Work and The Employment Relationship from The Labour Process Perspective
In the contemporary business era, labour and employment relationship seems worthy, as it can create a positive impact on business outcomes. However, it has been revealed that corporations usually contain poor work and employment relationships, which does not go in favour of labour and organization. In this essay, the emphasis is on work and employment relations with the perspective of labour. The elaboration of different forms of work under capitalism is also an integral part of this essay. The whole essay will be supported by several theories, as it can help to build critical narratives (Knights & Willmott, 2016).
The work and employment relationship can be demonstrated by stating the labour process theory. This theory can also be referred to as the late Marxist. This theory indicates the process by which labour or employees are materialized or objectified. Work under capitalism suggests that labour is not treated well in an organization, especially in capitalism. For instance, organizations just use labour as objectives or material to produce business outcomes and earn money. This labour process theory also indicates multiple elements. In short, it can be said that the aspects of the labour process are three-fold. For instance, work, objects, instruments are three elements, which enable the labour process (Knights & Willmott, 2016).
Now, with the perspective of labour, it is not enough, as these are not motivational factors. Under capitalism, it has been revealed that employees or labour is treated in a systematic way, which always leads to a poor working relationship. From the perspective of labour, the management of the company has to make a dynamic, flexible, enjoyable work environment to set the foundation for a better labour relationship. Labour always aims to expect other than ordinary work and engagement activities. It is a fact that the work is still well controlled by company management. With the perspective of labour, the work is controlled from the top level due to a lack of trust. Trust is one of the critical foundations or principles in an organization or workplace to make and sustain a better relationship. The labour force must be trusted at the workplace, which can ultimately drive a sustainable relationship (Lyness, Gornick, Stone, & Grotto, 2012).
The hurdle or barrier regarding the work and employment relationship can also be portrayed through labour power and its transformation. Karl Marx, when opposing political economy under capitalism, considers or perceives the labour just as a capacity. The capacity of the organization to produce goods or services is critical, which makes work just work. In an organization under capitalism, an employer pays the labour force as he directs people to use equipment or tools to produce something. Interestingly, an employer or organization owns the outcomes. It seems a traditional relationship between workers and employers, as they just have to perform their duties or produce goods, which are owned by employers, and get money. The link seems worse, as there is no social bonding in this regard. Now, when it comes to the labour transformation, the dynamics are changed (Sartelli & Kabat, 2014).
For Instance, Karl Marx intended to define the hours for the ordinary skilled person to produce the commodity. The capitalist may aim to reduce the number of hours to deliver the product, as it has to reduce the time spent on material acquisition and navigation for several tools and equipment in the production process. Again, the transformation of the labour is not associated with the work and employment relationship, as the connection is not built to manage working hours and double the production capacity. In an organization, labour and employment relationships are always in jeopardy because the labour power is also controlled from the top level. The organization working under capitalism does not intend to implement autonomy at the bottom-level. With the perspective of labour, the relationship can be built and sustained by making the labour force decide what time is required to complete the expected commodity or product. The physical and mental capacity of the labour cannot be the same, as it varies in individuals. It can be said that the work and implement relationship is getting worse due to a lack of autonomy at the bottom-level (Lyness, Gornick, Stone, & Grotto, 2012).
In modern organizations, containing emotional and sentimental attachments with the labour force is imperative to reduce the turnover and set the foundation for the long-term relationship. Emotional labour is a process of integrating or meeting the emotional requirement of labour at different job positions. The work and employment relationship is based on emotional integration, as the employee may create a perception of the company. Instead of just taking work from employees and providing appropriate tools and equipment, the company management or the employer must take initiatives to create social bonding. Creating emotional and sentimental attachments with people is always better to change their behaviour and interests. It can be said that emotional integration or attachments can stimulate the capacity of labour to work on the principal interest (Knights & Willmott, 2016).
Work control triggers the relationship between labour and employer. In a centralized structure, which is usually visible in a capitalist state, the work is always controlled at the top level. The company management fails to sustain better relationships with employees because it does not consider the employee’s interests, intentions, behaviour, concerns, and requirements. Work is controlled due to work planning, and a lack of employee participation has been always a significant barrier in this whole context. With the perspective of labour, the relationship with the organization or employer can be sustained if the organization provides values for labour in the work planning. Work plan and control at the top level cannot generally be accepted at the bottom-level of the workplace. In modern organizations, which contain a decentralized structure, believe in the better labour employment relationship, and it is possible by enabling the participation in the work planning and control. In a capitalist society, work is controlled to set the right direction and meet organizational goals. It seems the right approach, but labour’s participation is mandatory to shape and sustain the relationship (Lyness, Gornick, Stone, & Grotto, 2012).
Workforce diversity is always in the limelight, as it also creates a positive or negative impact on the labour and employment relationship. In the workplace, the labour force can be triggered by different skills, experiences, backgrounds, ethnic differences, and cultural values. Thus, if the company does not contain diversity and inclusion in the workplace, it may lead to bad or worse labour and employment relationships. Diversity and inclusion have become one of the main strategies in modern organizations to reduce conflicts or disputes. Even the management or employer can struggle due to conflict or dispute due to these differences or gaps. With the perspective of labour, these differences are to be rest respected to work on the same agenda (Goswami & Kishor, 2018).
