Egoism represents a perspective on the employment relationship which privileges markets and the individual pursuit of favourable market outcomes. Employers are assumed to be singularly motivated by profit maximisation, employees seek to maximise their utility (usually focusing on employment opportunities and wage outcomes) and the state seeks to create the legal and policy circumstances that allow the free operation of market forces. Management is therefore seen as the dominant rule maker. Employees can participate as individuals in the negotiation of individual employment contracts, but once these contracts are consummated employees are assumed to consent to management’s directions.

It is most closely associated with scholarship in the tradition of neoclassical economics.

In the practice of Australian ER, an egoist perspective can be seen in claims by mining employers that individual employment contracts would lead to improved productivity:

‘....employees enter into workplace agreements with management free from interference by and conflicting allegiances to third parties (namely, unions); the agreements therefore represent a true ‘meeting of the minds’, with rights and obligations between the parties in fair balance; with both parties willing participants to the bargain, employees will more readily ‘march to the beat of the same drum’ with management in the enjoyment of their rights and in the commission of their obligations. It is therefore a corollary that workplace agreements serve to unify and harmonise effort, with greater productivity a natural result.’ (Moore & Gardner 2004, p. 296)

Unitarism assumes that organisations (and the employment relationship) are essentially unitary, with one shared set of ‘organisational’ goals; there are no structural sources of conflict. Employers are seen to be motivated by profit maximisation, but the central distinction egoism is that profits are seen to flow from management delivering the corporate policies that align the interests of employees with those of the organisation. Employees are seen to be motivated by far more than wages, especially by a desire for fulfilment in the employment relationship. The state is considered necessary to develop laws and policies that provide employers with the space to implement corporate policy of their making.

Unitarism is represented in the research and prescriptions of many management and human resource management (HRM) scholars. Purcell (1992, p. 4) argued that these value positions are central to HRM:

‘HRM is the visual embodiment of the unitarist frame of reference both in the sense of the legitimation of managerial authority and in the imagery of the firm as a team with committed employees working with managers for the benefit of the firm’.

In Australia, the application of the unitarist perspective can be seen in the Australian Mines and Metals Association’s (AMMA) advocacy of ‘employee engagement’ and the responsibility of managers to deliver engagement:

‘… improving and maintaining organisational effectiveness is dependent on the level of employee engagement in the workplace. A high level of engagement can be achieved through the leadership, structure and systems. If an organisation actively commits to employee engagement as a means of lifting its business performance, it cannot delegate the work involved to a third party (AMMA 2007, p. 9).

The pluralist perspective recognises the potential for conflict between employers and employees as a result of social structures, but conflict is considered legitimate and resolvable provided the respective interests of the parties are balanced. Efficiency, equity and voice are central to this balancing. Employers are seen as motivated by profit maximisation, while employees seek equitable outcomes and opportunities to share in rule-making within the employment relationship. The state seeks to provide a legal and policy framework that balances the competing interests and achieves both efficiency and equity.

Pluralism is the dominant scholarly tradition in the field of employment relations (for the USA, see Kochan 1998). 

Pluralism underlies the approach and prescriptions of the ILO. The ILO is the only 'tripartite' United Nations agency, consisting of governments, employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations that jointly shape policies and programs. Thus, the ILO has a highly pluralist philosophy.

In Australia, a classic pluralist public policy position can be seen in statement by a senior union official advocating the central role of unions in Australia’s labour law regime (Lyons 2013):

‘Without labour law disproportionate power lies with the employer. The historic heart of Australian industrial regulation is the recognition that the bargain between an employer and an employee is inherently unequal, absent the intervention of the state in the form of legislation and the existence of trade unions.’

The ‘critical’ or ‘radical’ perspective sees employers (the capitalist class) dominating the employment relationship and broader social institutions, with little prospect for employees (the working class) gaining genuine rewards or influence without major changes in social structure. The state is also considered deeply pro-employer, maintaining the stability of capitalism and therefore the privileged position of capital, even if this sometimes means making political concessions to the working class.

The retirement of a long-term union official in the Australian construction industry led to his union journal quoting his ‘proudly militant’ views, which are quintessentially radical:

‘The battle is between capital and labour; a class war. The struggle is between the haves and the have-nots. The haves always want more and we, the members, want our share.’ (p. 13)

NB. Radicalism has a very specific meaning in ER; it does not simply mean someone has ‘radical’ views.