Meaning Of Engineering Disaster

Meaning Of Engineering Disaster The duty of the engineer is to react to people need by building or creating something along an appropriate set of guidelines. Importantly, that device, plan or creation should perform its function without any failure. Everything, nonetheless, must eventually fail to perform its given function with a sought after level of performance. Hence, the engineer must struggle to design in such a way as to avoid failure which could result in loss of property, damage to the environment of the user of that technology, and possibly injury or loss of life. Through analysis and study of engineering disasters, modern engineering designers can learn what not to do and how to create designs with less of a chance of failure. (Leveson, 1993) The history of Chernobyl nuclear power plant Chernobyl is a small town in the Ukraine near the Belarus border, with a population of 45,000. The nuclear power station of Chernobyl lies 15 kilometers to the northwest of the actual Chernobyl town. In 1986, the USSR generated roughly 10% of the worlds nuclear power from only 43 operating reactors. Together they produced 27 thousand Mega Watts of electricity. By 1986, the year of the accident, four of the reactors at the Chernobyl nuclear power station were the most modern to date Soviet reactors, the RBMK-type. Two more of these reactors were still under construction at the station. (http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/introduction/location.html) Aim of this topic This research can be roughly divided into three parts as follows. Firstly, a variety of opinions and different perspectives of the survey would be discussed. Then, a discussion will include the information from other related sources and analyze the survey together. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn concerning the findings of the research project; recommendations will be made with regards to future research into the issue, and limitation on this report. Literature review Overview of engineering disaster The failure into an engineering disaster There are many factors that can cause engineering disaster and much of the reason why we consider an engineering failure to be an engineering disaster has to do with public perception of risk. For example, in 1992 roughly the same number of fatalities occurred (in the United States) in transportation accidents involving airplanes (775), trains (755), and bicycles (722). Yet the public perception of the risk associated with air travel is often much higher than that for trains and certainly for bicycles. (Matousek, 1976) This stems from two reasons: (1) the large loss of life resulting from a single air crash, and (2) the air passengers lack of control over their environment in the case of air or, to a lesser degree, rail accidents. Both of these reasons results in increased fear, and hence a higher degree of perceived risk. Principle cause of engineering disaster The primary causes of engineering disasters are usually considered to be Design error Standard of the plant (depending on cost) Operating error Human lack of knowledge and skill 1.2.3 Mechanical error Management tools (Preventive maintenance) (Bernhard, 1999) How Nuclear Physics works Nuclear Fission Nuclear fission is the process whereby large, unstable atoms are split up and as a result release large amounts of energy. The most common element used for this process is called uranium. Process of nuclear reactors Nuclear fission reactions occur inside the core, producing heat. The control rods control the system by absorbing stray neutrons which in turn slows down the rate of reactions. The heat from the core is transferred to the water through conduction, which then turns into steam with a temperature of 580Â °C. The pressure of the steam turns the turbine, powering the generator. The generator converts the turning motion of the turbine into electrical energy, which now can be injected into the national electricity grid. This steam is then cooled by water from the cooling lake which then causes the steam to condense back into water. The cycle then repeats. (Ben, 2008) Pros and cons of Nuclear power plant These days, there are a great number of alternative energy that human found and nuclear energy is one of the best choice of alternative energy. On the plus side, there are many benefits of nuclear power. To begin with, it is a clean energy; therefore, it would dramatically improve the environment. For example, smoke and carbon are not contributing to greenhouse effect and consequently protect the ozone. Furthermore, nuclear power is reliable because it is use only a little uranium to make nuclear reaction which cause a great number of energy. On the other hand, nuclear technology is problematic in some ways. One of the main drawbacks of nuclear energy is that radiation can harm cells of human body; hence, it can make humans sick or even cause death, and symptom illness can affect and kill people in follow years. Dangers of radiation When unstable atoms naturally break down (decay) they release they release radioactive particles. There are three types of particles: alpha ÃŽÂ ±, beta ÃŽÂ ² and gamma ÃŽÂ ³. They are considered dangerous as they are able to ionise. They are able to change the stucture of atoms by knocking off or dragging electrons away from the atom. In humans, animals and plants, this ionising effect alters the DNA code in cells causing cell mutation. Through this, the altered cells are reproduced through cell division which may then form cancerous growthsThis radiation isnt only sourced from the site of a nuclear disaster. Poising can occur through contaminated water which then infects soil and hence food supplies. To add more to this potential problem, radioactive particles can stay hazardous for thousands of years. (Ben, 2008) The Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster The Accident The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor that occurred on 26 April 1986 was the most serious accident ever to occur in the nuclear power industry. The reactor was destroyed in the accident and considerable amounts of radioactive material were released to the environment. The accident caused the deaths, within a few weeks, of 30 workers and radiation injuries to over a hundred others. In response, the authorities immediately evacuated, in 1986, about 116,000 people from areas surrounding the reactor and subsequently relocated, after 1986, about 220,000 people from Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The accident caused serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected and vast economic losses over the entire region. Large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive elements, and radionuclides were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere. (Alexander, 1993) The Cause of the disaster There are several factors which cause Chernobyl nuclear power disaster. 