1.

0 INTRODUCTION

Workers are valuable assets for an organization. Hence, the relationship of employers with
employers has become an issue that the employers should take note of, especially in an effort to
defend potential workers in the organization. At the beginning of this chapter it explains the
meaning of industrial relations and thus touches on the unions, why the employees are involved,
as well as the types of trade unions in Malaysia. Then see how the union is the most appropriate
platform to make the process of collective bargaining. Industrial relations is basically the process
in which communication, consultation and consultation are developed and supported by the high
ability and commitment of all elements within the company. Industrial relations have a goal that
in the process of interaction within a company creates a mutually supportive atmosphere between
the employees and elements within the company. Industry relations basically emphasize the rights
and obligations of workers and employers. The rights and responsibilities inherent in individuals
then develop into collective rights and responsibilities. This collective nature is then used as a
means of providing protection for workers in order to obtain good service and obtain their rights
fairly. The arrangement of rights and responsibilities for parties involved in the collective
production process is the core of industrial relations. The most basic relationship is at the company
level.

2.0 DISCUSSION ON TOPIC

The term industrial relations refers to reviewing relationships between employers and their
employees in a working environment (Maimunah, 1999). In addition, industrial relations are also
defined as a study of relationships between employers, workers and trade unions within the scope
of employment (Malaysia Employment Law & Industrial Relations, 1996). This definition
coincides with what Yong (1996) says industrial relations are related to setting agreed systems and
regulations within the working environment. This means, in industrial relations, both employers
and employees have the same legal and equal rights to protect what they feel as important for their
protection. In the context of this discussion, industrial relations will lead to relationships between
employers and trade unions.
In general, any industrial relations system involves three parties ie employers, employees and
governments. Similarly, the system is practiced in Malaysia. According to Maimunah (1999), the
parties involved in industrial relations are employers and their organizations, employees and their
unions and governments. However, in Malaysia, there are also influences from international
organizations such as the International Labor Organization or ILO. The ILO provides an
international forum for discussions with its members on issues of labor. The forum also sets labor
standards and requires its members to verify and implement it. In addition, there are legal aspects
of the work. Among the relevant actors in industrial relations in Malaysia are the Employment Act
1955, the Factories and Machinery Act 1967, the Trade Unions Act 1959, the Industrial Relations
Act 1967, the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 and many other acts.

Each party in the industry relationship has a special relationship with others. For example, between
government and employers there is a balance in aspects such as law, technology, as well as
economic growth. While employers are concerned with their employees in matters such as setting
organizational goals, work systems and also the distribution of profits and compensation to
employees. In this connection, sometimes issues or issues can not be resolved by both parties,
whether employers or employees themselves. For employees, they need a platform or field that
helps them achieve the goals they want. One of the platforms or fields commonly used by
employees is to join a trade union at their workplace. Industrial relations will also not exist without
a trade union. However, there are other reasons why employees join the trade union

3.0 ISSUES

3.1 ACCOUNTABILITY

One of the most significant differences between public management and private sector managers
is the responsibility of the organization. If we examine public sector management, each department
has a responsibility to one another. These departments rely on one another more and more if they
have the same objective. Unlike the private sector, a department has only the responsibility of their
respective organizations. For example, the Ministry of Education Education Department is
responsible for promoting higher education by providing facilities through the establishment of
the Institute of Higher Education (IPT). Their function is supported by the National Higher
Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) which acts as a financier for students who need financial
assistance. Thus, these two government agencies are responsible for each other in support of the
government's aspiration to produce more highly educated people. As such, many partnerships will
take place, such as information sharing, and the same objectives.

This is certainly rare in the private sector because in private organizations only emphasize the
success of individual organizations from the overall success of the organization. In addition,
private sector management emphasizes the effectiveness of their responsibilities. Because of that,
they enjoy more autonomy and uninterrupted power than the general public except the law. Unlike
the public sector, the main purpose of the public sector is to meet the needs of the people's
development so a government department is very vulnerable to the concept of 'check and balance'
from members of the interest groups as well as being bound by departmental regulations.

A private organization is set up with the aim of generating different profits with the public sector
whose primary objective is to serve for the well-being of the people. Hence, the public sector is
highly demanded to be versatile in the pursuit of the will of the people, so many bureaucrats are
set up with a very specific purpose.

