Employment relations in France-Free-Samples -Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Compare and Contrast the role that the State Plays in the System of Employment relations in France. Answer: Introduction Employment relation is concerned with employment issues that face employees each day including unemployment. It also deals with ways in which individuals, groups, organizations and the state represent and promote their concerns. Employment relation also deals with ways of managing and regulating conflict in the workplace and other parts (Lewis Sargeant, 2009). The role of the state in this aspect is critical and has a great impact on the general countrys labour market. Different nations have different approaches or ways of handling the various aspects of employee relation. Thus, this has affected their employment in a variety of ways depending on the approach taken. A focus on France and Denmark reveals that they both have similarities and certain differences in their employee relations. France as a country has a population of 65 million people with collective bargaining coverage at 98%. The country operates with a dualistic structure. On the other hand, in Denmark, the population is around 6 million with collective bargaining coverage of 80%. Similarly, it also operates with a dualistic structure. Again, both of these countries have political stability and have not had a serious political challenge, and thus they have enjoyed a good state of political wellness. A stable political state has, in turn, led to an economic system which is well established in both countries (Pinder, 2008). Besides, it has been observed that Germany is the main import and export partner for both countries. In both of the countries, the most important sectors of the economy are public administration, industry, defense, human health, education and social work activities, transport, wholesale and retail trade, accommodation and food services (Whalen, 2008). These sectors of the economy work together to the form the whole government economic system that drives these nations. Both France and Denmark have diversification in their culture, and thus, they contain a range of communities of people who have different cultural practices. Also, their beliefs and religions are different thus the countries have Christianity, Muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and many others. Therefore, laws that are passed have to accommodate everybody (Baert, 2016). Collective Bargaining This is a process that involves negotiation of terms of employment between employers and employees. In France and Denmark, the standard principles of contract laws do not apply to employees in these countries. Most employees in both countries are covered by collective bargaining agreements, regardless of whether they operate in a unionized environment. Over 80% of employees are supported by collective bargaining. Therefore, in both France and Denmark collective bargaining plays an essential role in protecting the human rights and demands of the employees in a united way (Bryan Vinchur, 2012). In both countries, collective bargaining operates at national, industry and company levels. Pay and employment conditions vary according to the levels in the countries. In Denmark, the main collective agreements are between unions and employers (Paul Rebecca, 2008). The employers include central government and associations for the regional and local government. However, where there no union delegates, employees can also determine pay and reach negotiations. In France industry level agreements are very significant while to both countries negotiations at the company level is most important (Muchinsky, 2012). National level negotiations in Denmark and France cover a broad range of issues wherein most countries are under the legislation. The issues addressed include social security and industrial relations. At the industry level, bargaining has covered pay, pay structures, leave, financial anticipation, equality between men and women, training, a range of other working conditions and increased flexibility in working time. There is no single national minimum wedge in both countries. The states in the countries have a way that helps the employer to be in good terms with the employee. This is done when bargaining covers pay, leave equality and flexibility as it is one of the reasons employees collide with their employers (Cheung and Ian, 2012). Therefore, both France and Denmark play a critical role in addressing the employees grievances through collective bargaining. Trade Unions There exists certain of differences that exist in the trade union aspect of the employment relation in France and Denmark. Union density in France is low because they have only 8% of employees in unions. In Denmark, density of the union is high though it has decreased for the past few years to two-thirds of the workforce (Smith, 2009). The France union is divided into many confederations, and the Denmark union is divided into three confederations, and all of these confederations compete for membership. The unions strongly support elections for employee representatives for the mobilization of workers. Therefore, this brings out the differences that exist in employment relation system of France and Denmark (Weathers, 2009). In both countries, there is competition or rivalry for winning the members between the businesses, although the reasons for the differences are not always precise. Some of the unions in France are (CGT, FO, CFTC, CFDT and CFE-CGC). Denmark has the following unions (LO, FTF, and Akademikerne which was initially known as AC). There can be differences due to positions that are put forward for leadership and those that are supported by the members. Although these confederations might have their differences, they work together and have good relations to ensure that the economy of the country is the one that comes first (Fulton, 2015). Therefore, this has helped the countries to grow due to prioritization of the countrys economy above others. The unions in these countries especially in Denmark organized for campaigns to obtain new members particularly the young generation and the immigrant workers. On the contrary, in France, despite trade unions having weaknesses in membership, they have been able to mobilize members to protest so that the government can change its policy (Ilsoe, 2007). This was the system that the government had put across of having new employment contracts for young workers in the country. Failure for the government to lay down strategies that ensure that it stays at an agreement with the unions usually deteriorates the economy due to reduced productivity of the labor force in the nation. Therefore, the state has to ensure that the government and the unions are in good terms and both have an agreement to enhance the economy of the country. Workplace Representation As a similarity, in both France and Denmark, there is a complex system of employee representation, and therefore, unions are at the center of workplace representation. Local union delegates take the employees issues to the union, mostly they are members of the information and advisory body. The difference is that in France, there are also large numbers of structures that provide representation for employees for both the trade union and the workforce. In both countries, there are several trade union representatives in a single workforce (Wilson, 2007). Trade unions that have high membership levels in Denmark are the ones that provide the basis of workers delegate while France, its trade unions available in a company are enabled to set up trade union parts that bring together workers at their workplaces, and they carry specific legal rights. In France, trade union delegates are appointed by companies that consist of more than 50 employees, and they have a duty to play both within the union and on behalf of the other employees. In Denmark, where there are more than five employees one can be elected. Trade union delegate takes the employees concerns with the employer and can bargain locally on pay and work time arrangements (Hyman, 2009). In Denmark, trade union representatives are given a lot of priority that those of France do not have. The work place representation in both countries has a legal basis of rights and duties. In France, there are two elected bodies which are employee delegate and the workers council that are chosen at the company level, industry level or plant level that represent legal issues together with rights. While in Denmark, representation of legal matters is done by having a collective agreement between employers' federation and the unions. In France, a workers council and the health and safety committees are separate while in Denmark, the work council are merged together with the health and safety committee (Lewis and Sargeant, 2009). Although in France the possibility of combining the two bodies was introduced in legislation on social dialogue and employment enacted in the year 2015. Both countries, consist of separate agreements for agriculture and finance and in public sector separate agreements for the central, local and regional governments. In both countries, the major role of trade unions representatives is to protect the interests of the people, represent the unions both to workers and employer and good relationships within the workforce. This is done through ensuring that the collective agreements are well applied, acting as the eye for union activity, for example, carrying out campaigns and recruitments, and being included in workplace negotiations. Thus, the role of the state in both countries is to ensure good relations are maintained in the workplace for the good economy of the country. Therefore, workplace representation remains to be important for the critical for the performance of the labor of the nation since it is a channel through which the grievances of the employees are heard and addressed (Commission of the European Community, 2007). Health and Safety In both countries, the employer is fully responsible for the safety and health of the employees. The employer can possibly make sure that the workers are mentally and physically fit to carry out their duties. Health and safety committee represents the employees to ensure they are in good health and they are safe. In France, the health and safety committee is the one that deals with employee's health and safety issues in the large workforce. In the small workplaces, health and safety of the committee are taken by employee delegates. This happens differently in Denmark because, small workplaces deal with the sing-tier body and to a great workplace, and there is a two-tier structure. This involves lower level safety working groups and higher level safety committees. In Denmark, unions and employers can agree on different arrangements of health and safety. In both countries, a health and safety committee is set up in a large workforce where day-to-day tasks involve strategic health and safety issues. The committee in both countries is chaired by the employer or the employer's representative and employee representatives that increase according to the number of staff. Those delegates that deal with health and safety issues in France are elected if there are at least 11 employees (Befort and Budd, 2009). A single employee is chosen as a delegate if there are 11 to 25 employees and two delegates are appointed for workplaces if there are 26 to 74 employees, while in Denmark, smallest companies are with nine or fewer employees, and health and safety issues are dealt directly between employer and employees. The role of the health and safety committee in both countries is to carry out analysis on the workplace hazards that may face employees, for example, the disabled and pregnant women. Carry out analysis of the extent to which an employee is exposed to the risk. The committee contributes to the avoidance of occupational hazards. In the case of an accident or work-related illness, the committee investigates to prevent an occurrence of the same. The committee also coordinates health and safety activities with other companies that are present in the same location. All these roles come up to ensure the employer health-wise does not mistreat any employee. When health and safety areas, the employees are likely to perforce better which in turn boosts the economy of the country (Budd and Bhave, 2008). Protection against Dismissal In France, the employee delegates and representatives can only be dismissed from the health and safety committee if the delegate has had a discussion with the employer, and also consulted with the works council and it has been approved by the labour inspector. On the contrary, in Denmark dismissal can only occur if the union has been told and all proceedings have been carried out and ended. However, the employee also is not disadvantaged due to the activities carried out as a safety representative (Budd Bhave, 2010). Having employee delegates and representatives in the health and safety committee ensures that all the employee grievances regarding the subject addressed. These two states therefore, have done this to ensure that the delegates are not mistreated by their employers, and their rights are protected Financial Participation In both countries, the state has ensured that employees are involved in financial participation. These countries are one of the leaders in European countries where participation schemes are widely spread. The support of the state for employee financial participation is stronger compared to other countries in Europe. Companies that consist more than 50 employees in France have a law that requires them to offer prof-sharing scheme (Abu, 2007). In Denmark, employee financial participation has been a debate since the 1960s. In France, the state support for employee participation has been existent since 1950's. The employee participation began as income and wealth redistribution that had no tax incentives. This was not successful, and therefore the state introduced tax incentives and has been a success up to now. Currently, there are regulations that govern gain-sharing and employee savings. The financial participation in Denmark did not gain success easily like in France. The employee financial participation was taken up by the government from trade unions, but the proposed initiatives were not implemented. The profit and sharing scheme gained importance in the 1980s. Therefore the state of Denmark as much as workers participation plans are widespread, it has a role to ensure that the participation becomes high like that of France. European-Level Representation In both countries, the union and the cooperation committee chooses European delegates from France and Denmark and both the European Works Councils and the European Company bodies. In both countries, the exclusion comes in at the board level representative who is elected by the workforce in Denmark, and in France, the delegate body decides on how they should be selected as elected by unions or work council mentors. In countries, the state ensures that the employee is represented in the European level bodies. This is critical to the employees since it makes them work and enjoy their rights like other people from different countries. Board Level Representation Both countries do employee representation at the board level, and it is mainly for companies. The employees and their representatives have one-third of the seats at the board level. There are those employee representatives who are allowed to be available at the meetings though they are not members of the board. Employees in public limited companies and limited companies are entitled to elect representatives to the board of directors. In France, there is a law on employment security that requires even privatized companies to have a representative at the board level. Board level representation has an impact on the performance of the economy for a given nation (Kongshoj, 2007). The state ensures that the law is followed where it allows two or four delegates of the workers council to attend board meetings. In the case where there are available employee board members, only one works council delegate has to attend the board meeting. This work representative council, is denied other rights like the right to vote. They are allowed to bring up issues and can demand answers to their points. Also they are allowed to get the same kind of information that other members receive. Therefore, the state ensures that all employees in companies are catered for, and any issues they have are handled. This has significantly increased their productivity for these countries because they are motivated. Conclusion In conclusion, the state remains to be the body that regulates employment in the country. It is the one that ensures some laws and measures are put across for the benefit of both the employer and the employee. The state is the one that is liable for the employee's protection regarding health and safety, payment, training and that the employer has no right to mistreat the employee. Besides, the state should ensure that an employee takes part in financial participation for their benefit. With so doing, the nation can have a satisfied workforce thus more productive. Comparing the role of the state between France and Denmark, there exists many similarities and differences between them. However, they all target to ensure that there is maximum productivity of the labor market in the country. The productivity of the employees have a direct impact on the economy of the state, and therefore, states should ensure their well-being to reap maximum from their employees. Both countries have policies and procedure laid in lace to ensure they have a satisfied, productive labour force which boosts the countrys economy References Abu, P. (2007), An Appraisal of the Trade Union Amendment Act of 2005 in Relation to Current Labour Management Relations in Nigeria. International Journal of African and African American Studies. Baert, S. (February 20, 2016). "Getting Grey Hairs in the Labour Market: An Alternative Experiment on Age Discrimination." Journal of Economic Psychology.57: 86101. Befort, S.and Budd, J. (2009).Invisible Hands, Invisible Objectives: Bringing Workplace Law and Public Policy Into Focus, Stanford University Press. Bryan, L., Vinchur, A. (2012). A history of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Budd, J. and Bhave, D (2008). "Values, Ideologies, and Frames of Reference in Industrial Relations," Budd, W. Bhave, D. (2010). "The Employment Relationship," inSage Handbook of Handbook of Human Resource Management, Sage. Cheung, A. and Ian S. (2012).Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia: Paradigm Shift or Business as Usual? Commission of the European Community (2007). Flexicurity Pathways-turning hurtles into stepping stones," Report by the European Expert Group on Flexibility, pp. 1-44. Fulton, L. (2015). Worker Representation in Europe. Labour Research Department and ETUI. Health and Safety Executive (2009). A Guide to Safety and Health Regulation in Great Britain. 4th edition.ISBN978-0-7176-6319-4 Hyman, R. (2009). "The State in Industrial Relations," the Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. Ilsoe, A. (2007). The Danish Flexicurity Model A lesson for the US," Working paper, FAOS, University of Copenhagen Kongshoj, M. (2007). Flexicurity, Labour Markets, and Welfare States," pp. 57-79 in Tilburg Law Review vol. 14. Lewis, D. Sargeant, M. (2009). Essentials of Employment Law, 10th edn, CIPD Publishing, London. Muchinsky, P. (2012).Psychology Applied to Work. Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press, Inc.ISBN978-0-578-07692-8. Paul, B. Rebecca, K. (2008).Introduction to Human Resource Management. Oxford University Press. pp.114.ISBN978-0-19-929152-6. Pinder, C. (2008).Work motivation in organizational behavior(2nd edition). New York: Psychology Press Smith, P. (2009). "New labor and the commonsense of neoliberalism: trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers' rights," Industrial Relations Journal, 40(4), 337-355. Smith, P. (2009). New Labour and the commonsense of neoliberalism: trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers rights, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 40 (4), pp. 337355 Weathers, C. (2009). A Companion to Japanese History,Chichester, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 493510. Whalen, C. (2008).New Directions in the Study of Work and Employment: Revitalizing Industrial Relations as an Academic Enterprise, Edward Elgar. Wilson, M. (2007). A history of job analysis. In L. Koppes, Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology.