超越自由化:雇主组织对就业法的不同反应

IF 2.7 3区 管理学 Q2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Leon Gooberman, Marco Hauptmeier, Edmund Heery
{"title":"超越自由化:雇主组织对就业法的不同反应","authors":"Leon Gooberman, Marco Hauptmeier, Edmund Heery","doi":"10.1108/er-06-2023-0285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>A key meta-narrative of Employment Relations in the UK over recent decades has been that of labour market deregulation. However, governments have simultaneously introduced workplace rights legislation that juridified individual employment relationships. Within this process, employers and their representatives, Employers’ Organizations (EOs), are generally depicted as opposing the introduction of employment law or attempting to weaken its application. Contrary to this belief, our research identified a range of other responses to ask: how and why have EO responses varied?</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>This article draws on primary qualitative and quantitative data from three projects; one examined the totality of EOs in the UK while the others examined topic-specific behaviour of EOs and other actors. The main source is the first project and its 98 interviews with representatives of EOs and related organisations between 2013 and 2017.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>We demonstrate that opposition is not the only EO response to individual employment law by identifying three others: compliance, advocating for law and going beyond legally stipulated requirements by promoting voluntary standards/best practice. The article argues that there are two explanations for this pattern. One is that individual EOs possess different sets of member interests, the other relates to differences in their organizational characteristics.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The article makes two contributions to the literature. One is that our identification of varying responses challenges more unitary accounts emphasising neoliberal and deregulatory patterns. The other lies in our identification of causal forces not previously identified. Both combine to illustrate how the neo-liberal order is not characterised by employer consensus as to regulation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47857,"journal":{"name":"Employee Relations","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond liberalization: employers’ organizations’ varied responses to employment law\",\"authors\":\"Leon Gooberman, Marco Hauptmeier, Edmund Heery\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/er-06-2023-0285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>A key meta-narrative of Employment Relations in the UK over recent decades has been that of labour market deregulation. However, governments have simultaneously introduced workplace rights legislation that juridified individual employment relationships. Within this process, employers and their representatives, Employers’ Organizations (EOs), are generally depicted as opposing the introduction of employment law or attempting to weaken its application. Contrary to this belief, our research identified a range of other responses to ask: how and why have EO responses varied?</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>This article draws on primary qualitative and quantitative data from three projects; one examined the totality of EOs in the UK while the others examined topic-specific behaviour of EOs and other actors. The main source is the first project and its 98 interviews with representatives of EOs and related organisations between 2013 and 2017.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>We demonstrate that opposition is not the only EO response to individual employment law by identifying three others: compliance, advocating for law and going beyond legally stipulated requirements by promoting voluntary standards/best practice. The article argues that there are two explanations for this pattern. One is that individual EOs possess different sets of member interests, the other relates to differences in their organizational characteristics.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>The article makes two contributions to the literature. One is that our identification of varying responses challenges more unitary accounts emphasising neoliberal and deregulatory patterns. The other lies in our identification of causal forces not previously identified. Both combine to illustrate how the neo-liberal order is not characterised by employer consensus as to regulation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":47857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employee Relations\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employee Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/er-06-2023-0285\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employee Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/er-06-2023-0285","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 近几十年来,英国雇佣关系的一个重要元叙事是放松对劳动力市场的管制。然而,政府同时也引入了工作场所权利立法,将个人雇佣关系司法化。在这一过程中,雇主及其代表--雇主组织(EOs)--通常被描述为反对引入就业法或试图削弱其适用性。与这一观点相反,我们的研究发现了一系列其他反应,从而提出了以下问题:雇主组织的反应如何以及为何各不相同? 本文借鉴了三个项目的主要定性和定量数据;其中一个项目研究了英国雇主组织的整体情况,其他项目则研究了雇主组织和其他参与者的特定主题行为。主要资料来源是第一个项目及其在 2013 年至 2017 年期间对就业组织和相关组织代表进行的 98 次访谈。研究结果我们通过确定其他三种应对方式,证明反对并不是就业组织对个别就业法律的唯一应对方式:遵守法律、倡导法律以及通过推广自愿标准/最佳实践来超越法律规定的要求。文章认为,这种模式有两种解释。原创性/价值 本文对相关文献做出了两项贡献。其一是,我们发现了不同的应对措施,这对强调新自由主义和放松管制模式的较为单一的说法提出了挑战。另一个贡献在于我们发现了以前未曾发现的因果力量。这两方面结合起来,说明了新自由主义秩序的特点并不是雇主对监管的共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond liberalization: employers’ organizations’ varied responses to employment law

Purpose

A key meta-narrative of Employment Relations in the UK over recent decades has been that of labour market deregulation. However, governments have simultaneously introduced workplace rights legislation that juridified individual employment relationships. Within this process, employers and their representatives, Employers’ Organizations (EOs), are generally depicted as opposing the introduction of employment law or attempting to weaken its application. Contrary to this belief, our research identified a range of other responses to ask: how and why have EO responses varied?

Design/methodology/approach

This article draws on primary qualitative and quantitative data from three projects; one examined the totality of EOs in the UK while the others examined topic-specific behaviour of EOs and other actors. The main source is the first project and its 98 interviews with representatives of EOs and related organisations between 2013 and 2017.

Findings

We demonstrate that opposition is not the only EO response to individual employment law by identifying three others: compliance, advocating for law and going beyond legally stipulated requirements by promoting voluntary standards/best practice. The article argues that there are two explanations for this pattern. One is that individual EOs possess different sets of member interests, the other relates to differences in their organizational characteristics.

Originality/value

The article makes two contributions to the literature. One is that our identification of varying responses challenges more unitary accounts emphasising neoliberal and deregulatory patterns. The other lies in our identification of causal forces not previously identified. Both combine to illustrate how the neo-liberal order is not characterised by employer consensus as to regulation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Employee Relations
Employee Relations Multiple-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.80%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: ■Communication, participation and involvement ■Developments in collective bargaining ■Equal opportunities ■Health and safety ■HRM ■Industrial relations and employment protection law ■Industrial relations management and reform ■Organizational change and people ■Personnel and recruitment ■Quality of working life
×
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