Unlike the private sector that usually motivates a business based on one or two products only. If
the private organization can not produce the product variation desired by the customer, then the
customer can only choose to get it from another manufacturer. This is not the case in the public
sector, as the public sector has a great responsibility in fulfilling the will of the people.

In the public sector, key positions in government departments often experience leadership
exchanges. The occurrence of this is caused by a number of factors in which an officer has reached
the retirement age, or is temporarily loaned to another office, moved to residence or got a higher
office offer and salary. The change of an organization's leaders will surely change in the form of
management and leadership of an organization. This is especially evident in the formulation of
departmental policies and management styles.

Frequently heard from civil servants when a new manager takes over the department, there will be
a change in management style such as tighter department management spending, more rigid
procedures and so on. These micro-changes will certainly cause problems for workers in the short
term because they need to adapt to the new environment. This will undoubtedly lead to
interruptions in the task that will lead to a bit of business.

The situation is very different in the private sector when key positions such as Managing Director,
Chairman and so on will be held by the owner or partner of the company concerned. In the usual
practice these positions will be held for life or as long as their services are still relevant and
necessary. There are also senior positions appointed under the terms of the contract for several
years. There is also a situation where a company director dies or resigns, he will name the heirs
(either children, siblings or relatives) as a substitute. In the corporate world, this is not a mistake
even though it is considered as 'nepotism' because as a company owner, the individual has the
absolute power over the business dealings.

3.2 ORGANIZATION EXPENDITURE

The most important factor in differentiating public sector management with the private sector is
the organizational spending factor. In the public sector, all costs and expenses will be fully borne
by the government. Government emoluments will be divided into all departments and agencies
vary according to the focal plane of that time. The government's financial resources mostly come
from collecting various types of taxes such as taxes (trade / business, tax revenue), tradeoffs
(imports / exports) and other quotations.

Government year expenditure is referred to as Supply Supplies. As a law, it must be presented first
by the government through the Minister of Finance in Parliament, which will then be discussed in
detail by the MPs before gaining support of members and approval.

This is very different from the management of the private sector where their main source of finance
is from the profitability of product sales as well as services and not receive direct financial support
from the government as enjoyed by the public sector and as such, the private sector is deeply
concerned with profits (profit oriented).

Since the private sector has autonomous autonomy, their budget planning is independent and is
not tied to the parties for verification. Incidentally, the budget of a private management will be
determined by the highest management of the board as it reviews the views of the chief financial
officer.

In terms of budget allocation, the private sector will usually allocate more money for product
developers and research, expansion of the company through more hiring and opening new
branches. In addition, the private sector will spend allocations for the purpose of raising corporate
images such as advertising, and community programs through 'Corporate-Social Responsibility'
(CSR).

3.3 POWER TO CONTROL

The most significant difference between the two sectors is the power to control the organization.
If we look at public organizations, the bureaucratic concept is more pronounced than the private
sector. This is because the application of the principle of 'centralization of power' is very clear
where the head of the department will control all power in the decision-making process. Therefore,
in public organizations, any decision will take a long time to be decided and within a department,
only a few individuals are entitled and in full power to make any decisions in the organization.

Furthermore there is a very clear order and hierarchy within a government department. For
example, at the top level, the head of department will make all decisions and make the policy,
while senior officials will be monitored for implementation. All the decisions and policies that
have been made will be implemented by the implementing and receiving support from the support
groups.

In order to prevent the overlapping of power, public sector management also emphasizes the
organizational hierarchy based on individual seniority and position. This is intended to further
elucidate the jurisdiction and duties of each. The simplest example is when there are posts like
Assistant Director, Principal Assistant Director, Deputy Chief Assistant Director and so on.
Meanwhile, all of these positions have similar tasks and goals, but hierarchical systems have led
them to lack autonomy to make important decisions.

