The Relationship between the Concepts of Employee Voice and Employee Representation
The concepts are ways through which employees make their grievances and views known to the management. They all serve to better employees and boost their performance. More specifically, employee voice refers to the process through which employees communicate their opinions to the employers and exert influence over issues that impact them at work. It allows them to express their concerns about workplace policies and make suggestions for how to improve working conditions. There are two sorts of employee voices under the idea of employee voice: formal and informal. Employees with informal employee voices have the chance to submit comments and address problems regularly. Formal employee voice is described as the employer’s organized communication channels, such as grievance mechanisms and staff surveys (Kim et al., 2010). Employee representation is described as an employee’s right to seek representation from a union or an individual to negotiate with management on matters such as salaries, hours, benefits, and working conditions. It is a commitment to interact with worker representatives, including trade unionists where they exist, and to guarantee that a system is in place to allow employees to voice concerns and have those concerns escalated to top management (Della Torre, 2019). We believe that smart organizations will have some sort of employee forum in place, as well as frequent employee satisfaction surveys, to help with this.
Direct and indirect participation are complementary from one perspective: direct participation allows employees to express themselves concerning specific work tasks, whereas indirect participation allows employees to engage with organizational-level issues such as investment policy, technology, and corporate strategy. In this regard, team voice does not address organizational-level concerns, while representative voice often does not address performance characteristics of specific job assignments (although it may address other aspects, e.g. ergonomics, safety). Furthermore, when management shows a willingness to debate a wide range of topics at the representative level, workers may believe that their attempts to provide feedback at the team level would be given significant consideration (Budd et al., 2010).
A similar viewpoint argues that the effectiveness of employee voice (direct and indirect) is determined by how labor and management interact rather than whether or not unions exist. Giving employees influence both on a day-to-day operational level and at the policy level leads to the greatest impact on organizational success. Employees’ willingness to share their ideas with management is a big economic advantage of team voice. If both direct and indirect forms of employee input are employed widely, this willingness may be increased (Kim et al., 2010). Interaction between these many types of voice can result in cross-fertilization of ideas to enhance operations, as well as the formation of networks through which workers can receive personal assistance. However, from a different perspective, these two sorts of voices are interchangeable. According to one perspective, having both sorts of employee voices is unnecessary for achieving employee happiness and high performance. Direct voice policies are frequently created and implemented to reduce employee unhappiness. The fact that employee involvement is increasing while unionism is decreasing reinforces the idea that the two may be substitutes, either by design (i.e., by improving worker satisfaction, managers may seek to reduce the demand for unionism) or by effect (i.e., by enhancing worker satisfaction, managers may seek to reduce the demand for unionism) (i.e. workers who are more satisfied may perceive less need for representation). Indeed, some researchers have discovered that representative speech has a detrimental impact on employee perceptions of executive responsiveness, which is mitigated when direct voice is used (Kim et al., 2010).
In many organizations, employee voice has replaced employee representation. In the United States, employee voice has long been viewed as a potential replacement for a union-based system. Management, rather than the state or labor unions, plays a significant role in the establishment of industrial relations systems in such settings. Furthermore, management has leveraged this increased authority to create a new type of human resource management called high-commitment management, which emphasizes direct contact. For some, this will necessitate a major reorientation of the issue of labor relations, putting non-union techniques front and center (Brewster et al., 2013). A defensive reaction, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of collective bargaining and the state in shaping labor relations. Behind both are probably normative judgments about the value and effects of unionism; underlying the defensive reaction is a belief in the value of independent worker representation and fear that under direct regimes, employee voice is reduced or even becomes a sham.
As the concept of voice evolved in the twentieth century, it was underpinned by two conceptually separate (but heavily overlapping) aspects. The first is employee representation, which was founded on the belief that employees had a right to participate in determining the terms and circumstances of their employment, as well as a right to a fair and just workplace. As a result, the workplace was a pluralistic issue in which new strategies of balancing the interests of owners with the agendas of employees would have to be devised (Kim et al., 2010). This concept produced employee representation and grievance processing mechanisms aimed at channeling and communicating workers’ collective interests on a wide range of issues. Both unions and firms (in many cases, the two were competing in the first half of the twentieth century) were building institutional platforms to allow employees to be heard within their employing organizations.
