HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL

LEGAL ASPECT
SUBJECT OF THE CHAPTER 11
1. EXPLAINS ETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
2. FACTORS SHAPES ETHICAL BEHAVIOR AT WORK.
3. FOUR SPECIFIC HR TOOLS MANAGERS USE TO INFLUENCE ETHICAL
BEHAVIOR.
4. HOW TO USE FAIR DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES.
5. DEFINE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND FOUR METHODS FOR MANAGING IT.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL

• BASICS OF ETHICS & FAIR TREATMENT AT WORK

• MONITORING SOFTWARE A GOOD IDEA, OR WOULD YOU VIEW IT AS UNETHICAL—AS
“SPYING” ON EMPLOYEES?

• “WHY INCLUDE ETHICS IN A HRM BOOK?”

• BECAUSE OF:
• 1. ETHICS IS NOT THEORETICAL, - IT GREASES THE WHEELS THAT MAKE BUSINESSES WORK
• 2. HRM DECISIONS ARE LOADED WITH ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES.
• 3. MOST EMPLOYERS STRIVE - POSITIVE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND
THEIR EMPLOYEES, - AND DOING SO IS IMPOSSIBLE IF EMPLOYEES VIEW THE COMPANY OR ITS
MANAGERS AS UNETHICAL OR UNFAIR
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL

• THE MEANING OF ETHICS

• ETHICS ARE “THE PRINCIPLES OF CONDUCT (CODE OF CONDUCT) GOVERNING AN
INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP” — THE PRINCIPLES PEOPLE USE TO DECIDE WHAT THEIR CONDUCT
SHOULD BE.

• MORALITY MEANS SOCIETY’S ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR AND ALWAYS

INVOLVES BASIC QUESTIONS OF RIGHT AND WRONG, SUCH AS STEALING, MURDER, AND HOW
TO TREAT OTHER PEOPLE.

• HOW TO TREAT EMPLOYEES IS THEREFORE ALMOST ALWAYS AS MUCH OF AN ETHICAL

QUESTION AS A LEGAL ONE.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• ETHICS & THE LAW

• ETHICS  IN ACCORDANCE TO CODE OF CONDUT OF SOCIAL NORM

• ETHICS MEANS MAKING DECISIONS THAT REPRESENT WHAT YOU STAND FOR, NOT JUST WHAT THE
LAWS ARE.”
• ETHICS IS NOT EASY TO FULFILLED .
• .

• THE LAW
• “IS IT LEGAL?”
• LAW, “IT IS EASY TO FULFILLED THE LEGAL ASPECT !”
• UNFORTUNATELY, “IS IT ETHICAL” MAY THEN ARISE ONLY AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, IF AT ALL.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• MORAL MANAGEMENT
• THERE ARE: — IMMORAL, — AMORAL, AND — MORAL