1. Human error (Operator Over-Confidence) The operators felt they were an elite crew and they had become overconfident The operators did not think carefully enough about the effects on the reactor. The operators felt under pressure to complete the test this time. 2. Design error (Safety System Inadequacies) A fault in the control system also makes the emergency shutdown unable to function. The emergency shutdown desired effect relied on the reactor being operated correctly. There had to be at least 30 control rods in the core for the emergency shutdown to work to according to standard. The reactor could not be run at low power normally. (http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/) The Affected by the disaster One major result of the Chernobyl accident that would cause as much agony to the incident was the spread of radiation. A definite effect of the spread of the radiation was the damage it had on the Eastern European agriculture. The EC (European Community) immediately put a 90 day ban on agricultural goods from Eastern Europe. This was initially thought of as political strategy from the US as well as other Western countries. This caused the Soviet Union to take the responsibility to pay for all the damage done to the Eastern European agriculture. Post-Disaster The effects on health Chernobyl affected the health of many people throughout Russia. Altogether the total number of fatalities caused by Chernobyl stands at 31 officially. Around 600,000 however were classified as being significantly exposed and will have their health monitored their whole lives. Twenty-four people were disabled by the accident; some so severely they were left as invalids for the rest of their lives. Two-hundred thiry-eight people have suffered acute radiation syndrome. The total number of people that were in this classification is somewhere around 10,000. The official report on the number of cancer effects is as follows as prescribed by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) of the IAEA. (Vladimir, 1991) Environmental impact Besides the effects on humans, the Chernobyl disaster also dramatically affected the environment with 150 000 km2 of land contaminated with radioactive material. Mutations in both plants and animals were evident Leaves changed shape and some animals were born with deformities. Despite this, rare species of moose, birds, beavers, wolves and boars have returned in the absence of humans. (Vladimir, 1991)

Color on the Set of Shakespeare’s Henry V Essay -- Henry V

Color on the Set of Shakespeare’s Henry V   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Differences in color, especially sharp differences, emphasize the differences in moods between two parties; darker colors connote seriousness, while light colors connote frivolity. For a play of such stark contrasts as Henry V, color design like this heightens the divide. By darkening the set and costumes of the English, adding occasional bright swathes of red in a flag or a curtain, while presenting the French in a variety of pastels, accented with gold, the art directors of this performance were able to distance the two nations in their solemnity towards the act of war.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The costume of the English, a mishmash of modern and renaissance styles, whether the padded flak armor style of the English, or the jackets-and-kilts style of the assisting Scottish, ranges from black to dark olive to a dingy gray; all in the same dim shade. Heavily contrasting this almost utter blackness are the silver accents: swords and necklaces, medals and rings. But even these give the whole of the English army a monochromatic scheme; if it weren’t for the faces and hands, one might start to see the play as a film shot in black and white (even more suggested with the occasional short films—all black and white—projected upon the backdrop). This darkness parallels the English army’s bleak view of the war: the French have insulted and withheld territory from Henry, and they far outnumber the English at the Battle of Agincourt. All this changes when the Earl of Cambridge, Lord Scroop, and Sir Thomas Gray are arrested for treason. When Ex eter rips their shoulder badges off, the bright red circle in the patch’s center is as clear as the sun. The color red, being the third most recognizable shade to the h... ...ndred, a large number of former squires that commanded units. The French costume enhanced their position toward the war, and was additionally boosted by the English contrast.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Color can play such an important role in theatre, and when it is used to show such a contrast, especially in a play of such preexisting contrasts as Henry V, it instills a new life in the two sides, while also revitalizing the conflict and drawing a clear line between the French and English. It is the same divide we see before and after the Great War, or before and after Vietnam. The view of war has changed in the modern eye, and the dark English costumes show this jaded view of war, with the French sharing the same frivolous view as the prewar 1900s, or the 1950s. And, even as these views are demonstrated in the text, the colors of the focus these perceptions in the mind of the viewer.

Kurtzs Last Words Essay -- essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad presents the character of Kurtz as a man who is seen differently by all who know him depending on their individual experiences with him. His cousin knew him as a man with great musical talent, others knew him as a great leader, and his â€Å"Intended† fiance knew him as an admirable humanitarian; but all of these knew him to be a remarkable genius. When the narrator, Marlow, first hears of him, he is told that Kurtz is known as a great leader destined to hold high positions and fame. However, as he travels the river, he also learns that Kurtz has become insane during his time in the African jungle. After Marlow finally comes into contact with him, he discovers that Kurtz has become a god among the natives and has been brutally collecting the coveted ivory. Marlow finally convinces the deathly ill man to return to the ship where he finally dies. Upon his death, Kurtz’s facial expression causes Marlow to feel as tho ugh he may be seeing his entire life passing just before it ends; and finally, he murmurs his final words â€Å"The horror! The horror!† (Conrad, p. 64).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Although these last words seem full of meaning, they can be interpreted as being so vague that they are devoid of any specific rationalization. In spite of this, they have several explanations, mainly relating to his life and the choices he made. As Kurtz succinctly verbalizes the terrible visions â€Å"of ruthless power, of craven ter...

The Civil War Essay -- American History

The Civil War When the Land Commission turned down Naglee and Pico’s application in 1852, Henry Naglee looked to another Mexican-American War veteran for help. Henry Wager Halleck (1815–1872) had graduated from West Point in 1839. During the conflict, the Army assigned Lieutenant Halleck to duty in California. Halleck spent several months building fortifications in Alta California before he saw action at Mazatlà ¡n. After the war, he returned to California to serve as aide-de-camp to General Bennett C. Riley (1787–1853), the last military governor-general of occupied California. Riley, needing a military secretary of state, appointed Halleck. The station allowed Halleck to be the governor’s representative to the 1849 constitutional convention at Monterey. Halleck became the document’s principal author. Because of his political accomplishments, Halleck was soon practicing law in addition to fulfilling his military duties. His law firm at San Francisco, HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, would eventually successfully represent most of California’s land grant holders, including Pico and Naglee, in their cases before the Federal Court. Captain Halleck success as a lawyer prompted him to resign his Army commission in 1854. Halleck had a profound interest in early California history. While still at Monterey, he began to gather Spanish-era documents, both originals and transcripts, which eventually numbered several thousand pages. His representation of the land grant holders brought many Mexican-era documents into his possession. While his â€Å"looting† of the provincial archives was possibly illegal, his collecting was fortunate for modern historians. In 1858, the Federal Archives Commission deposited the provincial archives’ remaining contents i... ...yt—lists Miss Ringgold as George’s daughter. Miss Ringgold’s birth date is also uncertain. Several sources say she was born in 1840. The index to the Naglee family papers at Bancroft Library place her birth about 1846. The 1860 Census shows Miss Ringgold—listed as living in George Ringgold’s San Francisco household—as eighteen, placing her birth in 1842. The identity of Miss Ringgold’s mother is also uncertain. George Ringgold’s wife, as shown by the 1860 Census, was Mary Condy Ringgold (1829–1892). Too young to be Miss Ringgold’s mother, she met and married George Ringgold while he was stationed in Charleston after 1850. Miss Ringgold was, most likely, the product of an earlier marriage. George Ringgold left the Army in 1837 to try his hand at other endeavors. Possibly bereaved, he returned to Washington City from Illinois in 1842 and rejoined the Army in 1846.

Native American Relations with The United States Essay -- Exploratory

Native American Relations with The United States What were the significant treaties, policies, and events that defined US Government and Native American Relations? How did the Native American respond to these treaties, polices, and events historically? How did these treaties, policies, and events affect the subsistence, religion, political, and social structures of the Native American people? I will answer these questions through the examination of two centuries of US history in six time periods that define clear changes in the relationship between the Native American and the US Government. Formative period 1780 -1825 One of the critical tasks that faced the new nation of the United States was establishing a healthy relationship with the Native Americans (Indians). â€Å"The most serious obstacle to peaceful relations between the United States and the Indians was the steady encroachment of white settlers on the Indian lands. The Continental Congress, following [George] Washington’s suggestion, issued a proclamation prohibiting unauthorized settlement or purchase of Indian land.† (Prucha, 3) Many of the Indian tribes had entered into treaties with the French and British and still posed a military threat to the new nation. The new US Government was careful not to antagonize the Indians and sought to treat them with mutual respect. This is evidenced in early treaties where the term â€Å"Red Brothers† was used to convey this sentiment of equality. By 1800 interaction between the Indian and white settlers had become quite common through trade. Many Indians traded for household goods, traps and tools. The US became concerned about the cultural differences and sought to improve the Indian station in life by providi... ...ll as the opportunity like the Seminole to develop a culture rich in tradition and assimilation that fosters a self-reliant people. Sources Cited American Indian Research and Policy Institute, â€Å"Framework of tribal sovereignty†, URL: http://www.airpi/org/marge1.html, 1998 Bailey Thomas A., Kennedy David M, The American Pageant: A History of the Republic 10th ed , Lexington, Massachusetts, D.C. Heath and Company,1994. Brown, Dee, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, New York, Bantam Press,1970 Josephy, Alvin M, The American Heritage Book of Indians, New York, American Heritage Publishing Co,1961 Prucha, Francis Paul, Documents of United States Indian Policy, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press,1990 Schlesinger, Arthur M, The Almanac of American History, New York,Brompton Books Corporation,1993

Effects of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki :: history

Effects of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Ever since the dawn of time man has found new ways of killing each other. The most destructive way of killing people known to man would have to be the atomic bomb. The reason why the atomic bomb is so destructive is that when it is detonated, it has more than one effect. The effects of the atomic bomb are so great that Nikita Khrushchev said that the survivors would envy the dead (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, 1982). These devastating physical effects come from the atomic bomb’s blast, the atomic bomb’s thermal radiation, and the atomic bomb’s nuclear radiation. An atomic bomb is any weapon that gets its destructive power from an atom. This power comes when the matter inside of the atoms is transformed into energy. The process by which this is done is known as fission. The only two atoms suitable for fissioning are the uranium isotope U-235 and the plutonium isotope Pu-239 (Outlaw Labs). Fission occurs when a neutron, a subatomic particle with no electrical charge, strikes the nucleus of one of these isotopes and causes it to split apart. When the nucleus is split, a large amount of energy is produced, and more free neutrons are also released. These neutrons then in turn strike other atoms, which causes more energy to be released. If this process is repeated, a self-sustaining chain reaction will occur, and it is this chain reaction that causes the atomic bomb to have its destructive power (World Book, 1990). This chain reaction can be attained in two different ways. The first type of atomic bomb ever used was a gun-type. In this type two subcritical pieces of U-235 are placed in a device similar to the barrel of an artillery shell. One piece is placed at one end of the barrel and will remain there at rest. The other subcritical mass is placed at the other end of the barrel. A conventional explosive is packed behind the second subcritical mass. When the fuse is triggered, a conventional explosion causes the second subcritical mass to be propelled at a high velocity into the first subcritical mass. The resulting combination causes the two subcritical masses to become a supercritical mass. When this supercritical mass is obtained, a rapid self-sustained chain reaction is caused (World Book, 1990). This type of atomic bomb was used on

Employee relations Essay