In both union and nonunion settings, employee representation vehicles entailed channeling worker opinions through delegates or leaders, who would then take their issues to management for resolution. This is referred to as indirect involvement. That might happen through collective bargaining, but in a nonunion context, it’s more likely to happen through debate and consultation forums. Workers had a valid moral, and even economic, right to speak out and participate in determining the terms and circumstances of their employment, according to both unions and progressive businesses. It wasn’t until the Wagner Act was passed in 1935 that American public policy simultaneously allowed employees a legal right and mandated that unions be the preferred vehicle for employee representation and voice. Simultaneously, employer operations involving representation were severely limited, and unions were granted exclusive rights to this formerly disputed territory by law. Management withdrew from the realm of representation, sometimes grudgingly (Budd et al., 2010). Today, a small number of American businesses continue to operate employee representation schemes, despite the danger of being charged with unfair labor practices.
Employee direct voice methods can provide a serious challenge to worker representatives’ authority. Managers may use direct voice methods (such as team briefings) to diminish worker representatives’ power and marginalize the union; nevertheless, some unions are opposed to tactics that would circumvent the union’s channels of workplace communication (Kim et al., 2010). In general, employee direct voice schemes can give an alternate source of information and ideas about workplace experiences to the union, and in this instance, the indirect (representative) voice may interact negatively with the direct (team) voice in terms of organizational effectiveness.
An Extent to Which Employee Voice and Employee Representation Differ In Trade Union Representation and Non-Union Employee Representation
Employee voice and employee representation differ in trade union representation and non-employee representation. The main difference between union and non-union types of employee representation is in negotiations, that is collective and individual negotiations. Because a unionized employee’s relationship with their employer is defined by a collective agreement, if they desire a raise, they must do it through the collective bargaining process, which would imply a rise for everyone in their class. The union would also have to decide if a rise was worth requesting. Employers seldom give special or specialized attention to unionized staff (Budd et al., 2010). Employees who are not members of a union are free to bargain on their behalf, and employers are free to treat employees differently (subject of course to disallowed human rights considerations). If a non-unionized employee desired a raise, they could simply ask for one and the company would give it to them, with no negative consequences for the rest of the workforce.
Employees who are members of a labor union have far more bargaining leverage and job security than their non-unionized counterparts. Unionized employees, for example, can normally only be fired for reason or when a position is eliminated. Employees who are not members of a union can be fired for any reason as long as they are given advance notice. If an employee is treated unfairly by their employer, they can turn to their union for help. If a non-unionized employee needs legal assistance in their work relationship, they will almost always have to pay for it out of pocket. Because unionized employees operate as a collective, they can substantially interrupt the employer’s activities (i.e. strike) and hence have greater influence in the employment relationship as a whole than if they act individually. Terms of advancement and promotion opportunities differ for the two concepts for union and non-union representation (Mayhew, 2011). Fair and equitable treatment is the cornerstone of unions. Typically, collective bargaining agreements will include explicit provisions allowing an employer to promote a worker. Seniority is typically valued highly, and in many circumstances, the employer will be forced to promote the most senior candidate, assuming that other applicants are equally competent. Vacation schedules, shift selection, and overtime opportunities are usually distributed in order of seniority, with the most senior employees receiving priority.
The process of presenting complaints and grievances through employee voice or employee representation differs between unionized and non-unionized representation. Workers in unions can express their unhappiness by submitting a grievance, as specified in their collective bargaining agreement. Grievances are dealt with in a fairly systematic manner, with numerous phases beginning with an informal evaluation. The informal review is the initial step in the process, and it may just consist of a meeting between the supervisor, the union employee, and the union steward to address the problem. If the problem cannot be resolved, management review, written answers, and appeals are all possible options. If a dispute cannot be settled at the corporate level, the parties may choose an arbitrator to hear the issue. Dissatisfaction with a job assignment to claimed workplace discrimination is only a few examples of concerns (Brewster et al., 2013). The complaint procedure for nonunion employees is typically easier; nonetheless, many firms follow a process that is comparable to the formal grievance processes, beginning with a supervisor, employee, and HR staff person qualified to address employee relations concerns reviewing the complaint.
