AVP - UP SOLAIR: 2008, The Year That Was. Happy viewing :-)
Individual responsibility and accountability. Independence and self-reliance. Productivity.
AVP - UP SOLAIR: 2008, The Year That Was. Happy viewing :-)
The fields of Industrial Relations formerly known as the Institutional Labor Economics and the School of Personnel Management (originally known as Employment Management) which later on evolved into what is called at present as Human Resource are seen as two separate and distinct areas of studies and specialization. Tracing its origins and development the two areas are the responses in order to identify the causes of labor problems as well as to provide resolution to those problems which is very much inherent in the domain of labor and capital in the industry.
At the outset of the establishment as academic inquiries and practices in the commercial and business organizations, labor problems were seen as unitary and capitalist in nature wherein there is a general struggle between labor and capital over the control of production and distribution. However, another view was introduced which defied that particular perspective. It was pluralistic by character which recognizes that labor problems may not solely be the cause of labor-management conflict but may take different forms such as those that afflict both employers and workers. Moreover, it was seen not only as existing under a capitalist economy but also in socialist system. These labor problems provide the central position of investigation in the field of Industrial Relations. It defines the field as including those problems of human behavior involved in the reciprocal relations of the worker with four types of situation - the laborer’s work, fellow-worker, worker’s employer and the public. Industrial Relations was believed to lead increased efficiency in the organization through the means of improved production methods, motivation and cooperation between management and workers. These labor problems were recognized as field specific and were then labeled as personnel problems. As the labor problems were streamlined so as the schools of thoughts themselves. As Industrial Relations focuses in the study of key forms of behavior focusing on the employment relationship a new field of personnel management was being formed.
Industrial Relations was then viewed as the inquiry and Human Resource as a practice. Personnel management or Human Resource emerged as a fusion of Scientific Management and welfare work which then evolved with the emergence of human relations movement. Personnel management maintains the view that the root cause of labor problems and conflict between labor and management is not intrinsic in the defects of the capital market but in the organizational and administrative practices of the management. Hence, labor problems are management problems and improved industrial relations is a responsibility on the part of the management.
Both try to take forward the knowledge on the varying aspects of the employment relationship such as problems in the prevailing business practices as well as the working conditions faced by the workers. Furthermore, both try to seek reforms in the workplace and achieve efficient employee-employer relations or employment relationships.
Departure of Human Resource from the field of Industrial Relations
The major point of disagreement between Industrial Relations and Human Resource is on the discussion on the most effective way to resolve labor problems and appropriate role to be played by the labor unions and collective bargaining. Moreover, it is deemed as the former is more concerned with the organized and unionized relationship in the workplace while the latter is centered in the individual work relationship of labor and management. Human Resource believes that alternative forms of industrial democracy or joint representation other than having labor unions and collective bargaining could materially take forward both the interests of the workers and the management.
Another point of contention between the two areas is on the view on improving the work and work relations of both workers and employers. In order to achieve the goals of Industrial Relations which are improved efficiency, equity and human well-being in the workplace industrial democracy, social justice and societal and institutional transformation should be employed. On the other hand, Human resource posits that achievement of those could be attained by creating an organizational climate that promotes a mutuality of interests between management and labor and high levels of job satisfaction and productivity among the workers.
Convergence of IR and HR
The field of industrial Relations and Human Resource are of the same view and analysis that there is a need for employment reformation. They also maintain similar views on the essential elements of reform to achieve increased efficiency and those could be achieved through the means of improved production methods, motivation, supervision, and cooperation between management and workers, greater equity in pay, good working conditions among others. Both have recognized that in order to resolve the problems it is important to take into consideration the human factor in structuring and managing work.
The two schools of thought believed that the autocratic, master-servant type of employment relations between workers and the management should be replaced with the type that would foster decent and fair treatment to its workers such as appropriate representation rights and due process in the establishment. Moreover, the two fields believed that the basic institutions of capitalism, private property and free labor markets should be maintained as these elements are the underpinnings of work and employment in which both workers and employers are apparently part of.
In the current context of Industrial Relations and Human Resource both as fields of study and as practices in the organization, the convergence is as follows:
_________
Note: The discussion with reference to the ideas, concepts and principles of both IR and HR were derived from the references below.
References:
ANTO COMETA
ILO says global financial crisis to increase unemployment by 20 million
GENEVA (ILO News) ─The global financial crisis could increase world unemployment by an estimated 20 million women and men, the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO) said today. “We need prompt and coordinated government actions to avert a social crisis that could be severe, long-lasting and global”, he added.
Based on revised global growth estimates by the International Monetary Fund (Note 1) (IMF), the UN and early reports suggesting rising job losses for most countries where data was available, ILO Director-General Juan Somavia said the ILO’s preliminary estimates indicated that the “number of unemployed could rise from 190 million in 2007 to 210 million in late 2009.”