The conviction that there exists a power imbalance in the employment relationship which gives employers a prejudicial benefit over employees takes its existence for several centuries. Karl Marx known for his theories and contributions related to the employment relations field, became famous through his literatures and ever since his popularity remains. Firstly and primarily, the lives of most men and women are subject of work. The large majority of individuals who work are simply employees only few are employers. Therefore, the terms and conditions in which individuals perform this work are crucial for everyone. These agreements are characterized by the relationship between employer and employee. Again, employee relations suggest notion of fairness and equity in the remuneration of labour. At the basic level, employee relations tend to create active group collaboration in the place of work rather than conflicts which give to employees the impression in some way to be separated from employers and organisations for which they work. Employee relations take into account many factors related to a good quality of work such as remuneration of labour, bonuses, promotions as well as the corporate culture and the work environment, training and development programs for employees. Recognizing the achievements and contributions made by the empl oyee, this is an important part of employee relations, as the demands of the employees are more or less respected. Numerous scholars and authors have written lot of theories related to employment relationship field. Edwards defines Employee relation as â€Å"all forms of economic activity in which an employee works under the authority of an employer and receives a wage in return for his or her labour†. (Edwards, 2003) However, new approaches have emerged with the influence and recognition of trade unions in the midst of 60’s and the male breadwinner mainly considered  as industrial relationships. According to Blyton and Turnbull, more factors to be considered; â€Å"wages and profit, authority and compliance† ,the need of â€Å"work being a source of dignity, a ‘living wage'† and â€Å"social cohesion, employee voice and participation in decision making†. (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004, p.7) In this essay, I will briefly talk about the unitary and pluralist perspectives on Employee relations. I will also discuss the applicability of the radical or Marxist perspective to the analysis of employment relations. Early in the twenty century, before the advent of industrialization and globalization, industries and organisations operated in a context in which all the aspects related the work was largely ruled by employers and the employees had no power and no right to express their views, therefore they were submitted and had to comply with the compulsory rules and regulations on them by employers. For a very long time, the interests of employers have overcome the interests of employees. During the period of post-war, the phenomenon called globalization hardly was not existent and technology had not reached its climax, these factors have not play a predominant role in the industrial world. Employees were forced to complete the entire amount of work required which included intellectual and physical effort. In return, they had limited support from employers due to managerial styles set. By comparing the post modernization epoch and the current context of work, there has been a huge progress between relations of employees and employers. Today, a large number of factors have be taken into account, which have an impact on Employee relations such as the politico-economic system, new legislation, globalisation, technological advances, trade union, professional organisations, Training and development. Fox found two basic views expressed about the basis of relationship between management and trade unions in particular or employees in general, the unitary and pluralist. Thereafter, a radical or Marxist view came up as a third perspective, which was totally different and opposed from the others two frames of management. These perspectives are not essentially focused on the nature of the employment relationship but rather by conflict (Fox, 1966). The unitary view on one hand, this theory considered as one of the earliest theories. The unitary perspective takes into account the nature of work of employees as well as the technology. For the unitary, the organisation must be a united group of individuals with single authority, loyalty structure sharing common objectives. The employers have the right to make decisions; those decisions are considered as legitimate, rational and are not opposable. The assumption is within the unitary organisation system, basic harmony and conflict is needless and exceptional. According to Howard, conflict is seen by your boss as both unnatural and unnecessary. (Howard F, 1993) Therefore, many managers see trade unions a disturbance within organisation from external which contests unfair decisions for the loyalty of workers. Therefore, if conflict still pending, the management suggests it should be dealt with by their authority: management coercion. As example, this perspective was the case of many organisations during the 1980 in the UK while Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. This clearly demonstrates that there was a strong inequality and an asymmetry between the workers and the employees and the voice of the workers were not taken into consideration. The pluralist view on the other hand, Pluralist theory is deep-rooted in interests’ conflicts between employers and employees which co-operate in imperfect labour markets. The employment relationship is perceived as a matter of negotiation between stakeholders with opposing interests, the employment outcomes depend primarily on several environmental factors that determine the bargaining power of each party. Pluralist view distinguishes that both employees and employers have divergences in their opinions, and following this, a power struggle or a conflict may rise within the workplace. However, pluralist view claims that it could be better for the sake of the interests of the organisation if the views of all parties in conflict could be taken in consideration and reconciled. Pluralist views was essentially founded on an convenient situation and did not take into