• IMMORAL MANAGERS ARE DISCORDANT (CONFLICTING) WITH ACCEPTED

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

• AMMORALITY KNOWN AS UNINTENTIONAL AMORAL MANAGERS. THERE IS

ALSO AN INTENTIONAL AMORAL MANAGER

• MORAL MANAGEMENT, ETHICAL NORMS THAT ADHERED TO S HIGH

STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR ARE FULFILLED
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND THE LAW
• FEW SOCIETIES RELY ON MANAGERS’ ETHICS OR SENSE OF FAIRNESS TO ENSURE THAT
THEY DO WHAT’S RIGHT BY THEIR EMPLOYEES. THEY ALSO PUT IN PLACE VARIOUS LAWS,
WHICH IN TURN GIVE EMPLOYEES (OR PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AND SOMETIMES PAST
EMPLOYEES) NUMEROUS RIGHTS.
• LAW IS SEEN MINIMAL BEHAVIOR AND THE PREFERENCE AND GOAL IS TO OPERATE
WELL ABOVE WHAT THE LAW MANDATES.
• MORAL MANAGERS SEEK OUT AND USE SOUND ETHICAL PRINCIPLES SUCH AS,
JUSTICE, RIGHTS, UTILITARIANISM, AND GOLDEN RULE TO GUIDE THEIR DECISIONS.
WHEN ETHICAL DILEMMAS RISE, MORAL MANAGERS ASSUMME A LEADERSHIP POSITION
FOR THEIR COMPANIES AND INDUSTRIES.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• WORKPLACE UNFAIRNESS
• ONE WAY A COMPANY’S ETHICS MANIFEST THEMSELVES IS IN HOW FAIRLY IT TREATS ITS
EMPLOYEES.
• ANYONE WHO’S SUFFERED UNFAIR TREATMENT AT WORK KNOWS IT IS DEMORALIZING.
UNFAIR TREATMENT REDUCES MORALE, INCREASES STRESS, AND HAS NEGATIVE EFFECTS
ON PERFORMANCE.
• EMPLOYEES OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISORS ARE MORE LIKELY TO QUIT, AND TO REPORT LOWER
JOB AND LIFE SATISFACTION AND HIGHER STRESS.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• WHY TREAT EMPLOYEES FAIRLY?
• THERE ARE MANY REASONS THAT MANAGERS SHOULD BE FAIR. THE GOLDEN RULE IS ONE
OBVIOUS REASON.
• WHAT MAY NOT BE SO OBVIOUS IS THAT EMPLOYEES’ FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS ALSO AFFECT
THE COMPANY.
• FOR EXAMPLE, VICTIMS EXHIBIT MORE WORKPLACE DEVIANCE, SUCH AS THEFT AND
SABOTAGE., PERCEPTIONS OF FAIRNESS ALSO RELATE TO ENHANCED EMPLOYEE
COMMITMENT; ENHANCED SATISFACTION WITH THE ORGANIZATION, JOBS, AND LEADERS;
AND ENHANCED ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS. PEOPLE WHO VIEW
THEMSELVES AS VICTIMS OF UNFAIRNESS ALSO SUFFER A RANGE OF ILL EFFECTS INCLUDING
POOR HEALTH, STRAIN, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• BULLYING (INTIMIDATION) AND VICTIMIZATION
• AGAIN, SOME UNFAIRNESS IS BLATANT. BULLYING — SINGLING OUT
SOMEONE TO HARASS AND MISTREAT THEM — IS AN INCREASINGLY
SERIOUS PROBLEM. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (WWW.STOPBULLYING.GOV/#)
POINTS OUT THAT WHILE DEFINITIONS OF BULLYING VARY, MOST WOULD
