Has it ever been considered, the possibility of Employers having too much control in the Employment Relationship? Depending on your perspective, it could be argued that the Employees hold the power over the Employers. With this question presented, I would like to discuss further the outcomes, both good and bad, when one party of the Employment Relationship is granted a much higher degree of power than the other and how this can jeopardise the cooperation in the Workplace. Taking a step back from Employment Relations, The Stanford University explored a similar concept in The Stanford Prison Experiment led by Dr Phil Zimbardo. The aim of this experiment was to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that stimulated prison life (McLeod, 2008). This experiment had participants randomly assigned to their roles of either guard or prisoner, and within a very short time both parties were settling into their new roles. McLeod (2008) writes that as the prisoners became more dependant, the guards became more derisive towards them. I believe that the Guards held a position of power over the submissive prisoners, which led to them …show more content…
(2014) discuss Radicalism, where the employment relationship itself produces conflict between Employers and Employees as their goals and interests are completely conflicting. Radicalism conflict cannot be resolved without changing the underlying social structures. The role of management is to control the employees in order to produce profit and the employees inevitably hold a subordinate position. Unions represent employees in the struggle against the employers and the state protects the interest of the employers. It is in my opinion that Radicalism is not the ideal outcome for this scenario as conflict is constant within the Employment Relationship and can be extremely difficult to resolve, most likely requiring the assistance of Tribunals or