Mr. Somavia added that “the number of working poor living on less than a dollar a day could rise by some 40 million – and those at 2 dollars a day by more than 100 million”.
Mr. Somavia also said that the current crisis would hit hardest such sectors as construction, automotive, tourism, finance, services and real estate. He also noted that the new projections “could prove to be underestimates if the effects of the current economic contraction and looming recession are not quickly confronted”.
“This is not simply a crisis on Wall Street, this is a crisis on all streets. We need an economic rescue plan for working families and the real economy, with rules and policies that deliver decent jobs. We must link better productivity to salaries and growth to employment”, Mr. Somavia said.
“Protecting and promoting sustainable enterprises and decent work opportunities must be at the heart of the Summit on the Financial Crisis recently announced by Presidents Bush and Sarkozy”, he added. “We must return to the basic function of finance, which is to promote the real economy. To lend so that entrepreneurs can invest, innovate, produce jobs and goods and services.”
Mr. Somavia said his concerns included restoring credit flows; maintaining and enhancing social protection, including pensions, unemployment benefits, child support and health care schemes; ensuring enterprise access to credit to avoid layoffs, wage cuts, bankruptcy and permit recovery, respect for workers’ rights and deepening social dialogue to deal with the impact on enterprises; ensuring ODA flows; rebuilding a regulatory regime for global finance; and moving quickly from recovery to sustainable development through investment and growth.
“We welcome the current calls for better financial regulation and a global surveillance system of checks and balances, but we must reach beyond the financial system”, the ILO Director-General said.
“Long before the current financial crisis, we were already in a crisis of massive global poverty and growing social inequality, rising informality and precarious work – a process of globalization that had brought many benefits but had become unbalanced, unfair, and unsustainable”, he said. “We need to get the balance right and concentrate on rescuing people and production. It’s about saving the real economy.”
“In order to keep open economies and open societies going, we must begin working together among relevant international organizations to develop a new multilateral framework for a fair and sustainable globalization. Trade talks are stalled; financial markets are on the brink, climate change continues; any reconstruction will have to find ways to integrate financial and economic, social and labour and environmental policies in a common sustainable development approach”, he said.
“This is the time to think and act in bold and innovative ways to confront the huge challenges before us, particularly for the United Nations”, Mr. Somavia said, referring to the forthcoming meeting next weekend of the United Nations Chief Executives Board (CEB) chaired by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.
Note 1 – The IMF’s World Economic Outlook issued on 8 October projected 3.2 per cent global growth for 2009, down from its original projection of 4.6 per cent for 2008. In 2006 and 2007 projections were 5.5 and 5.6 per cent respectively.
Basic rights given to all Filipino workers as outlined in Article 13 Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
One of the major violations committed by a lot of companies in the country is the use (or misuse) of the non-compete clause in the job contracts given to newly hired employees. A non-compete clause is a proviso used by companies to primarily protect its business from competitors such as disclosure of valuable information central to the operations or essential details that define the merchandise or goods of the business. It is an agreement wherein the employee is not allowed to engage in a similar profession or trade in competition against the company for a certain period.
This particular condition could only be used or is applicable only to those occupying key positions in the organization. Those key positions are those who have or possess by virtue of their function the trade secret(s) of the business such as management level positions and those whose function(s) are deemed crucial to the product or service as dictated by the nature of the business. However, the abovementioned clause is very much exploited (if I may use the word in the context of over utilization) as a lot of organizations predominantly those who tend to impose such across all positions (primarily rank and file posts) in their organization. If the said clause is to be required or used as a “security bond” to those workers who do not fall under the category of having the business’ trade secret it is deemed as an infringement of the right of the worker. This in conflict with the stipulation set forth by the Philippine Labor Code Article 12b which asserts that every individual desiring to work either locally or abroad should be given protection by securing the best employment terms and conditions.
Preventing the worker to fully realize his or her value and potential by limiting the marketability of the individual is a blind alley not only for the firm but also has a distressing impact on the country. Limiting the worker to find a job after leaving the organization could lead to unemployment. It is more of a deterrent than what is said to protect the business from loosing its footing in the market. It increases the social costs as well as hampers the growth and development of the country’s economy.
Just after I was discharged from the hospital I finished my thirteen-page (nice number isn’t it?) policy paper for my Labor Law II class (IR 207.2 – Labor Standards, Justice and Equity). It dealt with some provisions from the Philippine Labor Code as well as the country’s Constitution that need to be modified and reinforced in order to address some issues that the labor sector specifically the women workforce is currently facing. To be quite honest about it, I’m not that pleased with the output. It was rushed since it was already due and I still have to review for my final exam for that same course. Luckily, I already finished all the requirements from my other class before I was hospitalized and that’s the remaining class that I have to deal with. Anyway, I already took my final exam and just right after I forwarded my test paper to my lawyer professor - Fiscal Gerardo Sadsad I just realized that it was the end of my semester. It was indeed tedious yet exultant semester for me.