AGREE THAT BULLYING INVOLVES THREE THINGS:
• 1 ● IMBALANCE OF POWER: PEOPLE WHO BULLY USE THEIR POWER TO CONTROL OR
HARM AND THE PEOPLE BEING BULLIED MAY HAVE A HARD TIME DEFENDING THEMSELVES.
• 2 ● INTENT TO CAUSE HARM: ACTIONS DONE BY ACCIDENT ARE NOT BULLYING; THE
PERSON BULLYING HAS A GOAL TO CAUSE HARM.
• 3 ● REPETITION: INCIDENTS OF BULLYING HAPPEN TO THE SAME THE PERSON OVER AND
OVER BY THE SAME PERSON OR GROUP,
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
BULLYING INVOLVES THREE THINGS:
• 1 ● IMBALANCE OF POWER: PEOPLE WHO BULLY USE THEIR POWER TO CONTROL OR HARM
AND THE PEOPLE BEING BULLIED MAY HAVE A HARD TIME DEFENDING THEMSELVES.
• 2 ● INTENT TO CAUSE HARM: ACTIONS DONE BY ACCIDENT ARE NOT BULLYING; THE PERSON
BULLYING HAS A GOAL TO CAUSE HARM.
• 3 ● REPETITION: INCIDENTS OF BULLYING HAPPEN TO THE SAME THE PERSON OVER AND
OVER BY THE SAME PERSON OR GROUP, AND THAT BULLYING CAN TAKE MANY FORMS, SUCH
AS:
• -A- ● VERBAL: NAME-CALLING, TEASING
• -B- ● SOCIAL: SPREADING RUMORS, LEAVING PEOPLE OUT ON PURPOSE, BREAKING UP
FRIENDSHIPS
• -C- ● PHYSICAL: HITTING, PUNCHING, SHOVING
• -D- ● CYBERBULLYING: USING THE INTERNET, MOBILE PHONES, OR OTHER DIGITAL
TECHNOLOGIES TO HARM OTHERS
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• RESEARCH INSIGHT
• A STUDY ILLUSTRATES THE INTERPERSONAL DYNAMICS INVOLVED,
SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE WITH HIGHER INTELLECTUAL CAPABILITY OFTEN
SUFFER BULLYING IN SCHOOL CONTEXT — FOR INSTANCE, IN THE FORM OF
DEROGATORY NAMES SUCH AS GEEK AND NERD. IN THIS STUDY, 217
EMPLOYEES OF A HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION ARE MEASURED COGNITIVE
ABILITY, VICTIMIZATION, AND HOW THE PERSON BEHAVED AT WORK.
• IT WASN’T JUST WHETHER THE PERSON WAS VERY SMART THAT
DETERMINED IF HE OR SHE WAS VICTIMIZED. INSTEAD, PEOPLE WITH HIGH
COGNITIVE ABILITY WHO ALSO BEHAVED MORE INDEPENDENTLY WERE
MORE LIKELY TO BE BULLYING VICTIMS. SMART PEOPLE WHO WERE TEAM
PLAYERS WERE LESS LIKELY TO BE VICTIMIZED.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• WHAT SHAPES ETHICAL BEHAVIOR AT WORK?
• WHY DO PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS? IT’S COMPLICATED. A RECENT REVIEW OF OVER 30 YEARS
OF ETHICS RESEARCH CONCLUDED THAT THREE FACTORS DETERMINE THE ETHICAL
CHOICES WE MAKE. THE AUTHORS TITLED THEIR PAPER “BAD APPLES, BAD CASES,
AND BAD BARRELS.” THIS TITLE HIGHLIGHTED THEIR CONCLUSION THAT WHEN
• “BAD APPLES” (PEOPLE WHO ARE INCLINED TO MAKE UNETHICAL CHOICES), CONFRONT
• “BAD CASES” (ETHICAL SITUATIONS THAT ARE RIPE FOR UNETHICAL CHOICES), WHILE
WORKING IN

