Good Honest Dollar $$

This is the ninth discussion in my (albeit interrupted) series on worker rights.

Today, I would like to discuss the extent to which expatriates of western countries or other foreign employees should be expected to tolerate employment practices in their host country which would not be acceptable in their home countries.

Broadly speaking, I feel that acceptable employment practices should be defined according to the laws and customs of the host country, and that it is the responsibility of expatriate staff to adapt and fit in with their host culture.

But there are limitations to this, and expatriates should not be expected to tolerate work practices or conditions which are either represent a breach of contractual or human rights or are otherwise unreasonable.

 
Working overseas – a rewarding experience
Working in a foreign country can be a wonderful experience, both for expatriate employees and their host employers.

Such arrangements offer the opportunity for expatriate employees to experience full immersion into a culture and way of life which is different from that of their home country, whilst at the same time providing the host employer with fresh perspectives, exposure to global best practice, professional expertise (which may potentially be lacking at a domestic level) and a better understanding of target markets within the developed world.

Personally, my experience in Korea, where I have taught English in a public school for the past three and a half years, has been easily the most rewarding experience in my (albeit short) career to-date, and one which I will no doubt cherish for the rest of my life.

 
Cultural clashes
Problems can arise, however, where cultural values clash, and expectations of what is acceptable differ between expatriate employees and their host employer.

In such circumstances, I feel that both parties have a responsibility to exercise a considerable degree of flexibility, and to adopt a position of mutual respect toward the cultural values of each other.

Nevertheless, as stated above, I feel that the laws and cultural values of the host country should take precedence over those of the home country of the expatriate in terms of defining acceptable employment practices, and that it is primarily the responsibility of the expatriate employee to adapt to the ways and customs of his or her host employer, not the other way around.

 
Some practices not acceptable
But there are limitations to this, and there are certain practice which in my view should never be considered to be acceptable, regardless of cultural considerations.

Such practices include.

• any practices which constitute an abuse of human rights;
• failure on behalf of the employer to honor contractual obligations; or
• any practices which are otherwise plainly unreasonable or unfair.

The second point above is an area where I have seen conflict arise over and over again during my time in Korea, where attempts by host employers to short change expatriate employees on contractual provisions with respect to wages, housing or working hours are all too common. (The former employer of one friend of mine once literally doubled her work hours without providing any increase in pay)

Granted, these problems are usually the result of cash flow issues or simple bastardry, but cultural issues may also be a contributing factor, since contracts do not carry as much weight as they do in western countries.

This should not be tolerated. Any lack of respect for contractual rights of expatriate staff represents a form of manipulative behavior which should not be tolerated, regardless of cultural considerations, and employees who are subject to this form of treatment should not feel obligated to continue in service to their host employer unless an amicable solution can be reached.

(Fortunately for me, I work in the public school system, and have personally experienced any problems in this regard, or else I would have been on the first plane home.

But I have heard plenty of stories from others who have not been so fortunate, particularly those who teach in privately owned academies.)

Today, I would like to look at the question of whether or not workers should have the right to unfair dismissal claims in cases where their employment is terminated for reasons other than unsatisfactory work performance, misconduct or redundancy.

Although dismissal for reasons other than the above can be harsh, I do not agree with the notion that employees have an inherent right to unfair dismissal in such cases as a basic principle of fairness.

Nevertheless, I do believe that the law should place some limitations upon the ability of employers to sack workers due to the potential for employers to use dismissal as a form of retribution in absence of such limitations (see below).

 
Some reasons, or any reason?
Few would dispute the notion that employers should be able to dismiss staff in the event of unsatisfactory work performance, professional misconduct or redundancy.

Legal regimes which do not allow for this are unjust and place an unfair burden upon employers.

Moreover, sensible employers would never dismiss staff whose performance was satisfactory unless their function was no longer required.

Nevertheless we must recognize the unfortunate reality that there are cases where dismissal does occur for reasons other than the above, such as individual personality clashes or a form of retribution for an action which was not popular with certain managers (see below).

The question is – should employers be able to dismiss staff for any reason, or should the law limit dismissal to the reasons stated above?

 
Why shouldn’t employers be able to sack workers as they please?
Although termination of employment for reasons other than unsatisfactory performance, misconduct or redundancy is harsh, I do not agree with the idea that workers should have a right to unfair dismissal claims in such cases simply as a principle of fairness.

