International Employment Relations: A Comparison Of HR Systems In France, China, USA (Essay)

Topic Managers have to manage many staff who come from different countries with different human resource systems, employment relations systems, values and remuneration expectations Compare and contrast, with examples, the differences across at least three countries. Refer to the human resource, employment relations, values and remuneration systems of the three countries.

Discuss with reference to at least ten (10) key A and A* ranked academic journals articles and key academic studies in this area.This assignment is sort of similar to the previous one that you'll did. I'm hoping you'll will do this assignment with utmost care and through a expert who knows the subject.

Human Resource Systems and Employee Relations in France, China, and USA

Different countries of the world have differences in their employee relations aspect. These differences demand change in how the human resource of the multinational companies is carried out. Some of these factors include the human resource systems, the employment relations aspects, the employee values and the remuneration systems among many other factors. Therefore, understanding the different international employment relations systems is critical to unveil the similarities and differences that exist in global practices. Multinational companies are forced to work with people from different countries, different cultural practices, and other characteristics, thus, it creates a need to establish and understand the differences to accommodate them in the systems. This paper compares three countries France, China and USA.

France, China, and USA have various similarities and differences in their human resource systems.  The US embraces training and development of its employees through offering them a chance to perfect or advance in their studies. It is always willing to spend more money on this human resource practice. Regarding the reward systems, USA is still on the frontline to reward those who perform better (Cheung & Ian, 2012). The organizations have their minimum wage set for their employee in addition to that set by the government, which is precisely meant to encourage employees to stay creative and bring about the best ideas possible. Regarding the aspect of employee participation, it is clear that the US has a low power distance. Most employees are always informed about the operation of the entire firm.

China has also embraced the idea of training and developing its employees, however, the amount invested in training is lower than that invested by the US. Organizations in China are not willing to spend a lot of money over the training course. The human resource system of China also offers the rewards to its employees. The rewards are lower than those from for other countries such as the US. Also, the human resource system of China is dominated by high power distance. Employees are not informed about the decisions of the organization’s management except the little information that they get regarding their immediate workplace (Health and Safety Executive, 2009).  

On the other hand France supports training and development of its employees. It is an obligatory requirement by the nation that every year organizations must spend a given amount of money specifically for training and development of their employees. Organizations in France supports rewards to employees especially those who perform outstandingly, however, their adoption is moderate, centered on the cost required. Just like China, the employee relations in France is different from that of the US. There exists high power distance in the human resource of most organizations in France (Hyman, 2009). The top managers are in high positions and there exists a hierarchical system in the HR of France.

Comparison of Human Resource Systems in France, China, and USA

In the USA, the union density is low, and there is only one union representation in each industry. The bargaining power of employees is vested in the trade unions. This shows the direct bargaining power is low in this country, and the individual employees have little voice to sentencing their grievances. The US has greatly considered the job security as one of the key collective issues. It has always worked to ensure that the workers have a job security in their respective capacities (Akhtar, Ding & Ge, 2008). Thus, these factors bring out the employee relations aspects in the US.

Regarding the employee relations, France portrays a collective bargaining power of its workers. The bargaining can be at national, the industry level or the organizational level. Employees join efforts to voice their needs. France has little consideration of the trade unions and worker representation in the employee relations aspects. France has put a lot of emphasis on the safety of the employees to ensure that they work comfortably and their health is taken care. Companies in France have a board level representation for organizations (Meyer, 2014). Therefore, just like other countries, considers the various aspects of the employee relations.

China has large worker trade unions which are subdivided into smaller ones.  Thy play a critical role in representing the entire employee population in various ways. They give room for the membership of the workers into the respective unions. In China, the worker representation is mainly done through the use of trade unions. However, there is little presence of worker representation at the workplace. The individual workers have a direct bargaining power. However, it is not much effective (Pinder, 2008). Therefore, these among other aspects bring out the employee relatioAkhtarns aspects of China.

The US depicts various characteristics in the workplace values. Firstly, the Americans have a culture that encourages individualism. They always want to be independent and reduce their reliability to others. They are recognized for the hard work that they perform. Secondly, the American workplace has values of equity. They believe that all people are the same regardless of what they have (Befort & Budd, 2009). This has been a major aspect that has led to low power distance in the American organizations.

Also, there is an aspect for the value of privacy with the Americans. The workers enjoy having a private life, working on their own with their free minds and spending their time alone. Also, there is a high rate of informality. The Americans enjoy staying casual even in the workplace. They prefer casual clothing most of the time and does not usually enjoy the official clothing (Fulton, 2015). Besides, the American prefer no fixed worked workplace reporting or leaving time. These among other factors define the American’s workplace values.