• “BAD BARRELS” (ENVIRONMENTS THAT FOSTER OR CONDONE UNETHICAL CHOICES), AND

THIS BREW COMBINES TO DETERMINE WHAT SOMEONE’S ETHICAL CHOICES WILL BE.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• WE CAN SUMMARIZE THEIR FINDINGS AS FOLLOWS:
• - (BAD APLES)INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS—WHO ARE THE BAD APPLES? SOME
PEOPLE ARE JUST MORE INCLINED TO MAKE UNETHICAL CHOICES. MOST IMPORTANTLY,
PEOPLE DIFFER IN THEIR LEVEL OF “COGNITIVE MORAL DEVELOPMENT.” THE MOST
PRINCIPLED PEOPLE, WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF COGNITIVE MORAL DEVELOPMENT,
THINK THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR DECISIONS AND APPLY ETHICAL
PRINCIPLES.
• -(BAD CASER )WHICH ETHICAL SITUATIONS MAKE FOR BAD (ETHICALLY
DANGEROUS) SITUATIONS? SOME ETHICAL DILEMMAS ARE MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO
UNETHICAL CHOICES. PERHAPS SURPRISINGLY, “SMALLER” DILEMMAS PROMPT MORE
BAD CHOICES. WHAT DETERMINES “SMALL”? ISSUES SUCH AS THE HARM THAT CAN
BEFALL VICTIMS OF THE CHOICE, AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
BY THE CHOICE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IN “LESS SERIOUS” SITUATIONS, IT’S MORE
LIKELY THAT SOMEONE WILL SAY, IN EFFECT, “IT’S OKAY TO DO THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT’S
WRONG.”
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• WE SUMMARIZE THEIR FINDINGS AS FOLLOWS:
• -(BAD BARRELS) WHAT ARE THE “BAD BARRELS”—THE OUTSIDE FACTORS
THAT MOLD ETHICAL CHOICES? - THE STUDY SUGGESTS THAT SOME
COMPANIES PRODUCE MORE POISONOUS SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS
(“BARRELS”) THAN DO OTHERS; THESE ENVIRONMENTS INFLUENCE EACH
EMPLOYEE’S ETHICAL CHOICES. FOR EXAMPLE, COMPANIES THAT PROMOTE
AN “EVERYONE FOR HIM- OR HERSELF” CULTURE WERE MORE LIKELY TO
ALSO SUFFER FROM UNETHICAL CHOICES. THOSE THAT ENCOURAGED
EMPLOYEES TO CONSIDER THE WELL-BEING OF EVERYONE ALSO HAD MORE
ETHICAL CHOICES. FURTHERMORE, COMPANIES WHOSE MANAGERS PUT IN
PLACE “A STRONG ETHICAL CULTURE THAT CLEARLY COMMUNICATES THE
RANGE OF ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR IS ASSOCIATED
WITH FEWER UNETHICAL DECISIONS IN THE WORKPLACE.”22
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• THE PERSON (WHAT MAKES BAD APPLES?)
• BECAUSE PEOPLE BRING TO THEIR JOBS THEIR OWN IDEAS OF WHAT IS
MORALLY RIGHT AND WRONG, EACH PERSON MUST SHOULDER MUCH OF
THE CREDIT (OR BLAME) FOR HIS OR HER ETHICAL CHOICES. SOME PEOPLE
ARE JUST MORE PRINCIPLED.
• (FOR EXAMPLE, RESEARCHERS SURVEYED CEOS TO STUDY THE CEOS’
INTENTIONS TO ENGAGE IN TWO QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES: SOLICITING A
COMPETITOR’S TECHNOLOGICAL SECRETS, AND MAKING ILLEGAL PAYMENTS
TO FOREIGN OFFICIALS. THE RESEARCHERS CONCLUDED THAT THE CEOS’
PERSONAL PREDISPOSITIONS MORE STRONGLY AFFECTED THEIR DECISIONS
THAN DID OUTSIDE PRESSURES OR CHARACTERISTICS OF THEIR FIRMS.)
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• THE PERSON (WHAT MAKES BAD APPLES?)
• -1- TRAITS (WATAK)
• -2- JOB RELATED PRESSURE
• -3- PRESSURE FROM THE BOSS
• TRAITS WE DRAW SEVERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE TRAITS OF ETHICAL OR
UNETHICAL PEOPLE. A STUDY SURVEYED 421 EMPLOYEES TO MEASURE THE DEGREE TO
WHICH VARIOUS TRAITS INFLUENCED RESPONSES TO ETHICAL DECISIONS. (DECISIONS
INCLUDED “DOING PERSONAL BUSINESS ON COMPANY TIME” AND “CALLING IN SICK TO
TAKE A DAY OFF FOR PERSONAL USE.”) OLDER WORKERS GENERALLY HAD STRICTER
INTERPRETATIONS OF ETHICAL STANDARDS AND MADE MORE ETHICAL DECISIONS THAN
DID YOUNGER ONES.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• JOB-RELATED PRESSURES IF PEOPLE DID UNETHICAL THINGS AT
WORK SOLELY FOR PERSONAL GAIN, IT PERHAPS WOULD BE
UNDERSTANDABLE (THOUGH INEXCUSABLE). THE SCARY THING IS THAT
PERSONAL INTERESTS OFTEN DO NOT DRIVE SUCH BEHAVIOR; INSTEAD,
IT’S THE PRESSURES OF THE JOB. AS ONE FORMER EXECUTIVE SAID AT HIS
TRIAL, “I TOOK THESE ACTIONS, KNOWING THEY WERE WRONG, IN A
MISGUIDED ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE COMPANY TO ALLOW IT TO
WITHSTAND WHAT I BELIEVED WERE TEMPORARY FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES.”
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• PRESSURE FROM THE BOSS IT IS HARD TO RESIST EVEN SUBTLE PRESSURE
FROM ONE’S BOSS. ACCORDING TO ONE REPORT, FOR INSTANCE, “THE LEVEL OF
MISCONDUCT AT WORK DROPPED DRAMATICALLY WHEN EMPLOYEES SAID THEIR
SUPERVISORS EXHIBITED ETHICAL BEHAVIOR.” ONLY 25% OF EMPLOYEES WHO AGREED
THAT THEIR SUPERVISORS “SET A GOOD EXAMPLE OF ETHICAL BUSINESS BEHAVIOR” SAID
THEY HAD OBSERVED MISCONDUCT IN THE LAST YEAR, COMPARED WITH 72% OF THOSE
WHO DID NOT FEEL THAT THEIR SUPERVISORS SET GOOD ETHICAL EXAMPLES.28 YET, IN
ANOTHER POLL, ONLY ABOUT 27% OF EMPLOYEES STRONGLY AGREED THAT THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS’ LEADERSHIP IS ETHICAL.