account certain factors such as the flexibility or changes taken in the world of the industry, this due to the evolution of the technology, fast expansion of business, environmental issues. Conflict resolution is branded by the necessity to make agreed actions and institutions which attain collaboration via comprehensive, codified negotiated settlement systems. Marxism was established through the observation of Marx recognized as one of the famous scholar who have advanced many theses opposing to capitalism. To Marx employee relations was a significant way to understand the theory of capitalist production. Marx explained how organisations were working, of how and why the history has extended, and particularly an account of the nature of capitalism. Capitalism was seen by Marx as extremely inacceptable and his concern was to end up with this system through violent revolution and shape a communist society. According to Hyman, â€Å"capitalism constitutes a complex of work and social relations of production†. (Hyman, 1975:96-97) The main characteristics of the capitalist structure of employment relations are constituted as follow: private ownership of the workers, the small minority control the ownership, mandatory method for the majority of society to sell their labour power as a product, the dominance of profit as the purpose of the e conomic. Although, the capitalist structure of employment relations reflects an exploitative relationship. For instance, wages remunerated to the employees consists essentially a small part of the collective value produced by them, in other words wages would be minimized to a substantial level. However the rest of the gain from production is allocated to the employer as a benefit. Therefore, the capitalist environment is fundamentally being seen as a conflicting class relation. On the basis of the capitalist perspective on employment relations, Marxists believes that capitalist organisations are gradually dominating as prescribed in their economic status by two main opposed classes, which are the ruling class or capitalist and the workers considered as subject class. The ruling class owns and controls the mean of production, distribution and trade, in certain ways the means of political domination. Contrary to the ruling class, subject class is subordinate; workers have not control on property and are subject of servitude of the bourgeoisie interests. Therefore, workers are exploited and ruled politically and socio-economically. This competition between the ruling class and the subjected class would be in argument to gain ground and impose the persistent challenge, therefore fight will be obvious. The asymmetric distribution of power in the presence of private information and opposing between the ruling class and the workers interests  is obvious. Although, it is possible that private information and opposing interests give rise to opportunism of both parties to the employment contract in most cases, However, The Marxists believe that the negative consequences experienced by the workers are possibly more thoughtful than consequences encountered employers because of the power of the employers based in the ownership of the organisation. The main noticeable risks related to imbalances in bargaining power are paying low wage compared to the output that workers have produced and the risk that could arise in the investment decisions of the organisation. As an example of imbalances in bargaining power to illustrate, we can refer to the case study of Nike firm; Nike has been the subject of many criticisms. It has been shown that the conditions of work were inhuman in many factories of Nike in Asia and a strict requirement of standards level needed to be achieved by all workers. How Nike has exploited its workers for financial gain with low wages. (www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/trade_environment/wheeling/hnike.html, last seen 06/02/14) This unacceptable situation is a good example to illustrates how unfairly the capitalist system operates. Therefore, all these inequalities and all of these issues within organisations have given rise to conflict. For John Kelly, The Marxist approach to industrial relations accepts that conflict exists but that at present there is little balance between organised labour and capital, especially in an era of globalisation. (John Kelly, 1998) A big gap of power between the workers and the Employers within an organisation creates imbalance, the ruling class with more power compared to the workers rarely tend to use it. This is because the use of the excessive power usually turns into a kind of dictatorship in the minds of employers who want to control it. The current situation comes to be genuine, and workers must comply and accept any unfair decisions taken against them. Therefore, for the Marxist perspective, it was crucial to seek the need to settle conflicts of interests via some forms of job regulations. Contrarily to the unitary and pluralist perspectives, the Marxist perspective has go in depth in term of developing a series of elements related to industrial relations such collective bargaining, trade union regulations and workplace legislations. According to Flanders, industrial relations are a study of the  institutions of job regulation. (Flanders, 1974) In order to understand why there is asymmetry of power between employees and employers, it will be relevant to look closer at the three major actors who play a significant role, which are the collective bargaining and trade union, and the state. However, Marxism has given birth to the collective bargaining and trade unions on the basis of anxieties relating to the negotiation between management and the workforce. According