Psychoanalytic concepts are relevant for a broad range of problems in everyday life including educational and vocational indecision - these psychoanalytic concepts have been slow to influence both the career and personal counseling literature for reasons that have more to do with the diverse origins of psychoanalysis and counseling than with their usefulness in helping clients (Horvath and Simonds, 2000).
Robbins (1992) presented a historical perspective on the working alliance as part of a larger goal of demonstrating its centrality in psychoanalytic counseling. Seeds of the idea of alliance can be traced to Freud's (1923/1961) writings which he recognized the importance of the patient's "positive conscious transference." Greenson (1967) identified the three-part distinction when referring to the relationship of the analysts and the patient: (a) the transference relationship, (b) the real relationship, and - the working alliance. In psychoanalytic counseling, the transference reactions are unrealistic and inappropriate and always take precedence if they intrude. In classical psychoanalysis, the transference is deliberately developed and analyzed in the treatment situation and is the major vehicle for bringing about change in the client. On one hand real relationship refers to what is authentic and genuine to the relationship between the client and counselor - the working alliance here is realistic and appropriate, but it is a phenomenon created by them and is particular to the situation of counseling. It consists of that sector of the overall experience of the counseling participants characterized by their collaboration, mutuality and cooperation with regard to the work of counseling. The working alliance provides the motivation to work in the session with the counselor as well as the ability to the work required in the counseling.
Horvath and Greenberg (1994) explain that in the current notion of working alliance, "collaboration" between therapist and client is the key element. At its best, the working alliance provides a safe environment for clients to explore themselves and a relationship in which clients' "key relational issues" are defined. Bordin (1979) defined the working alliance as being based on three components: the agreement on overall goals, the agreement on tasks that lead towards achieving these goals, and the emotional bond between the therapist and client. The Working Alliance Inventory developed by Horvath and Greenberg (1994) includes sub-scales patterned after these three components.
Studies conducted by Horvath and Greenberg (1989) indicated that both therapist and client ratings of their working alliance are correlated with therapy outcome, especially ratings on the task and goal sub-scales. Similarly, Horvath and Symonds (1991) used meta-analysis to synthesize the results of 24 studies examining the relationship between working alliance and psychotherapy outcome, and found "moderate but reliable" relationships between good working alliance and successful therapy outcome [the overall effect size (ES) was 0.26]. The client's perception was the best predictor of treatment outcomes followed by therapist's and observer's, respectively.
What is known about the variables that contribute to a good working alliance? The working alliance has been examined in relation to several client and therapist variables. Mallinckrodt and Nelson (1991) reported positive relationships between therapist training level and the goal and task sub-scales of the working alliance. However, Dunkle and Friedlander (1996) failed to find a relationship between therapist experience level and client's perception of the goal and task components of working alliance. Dunkle and Friedlander (1996) did report positive relationships between the bond scale and client perceptions of some therapist characteristics such as hostility, social support, and degree of comfort with closeness in interpersonal relationships.
The quality of overall working alliance was found to be related to characteristics of clients, such as the quality of a client's current and past relationships, type of presenting problems, levels of adjustment (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989), and social support and psychological symptoms (Mallinckrodt, 1996). Tyron and Kane (1993) investigated whether working alliance predicted Ethnicity, Working Alliance, and Outcome - 5 mutual vs. unilateral termination. They reported a relationship between therapist perception of strong working alliance and mutual termination.
It is quite typical for any company to have a union initiated by the employees themselves. It is through the union that employees hope that they will now have a venue where they could talk about their company, the employers and their co-employees. It is in this union where the members hope to voice out their concerns, grievances and praises for the company. Employees believe that through the unions they have established, employees will become vigilant...
In the same manner, employers also hoped to "use" the unions to talk with the employees and let them understand the current situation of the whole company.
Union" is defined as "...an organization of employees formed to bargain with the employer; "you have to join the union in order to get a job" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, 2006).
For those who are pro-union, they would always say that people have the right to peaceably assemble. Employees also have the right to organize, ironically guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. If an employer caught wind that two co-workers were discussing unionizing, it simply could fire them for "fraternizing" during off-work hours.
For those who are against the union, they think that it is by establishing groups, workplace tensions erupted. Those who are members of the union feel that they are superior and that they are "elite" members of the company. They have somebody or groups of "friends" whom they can talk and share their plans with. They have people who would be willing to listen to their grievances regarding the company. And once they decided to make an action, any member of a company union would be confident enough that there would be somebody who would always back them up. These are the very reasons why many bosses are not so comfortable in allowing his/her subordinates to establish any union.
Alliances in the workplace is always in the positive light for there are still some alliances where the members use the "power" of the alliance to impose something for the company. Those who are pro- alliances, they believe that because of that, they now have a medium to speak out for themselves and for the other employees as well.
The rules against fraternization in the workplace is simply outlawing human nature. Understandably, some businesses may need rules against excessively long fraternization during work hours. But a flat no-fraternization-ever policy is surely an overreaction. Denying human nature when it comes to co-workers is laughable. Co-workers network, develop friendships, even build long-lasting intimate relationships with one another. Human interaction is complex and often messy. Fortunately, any businessperson who doesn't acknowledge that probably won't be in business for long (http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050823/OPINION01/508230312/1004,2005).
Likewise, there are companies who would prefer not to have any union established by the workers/employees. This is because they fear of having any rallies or assemblies initiated by the employees. These rallies, they think, will only result to negative turn around of the company earnings. At the same time, these rallies will only put the company's name in the bad light once the media comes in.
In some cases, to prevent a union, a company normally assigned several "certified bargaining agents." Through a union certified bargaining agent, the company will be ensured that no union movements against the company will be held.
According to a study conducted by the Labor force union members, there are only 16% of the force who are union members. This is entirely because there are really some firms who do not approve of unions. Also, the fact that there are more negative rumors than positive ones referring to union members discouraged more and more labor force in joining any unions.
It also best to note that no employer should be assisting the union members. It is illegal (for some countries) for an employer to assist a union because this may emboldened the unions more, and may encouraged other workforce to establish a union.
Fraternization, on the other hand, is the traditional term used to identify personal relationships that cross the usual bounds of acceptable senior-subordinate relationships. Fraternization also includes improper relationships between senior and junior officer members and between senior and junior enlisted personnel (http://www.tpub.com/content/advancement/12024/css/12024_49.htm,2006).
Forming alliances in the workplace is just establishing groups of people with which the members have common interest and views about the company. Workplace alliances are advantageous in a way that it offers diversion for the employees. It can create closer bond within the employees. It can offer a much happier aura inside the company for all the members are in good terms with each other.
On the other hand, workplace alliances could be negative in a way that more employees would be confident enough to demand for some things which are not commonly offered by the company. They could feel confident because there are other persons who support the idea (their brothers and sisters in the union). Also, this is not an advantage for those who are not members of the union. They will feel being left out. They will feel insecure and will result to competition and…