The concept or theory or social exchange theory comes to life when it comes to labour and employment relationships. For instance, social exchange theory indicates a notion that the relationship between two individuals is based on the cost-benefit analysis (Pattnaik, 2018). The association is based on the effort that is poured by the individual in person-to-person relationship (Lin, Chen, Su, & Chao, 2019). It is a fact that the advantages and disadvantages of the link always produce or help to obtain the information, which can further help or facilitate in determining the efforts for the relationship. Interestingly, this theory works without emotional metrics, as it is based on the systematic process to determine the balance in a relation (Lin, Chen, Su, & Chao, 2019).
From the perspective of labour, it has been revealed the labour and employment relationship is based on efforts by both sides. The management can engage employees and create a friendly environment to sustain a better relationship. On the other hand, a good or better relationship can be justified if the labour force puts its efforts in the workplace to produce outcomes or commodities according to expectations and goals and objectives of organizations. It can be said efforts by the labour force must depict some benefits for the employer, and it can set the foundation to build a relationship. Efforts by both management and labour can be referred to as cost, and better relationships can be perceived benefit (Iszatt-White, 2013).
The rediscovery of the labour process has coincided with the conjecture of material and ideological consensus. According to this theory, the labour and employment relationship is always based on ideological consensus. The management of the company or employer may have to idealize an environment in which it can build an ideal consensus with labour to avoid contradictions and conflicts. The best way that is coined by Chris Smith is that ideological consensus is always a better option for the employer and labour to shape and sustain the relationship. It is a fact that labour has been rediscovered in organizations due to the absence of collectivism. Labour or individual employees are usually reluctant when intending to work with the employers or management to produce multiple outcomes. Different forms of work organization under capitalism may depict the ideal relationship by conducting the ideal consensus, and it is one of the best ways to build and sustain the relationship (Lloyd, 2017).
Karl Marx’s theory is always quite visible when it comes to labour and the market. If any type of organization works under capitalism aims to produce any economic good, the value can be perceived by determining the number of hours in the production. According to Karl Marx’s theory, the value of the developed economic product can be determined objectively by average labour hours (numbers) in production. Again, labour hours to produce the particular economic product or commodity can be perceived with the perspective of labour. If the company uses the average number of hours to create an economic product, it can lead to labour satisfaction. If the employer aims to increase instead of a decrease in working hours to streamline the organizational benefits, it may lead to an impaired relationship. Therefore, with the perspective of labour, the theory of Karl Marx is quite relevant and authentic (Potts, 2014).
Braverman Theory can also be related to labour perspectives. According to Braverman’s theory, employers or organizations working under capitalism always steal worker’s skills. It is a fact that the company owns the worker’s skills, which were previously owned by workers or people in society. The remuneration or return for labour is quite less, which does not justify the efforts when producing the economic product or commodity. The theory also indicates that the company always reduces the pleasurable nature of work. The work environment has become hectic and frustrating for labour, and still, they have to do work or produce goods to earn money. It can be said that the employer exploits the opportunity to have a vast labour force with appropriate skills in society. The employer is always in a better position to control employees. If people or individuals in the workplace contain fewer skills or competencies, the employee has a right to cut wages. The increase in the amount of exertion when required is also an employer’s consideration. Braverman depicts many insights regarding the labour and employment relationship. This theory can set the foundation for corporations to improve the internal business environment, particularly the workplace, to build a better relationship between employer and labour. The most important thing for the company is to identify the needs of employees, especially in the workplace (Sartelli & Kabat, 2014).
In the end, it is to include that the labour and employment relationship must be improved to create a good impact on business outcomes and contribute to society effectively. In this comprehensive essay, the emphasis was on multiple perspectives of labour in organizations that work under capitalism. Several theories and concepts have set the foundation in this essay to build narratives. Still, this essay seems open, as more theories are to be incorporated to come up with new arguments or narratives. Labour perspectives have revealed the main reasons or implications regarding impaired labour and the employment relationship. The essay can be used as a source for the company to shape better labour strategies. Labour and employment relationship is a key to sustainable growth, and it is justified by integrating with theories.
References
Goswami, S., & Kishor, B. (2018). Exploring the Relationship between Workforce Diversity, Inclusion and Employee Engagement. Drishtikon : A Management Journal, 9(1), 65-89.
Iszatt-White, M. (2013). Leadership As Emotional Labour: Management and the ‘Managed Heart’. Routledge.
Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (2016). Labour Process Theory. Springer.
Lin, J.-T., Chen, P.-C., Su, C.-Y., & Chao, C.-m. (2019). Behavioral Intention To Undertake Health Examinations: Transaction Cost Theory And Social Exchange Theory. International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 11(4), 100-112.
Lloyd, A. (2017). Ideology at work: reconsidering ideology, the labour process and workplace resistance. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 37(5/6), 266-279.
Lyness, K. S., Gornick, J. C., Stone, P., & Grotto, A. R. (2012). It’s All about Control: Worker Control over Schedule and Hours in Cross-National Context. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 1023-1049.
Pattnaik, A. (2018). Social Exchange Theory: Revisiting The Scaffolding Of Psychological Contract. Vidwat, 11(1), 9-12.
Potts, N. (2014). An Unacceptable Misrepresentation: Dismissing Marx’s Value Theory By Deliberately Distorting The Temporal Single System Interpretation Of Marx. World Review of Political Economy, 5(1), 96-116.
Sartelli, E., & Kabat, M. (2014). Where did Braverman go wrong? A Marxist response to the politicist critiques/Onde está errado Braverman? A resposta marxista às críticas politicistas. Cadernos Ebape.Br, 12(4), 829-850.