to Gunnigle et al, collective bargaining gives redress the imbalance of power between individual workers and employers. ( (Gunnigle, 1995)) It is for the fundamental reason that collective bargaining is implemented in industrial relations, and basically gives an objective purely politic to collective bargaining which is the balance of power. As soon as his purpose is accomplished, collective bargaining is utilized principally for financial reasons. Collective bargaining allows managing in tactical way how to deal with employees fairly. The collective bargaining’s process may also provide legitimacy to trade unions within organisations. Purcell states that this legitimacy can give trade union members a sense of belonging to the organisation. (Purcell, 1979) However, collective bargaining has also its imperfections and disadvantages as far the capitalism is concerned. Collective bargaining may result to irrational and groundless demands which may lead to serious conflicts. Marx has modelled the historical significance of union fight strongly in his book `The Poverty of Philosophy†. Marx was not indifferent to the conditions of workers to make their lives better; they were concerned on how they were struggling to unionize themselves. Marx argues that higher wages simply set up prices and strikes were a dead end. For Marx, the unions could play a political role in the real civil war to pay higher wages to workers. Marx argued that capitalism had operated a physical minimum, which maintained people alive, but that is a social balance of power between capital and labour. Trade unions are naturel response of workers who have been exploited by the capitalist system; it gives to employees a voice. Within the trade union the workers have the role that the management occupies; this role consists to affect the demand of the union service and union memberships.  The establishment of union has been encouraged since the workers are feel frustrate with the style of work or management. When there is a strong presence of union, there is a balance within the employment relations. For instance, the case of John Lewis employees, there is a strong democratic structure where partnership is also encouraged. Workers are less exploited and are less dissatisfy about the style of work. This is a good example to illustrate when we think in term of benefit of the trade unions. Marx argued about the role played by the state, which he thinks is serves only the interests of the dominant class within organisations. The state appears more as the instrument of the ruling class, because it tries to maintaining its control over employees who are already exploited. Marx claimed that the state reacts as dictatorship for proletariat. The executive of the modern state is essentially a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.† (Marx and Engels,1948, p.11.) Again in the instant case, we see that the state plays an adverse and inequitable role the balance of power on employers over their employees. Having critically assessed some facet of the Marxist perspective on the asymmetry of power between employees and employers, we can come to the conclusion that this perspective leads a concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxist perspective focuses more on the structure and nature of the organisation rather than the current workplace in the society and Marxists argue that the conflict in the industrial relations is a reflection on how the society is structured. Marxism puts a particular emphasis on the division of interest between the employers and the employees. The Marxists considered the conflict as unavoidable and trade unions are a seeing as an alternative solution of workers to exploitation by owners. Within the Marxists perspective, employers are continued to exercise their unfair power over employees even thus the presence of trade unions which are powerless. The state is also considered as an instrument of the bourgeoisie. For the Marxist, trade unions and collective bargaining may increase but may not limit of the employers’ power because they are subjected to the persistence of capitalism instead of challenge it. However, The Marxist perspective is seen to be out-of-date as the entire nature of the class conflict has  changed, as a result of modern organisations, ‘as well as its mixed economy and welfare state, which is currently more open and on a social basis mobile. Reference: Blyton, P. &. (2004). _The Dynamics of Employee Relations Basingstoke: Macmillan._ Bukharin. (2003). _Imperialism and World Economy._ London & Sydney: Bookmarks. Engels, M. &. (1948). _The Communist Manifesto, International Publishers._ _Fox, A.(19660. Industrial Sociology And Industrial Relations (Research Paper 3, Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations), London._ Hyman, R. (1975). _Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction._ London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. _http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/trade_environment/wheeling/hnike.html_ _Bukharin (2003) Imperialism and World Economy._ (n.d.). London & sydney: Bookmarks. Kelly, J. (1998). _Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism and Long Waves._ London: Routledge. Marx, K. (1964). _Early writings._ New York: McGraw-Hill. P., E. (2003). _The employment relationship and the field of industrial relations._ oxford: Backwell. Palmer, H. F. (1993). _British Industrial Relations._ London: Routledge. Purcell, K. (1979). _Militancy and acquiescence amongst women workers. Burman (ed.), Fit Work for Women, London, Croom Helm._ _Gunnigle, P. (1995). Collectivism and the management of industrial relations in greenfield sites, Human Ressources Journal._