Indeed, subject to the fulfillment of relevant contractual provisions, the majority of business relationships work in the basis that either party may terminate the relationship at will, for any reason they please.

Consider the following examples:

• A consumer who wishes to cease doing business with their hairdresser simply stops going – just like that;
• A firm who is unhappy with a particular supplier simply ceases doing business with them – just like that; and
• Employees who no longer wish to serve their current employers simply quit – just like that.

From the viewpoint of fairness, I do not see why the same should not apply to an employer wishing to terminate the services of an employee.

If the employee, as one party to a business relationship, is allowed to terminate the relationship at will, then I would have thought that basic fairness would dictate that the same right should apply to the employer – the counterparty to the relationship.

 
Why unfair dismissal laws are justified
In spite of the above, unfair dismissal laws do provide at least one important purpose – the elimination of unfair dismissal as a form of retribution.

In absence of laws preventing dismissal on unreasonable grounds, it would be possible for employers and or managers to sack workers as a form of retribution.

The prospect of this occurring may result in a reluctance on behalf of staff members to:

• report matters such as fraud, theft or other forms of corporate misconduct;
• report unsatisfactory work conditions, such as physical or sexual abuse, or an unsafe work environment; or
• invoke other legal rights, such as the right to join a union or the right to compensation in the event of injury.

An effectively functioning unfair dismissal regime allows workers to come forward and report such matters, or invoke such rights, with the assurance that dismissal is not a likely consequence.

To be sure, in the circumstances above, there may be other forms of retribution to which the employees concerned may be subjected. Nevertheless, removal of the fear of dismissal reduces the chances of workplace malpractices going unreported to a considerable degree.

This, in my view provides more than sufficient justification for placing some limitations upon the ability of employers to terminate the employment of their staff.

(Picture provided by Dave Walsh)

The previous two discussions in this series focused upon the question of whether or not workers should be allowed to form unions.

Today, I would like to look at what I feel should constitute the fundamental role of unions in modern society.

 
The core functions of unions
Whilst the specific role which unions will play will vary from country to country, broadly speaking, I feel that the role of unions in the majority of countries in which they operate can be summarized in terms of three broad functions:

 
• Collective bargaining.

In my view, the central and most important function of a union is to represent its members during the workplace bargaining process, and to do everything within their power to ensure that workplace agreements deliver fair and equitable outcomes for workers.

 
• Advocacy of worker rights.

This should occur both at a state/national level and at an international level.

At a state/national level, unions should seek to take an active role in terms of representing the interests of employees during the process of policy formation with respect to any legislation which has the potential to have a material impact upon their working lives.

In addition, at all levels, unions should work to promote public awareness in relation to a broad range of work related issues, including, but not limited to equality of opportunity, freedom from discrimination and workplace safety.

 
• Represent workers in disputes.

In the event of workplace disputes, unions should provide a representative to work on the employee’s behalf to resolve the dispute with the employer.

Where necessary, they should also provide members with legal advice and/or representation.

 
How unions should conduct themselves
In addition to defining the role of unions, I feel that it is important to determine some guiding principles as to how unions should conduct themselves in the course of fulfilling their obligations to members.

 
• A constructive approach.

It takes one to start a fight - two to have a constructive relationship.

Unions should always seek a constructive approach in their dealings with governments and employers, and no form of militant action, such as legal action or stop work action, should be employed unless they are dealing with parties which are hostile toward the rights of workers.

Over the longer term, constructive and responsible behavior from unions is the most effective approach toward the achievement of beneficial outcomes for workers.

 
• Accountability to members.

Unions exist to serve their members, and their conduct must at all times reflect full accountability to those whom they serve and represent.

Union leaders must be elected on a fully democratic basis, and should seek feedback on a consistent basis to ensure that their policies and actions reflect the desires of members.

 
• Compliance with the law.

When operating in non-democratic countries, particularly those in which governments adopt a hostile attitude toward the rights of workers, I do not believe that either unions or the workers they represent are obligated from an ethical viewpoint to comply with legal requirements which are grossly restrictive or unreasonable.

However, when operating within countries which have a democratic system of government, unions must observe all relevant legal requirements and act within the confines of the law at all times in the course of carrying out their functions.

