Search results

The primary objective of this paper is to understand the extent to which Australian industrial relations academics took up the different heuristic frameworks from USA and U.K. from the 1960s to the 1980s. A second objective is to begin to understand why, and in what ways ideas are transmitted in academic disciplines drawing on a “market model” for ideas. It is shown that in the years between 1960s and 1980s a modified U.S. (Dunlopian) model of interpreting industrial relations became more influential in Australia than that of U.K. scholarship, as exemplified by the British Oxford School. In part this reflects the breadth, flexibility and absence of an overt normative tenor in Dunlop’s model which thus offered lower transaction costs for scholars in an emergent discipline seeking recognition and approval from academia, practitioners and policy-makers. Despite frequent and wide-ranging criticism of Dunlop’s model, it proved a far more enduring transfer to Australian academic industrial relations than the British model, albeit in a distorted form. The market model for the diffusion of ideas illuminates the ways in which a variety of local contextual factors influenced the choices taken by Australian industrial relations academics.

This chapter examines the rise and fall of the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations (Dunlop Commission) in the early 1990s. It uses the events surrounding the Commission to provide an insight into the dynamics of the struggle over federal labor law reform. The inability of the Dunlop Commission to get labor and management representatives to agree on proposals for labor law reform demonstrated, yet again, that employer opposition is the greatest obstacle to the protection of organizing rights and modernization of labor law. For the nation's major management associations, labor law reform is a life and death issue, and nothing is more important to them than defeating revisions to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) intended to strengthen organizing rights. The failure of labor law reform in the 1990s also demonstrated that the labor movement would never win reform by means of an “inside the beltway” legislative campaign – designed to push reform through the US Senate – because the principal employer organizations would always exercise more influence in Congress. Instead, unions must engage with public opinion, and convince union and nonunion members about the importance of reform. Thus far, however, they lack an effective language with which to do this.

The industrial relations tradition values empirical analysis and research usable for policy making. Considerations about epistemology and ontology and their consequences for the research are not integrated in the tradition. Just as daily research only very seldom relates to higher‐level theorising, a case in point being the development of a common theoretical framework, theoretical discussions are mostly separated from daily research into special rooms where discussion and development takes places among a few specialists. The industrial relations tradition also keeps women and research in gender in the periphery. This has consequences not only for the visibility of women’s labour market participation and for the status of the research in gender, but also for the industrial relations tradition, as it will become less able to see new tendencies and developments at the labour market and in industrial relations. The first part of the article discusses how the tradition – in spite of a growing acceptance of gender research – is still influenced by a male norm. In the second part the article endeavours to relate the under‐theorising of the IR tradition and the marginalisation of a gender perspective. The last part of the article introduces an integrated gender perspective as one – although incomplete – way to overcome these problems.

This paper argues that a new theory of community industrial relations is needed that recognises fewer boundaries between work and family. The theory needs to recognise a mutual exchange between the traditional “actors” in the industrial relationship (unions, employers and the government) and “interactors” in the community rather than continue to assume a separation between the external and internal industrial environment that has underpinned traditional industrial relations theory. More importantly the theory needs to be gender inclusive and recognise the important role played by women as a link between industrial actors and the community. The paper presents examples of community‐union activity to illustrate the reality of the decrease in separation between community and industrial parties. In so doing the paper draws on the experiences of female partners of male unionists in traditional male workplaces. The paper proposes a new gender inclusive model of community industrial relations. Based on this model the paper proposes a new theory of community industrial relations in which interchange occurs between the traditional industrial relations actors and various groups of interactors within the community within the broader social/cultural, economic, political, and legal environment, for mutual advantage of all parties. This theory is in its formative stage and this requires further testing before it can be claimed as a general theory.

This study seeks to estimate union wage effect in the public and private sectors of Ghana, respectively. It also seeks to ascertain whether the union wage effect in the two sectors varies.

The authors use data from the Ghana Living Standards Survey 6 (GLSS 6, 2012/2013) and Ghana Labour Force Survey (GLFS, 2015). In terms of estimation technique, the authors employ the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition technique to estimate union wage effect in public and private sectors, respectively.

The findings indicate that union wage effect in the public sector is positive and higher relative to that of the private sector.

The findings imply that strict enforcement of Section 82 of Labour Act 2003 (Act 651) will curb the political influence of public sector unions over their employer (Government).

This research paper has not been presented to any journal for publication and it is the authors' original work.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-01-2023-0045

This article will attempt to argue and demonstrate that the existing and extensive literature on bargaining power in industrial relations focuses almost exclusively on two central aspects of power. Whilst both these approaches throw valuable light on some aspects of power, we shall seek to argue that the predominance of these constrained perspectives has resulted in the relative neglect of other important aspects. Thus we shall identify several lacunae in the literature and seek to raise some hitherto unexamined questions. We shall also argue that, because of the partial nature of the existing literature, there is a need to develop a more coherent and comprehensive model of power which is capable of integrating the multiple facets and incorporating the existing insights.

In this contribution to the growing discussion of the meaning, method‐dology and rationale of the socio‐economic approach we shall not reiterate the historical development of Social Economics but will concentrate on trying to stimulate discussion of the following questions:

This paper draws on established and more recent concepts of an industrial relations actor and applies them to the citizens' advice bureau (CAB). The purpose of this is to determine the significance of the CAB as an industrial relations actor and to identify limitations associated with traditional concepts of what constitutes an actor.

Eight bureaux from contrasting localities in Greater London participated in the research. CAB advisers providing employment advice and clients with work related problems were interviewed.

Provides information on what constitutes an industrial relations actor and the significance of the CAB as a new industrial relations actor.

The paper addresses a gap on new industrial relations actors particularly in relation to their importance. It suggests that new bodies can be classified as industrial relations actors and that they are significant, particularly in the absence of a strong labour movement.

This paper seeks to examine the discourses that influence policy and practice in social enterprises. In institutional circles, arguments are shaped by the desire to protect assets for the community, while entrepreneurial discourses favour a mixture of investment sources, surplus sharing and inclusive systems of governance. A critique is outlined that challenges policy‐makers and academics to move beyond the heated debate on “business‐like” activity through a deeper understanding of the social relations entered into (and created by) different social entrepreneurial activities.

The paper is wholly theoretical. First, contradictions are exposed through a review of practitioner and scholarly literature. Thereafter, empirically grounded studies are used to develop a theoretical model that accommodates and accounts for diverse practices.

A broader perspective, that views human behaviour as a product of, and support system for, our socio‐sexual choices, is deployed to extend understanding of social capital. By integrating this into governance theory, workplaces come to be seen as complex centres of community‐building, replete with economic and social goals. The concept of “social rationality” is elaborated as an alternative way to understand the legitimacy of social entrepreneurial activity and management practice.

The paper concludes by developing a framework and typology that theorises social enterprise as a heterogeneous business movement. Each form of social enterprise integrates socially rational thinking into its policies and practices. This suggests a different educational agenda for social entrepreneurs oriented towards the equitable distribution, and not accumulation, of social and economic capital.

The purpose of this article is to study the overall development of public sector industrial relations in The Netherlands.

The paper reviews the main literature on the topic and relevant policy texts. There are interviews with key individuals referenced and utilised.

Although the direction of change in Dutch public sector employment relations is towards private sector norms, it is unclear whether this will lead to a complete withering away of the traditional characteristics of public sector employment relations.

It is a general overview of key developments.

It is relevant for a discussion of the general trends and dynamic of public sector industrial relations in The Netherlands.

This article manages to take an overview of developments and point to the uncertain nature of a new market approach.