La justificación de las condiciones de trabajo y demandas laborales en España: órdenes de valor

IF 0.6 0 PHILOSOPHY
Rocío González Martínez, José María González González, Pedro Francés Gómez
{"title":"La justificación de las condiciones de trabajo y demandas laborales en España: órdenes de valor","authors":"Rocío González Martínez, José María González González, Pedro Francés Gómez","doi":"10.6035/recerca.6522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the dominant legitimating discursive strategies around the ever-increasing labour demands and ever-declining standards of safety and well-being at work in Spain are analysed through the lens of Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006) view of the transformation of capitalism. A qualitative methodology based on semi-structured interviews is used. Results show that the justificatory arguments most commonly put forward by managers and experts are the logic of supply and demand, and values related to flexibility, resilience and adaptability to change. In contrast, the stability and protection established in the twentieth century are widely cherished values, particularly among union representatives and some human resources specialists. We found that discourse practices map two specific legitimating categories (market values and a projects orientation), and one critical category (Civic World), but the critical category has no practical impact, as the predominant feeling is resignation. Our research describes the common attitudes to legitimacy in the job market and points to a deep discontent in some of its key agents.","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.6522","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, the dominant legitimating discursive strategies around the ever-increasing labour demands and ever-declining standards of safety and well-being at work in Spain are analysed through the lens of Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006) view of the transformation of capitalism. A qualitative methodology based on semi-structured interviews is used. Results show that the justificatory arguments most commonly put forward by managers and experts are the logic of supply and demand, and values related to flexibility, resilience and adaptability to change. In contrast, the stability and protection established in the twentieth century are widely cherished values, particularly among union representatives and some human resources specialists. We found that discourse practices map two specific legitimating categories (market values and a projects orientation), and one critical category (Civic World), but the critical category has no practical impact, as the predominant feeling is resignation. Our research describes the common attitudes to legitimacy in the job market and points to a deep discontent in some of its key agents.
西班牙工作条件和劳动需求的合理性:价值订单
在本文中,通过Boltanski和thsamvenot(2006)对资本主义转型的观点,分析了围绕西班牙不断增长的劳动力需求和不断下降的工作安全和福利标准的主导的合法化话语策略。采用基于半结构化访谈的定性方法。结果表明,管理者和专家最常提出的理由是供求逻辑,以及与灵活性、弹性和适应变化有关的价值观。相比之下,20世纪确立的稳定和保护是广泛珍视的价值观,尤其是工会代表和一些人力资源专家。我们发现,话语实践映射了两个特定的合法化类别(市场价值和项目导向)和一个批判类别(公民世界),但批判类别没有实际影响,因为主要的感觉是顺从。我们的研究描述了就业市场对合法性的普遍态度,并指出了一些关键因素的深刻不满。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
32 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信