• ETHICS POLICIES AND CODES AN ETHICS POLICY AND CODE IS ANOTHER “OUTSIDE
FORCE” THAT EMPLOYERS CAN USE TO SIGNAL THAT THEIR COMPANIES ARE SERIOUS
ABOUT ETHICS. FOR EXAMPLE, IBM’S CODE OF ETHICS SAYS, IN PART:
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• FOR EXAMPLE, IBM’S CODE OF ETHICS SAYS, IN PART:
• NEITHER YOU NOR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY MAY, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH OTHERS,
SOLICIT OR ACCEPT FROM ANYONE MONEY, A GIFT, OR ANY AMENITY THAT COULD
INFLUENCE OR COULD REASONABLY GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING IBM’S
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT PERSON OR ORGANIZATION. IF YOU OR YOUR FAMILY
MEMBERS RECEIVE A GIFT (INCLUDING MONEY), EVEN IF THE GIFT WAS UNSOLICITED, YOU
MUST NOTIFY YOUR MANAGER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE
RETURNING OR DISPOSING OF WHAT YOU RECEIVED. BEYOND A CODE, SOME FIRMS ALSO
URGE EMPLOYEES TO APPLY A QUICK “ETHICS TEST” TO EVALUATE WHETHER WHAT
THEY’RE ABOUT TO DO FITS THE COMPANY’S CODE OF CONDUCT. FOR EXAMPLE,
RAYTHEON CO. ASKS EMPLOYEES WHO FACE ETHICAL DILEMMAS TO ASK:
• IS THE ACTION LEGAL?
• IS IT RIGHT?
• WHO WILL BE AFFECTED?
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• ENFORCEMENT HOWEVER, CODIFYING THE RULES WITHOUT ENFORCING THEM IS FUTILE. AS
ONE STUDY OF ETHICS CONCLUDES, “STRONG STATEMENTS BY MANAGERS MAY REDUCE THE
RISK OF LEGAL AND ETHICAL VIOLATIONS BY THEIR WORK FORCES, BUT ENFORCEMENT
OF STANDARDS HAS THE GREATEST IMPACT.” MORE FIRMS, SUCH AS LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORP., THEREFORE APPOINT CHIEF ETHICS OFFICERS.34 ETHICS AUDITS TYPICALLY ADDRESS
TOPICS LIKE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, GIVING AND RECEIVING GIFTS, EMPLOYEE
DISCRIMINATION, AND ACCESS TO COMPANY INFORMATION.
• WHISTLEBLOWERS SOME COMPANIES ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEES TO USE HOTLINES AND OTHER
MEANS TO “BLOW THE WHISTLE” TO THE COMPANY WHEN THEY DISCOVER INSTANCES OF
FRAUD. IN COMPLYING WITH THE DODD-FRANK ACT, THE SEC RECENTLY ESTABLISHED A
WHISTLEBLOWER REWARD FOR PEOPLE WHO REPORT UNETHICAL CORPORATE BEHAVIOR TO IT.
• THE ORGANIZATION’S CULTURE LEADERS SET A COMPANY’S ETHICAL TONE.37 EMPLOYEES
GET THEIR SIGNALS ABOUT WHAT’S ACCEPTABLE NOT JUST FROM WHAT MANAGERS SAY, BUT
FROM WHAT THEY DO. FOR INSTANCE, A CEO WHO POSTS AN ETHICS CODE AND THEN IGNORES
ITS PRECEPTS IN WHAT HE OR SHE ACTUALLY DOES IS HARDLY SENDING THE RIGHT SIGNAL TO
EMPLOYEES.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• MORE EMPLOYERS ARE USING
IRIS SCANNING TO VERIFY
EMPLOYEE IDENTITY.
• BANYAK ATASAN YANG
MENGGUNAKAN KEMARAHAN
(PELOTOTAN MATA) SEBAGAI
SIMBUL IDENTITAS ANGGGOTA
ORGANIZASI
• SANGAT LANGKA YANG
MENGGUNAKAN PENDEKATAN
PSYCHOLOGIS.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL

• ORGANIZATION CULTURE
• ORGANIZATION CULTURE IS A SYSTEMS OF VALUES OR A SYSTEMS OF NORMS,
SHARED BETWEEN ORGANIZATION MEMBERS , THAT CONTROLLED BY THE
GENERAL MANAGER, IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE ORGANIZATION MEMBER
BEHAVIORS.
• NORMS OF : BAD-GOOD, WRIGHT-WRONG, POLITER-IMPOLITE, LIKE-DISLIKE,
ETC.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• ASPEK HUKUM ATAU LEGALITAS
• LEGAL ISSUES ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING IS LEGAL—UP TO A POINT. FOR
EXAMPLE, FEDERAL LAW AND MOST STATE LAWS ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO
MONITOR EMPLOYEES’ PHONE CALLS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THEY MUST STOP LISTENING WHEN IT BECOMES
CLEAR THE CONVERSATION IS PERSONAL, NOT BUSINESS. YOU CAN ALSO
INTERCEPT E-MAIL TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE E-MAIL
PROVIDER. HOWEVER, COURT CASES SUGGEST EMPLOYERS MAY HAVE
FEWER RIGHTS TO MONITOR E-MAIL THAN PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED.76
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• ASPEK HUKUM ATAU LEGALITAS
• MANAGING EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE
• FEW HR PRACTICES WILL POISON EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF “ETHICAL AND FAIR
TREATMENT” OR UNDERMINE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AS WILL UNFAIR DISCIPLINARY
PROCESSES. THE PURPOSE OF DISCIPLINE IS TO ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEES TO ADHERE TO
RULES AND REGULATIONS. DISCIPLINE IS NECESSARY WHEN AN EMPLOYEE VIOLATES ONE
OF THE RULES.80 HOWEVER, THE PROCESS MUST BE WELL-THOUGHT OUT AND FAIR.

• THE THREE PILLARS EMPLOYEE FAIR DISCIPLINE

• THE MANAGER BUILDS A FAIR DISCIPLINE PROCESS ON THREE PILLARS: (1) RULES AND
REGULATIONS, (2) A SYSTEM OF PROGRESSIVE PENALTIES, (3) AND AN APPEALS
PROCESS.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• ANOTHER METHOD OF BUILDING DICIPLINE
• DISCIPLINE WITHOUT PUNISHMENT TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE HAS TWO MAIN DRAWBACKS. FIRST,
NO ONE LIKES BEING PUNISHED. SECOND, PUNISHMENT TENDS TO GAIN SHORT-TERM COMPLIANCE, BUT NOT
LONGTERM COOPERATION. DISCIPLINE WITHOUT PUNISHMENT (OR ALTERNATIVE OR NONPUNITIVE
DISCIPLINE) AIMS TO AVOID THESE DRAWBACKS. IT DOES THIS BY REDUCING THE PUNITIVE NATURE OF THE
DISCIPLINE ITSELF. STEPS INCLUDE:
• 1. ISSUE AN ORAL REMINDER FOR A FIRST INFRACTION.
• 2. SHOULD ANOTHER INCIDENT ARISE WITHIN 6 WEEKS, ISSUE A FORMAL WRITTEN REMINDER, AND
PLACE A COPY IN THE EMPLOYEE’S PERSONNEL FILE. ALSO, HOLD A SECOND PRIVATE DISCUSSION WITH
THE EMPLOYEE.
• 3. GIVE A PAID, 1-DAY “DECISION-MAKING LEAVE.” IF ANOTHER INCIDENT OCCURS IN THE NEXT 6 WEEKS OR
SO, TELL THE EMPLOYEE TO TAKE A 1-DAY LEAVE WITH PAY, AND TO CONSIDER WHETHER HE OR SHE WANTS
TO ABIDE BY THE COMPANY’S RULES. WHEN THE EMPLOYEE RETURNS TO WORK, HE OR SHE MEETS WITH YOU
AND GIVES YOU A DECISION.
• 4. IF NO FURTHER INCIDENTS OCCUR IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO, PURGE THE 1-DAY PAID SUSPENSION
FROM THE PERSON’S FILE. IF THE BEHAVIOR IS REPEATED, THE NEXT STEP IS DISMISSAL.
 HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL
• MANAGING EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
• BECAUSE THE RELATIONS PRODUCE GOOD WORK CONDITION AND COLABORATION
• MOST EMPLOYERS STRIVE TO MAINTAIN POSITIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND
THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND DOING SO IS NOT POSSIBLE IF EMPLOYEES THINK THE COMPANY
DISCIPLINES THEM UNFAIRLY, BULLIES THEM, SPIES ON THEM, OR (IN GENERAL) TREATS
THEM UNETHICALLY OR UNFAIRLY.
• EMPLOYEE RELATIONS IS - THE ACTIVITY THAT INVOLVES ESTABLISHING AND
MAINTAINING THE POSITIVE EMPLOYEE–EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIPS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
SATISFACTORY PRODUCTIVITY, MOTIVATION, MORALE, AND DISCIPLINE, AND TO
MAINTAINING A POSITIVE, PRODUCTIVE, AND COHESIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT.
• - BY EMPLOYEE GOOD COMMUNICATION.
• - BY EMPLOYEE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS.
• - BY CREATING EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY