Whilst clocking in and out has been a feature of factory life for nearly 100 years it is now being abolished by an increasing number of employers. The authors discuss the pros and cons of the system and argue that it is likely to disappear altogether for several reasons.
The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:
This paper aims to examine the employment and training of mature‐aged workers, so that suggestions for improving training for mature‐aged workers may be offered.
Six expert interviews were carried out by telephone, and three case studies involving company site visits were completed. Each company case study involved interviews with managers, trainers and mature‐aged workers. The study was confined to the manufacturing industry.
Mature‐aged workers bring many advantages to workplaces and some employers show a definite preference for them over younger workers; but in some cases training needs to take account of lack of confidence and literacy and health issues. However, there is great diversity among mature‐aged workers.
The research is confined to shop‐floor workers in manufacturing, and does not address training of mature‐aged managers and professionals. The research is small‐scale but provides new insights, and importantly the voices of the workers themselves.
The paper identifies managerial and training practices that can immediately be implemented.
The paper identifies some issues that can be taken up at a policy level as well as within companies. For example, the preference for qualification‐based training at a national level is not necessarily consistent with what mature‐aged workers prefer.
To demonstrate how awareness of Neo-Marxist critical theory and Neo-Weberian comparative–historical sociology would have been beneficial to U.S. policy planners and…
To demonstrate how awareness of Neo-Marxist critical theory and Neo-Weberian comparative–historical sociology would have been beneficial to U.S. policy planners and decision-makers, especially Presidents.
This study employs qualitative analysis of available sources rather than quantitative data analysis.
Based on its practical application to a specific historical instance, the heuristic value of Max Weber’s ideal-type model of traditional authority (Herrschaft [domination]) is confirmed, as it is apparent that Henry Kissinger’s interpretation of the meaning of Realpolitik harmed U.S. foreign policy.
There is an imminent need to be critical of claims to expertise by advisors of major decision-makers. The practical relevance of possessing an adequate grasp of a given situation as the context in which actors must make choices is evident, as applies with regard to the current crises facing the world, which must be approached and addressed as scrupulously as possible.
Prevailing critiques of Kissinger and American foreign policy have tended to accept the premise that Kissinger was well-informed and giving good advice based on extensive and appropriate scholarship. That was not the case in Vietnam, in Indonesia, or in other regions. There are no available studies that examine Kissinger’s Eurocentric and limited perspective in light of critical theory and comparative–historical sociology.
It will be recalled that the last monograph treated the significance of the collective agreement in society. If solely a function in society, (though having a legal basis), were to be attributed to the collective agreement, this would mean that no rights or obligations whatsoever would be created between the parties to it. This is not so in practice. It is of course a fact that no legally enforceable rights and obligations normally accrue, and as already indicated, those are moral ones and are only enforceable in honour, i.e. a gentleman's agreement. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that the collective agreement has no juridical significance. Even agreements which are binding in honour only, as for example the kind of agreement found in Balfour v. Balfour, have a known juridical nature. Furthermore, though the collective agreement is only binding in honour, its incorporation into the individual contract of employment makes its terms legally enforceable even though recourse to the courts is seldom had. As a source of rights and obligations of considerable importance the collective agreement must therefore have some juridical significance and cannot remain entirely in the realms of society.
Whatever debates may have taken place in the past in the courts and elsewhere on the status of trade unions, current legislation provides that a “… trade union … is not a body corporate …” and “…shall not be treated as if it were a body corporate…” For practical reasons however, a trade union is, inter alia, “… capable of making contracts …” which includes the entering into a collective agreement.
Purpose – With an acknowledgement to Benedict Anderson's seminal writings on “imagined communities,” this paper examines several meanings and uses of the concept of…
Purpose – With an acknowledgement to Benedict Anderson's seminal writings on “imagined communities,” this paper examines several meanings and uses of the concept of imagination: theoretical, methodological, and substantive.
Methodology/approach – Application of these meanings are illustrated from eight qualitative researches, combining direct observations, interviews, participant observation, and document analysis.
Findings – Data are drawn from diverse settings, such as undocumented migrant communities, terrorism, Native American communities, collaborative divorce, nationalism, mass killers, players of video games, and genocide, to illustrate the potential uses and meanings of imagination.
Originality – These diverse researches illustrate the potential empirical and research contributions of these ideas.
A nostrum much quoted in traditional contract law courses is ‘caveat emptor’ (let the buyer beware). Buyers had to look after themselves and protect their own interests. The laissez‐faire philosophy which lay behind this maxim took the view that the operation of unrestrained market forces was the best method for protecting consumers as a whole. Emphasis was placed on free competition providing alternative choices as the best way of satisfying consumer wants. In reality, even in the mid‐19th century when this philosophy was dominant, the consumer was not left without the protection of the law. Freedom of contract notionally existed and much judicial rhetoric was expended on justifying it but in reality the courts were quite astute in protecting consumers in situations where they were the victims of fraud, trading malpractice or unequal contracts.