HRM 201 Workplace Relations Session 1 Assessment Tutorial
Hrm 201 Workplace Relationssession 1 2018assessment Tutorial Guid
This unit examines the broad macro issues related to managing people at work. The scope extends to the macroeconomic environment, including economic, political, social, and institutional contexts. It approaches employment relations from a stakeholder perspective, emphasizing management, labour, the state, and other key stakeholders' roles in structuring employment relationships. Topics include regulatory frameworks, bargaining processes, conflict and cooperation, and reforms.
Assessment 1 requires students to analyze stakeholder perspectives on Boxing Day trading, reading multiple sources and answering questions about the employer/government stance, union concerns, ethical considerations from consequentialist and deontological perspectives, and forming a justified opinion.
Assessment 2 involves researching the impact of casualisation on stakeholders in the Australian tertiary education sector, discussing positive and negative implications, and critically evaluating a statement about casual employment benefits, within a structured report with specific word counts for each section.
The final assessment is a 2-hour, closed-book exam during the university examination period, testing students' knowledge and skills through short answer and multiple-choice questions.
Paper For Above instruction
The issue of Boxing Day trading in New South Wales (NSW) encapsulates complex employment relations dynamics involving various stakeholders, including the government, retailers, unions, employees, religious groups, and the wider community. The debate largely revolves around balancing economic benefits with social and ethical concerns related to family time, community cohesion, employee welfare, and traditional retail practices. Examining the case from multiple perspectives provides insight into the competing interests and ethical considerations shaping policy decisions.
Government and Employer Perspectives
The NSW Coalition Government and supporting employers advocate for relaxed Boxing Day trading restrictions primarily for economic reasons. They argue that extending trading hours boosts retail sales, enhances competitiveness, creates jobs, and aligns NSW with other states where trading is permitted. Proponents emphasize consumer convenience, the potential for economic growth through increased retail activity, and the global competitiveness of the retail sector. For instance, the government’s media release highlights the benefits of modernizing retail laws to meet consumer expectations in a globalized economy (Perrottet, 2017).
Not all retailers support liberalization. Small retailers often oppose extended trading hours due to concerns about unfair competition from large chains equipped to operate longer hours. They fear increased operational costs, staff burnout, and diminished profitability without corresponding sales increases. Additionally, some retailers worry about the erosion of traditional family and community values associated with closed public holidays, reflecting social and ethical tensions (Hiini, 2017).
Concerns About Employees and Other Stakeholders
While the law stipulates that employees can only work if they "freely elect" to do so, unions such as the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), religious groups, and political parties express concerns. Their apprehensions are rooted in the potential for coercion, implicit pressure from employers, and the impact on employees' work-life balance. Union representatives argue that workers may feel compelled to work on public holidays due to economic necessity or fear of job loss, undermining the premise of voluntary choice (Patty, 2017).
Religious groups and community organizations often emphasize the importance of sacred and family days, viewing the extension of trading hours as a threat to social cohesion. They argue that compulsory or pressured work on Boxing Day diminishes the festive, family-oriented nature of the holiday, thereby impacting social and moral fabric. Some employees may oppose the relaxation, whereas others might prefer the extra income, demonstrating diverging preferences within the workforce (Inside Retail, 2017).
Ethical Perspectives: Consequentialism and Deontology
From a consequentialist or utilitarian perspective, the justification for relaxed trading laws hinges on maximizing overall benefits — higher retail revenues, economic growth, and employment. If these outcomes contribute positively to societal welfare, the policy could be deemed ethically acceptable. However, if the negative social impacts — family disruption, community disintegration, employee exploitation — outweigh economic gains, then the policy would be ethically problematic (Fisher, 2017).
Deontology emphasizes moral duties and rights, such as employees' right to family time and community cohesion. From this standpoint, compelling or incentivizing employees to work on Boxing Day may breach moral duties to respect individual autonomy and uphold social responsibilities. The ethical dilemma arises when economic objectives conflict with moral considerations about social justice and personal rights. Balancing these perspectives involves carefully evaluating whether the policy respects individual autonomy and societal values (Murphy, 2017).
Conclusion and Personal Position
After analyzing the various viewpoints, I contend that the relaxation of Boxing Day trading restrictions offers economic advantages but also raises significant social and ethical concerns. While increased retail activity can stimulate economic growth and employment, the risks to social cohesion, family life, and employee welfare cannot be overlooked. Ethical frameworks suggest that policies should prioritize respect for individual rights and social responsibilities rather than solely economic outcomes. Therefore, I am cautious about fully endorsing relaxation without adequate safeguards to ensure voluntariness and protect social values. A balanced approach, possibly with opt-in provisions and protections for vulnerable workers, would better align economic benefits with ethical imperatives.
References
- Fisher, R. (2017). Archbishop Fisher: Boxing Day trading undermines family and cohesion. Catholic Weekly. Retrieved from fisher-boxing-day-trading-proposal-undermines-family-time-and-community-cohesion/
- Hiini, R. (2017). NSW Boxing Day trade to continue. Inside Retail. Retrieved from inside-retail-2017
- Murphy, J. (2017). Tamworth and New England stores stay open on Boxing Day. Northern Daily Leader. Retrieved from regional-nsw/
- Patty, A. (2017). Workers feel pressured with Boxing Day trading extended across NSW. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from day-trading-extended-across-nsw--gxu63g.html
- Perrottet, D. (2017). Boxing Day Shopping Here to Stay in NSW. Media Release. Retrieved from %20Boxing%20Day%20Shopping%20Here%20to%20Stay%20in%20NSW.pdf
- Take the Time. (2018). Workers robbed of Boxing Day for no reason; December retail figures drop. Media Release. Retrieved from workers-robbed-boxing-day-no-reason-december-retail-figures-drop/
- Tin, S. (2017). MP crosses floor over Boxing Day trading laws. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from boxing-day-trading-laws/news-story/ebdefedda2885cd89265f5f95208a5c4