To do this demonstrates a basic show of respect for both duly elected lawmakers and the general public who elect them.

 
• Stick to their mandate.

In terms of social or political activity, unions are given a mandate to represent their members with respect to issues which have a direct and immediate impact upon their working lives. These include, for example, workplace safety, equality of opportunity, and job security.

Beyond this, they are not given any mandate to represent members in terms of broader social or political movements, and should refrain from involvement in any such movements.

 
A broader social impact by default
Picking up on the last point, this is not to say that the social and/or political impact of unions should be confined strictly to the workplace.

Indeed, in the course of fulfilling their core functions, the impact of unions will naturally spread well beyond the workplace into a broad range of areas within the social and/or political arena. For an example, we only have to look at the impact which union efforts to achieve reasonable working hours has had upon areas such as family relationships and values, public health and participation rates in community or sporting clubs.

Another example is smoking, whereby union efforts to rid workplaces of smoking in some countries have no doubt added fuel to broader trends toward smoke-free venues in public places.

Finally, any union efforts to rid workplaces of ugly traits such as sexism or racism no doubt have a spillover effect in helping to raise broader societal awareness of such issues.

Provided they fulfill their core functions in an effective manner, unions will have a significant impact from a broader social perspective, and there is no need for them to involve themselves in social/political movements beyond the scope of their core functions.

In today’s post, I would like to commence a  two-part discussion in relation to the issue of whether or not employees should have a right to form and belong to a trade union.

To many in the western world, such a right is beyond legal and moral dispute, and in my view, the option to join a union (as well as the option to refuse to join) is a right to which workers should be entitled.

Nevertheless I feel that challenging the notion of union membership as a fundamental right is a worthwhile exercise, particularly as unions are disallowed in some countries.

Accordingly, today I would like to outline and discuss two common objections toward the concept of unions. Next week, I will highlight and discuss the case in favor of unions, and why I believe workers should be permitted to bargain on a collective basis via membership of a union.

 
The case against unions
Trade unions are subject to an extremely wide range of criticisms, springing from a variety of sources.

Today, I would like to focus on two areas of criticism in particular - that unions have a harmful impact upon the economy and that they are anti-competitive in nature.

 
How collective bargaining is anti-competitive
Anti-competitive behavior is generally frowned upon in much of the western world – in particular the practice of firms engaging in collusive behavior with other (competing) firms in order to maximize the prices they receive for their output.

Such practices are generally considered to be unfair and a hindrance to the effective functioning of a competitive marketplace.

But aren’t workers doing the same during the collective bargaining process? They are. Where staff employed in a particular industry join together (in a union) to bargain on a collective basis, this too represents a form of collusion – individual workers colluding with each other in an organized effort to maximize the price which they receive for their labor.

Moreover, in cases where the majority or entirety of the workforce within a given industry is represented by a singular union, such a union effectively operates from the position of a monopolist during the bargaining process, and is able to exploit its position to make unfair or unreasonable demands upon employers.

In a fair system, all classes of economic participants should be given equal rights, and the rules as to what is considered to be acceptable conduct or otherwise should apply equally to all. Why then should employees, as one class of economic participants, be allowed to engage in collusive behavior when other classes are not? 

 
Unions and the economy
A second objection to the concept of unions, and one which I do not feel is particularly strong, relates to their economic impact.

Critics say that the collective bargaining process results in higher unemployment as well as higher consumer prices than would otherwise be the case if collective bargaining were not allowed.

According to this argument, collective bargaining increases the negotiating strength of workers, and thus leads to higher wage settlements and therefore higher labor costs. This, in turn, leads to two negative economic effects: 

• Higher consumer prices, as firms seek to protect profit margins in light of higher labor costs; and

• Higher levels of unemployment, as higher wage levels result in a reduction in demand for workers.

I do not feel that this argument is particularly strong. Given what I feel is a strong case for unions (see next post), I feel that any adverse economic impact of their formation would not be a sufficient basis upon which to disallow the practice of collective bargaining.

In last week’s post, I outlined what I felt to be a range of core fundamental rights to which every worker should be entitled, regardless of the country, industry or culture in which they are employed.

But with rights come responsibilities, and today, I would like to outline what I feel should be the key responsibilities of each and every employee.