The negotiations for benefits and working conditions differ for unionized and non-unionized employees. For union workers, benefits and working conditions are also part of the collective bargaining process. For example, your negotiating tactic may be for the company to offer to cover 50% of the cost of health insurance for union members, while the union demands that the firm pay 75% of the cost. You eventually reach an agreement on health and welfare benefits after another round of offers and counterproposals. According to UnionPlus, an AFL-CIO affiliate, union members have more access to guaranteed pensions than nonunion workers. If your company contributes to a union pension plan, the amount contributed to that plan is another area of discussion (Budd et al., 2010). Vacation and sick leave benefits, as well as working conditions, such as how seniority affects requests for vacation leave and extra labor, are all negotiated. Workers in non-union jobs seldom have the option of negotiating the terms of a retirement plan, such as a 401(k) (k). The company, in many situations, chooses the retirement savings choices accessible to nonunion employees, including the employer match, and the nonunion employee can choose whether or not to participate.
There is also a difference in managerial responsiveness to union and non-union worker voices. The shift toward direct voice from representative voice, i.e., forms of voice that involve direct two-way communication between workers and management, such as regular meetings between senior management and the workforce, briefing groups, and problem-solving groups, has increased nonunion voice (Mayhew, 2011). There are theoretical grounds to believe that managers respond to direct speech differently than they do to a union voice. Employee voice is termed “effective” for employees when it is linked to higher levels of managerial response. For two reasons, worker voice may need to be union voice if it is to be effective in changing employer conduct. First, a successful worker voice requires management to “give up power and accept a dual-authority route within the corporation.” In the absence of a truly autonomous union or a union-like structure, such a power shift is impossible to achieve.” Second, without a union, individuals will be less motivated to seek public goods, which are things that influence everyone’s well-being in such a manner that one person’s participation does not restrict others from doing so (Mayhew, 2011). Workers may be more willing to unionize when they are dissatisfied with management, in which case union membership is endogenous, explaining the link between unionization and discontent.
Another major difference between unionized and non-unionized employees is that the employment relationship with the employer is managed by a collective agreement rather than individual contracts. The collective agreement will outline the employment terms and conditions that will apply to all employees covered by the agreement. In general, this means that all employees in certain classifications will be treated equally and compensated equally. Employees who are not unionized have individual agreements with their employers (employment contracts) and might thus have unique work terms. An employer in a non-unionized workplace might pay employees who do the same job differently and give them various work schedules. Pay rates are also handled differently for unionized and nonunionized employees. Wages for union workers are negotiated between union representatives and your company’s negotiating team (Gollan et al., 2014). When you recruit a nonunion employee, the compensation or wage rate is usually discussed, and in certain situations, the candidate you choose may seek to negotiate the offer. That’s not to imply you have to negotiate with every candidate for a nonunion position.
References
Brewster, C., Wood, G., & Goergen, M. (2013). Institutions, unionization, and voice: The relative impact of context and actors on firm-level practice. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831×13501004
Budd, J. W., Gollan, P. J., & Wilkinson, A. (2010). New approaches to employee voice and participation in organizations. Human Relations, 63(3), 303-310.
Della Torre, E. (2019). Collective voice mechanisms, HRM practices and organizational performance in Italian manufacturing firms. European Management Journal, 37(3), 398-410.
Gollan, P. J., Kaufman, B. E., Taras, D., & Wilkinson, A. (Eds.). (2014). Voice and involvement at work: Experience with non-union representation. Routledge.
Hoque, K., Earls, J., Conway, N., & Bacon, N. (2017). Union representation, collective voice, and job quality: An analysis of a survey of union members in the UK finance sector. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 38(1), 27-50.
Kim, J., MacDuffie, J. P., & Pil, F. K. (2010). Employee voice and organizational performance: Team versus representative influence. Human Relations, 63(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709348936
Mayhew, R. (2011). Difference Between a Unionized Vs. a Nonunionized Workforce. Chron.com. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-unionized-vs-nonunionized-workforce-22350.html
write