Employee Relations Aspects in France, China, and USA

Unlike the US which has high individualism within the employees, China has high collectivism. The people present their interests in groups and believe in communal working. The values in China portrays inequality in the society. There are many differences between different types of people. This has led to high power distance with the business organizations. Regarding indulgence values, China has a low score in this aspect. The society is highly restrained in regarding the activities that they do, and they always do things formally. For example, they dress officially and avoid casual dressing, they have set the reporting and leaving time for the workplaces, and they are strict about it. Besides, the workplace values in China depicts high uncertainty avoidance. Thus, this has made the employees avoid engaging in activities that are associated with some risks (Cappelli, Singh, Jitendra & Useem, 2010).

On the other hand, the workplace values in France depicts a relatively high rate of collectivism. People enjoy working in groups and presenting their issues and interests as a group. However, there is average power distance measure in France. The top organization leaders have a moderate distance with their respective junior staff. Regarding the uncertainty avoidance, France depicts a high rate of uncertainty avoidance. Most of the employees have a fear of engaging in activities that are uncertain. Also, the values at the workplace in France shows that there is low indulgence level (Ross, 2011). Workers are always official, their carry themselves in an official way possible, they have set the working hours, and they operate within them. Thus, these shows the workplace values in France.

The US offers compensation negotiations in its enumeration systems. Th employees have room to make negotiations on the pay that they receive. However, the pay scale differs from one organization to the other, with international ones make attempts to offer the competitive scales (Paul & Rebecca, 2008). The considers the various aspects such as the offering of housing allowances, giving relief on taxes and the spouse employment help among many other factors. Besides, the country gives other benefits to other people such as training on job development, employee retirement benefits among many others (Budd & Bhave, 2010).

In China, it has been noted that the remuneration system is greatly influenced by the employment terms between the organization and the worker. The employees are paid depending on their employment considerations such as those on contract, permanent or casual worker. However, there are some various specific remuneration aspects that the country consider. These include the compensation and severance considerations where the local government sets the minimum wage for given category of employees (Smith, 2009). There is also the consideration of the employee benefits and the tax reliefs, benefits and withholdings. Besides, the leave and vacations, where the employees are allocated a few days to take a leave from duty.

Workplace Values in France, China, and USA

 France, just like many other countries offer various remuneration packages. The international organizations offer competitive pay to its workers just like other companies. The country offers the basic wage for the employees and the country its minimum wage amount set for its employees (Bryan & Vinchur, 2012). Different workers receive different pay scales depending on their job scales. However, it has been noted that the pay is greatly influenced by the employment terms between the worker and the organization. The force of individual bargaining power in moderate in this case (Weathers, 2009). The employees also receive other benefits and allowances, but this is mostly determined by the employing country.

As a recommendation, it is important for the human resource systems of the companies that wish to go international to understand the specific employee relations aspects that exist in those countries of interest. The various similarities and differences in the countries of attention will help the organization to put in place the most appropriate strategies to handle the human resource efficiently. It is recommended that the human resource strategies adopted should conform to the findings from the various research aspects of the system in these specific countries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, international employee relations reveals differences in the practice for various countries. Different nations have differences in their human resource systems, the way of handling employment relations, the various employee values and remuneration systems. These differences come about by the fact that different countries have different social-cultural, political and economic characteristics. It is critical for the human resource of the multinational organizations to understand these differences. Thus, such information will give these companies an opportunity to put in place the appropriate human resource practices that will help in managing the business in the most efficient way possible.

References

Akhtar, S., Ding, D. & Ge, G. (2008). Strategic HRM practices and their impact on the company performance in the Chinese enterprises, Human Resource Management, No. 1, pp. 15-32.

Befort, S. & Budd, J. (2009). Invisible Hands, Invisible Objectives: Bringing Workplace Law and the Public Policy Into Focus, Stanford University Press.

Bryan, L., & Vinchur, A. (2012). A history of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Budd, W. & Bhave, D. (2010). "The Employment Relationship," in Sage Handbook of the Handbook of the Human Resource Management, Sage.

Cappelli, P., Singh, H., Jitendra, V. & Useem, M. (2010). 'Leadership Lessons from India,' Harvard Business Review, 88(3):90-97

Cheung, A. and Ian, S. (2012). Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia: Paradigm Shift or Business as Usual?  

Fulton, L. (2015). Worker Representation in Europe. Labour Research Department and ETUI.

Health and Safety Executive (2009). A Guide to Safety and Health Regulation in Great Britain. 4th edition. ISBN 978-0-7176-6319-4

Hyman, R. (2009). "The State in Industrial Relations," the Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations.

Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York: Public Affairs.

Paul, B. & Rebecca, K. (2008). Introduction to Human Resource Management. Oxford University Press. pp. 114. ISBN 978-0-19-929152-6.

Pinder, C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd edition). New York: Psychology Press

Ross, H. (2011). Reinventing diversity: Transforming organizational community to strengthen people, purpose, and performance. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield and Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

Smith, P. (2009). "New labor and the commonsense of neoliberalism: trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers' rights," Industrial Relations Journal, 40(4), 337-355.

Weathers, C. (2009). A Companion to Japanese History, Chichester, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 493–510.