 
Key responsibilities of employees
Listed below are what I feel should be the key responsibilities of every employee. This list is by no means exhaustive and readers are encouraged to add their own suggestions:

 
• Strive to maximize their contribution.

This point summarizes the overriding responsibility of an employee in a nutshell.

Employees must at all times strive to maximize the value of their contribution to their contribution, both to their employer and also the key stakeholders to whom their employer is accountable.

This must be the overriding focal point, and the foundation upon which staff base their whole approach toward the fulfillment of their responsibilities.

The bare minimum is not acceptable. Workers must go all-out for excellence.

 
• Adopt an attitude of service.

An employment relationship should be one of mutual respect. But it is not a relationship of equals – the employee is the servant and the employer is the master.

Let me stress, I am not talking about any form of slavery. Instead, what I am talking about is that workers must accept that they are in a position of service, and that this has two fundamental consequences in terms of the manner in which they should approach their responsibilities.

The first such consequence relates to an employee’s interaction with those to whom he or she is accountable. Staff must seek to adopt an attitude of personal humility, particularly in the presence of superiors, owners or shareholders, as well as other relevant stakeholders. In addition, workers should demonstrate an appropriate degree of courtesy and respect toward those to whom they are accountable.

The second consequence relates to the manner in which employees approach their responsibilities. Workers must seek to serve in a manner which is dutiful, loyal and trustworthy at all times – regardless of whether his or her superiors are watching.  

 
• Do whatever it takes.

Staff must always be willing and prepared to do whatever is necessary in order to complete their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.

Whilst excessive amounts of overtime should not be encouraged, employees must be willing to put in time outside of standard office hours where necessary in order to get the job done. In addition, workers must be willing to assist with projects which are not normally within their job description where necessary.

 
• Be a team player.

The attitude of “not my department, not my responsibility,” has no place within the modern workplace environment.

Employees owe a position of service to the entire company and the key stakeholders that the company serves, not simply the department to which they are allocated, and staff must be willing to work in a cooperative manner with those outside of their department and contribute toward projects which fall outside the scope of their regular duties.

 
• Act with integrity.

Employees should seek to act in a manner of complete honesty and integrity at all times.

Prior to commencing employment, prospective employees must refrain from making any form of misrepresentation in terms of their qualifications or suitability for the position.

Whilst in employment, any form of theft, misappropriation or unauthorized of company money, property or data is unacceptable, as is any misuse of position for personal gain.

In addition, staff must refrain from participation in any form of conduct which is illegal, unethical, or in breach of any applicable industry or professional codes of conduct – regardless of any pressure applied by colleagues or superiors.

Finally, upon becoming aware of any form of improper conduct of others, employees must report such conduct to an appropriate authority – whether this be to an appropriate manager within the organization, or potentially to regulatory authorities or other parties outside the organization.

 
• Observe all health and safety procedures.

Whilst the employer has an obligation to provide a safe working environment, every employee within an organization has the responsibility to take a proactive approach toward ensuring not only their own personal safety, but also that of their colleagues.

This includes following all occupational health and safety procedures, wearing all required safety equipment, and either taking immediate preventative action or brining the matter to the attention of appropriate personnel in the event of identification of potential hazards.

 
• Refuse to engage in conduct which harmful to their employer.

At no stage should an employee engage in any form of conduct which could in any way cause harm to their employer, whether during or outside office hours.

Employees must refrain from participation in any form of employment or business activities outside the scope of their regular job which either represent any form of competition to their employer’s business or result in any form of conflict of interest which has the potential to in any way compromise their ability to serve their employer in a satisfactory manner.

In addition, staff must at all times refrain from any form of conduct which has the potential to bring the reputation of their employer into disrepute.

 
• Be a good ambassador for their employer.

The behavior of staff, both during and outside office hours, has an impact upon the reputation of their employer.

Accordingly, staff should seek to act in a manner which is honorable to their employer at all times.

During work hours, staff must adopt a thoroughly courteous and professional approach in their dealings with all relevant stakeholders.

Outside office hours, employers need not observe all of the rules of regular office etiquette, but should nevertheless refrain from any form of conduct which could in any way bring the reputation of their company into disrepute, as noted above. This particularly applies whilst participating in any form of out of office functions or activities which are related to their employment.