For profit-oriented private management, time is very important, so any important decision that
requires immediate approval will not be presented to top management. Because it will only slow
down the approval process because they have no advantage in terms of available time such as the
public sector. Hence, private sector management is simpler in terms of layer arrangement and
existing positions have more autonomy to make any important decision form. For example, a Chief
Operating Officer (COO) is responsible for Chief Executive Officer (CEO) but all matters relating
to the company's operations will be controlled by him and only need to report to the CEO.
However, if a COO needs financial funds for the smooth operation of the company, he has to
submit an application to the CEO who will direct the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for the grant.

Unlike government departments, private organizations are more clearly in terms of power sharing
and sometimes a senior officer of the company has a wider and non-specific jurisdiction on one
aspect. Although basically there is an overlap of power, this method is seen more in ways to save
the cost of empowering employees for similar tasks. If in the public sector the government has
unlimited financial resources to employ more civil servants, the opposite goes to the private sector.
If a company hires employees to manage things that are almost in terms of the job scope, then it is
seen as a waste form.

The simplest example is the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position acting as a senior accountant
of the company, which at the same time becomes an internal auditor besides being responsible for
the acquisition of the company and controlling the company's expenses. All of the above
mentioned tasks are summarized in the same scope of work ie finance. Therefore, the company
does not have to pay the external auditor to make annual audits, hire an accountant to manage the
company's profits and do not need another financial officer to make the company's approvals and
approvals.

In terms of size, the private sector has a smaller structure compared to the larger public sector size
and operation. This is to facilitate control because in the private sector, control over the
organization is important in ensuring smooth day-to-day transactions.

In the public sector, many laws and regulations are held and enforced to regulate operations to
ensure smoothness and freedom from any form of irregularities. Hence, there are small
organizations such as disciplinary and discipline institutions that are thought to be effective as a
tool to control the conduct of organizations other than rules and regulations.
This does not apply in the private sector. Full control is very necessary therefore one of the most
effective methods in ensuring full control is to control the size of the organization. That is why if
we look more closely, a private organization has smaller units with only a few staff members. A
small unit is only responsible for the task entrusted to them only and is not bound to other tasks
that are not their work.

3.4 POWER TO CONTROL

The most significant difference between the two sectors is the power to control the organization.
If we look at public organizations, the bureaucratic concept is more pronounced than the private
sector. This is because the application of the principle of 'centralization of power' is very clear
where the head of the department will control all power in the decision-making process.

Therefore, in public organizations, any decision will take a long time to be decided and within a
department, only a few individuals are entitled and in full power to make any decisions in the
organization.

Furthermore there is a very clear order and hierarchy within a government department. For
example, at the top level, the head of department will make all decisions and make the policy,
while senior officials will be monitored for implementation. All the decisions and policies that
have been made will be implemented by the implementing and receiving support from the support
groups.

In order to prevent the overlapping of power, public sector management also emphasizes the
organizational hierarchy based on individual seniority and position. This is intended to further
elucidate the jurisdiction and duties of each. The simplest example is when there are posts like
Assistant Director, Principal Assistant Director, Deputy Chief Assistant Director and so on.
Meanwhile, all of these positions have similar tasks and goals, but hierarchical systems have led
them to lack autonomy to make important decisions.

For profit-oriented private management, time is very important, so any important decision that
requires immediate approval will not be presented to top management. Because it will only slow
down the approval process because they have no advantage in terms of available time such as the
public sector. Hence, private sector management is simpler in terms of layer arrangement and
existing positions have more autonomy to make any important decision form.

For example, a Chief Operating Officer (COO) is responsible for Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
but all matters relating to the company's operations will be controlled by him and only need to
report to the CEO. However, if a COO needs financial funds for the smooth operation of the
company, he has to submit an application to the CEO who will direct the Chief Financial Officer
(CFO) for the grant.

Unlike government departments, private organizations are more clearly in terms of power sharing
and sometimes a senior officer of the company has a wider and non-specific jurisdiction on one
aspect. Although basically there is an overlap of power, this method is seen more in ways to save
the cost of empowering employees for similar tasks. If in the public sector the government has
unlimited financial resources to employ more civil servants, the opposite goes to the private sector.
If a company hires employees to manage things that are almost in terms of the job scope, then it is
seen as a waste form.

