LRM4801
Assignment 2
Exceptional Answers
DUE 7 July 2025
,LRM4801
Assignment 2
DUE 7 July 2025
Navigating Automation and Labour Relations: A Strategic Analysis of Ubuntu
AutoTech South Africa’s Digital Transformation
Question 1: Labour Relations Perspective
1.1 Comparative Analysis: Pluralist vs Radical Frames
Conflict
A pluralist lens assumes the workplace comprises distinct groups whose interests may
diverge yet can be harmonised through structured negotiation. Under this view, UASA’s
digital transformation merely reveals latent tensions between managerial objectives and
employee welfare, rather than deadly fault lines. Pluralists would thus advocate
strengthening collective bargaining forums and joint consultative committees to channel
these tensions constructively (Bendix, 2019).
By contrast, the radical perspective locates conflict in the very architecture of
capitalism. It holds that UASA’s automation—and the push for reduced headcount—
embodies a systemic drive to concentrate wealth and power. Radical theorists would
argue that no amount of consultation can resolve such structural inequality; conflict is
therefore perpetual until the ownership and control of production are fundamentally
re-engineered (Hyman, 1975).
Trade Union Involvement
From a pluralist standpoint, trade unions are co-equal social partners empowered to
shape outcomes.
, UASA’s preference for consultative dialogue over formal bargaining would be criticised
as a token gesture that weakens union voice and limits workers’ agency (Fox, 1966).
Pluralists would insist on integrating unions into decision-making bodies with clear
mandates, thereby balancing managerial foresight with worker representation.
Radical analysis, however, sees trade unions as vehicles of class struggle. UASA’s
creation of a Joint Labour-Management Transformation Forum would be interpreted as
an attempt to neutralise union power—co-opting representatives into a symbolic
structure that masks deeper exploitation (Edwards, 2003). For radicals, any union
involvement that fails to challenge capitalist accumulation is inherently compromised.
Goals and Values
Pluralists recognise that employers seek efficiency and profit, while employees pursue
security and fair reward. They assume these aims can align when underpinned by fair
rules and empathy. UASA’s slogans—“One Team, One Future”—thus appear as
well-meaning but insufficient unless backed by genuine shared governance (Kenny &
Bezuidenhout, 1999).
Radicals, in contrast, assert that management’s drive for productivity inherently conflicts
with labour’s quest for autonomy. For them, UASA’s upskilling academies, dictated by
management forecasts, represent a “skills treadmill” designed to mould workers to
technological paradigms without addressing job displacement or power imbalances
(Hyman, 1975).
Strikes
The pluralist tradition views strikes as legitimate pressure points within collective
bargaining, signalling breakdowns that must be remedied through renewed dialogue
(Bendix, 2019). A pluralist critique would thus urge UASA to address union grievances
swiftly to avert industrial action.
Radical theory, however, frames strikes as manifestations of class antagonism. From
this angle, any strike at UASA over automation is not a failure of communication but a
natural response to systemic dispossession. Only a restructuring of ownership and
profit-sharing could render strikes obsolete (Hyman, 1975).
Assignment 2
Exceptional Answers
DUE 7 July 2025
,LRM4801
Assignment 2
DUE 7 July 2025
Navigating Automation and Labour Relations: A Strategic Analysis of Ubuntu
AutoTech South Africa’s Digital Transformation
Question 1: Labour Relations Perspective
1.1 Comparative Analysis: Pluralist vs Radical Frames
Conflict
A pluralist lens assumes the workplace comprises distinct groups whose interests may
diverge yet can be harmonised through structured negotiation. Under this view, UASA’s
digital transformation merely reveals latent tensions between managerial objectives and
employee welfare, rather than deadly fault lines. Pluralists would thus advocate
strengthening collective bargaining forums and joint consultative committees to channel
these tensions constructively (Bendix, 2019).
By contrast, the radical perspective locates conflict in the very architecture of
capitalism. It holds that UASA’s automation—and the push for reduced headcount—
embodies a systemic drive to concentrate wealth and power. Radical theorists would
argue that no amount of consultation can resolve such structural inequality; conflict is
therefore perpetual until the ownership and control of production are fundamentally
re-engineered (Hyman, 1975).
Trade Union Involvement
From a pluralist standpoint, trade unions are co-equal social partners empowered to
shape outcomes.
, UASA’s preference for consultative dialogue over formal bargaining would be criticised
as a token gesture that weakens union voice and limits workers’ agency (Fox, 1966).
Pluralists would insist on integrating unions into decision-making bodies with clear
mandates, thereby balancing managerial foresight with worker representation.
Radical analysis, however, sees trade unions as vehicles of class struggle. UASA’s
creation of a Joint Labour-Management Transformation Forum would be interpreted as
an attempt to neutralise union power—co-opting representatives into a symbolic
structure that masks deeper exploitation (Edwards, 2003). For radicals, any union
involvement that fails to challenge capitalist accumulation is inherently compromised.
Goals and Values
Pluralists recognise that employers seek efficiency and profit, while employees pursue
security and fair reward. They assume these aims can align when underpinned by fair
rules and empathy. UASA’s slogans—“One Team, One Future”—thus appear as
well-meaning but insufficient unless backed by genuine shared governance (Kenny &
Bezuidenhout, 1999).
Radicals, in contrast, assert that management’s drive for productivity inherently conflicts
with labour’s quest for autonomy. For them, UASA’s upskilling academies, dictated by
management forecasts, represent a “skills treadmill” designed to mould workers to
technological paradigms without addressing job displacement or power imbalances
(Hyman, 1975).
Strikes
The pluralist tradition views strikes as legitimate pressure points within collective
bargaining, signalling breakdowns that must be remedied through renewed dialogue
(Bendix, 2019). A pluralist critique would thus urge UASA to address union grievances
swiftly to avert industrial action.
Radical theory, however, frames strikes as manifestations of class antagonism. From
this angle, any strike at UASA over automation is not a failure of communication but a
natural response to systemic dispossession. Only a restructuring of ownership and
profit-sharing could render strikes obsolete (Hyman, 1975).
