The Employment Contracts Act 1991 and the employment relations act 2000 derive from different ideological thinking. Discuss the differences evident in the two pieces of legislation that reflect that different ideological underpinning. Use examples to illustrate your points.
The Employment Contracts Act 1991 and the Employment Relations Act 2000 originate from dissimilar ideological thinking. There are significant variances apparent in the two sections of law-making that reflect the contrary ideological underpinning. Both political philosophies emphasize that their notions of freedom, sovereignty, impartiality, privileges, and the best social order are real. Any social group, such as a class, country, occupation, religious organization, party, or pressure group, may be a specific assemblage. All would have a collection of ideological conventions that are unquestionably recognized as being “right.” Ideologies execute a wide range of “social roles.” They would explain the past, an examination of the existing, and, generally, a visualization of the forthcoming with some portrayal of how a better prospect would be achieved for members of that group by common ideological values. Further, it would include a justification of the former, an investigation of the current, and, generally, a visualization of the forthcoming with some portrayal of how an enhanced future will be achieved for members of that group. Consequently, this paper will be discussing the differences in the Employment Contracts Act 1991 and the Employment Relations Act 2000 as it is derived from different forms of ideological thinking with a case study of New Zealand.
The Employment Contracts Act 1991 essentially changes New Zealand’s employment law structure by fluctuating the communal to the singular level and the locus of the individual from the industry or occupation. A business that employs around the same time, the Act changes the bargaining power balance dramatically in favor of employers (Rasmussen et al., 2006). The Act also significantly changes the essence of labor law in two ways: it abandons the system of registered awards that are enforceable in their own right in favor of compliance. It does so by contract law, but with different procedures, and it encompasses all work contracts. The essence of the changes to the negotiation system and their consequences are discussed in this article. New Zealand labor regulation and workplace dealings have changed dramatically since the 1970s. According to Rasmussen et al. (2006), some of these reforms were swift and well-known, like the Employment Contracts Act of 1991. (ECA). Others, such as the revisions to the Employment Relations Act 2000 since 2008, have been more gradual and less well established (ERA). Changes have not happened in a straight line, either.
One of the significant differences is that, unlike the Employment Contracts Act, the Employment Relations Act lacks a timetable for resolving conflicts about the elucidation, execution, or enforcement of its expressions, as well as standard dealings for resolving individual grievances. As a result, it is up to the agreement’s members to determine how they can handle disagreements and personal grievances (Lafferty & May, 2011). The other difference is that the Employment Relations Service (ERS) offers free intermediaries to establishments and workers under the ERA. Disagreements that can move the occupation liaison are characterized broadly as disagreements amongst bosses and workers and disputes amid two or more workers, a union and its associates, unions at work, a union and an establishment, and disputes amongst two or more employees.
Additionally, another difference is that resolving conflicts at the earliest potential stage is a dependable concept of mediation in practice. ERS statistics instructs parties to determine various features of a crisis, its results, and whether it can be resolved short of exterior interference in the first place. Inspectors from the Department of Labor will also advise the Act’s minimum standards, addressing specific issues before becoming more severe. As a result, mediation is the primary method for addressing issues that employers and workers cannot resolve independently. Although parties’ attendance at negotiation assemblies is entirely deliberate, it might be viewed as part of the ERA’s “good faith” pledge (Lafferty & May 2011). As a result, if one party declines to participate in intermediation, the other party can file a complaint with the Employment Relations Authority, which has the authority to order the parties to participate in mediation.
In addition, the Employment Relations Act mandates that any settlement provide a simple dialectal description of the resources obtainable for resolving “employment relationship issues,” which are simply conflicts and individual complaints (Lafferty & May 2011). Furthermore, any employment contract shall provide a provision for effectively resolving conflicts over the interpretation, execution, or implementation of its terms, as well as an orientation to the 90-day span in which an individual complaint must be filed.
Consequently, The Employment Relations Act signaled a change away from a cumbersome legalistic system and toward parties settling their conflicts. In this section of the paper, we examine whether the aim of parties resolving disputes more quickly and cheaply with the help of mediation has been met and how the existing arrangement might be strengthened (Rasmussen et al., 2006). It focuses on the position of unions, which were historically marginalized by the Employment Contracts Act but now have a more significant role to play beneath the new regulation. Notably, the ERA regime is comparable to the ECA but distinct from the 1973–1984 and 1984–1991 establishments due to the minimal relevance of delegated control (Rasmussen et al., 2006). In the new structure, parliament delegated only a few responsibilities for establishing substantive employment laws. The close of prizes, which had a critical part in resolution, is principal to the downfall of this form of law-making. The Employment Institutions were not given or given back corresponding rule-making responsibilities under the ECA and ERA regimes.
Finally, despite the Domestic-led administrations’ repeated attempts to boost its side view via alterations implemented amid 2008 and 2017, it is argued that executive unilateralism is assigned minimal significance below the Period. This distinguishes the ERA from the prior ECA, which did not directly support this law-making system but impliedly did so by substantially reducing man’s restrictions. This way, the ERA is similar to previous establishments.
Why Should Work be Decent? Is this a fanciful idea, or does it have merit in the modern world?
In today’s society, there have been arguments revolving around people having decent jobs. Generally, many people in this kind of debate argue that people should never be selective when it comes to work, as long as it can earn them a fair income to meet their daily needs. An equally significant number of people, on the other hand, asserts that it is vital for people to partake in decent tasks in their quest to earn income. What appears to make this kind of debate even more difficult to solve is what is meant by the terms’ decent work’.
Work can be termed as decent if it can bring fair income to workers, provide for social and physical security at the workplace, and most importantly, provide for social integration and personal growth (Zu, 2013). Based on the meaning of decent work, it becomes considerably possible to determine whether decent work has merit in today’s socio-economic setup or is just a whimsical idea. Besides, it becomes easier to determine the importance of work being decent.
It is very vital to consider that working does affect not only the workers’ economic aspect of life but also the other sensitive spheres such as social and health. Therefore, this is because workers’ productivity highly depends on the degree of decency of their work. The productivity of workers in an economic setting is directly proportional to the revenue generated in the given economic milieu. The decency of work plays a very integral role in economic development as it influences workers’ social and physical environment, hence their performance.
Secondly, the essentiality of decent work is seen to manifest in poverty eradication since one of the fundamentals of decent work is fair to pay. Through decent work, people can earn commensurately, consequently leading to a fair capacity to provide the basic needs they need daily. The decent work’s role in eradicating poverty is essential, considering all the social iniquities resulting from poverty, such as crime and immorality. Thirdly, although many people have jobs, they have to work in idyllic conditions for the well-being of their health. Decent work ensures that the conditions under which people work are very idyllic as it takes even the social and physical environments of the work into considerations. It is important to understand that there is more to working than just earning a fair income.
Lastly, according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, decent work brings the satisfaction of esteem, which is the fourth level in the hierarchy. According to Maslow’s theory, human wants are insatiable, and consequently, the needs are divided into five categories: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. People have the propensity to have stronger desires for high-level needs after acquiring the capacity to carter for their low-level needs (Ghatak & Singh, 2019). Having a decent job fulfills the need for appreciation and respect in society. Besides, it brings unto workers prestige and accomplishment.
The only drawback of decent work is that it becomes challenging to create decent job opportunities under bad governance and failing economies. In such economies, a significant number of workers usually have to sacrifice either their safety or social security to earn a living. In the worst-case scenarios, workers in some sectors even get underpaid and exploited because of high taxation and production costs. It is in such a setting that people tend to normalize the idea of criticizing decent work. Decent work should always be at the helm of everything if there is a need for economic and social development.
Is Decent Work or fanciful or Necessity?
Many people today tend to view decent work as just a fanciful idea rather than something of so much weight and merit in the social and economic context. The idea of decent work being perceived as luxury is very much likely to result from desperation for work and a source of income. It is human nature to do what has to be done to earn income and survive, especially in an unpleasant economic setup. Although, it is very important to understand that in the pursuit of a source of income, other important factors such one’s health, social security, and safety should not be overlooked.
The idea of decent work has a lot of importance in society and should not just be overlooked because of the widely peddled notion that finding a decent job is difficult. The front runners, especially in the economic sector, should ensure that a better part of the working population has decent work, implying medical covers, fair pay, and social security. Therefore, the notion of decent work should be embraced and treated as the vital and necessary idea it is.
References
Erling Rasmussen, Vivienne Hunt & Felicity Lamm (2006) New Zealand Employment Relations: Between Individualism and Social Democracy, Labour & Industry: A Journal of The Social and Economic Relations of Work, 17(1), 19-40. Web.
Ghatak, S., & Singh, S. (2019). Examining Maslow’s Hierarchy need theory in the social media adoption. FIIB Business Review, 8(4), 292–302. Web.
Lafferty, George & May, Robyn. (2011). Legislation, mediation, and unions: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act 2000.
Zu, L. (2013). Decent Work. Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, 760–768. Web.