo practices differ since joint consultation does not adopt upwardproblem solving communication, which can be adopted by employeespracticing collective bargaining. This is because this communicationapproach is guided by suggestion ideas instead of partner schemes.

Conclusion

Jointconsultation is an approach where unions and employers establishcommittees that promote cooperation in resolving workplace issues. Inthis case, mediators from the labor division meet with unions andemployers in reaching at a common ground. On the other hand,collective bargaining entails an approach that is used by employeesin getting organized and negotiating on the working conditions withthe employers. Collective bargaining and joint consultation have asimilarity in that both can adopt arbitration voice, followrepresentative participation approach, embrace the use of tribunalsand peer reviews, adopt the mediation voice, and embrace the silenceand voice model. Although both practices can employ activeconstructive framework in a two-spectrum model, the collectivebargaining sometimes may take the form of active destructive, passiveconstructive, or even passive destructive framework. Furthermore, thetwo practices differ since joint consultation does not adopt upwardproblem solving communication, which can be adopted by employeespracticing collective bargaining.

ReferenceList

Albrecht,S. L. (2010).&nbspHandbookof employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice.Cheltenham, Glos, UK: Edward Elgar.Armstrong,M. (2006). Handbookof Human Resource Management Practice (10th ed.).London: Kogan Page, Limited.

Batt,R., Colvin, A., &amp Keefe, J. (2002). Employee voice, humanresource practices, and quit rates: Evidence from thetelecommunications industry. Industrial&amp Labor Relations Review,55(4), 573-594.

Colosi,T. R., Berkeley, A. E., &amp American Arbitration Association.(2006).&nbspCollectivebargaining: How it works and why : a manual of theory and practice.Huntington, New York: Juris Pub.

Detert,J. R., &amp Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and EmployeeVoice: Is the Door Really Open? Academyof Management Journal,50(4), 869-884.

Gollan,P. (2005).&nbspVoiceand non-union workplace.Bradford, England: Emerald Group Pub.

InWilkinson, A. (2014).&nbspHandbookof research on employee voice.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kaufman,B. E., Beaumont, R. A., Helfgott, R. B., &amp Industrial RelationsCounselors, inc. (2003).&nbspIndustrialrelations to human resources and beyond: The evolving process ofemployee relations management.Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.

McCabe,D. M., &amp Lewin, D. (1992). Employee Voice: A Human ResourceManagement Perspective. CaliforniaManagement Review,34(3), 112-123.

Patil,B. R. (1993).&nbspCollectivebargaining: Perspectives and practices.London: Sangam.

Saunders,D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., &amp Roth, J. (1992). EmployeeVoice to Supervisors. EmployeeResponsibilities &amp Rights Journal,5(3), 241-259.

Sharp,W. L. (2003).&nbspWinningat collective bargaining: Strategies everyone can live with.Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.

Stueart,R. D., &amp Moran, B. B. (2007). Libraryand Information Center Management (7th Edition ed.).Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Tangirala,S., &amp Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring Nonlinearity in EmployeeVoice: The Effects of Personal Control and OrganizationalIdentification. Academyof Management Journal,51(6), 1189-1203.

VanBuren, H., &amp Greenwood, M. (2008). Enhancing Employee Voice: AreVoluntary Employer-Employee Partnerships Enough? Journalof Business Ethics,81(1), 209-221.