Search results

In Britain, labor−management partnership has been the fulcrum of the Labor Government's employment relations programme since its election in 1997. The Involvement and Participation Association (IPA, 1997; website: http://www.partnership-at-work.com) − the influential employers’ organization − has been at the forefront of promoting labor−management partnership to improve productivity in UK firms through greater employee involvement and participation (see http://www.partnership-at-work.com). The Trades Union Congress (TUC; partnership institute website: http://www.partnership-institute.org.uk) and several of its constituent unions have also endorsed partnership with employers as a route to promote employee ‘voice’ at work, secure better bargaining outcomes and improve union membership levels and density (Undy, 2001). Union density in the UK private sector has declined from 19.9 per cent in autumn 1997 to 17.2 per cent in autumn 2005, while in the public sector it has declined from 60.9 per cent to 58.6 per cent over the same period of time (Grainger, 2006). Advocates of partnership argue that such arrangements deliver mutual gains to the parties involved, viz. higher productivity and profits for employers, better wages and higher employment security to workers and greater influence over management decisions for unions, which in turn help them to attract and recruit new members (e.g. Haynes & Allen, 2001; Deery & Iverson, 2005).

This paper examines roles of mandated employee participation rights (EPRs), such as works council legislation, in corporate governance. Links between employment and corporate relationships are stressed. Market failure arguments are developed, predicting that EPRs, and the interaction between EPRs and investments in skills, can positively impact productivity; preliminary evidence from German establishments is generally supportive. A qualitative appraisal concludes that EPRs have not harmed economies that adopt them. Policies to expand EPRs in the US are introduced, jointly encouraging skill development and employee decision-making participation, full rights for employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) participants, legal regulation of terms such as “participation,” and EPR extension services.

Purpose – The chapter aims to provide a descriptive and analytical conceptual framework of critical approaches to globalisation and summarises the main debates in the area.Design/methodology/approach – This chapter is based on an extensive literature review.Findings – This chapter summarises diverse critical approaches to globalisation from a multi-disciplinary perspective. It presents theories explaining the negative consequences of globalisation on working opportunities, conditions and relations, and the negative consequences of globalisation at the economic, cultural, social and political level (particularly the perceived decline in state influence).Practical implications – This chapter provides an overview on the debates on globalisation. This chapter could contribute discussions at the classroom level, and different managerial learning circles.Originality/value of chapter – This chapter contributes teaching material for international business, trade and development, and corporate social responsibility

This chapter addresses a practical industrial relations problem, namely the absence of a monitoring framework to assess and improve labor–management relations in organizations. The authors argue that assessing and improving organizational labor relations requires attention to both vertical and horizontal alignments of labor relations institutions and practices. Vertical alignment refers to the internal consistency across the strategic, functional, and workplace levels noted by Kochan, Katz, and McKersie in their strategic choice framework (1986). Drawing on two “best practice” labor relations cases, Saturn and Kaiser Permanente as well as two original case studies of healthcare organizations, the authors develop the notion of horizontal alignment, i.e., the internal consistency across labor relations processes, substantive issues, and outcomes.

How can we explain the absence of resistance, especially among unionised workers? Writing in the 1921 about the interaction between economic downturns and political responses, Leon Trotsky made the following pointThe political effects of a crisis (not only the extent of its influence but also its direction) are determined by the entire existing political situation and by those events which precede and accompany the crisis, especially the battles, successes or failures of the working class itself prior to the crisis. Under one set of conditions the crisis may give a mighty impulse to the revolutionary activity of the working masses; under a different set of circumstances it may completely paralyse the offensive of the proletariat and, should the crisis endure too long and the workers suffer too many losses, it might weaken extremely not only the offensive but also the defensive potential of the working class. (Trotsky, 1974)

It could be argued that in Argentina, workers’ voice has never been silenced. In a legislative system protecting workers and politically and legally empowering trade unions, these organisations have historically represented workers. Voice however has never been limited to institutionalised and organisational forms. It has often exploded in informal ways out of workers’ experiences of the precariousness of their labour processes and of the contradictions generated between this and formal voice and representation. But it has also emerged in novel forms, through the occupation of factories, roads and public places, in moments of deep economic crisis or among groups of informally employed workers.

The case of Argentina certainly calls for a broader understanding of voice tied to the idea of voice as a socially and politically mediated process, through which formal and informal channels of voice can be alternatively created, destroyed and recreated.

The paper attempts to trace these multiple forms of voice in the recent social history of Argentina using ethnographic research conducted by the author.

The unemployment rate in South Africa (SA) has reached levels that require urgent intervention from all training institutions responsible for developing employment skills and preparing students for industry. While the South African Government has launched initiatives such as the National Development Plan and the Skills Development Act to facilitate employment, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have Cooperative Education programs such as Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) to facilitate student placements within industry, to enhance and promote student exposure, and introduce them to academic programs within the career placement context. The SA government also initiated the National Skills Authority, Sectorial Education and Training Authorities, and the National Skills Fund to collaborate on partnerships with industry and HEIs. The initiatives of the SA Ministry of Higher Education include placement of students in industry. Universities have prioritized placement of students as a critical measure of their success. The realization of industry is to select individuals for placement based on practical experience, not just academic qualifications. Factors such as decolonization of WIL have become part of the academic landscape for HEIs and other training institutions that require more sensitivity when considering the operating environment for industry. HEIs would also benefit from career planning and job analysis in their cooperative education programs. The job-analysis phase should follow the career development phase, which is a core part of WIL that needs to diversify cooperative education policies. HEIs need to upgrade, modernize, and adapt curricula to SA conditions for industry.

From a perspective of ‘critical performativity’, John Lewis is of special interest since it is celebrated as a successful organization and heralded as an alternative to more typical forms of capitalist enterprise.

Our analysis uses secondary empirical material (e.g. JLP documents in the public domain, histories of John Lewis and recent empirical research). Our assumption is that engagement and interrogation of existing empirical work can be at least as illuminating and challenging as undertaking new studies. In addition to generating fresh insights, stimulating reflection and fostering debate, our analysis is intended to contribute to an appreciation of how structures of ownership and governance are significant in enabling and constraining practices of organizing and managing.

The structures of ownership and governance at John Lewis, a major UK employee-owned retailer, have been commended by those who wish to recuperate capitalism and by those who seek to transform it.

JLP can be read as a ‘subversive intervention’ insofar as it denies absentee investors access to, and control of, its assets. Currently, however, even the critical performative potential of the Partnership model is impeded by its paternalist structures. Exclusion of Partners’ participation in the market for corporate control is reflected in, and compounded by, a weak form of ‘democratic’ governance, where managers are accountable to Partners but not controlled by them.

Our contention is that JLP’s ownership and governance structures offer a practical demonstration, albeit flawed, of how an alternative form of organization is sufficiently ‘efficient’ and durable to be able to ‘compete’ against joint-stock companies.

By examining the cooperative elements of the John Lewis structures of ownership and governance, we illuminate a number of issues faced in realizing the principles ascribed to employee-owned cooperatives – notably, with regard to ‘democratic member control’, ‘member economic participation’ and ‘autonomy and independence’.