Persuasive Essay

Answer

Position of the State in Its Relations with Employers and Workers

The changing political, social, economic, and industrial relations influence the role of State in the labor sector. Primarily, the State is expected to maintain a neutral position in its relationship with both workers and employers. However, under capitalism, the State is often argued to incline towards helping the employers more than the workers. Primarily, the functions of the State amid rising claims of capitalism can be understood by evaluating the views of Max Weber and Karl Marx.  Primarily, both of them evaluated various changes affecting industrialization, the emergency of the modern State, and the rise of modern capitalism.  However, their evaluations brought elicited a different conclusion from each other. Primarily, this paper summarizes the views of both Max Weber and Karl Marx and then explains if the State occupies a neutral position in its relations with workers and employers.

Part 1: Max Weber Summary

Max Weber's primary argument holds that the Protestant work ethic, which is usually regarded as "hard work coupled with self-denial," often gets secularized by being disconnected from spiritual concerns.  The experience gives rise to rationalization, which is the tendency by institutions in contemporary settings to regard efficiency, calculability, and rationality as the primary guiding principles.  Weber feels that rationalization has led to the emergency of modern bureaucracies as a consequence due to the legitimization of power using rules, procedures, and laws that took the place of conventional forms of political authority (Beetham, 2018).  As a result, Weber saw the modern State as some institution of humans in which the utilization of violence within a specific territory is legitimate. 

Fundamentally, Weber views the State as being a pluralist, meaning that state power is often contested and shared among a few groups. Ideally, power is derived from political status, power, and wealth. Weber is unsure about the impacts of the changes within states. Ideally, he feels that rationalization increases efficiency in production as well as social and economic stability, thereby leading to high standards of life. However, on the low end, he feels that it concentrates power on a few individuals leading to monopoly and cultural disenchantment.

Part 2: Karl Marx Summary

Karl Marx's main argument is centered on the capitalist form of production based on the English political economy, German idealist, and French socialism.  The foundation of Marx's view is the class conflict between the ruling and the working classes. In this regard, Karl Marx feels that antagonism between these classes exists in all societies. Primarily, the conflict emerges from the differences in their targets. In this regard, workers often seek to attain maximum wages that will help improve their quality of life while, on the other hand, the capitalists who are mainly employers aim at maximizing profits and productivity.  In this antagonist relationship, Karl Marx states that capitalists have advantages since unemployment is an inherent feature in all societies. As such, they can harness workers' ability and extract the "surplus value," which translates to profits (Moshiri, 2019). The experiences lead to alienation as workers have no control over their abilities since they are forced to sell it to meet their individual needs. Similarly, the workers are denied a chance to exploit and utilize their creativity.

Part 3: Is the State a neutral body in its relations with employers and workers?"

The exact role in which the State plays in its relations with employers and workers elicits divided opinions. Ideally, multiple views exist on the nature of the State and on what the role of the State ought to be in the employment relationship. In this regard, most views are often informed by people's position within the economic system. Notably, whereas employers can affect the conditions of employees directly, workers have little influence on the directives as well as the status of their employers. Therefore, they all run to the State for any form of reprieve when they are hard-pressed. Therefore, with the power to influence the directives of employers as well as advocating for the rights of the workers, this essay will argue that the State is a neutral body in its relations with employers and workers.

The State acts as a neutral entity in its relationship with employees and employers through setting up industrial policies, laws, and regulations which influence the nature of the relationship that occurs between workers and their superiors. In this regard, the government ensures that the set-out policies are fair to both sides in a way that will not affect production. Therefore, whereas each side, employers, and workers, focus on realizing maximum benefits and outputs from their engagement, the State focuses on enhancing production and satisfaction to each party (Gould IV, 2019). For instance, the State sets the number of working hours that allow employers to benefit maximally from workers' input while also not exploiting workers, determines proper pay structures, and the formation of labor unions. Therefore, by virtue that the State does not favor any side in its industrial policy development as well as implementation, it becomes a neutral player whose primary goal is creating an equal opportunity, fair, conducive, and satisfying playground for both employees and employers.

The State's neutrality in its relationship with employees and employers is depicted in solving disputes within industrial relations. In this regard, it acts as a judge and a jury at the same time. For instance, when particular boundaries are overstretched by either the employers or the workers, the State becomes the arbitrator.  For example, the State can get involved in solving industrial relations matters through the court or adjusting policies and acts which may seem ineffective, irrelevant, or outdated based on the changes within the nation's economic sector (Dombrowski, Alvarado Garcia, and Despard, 2017).  Often, in acting as a judge and jury, the government observes various principles of fairness, which are aimed at enhancing the relationship between the workers and their employers. Primarily, this lack of allegiance or alienation to one side means that the government maintains a neutral position in its dealing with workers and employers.

The State is neutral in its relationship with workers and employers based on its monitoring of trade unions. Usually, trade unions exist to enhance the conditions and experiences of workers. As such, trade unions benefit both employers: by saving them negotiation times, enhancing the productivity of workers, and preventing adverse impacts of issues like strikes as it advocates for discussions and also benefits workers by ensuring that their working conditions are right and that they are adequately rewarded for their efforts.  In this regard, the State, through responsible ministries such as the labor section, ensures that unions that get registered meet the prerequisite requirements of having value to both workers and employers. Moreover, the State ensures that unions remain protected within their sector of operations in ways that hinder them from being dictated by either workers or employers (Dombrowski, Alvarado Garcia, and Despard, 2017). In so doing, the union embodies the government in remaining neutral while attending to the needs of the workers as well as their superiors. Furthermore, if either workers or employers feel adversely targeted or affected by the activities of a union, they look up to the State for a reprieve.  As such, the State is neutral in that it offers assistance to both employers and employees in dealing with unions and other elements, which might have adverse effects on the operations within the labor sector.

Division in opinions on whether the State takes up a neutral position in its relationship with workers and employers is based on the perceived view that the government sometimes aligns with one side. For instance, the main opposition to the view that the State is neutral in industrial relations is the argument that the State is not keen on protecting the workers' income as it is a crucial source of government revenue. In this regard, the opposers feel that the State is blind to the low wages paid to workers, thereby creating a massive gap in pay between the employees and the employers, which encourages social stratification based on income (Anderson, 2019). As such, the workers remain poor while their employers enrich themselves in an unbalanced capitalist society. Moreover, those feeling that the State is not neutral in dealing with workers and employers argue that all taxes levied on employers are passed on to workers, thereby making them susceptible to economic exploitation. As such, the underlying view is that the government often aligns with employers.

The noted counter-arguments to the view that the State occupies a neutral position in its dealings with employers and workers are legitimate based on existing pay structures in various economies. However, they can be rebutted. Regarding the vast pay gap between workers and their superiors, it is appropriate to note that the reward for labor and entrepreneurship varies. In this regard, workers' reward is salary and wages while employers' reward is profit. Therefore, the two groups can never have the same income. Regarding economic exploitation based on the transfer of tax to employees, it is prudent to know that individual taxes apply to everyone. Similarly, production tax, which affects the operating cost of economic establishments, has to be felt by all the staff.

Conclusively, opinions are divided on the position of the government in its relationship with employers and workers. In this regard, some feel that the government is more than often inclined towards helping the employers more while neglecting the specific needs of workers, such as the growing pay gap and transfer of tax. However, I feel that the government is neutral in its dealing with the workers as well as employers. The view is informed by the role of the State to promote positive industrial relations between all the involved stakeholders, its commitment to solving issues between workers and employers, and the monitoring of trade unions to ensure that they benefit both workers and employees.