SOCIO-POLITICAL THEORY AND ETHICS IN HRM 31government attempts to encourage the development of enterprise bargaining
in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s can also be seen as neo-corporatist (Palmer
1986), as can the origins of the traditional Australian compulsory arbitration
system (Palmer 1989). Current health and safety debates in Australia about
the value of government regulation, as opposed to the value of education, to
promote health and safety consciousness at work, continues the debate on the
value of state intervention in support of morally valued practices (Cook 2003;
Nash 2000; Australian Government 2002).
In what ways can this history of Western socio-political ideas enrich mod-
ern concerns about the ethics of HRM? Harley and Hardy (2004) have
argued the need for more critical analysis surrounding HRM topics. As the
HRM discipline developed, it has been subjected to criticism from writers
drawing on earlier fields of study (e.g. political sociology or IR) on the
grounds that HRM prescriptions too often assumed an oversimplistic, uni-
tarist approach. Many prescriptions of good HRM practice appeared to be
based on the assumption that managerial prerogative would be accepted
as legitimate, or that no ingrained or underlying ethical difficulties would
emerge, or none that could not be resolved by the simple application of
good management and goodwill. Harley and Hardy note the need for a more
critical approach, to confront the complexity and importance of the field. An
analysis of the varying impact of broad social and political ideologies on ideas
about working relationships can open up new angles for critical analysis and
questioning.
Conflicting arguments using either unitary or pluralist assumptions of
social organization are still heard in the debates about how various stake-
holders can or should participate in decisions about employment and work.
Economic theories clearly assume conflicting interests between employees
and shareholders as groups. In recent years there have been growing voices
arguing the need to accept the legitimacy of different interests among social
identity groups, based on ethnicity, age, gender, occupation, or organizational
role. Can these social and economic conflicts of interest be resolved in ways
which will satisfy organizational and individual needs? For example, can
‘good’ HRM and individual contracts of employment resolve these pluralist
conflicts? If collective group interests are still important, what is the cur-
rent role of the old pluralist solutions, in terms of processes and procedures
to recognize and represent collectivities? Are regulations or policies which
ensure that different interests have a voice, enough? Or do work organiza-
tions need different stakeholder interests to be protected by some system of
voting or veto in a participative decision-making process (perhaps supported
by works-council type regulations and legislation)? Does interest group rep-
resentation need to be supported by sanctions (like the right to withdraw
labour, or the right to appeal certain decisions through conciliation or tribunal