The simplest example is the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position acting as a senior accountant
of the company, which at the same time becomes an internal auditor besides being responsible for
the acquisition of the company and controlling the company's expenses. All of the above
mentioned tasks are summarized in the same scope of work ie finance. Therefore, the company
does not have to pay the external auditor to make annual audits, hire an accountant to manage the
company's profits and do not need another financial officer to make the company's approvals and
approvals.

In terms of size, the private sector has a smaller structure compared to the larger public sector size
and operation. This is to facilitate control because in the private sector, control over the
organization is important in ensuring smooth day-to-day transactions. In the public sector, many
laws and regulations are held and enforced to regulate operations to ensure smoothness and
freedom from any form of irregularities. Hence, there are small organizations such as disciplinary
and discipline institutions that are thought to be effective as a tool to control the conduct of
organizations other than rules and regulations.
This does not apply in the private sector. Full control is very necessary therefore one of the most
effective methods in ensuring full control is to control the size of the organization. That is why if
we look more closely, a private organization has smaller units with only a few staff members. A
small unit is only responsible for the task entrusted to them only and is not bound to other tasks
that are not their work.

3.5 THE FINAL PRODUCT

Both public and private sectors have the goals of each organization to achieve. Success in
achieving organizational goals is considered as a form of profit. However, profit terms have
different meanings according to the management sector. In the public sector, profits are unrealistic
and are achieved when a department is successful in achieving national development objectives
while for the private sector, it is definitely profit referring to the financial returns for investments
that have been made.

In the public sector, profits do not come in the form of physical and material but rather on long-
term benefits and benefits enjoyed by the people. The success of a public management is subject
to the success of their realization of national development goals from the socio-economic and
political point of view. Among the goals of national development is to provide the needy (disabled,
low-income and poor people, students and others), and provide free services to the people.

When a department succeeds in fulfilling the will of the people, it will be considered successful
and the result of such success will benefit the people in the long run. Hence, almost all government
departments make the people's people a key charter of the organization. Furthermore, all
development projects undertaken by the government are to bring benefits to the people such as the
opening of industrial areas, the construction of commercial centers, road construction, schools and
others.

In determining the direction of national development, the decision to determine the development
policy will be determined by the top leadership of the country after taking into consideration the
views of all parties. In politics, this is called a policy or decision making process. The gazetted
policy will be implemented by the bureaucracy in the public sector. The efficiency of government
policy implementation depends entirely on bureaucratic commitment. The journey of each public
bureaucracy depends on the policy and political goals of the ruling government and, therefore,
there are a handful of elected representatives to lead the government department.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there are significant differences in management forms between public and private
sectors. The following differences are discussed above focusing on the form of organization that
includes the aspects of leadership, the power to control the organization, and the planning in the
development of such an organization. From the point of view, the public and private sectors reflect
the significant differences in the elements of organizational spending, the function of the
organization, and the activities carried out in accordance with their respective goals. Another
difference is that the organizational accountability factor in the public sector and the private sector
is slightly different from one another, and the value of the final product produced by the two
sectors. The attention and focus of the mass media is even different from both, it does not have a
significant factor in designing the different management styles of the two sectors that have been
discussed.

In general, the public sector, the government, acts as a national development policymaker and
implementer through the provision of funds and platforms for development while the private sector
will be the service providers. The private sector is formed on the individual's efforts and the
initiatives taken are geared towards generating physical profits which are financial and material.
Public sector management is formed from the legislative and executive elements that make the
country's development the core of its existence. Despite the differences as discussed above, both
the public and private sectors require each other to ensure the continued survival of the nation.
REFERENCES

Ackers, P. (1994) "Back to Basics? Industrial Relations and the Enterprise Culture", Employee

Relations, Vol. 16 Issue: 8, pp.32-47, https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459410073933

Parasuraman, B. (2006). Hubungan industri di Malaysia. KL: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka.

Ibrahim. D. et al. (2009). Hubungan industri dan sumber manusia. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah:

Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

Oram, S.A.J. (1984) "Industrial Relations and Ideology—An Alternative Approach", Employee

Relations, Vol. 6 Issue: 2, pp.22-26, https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055030

Sisson, K. (1991). "Industrial Relations: Challenges and Opportunities", Employee Relations, Vol.

13 Issue: 6, pp.3-10, https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001028