Industrial relations states that there are four frames of references to be considered. The first frame of reference is that of the radical frame where worker management conflicts are encouraged in the workplace. Here worker management conflicts are not seen as being unnecessary for organizations, in fact organizations believe these form of conflicts will benefit it. Organization could hence even proactively lead to continuous change management in the organization or other radical aspects that are seen to The radical frame of reference is more pro worker as worker grievances are encouraged in the workplace. The cast study cannot be accepted from the radical frame of reference, as the Government and the company wanted to solve the issue by suppressing the employees rising against it, rather than taking it as a chance to solve the disputes. The management did not focus on innovative ways to handle the grievances and was hence not focused on the worker.
In the unitary framework, conflicts are not encouraged and are prevented, here the focus is on presenting an organization that works as one (Kai & Brown, 2013; Ridley‐Duff, and Bennett, 2011). This is in fact more of a standpoint where it could be said that its anti-worker in nature. At present the working of Yu Yuen can be said to unitary only, because although there is a trade union for the company, the company still operates as if the trade union is an extension for the company and not as a neutral representative for the employees. The company should move from its unitary standpoint into a more pluralist framework. In the context of the pluralist framework an interactionist frame comes into reference. This is a frame where different groups exist and the different groups interact with one another in order to ensure that they are benefitted in stable ways. A maximization of profit aspect for the different groups is presented here. While conflict is seen to be inevitable here, conflict is not embraced as well as it would be in the case of the radical framework. However, in the case of Yu Yuen a balance could be achieved by making use of the pluralist framework, once the transition to the pluralist framework is made, the company would be able to stop avoiding conflicts and at the same time focus on organizational stability.
Underlying cause and possible Solutions
The Chinese Government understands the implications of these forms of strikes and attempts to come up with solutions for the same. The government has formulated a top down strategy by which worker’s income would slowly be negotiated and would be increased. The increase in worker income would happen as a gradual process, and would be guided slowly by means of unionization processes and collective bargaining (Taylor et al, 2003). This is a strategy where the Government in addition to solving the issues for the workers, also ensures that trade unions are being made use for the purpose they were created.
Legislation such as that of the Fair Works Act 2009 are not applicable in China, yet understanding some elements of the legislation as related to a bargaining approach shows how the element of good faith was challenged in this case. Enterprise bargaining agreements and then later collective bargaining is done in common good faith and when that good faith is breached it hence becomes an issue in itself. Collective bargaining in China, under the Rainbow Plan or the Rainbow Plan Notice as it is called requires the necessary trade unions to conduct the wage negotiations in a proper way and ensure that the employees and the people involved in the grievance are able to push forth their salary negotiations, and other benefits in a more proper way (Ligorner, & Liao, 2010). Specific collective contract issues and more are to be handled by the Unions in a fair manner and the Government does attempt to do this. In this context, this case study issue is one in which trust in industrial relations was defied as the union has been alleged to be bias. Entire system of bargaining hence has to be revamped.
Also as noted in the case media reports, “Labour NGOs that provide legal advice and collective bargaining trainings to workers are in a friend-and-foe situation with the government authorities. On one hand, the government wants labour NGOs to help cultivate a skilled and educated workforce, in another word, ‘manageable’ workforce; on the other, the government does not want them to stay too close to workers and become ‘trouble makers’” (Cheung, 2014, para. 6). This form of an antagonistic standpoint has to be avoided, the government has to understand that the different stakeholder parties in fact exist to support better industrial relations and only in encouraging diverse attempts better industrial relations could be built.