Industrial Relations Under A Conservative Government: A Reply

1980 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 348-352
Author(s):  
Richard Mitchell
1979 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Mitchell

In just three years following the election of the Liberal-National Country Party Coalition Government, Australian industrial law underwent considerable transformation, including extensive amendments to the Conciliation and Arbi tration Act and further legislative changes introduced by commonwealth and state parliaments. These developments marked a shift towards the principle of industrial enforcement. In the 1960s and early 1970s a pattern of industrial relations developed which tended to play down the centralising role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.1 Those developments have to some extent been legislatively repudiated, though how far this will effect the long term evolution of industrial relations remains to be seen. The purpose of this article is to provide an outline of recent changes in labour law and to make some comment on their likely impact upon industrial relations. The analysis concentrates on the amendments made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in the two key Bills of 1977.2 The central feature of the new legislation, the Industrial Relations Bureau (IRB) is taken as a starting point for an examination of the changes in four basic areas of industrial law: the enforcement of the legis lation and awards made thereunder; the protection of individual rights; control of internal trade union affairs; and the penal provisions against strikes. The con clusion is that the industrial legislation has served to bolster the Government's political campaign against the union movement and to direct public attention away from the real problem—the economic crisis.


1980 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-347
Author(s):  
Clifford B. Donn

In his recent article in this Journal on changes in the laws affecting industrial relations,1 Richard Mitchell interprets the Fraser Government's industrial relations policies as aimed at serving political purposes rather than accomplishing any useful- substantive ends within the industrial relations field. While such an interpretation is naturally open to dispute, that is not the purpose of this comment. The intent here is to challenge one aspect of Mitchell's interpretation of the behaviour of the Aus tralian trade union movement in 1977. Specifically, Mitchell's assertion that in the 1977 compromise over the Industrial Relations Bureau, "... the unions apparently gained nothing whilst conceding a great deal",2 cannot be allowed to enter the historical record unchallenged.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-228
Author(s):  
John Edmonds

The report of the Bullock Committee on Industrial Democracy aimed to transform British industrial relations by instituting worker directors on the board of large companies. This transformation never took place. A minority report by the three committee members representing business interests opposed putting workers’ representatives on the board. The aftermath was even more disappointing: the Labour government’s White Paper diluted several of Bullock’s recommendations but before legislation could be tabled, in May 1979, the incoming Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher declared that the Bullock recommendations would never be enacted. The goal of industrial democracy is to reduce the autocratic power of management and give all employees greater control of their working lives. Given the weakness of trade unions today, it is time to look again at statutory works councils in Germany and representation of a minority of worker directors on the board, both elected by all employees. This would give workers and their unions information about the state of the company and about management intentions.


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Euwema ◽  
Patricia Elgoibar ◽  
Ana Belen Garcia ◽  
Aurelien Colson ◽  
Patricia Elgoibar ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (48) ◽  
pp. 349
Author(s):  
سعد علي حمود العنزي

كثيرة هي البحوث والدراسات التي نراجعها في السلوك التنظيمي، بحكم عملنا كأستاذ دراسات عليا بتخصص ادارة الموارد البشرية ونظرية المنظمة، ووقع بيننا بحثاً نظرياً متميزاً للباحثين (Karin Sanders & Birgit Schyns)([1])، نشر في مجلة اصيلة هي (Personnel Review)، في عام (2006)، بمجلدها (35) وبالعدد (5)، تحت عنوان (Trust, Conflict and Cooperative Behaviour: Considering Reciprocity Within Organizations) . ولنقل الفائدة العلمية للمتخصصين والمعنيين والمهتمين بهذا الموضوع الحيوي، أرتأينا ترجمته بالتصرف الذي يفيد القارئ باللغة العربية. فالبحث يصب غرضه في دراسة قضية محددة تتعلق بالثقة، الصراع، والسلوك التعاوني كحلقات مهمة في العمل التنظيمي، ذلك لأن مخرجات العاملين (Employees Outcomes) المتعلقة بإتجاهاتهم، وسلوكياتهم، تأتي من العلاقات التبادلية التي تقع بينهم، والتي ينبغي اختبارها كخصائص لعلاقاتهم هذه، وليس كسمات لهم. ففي اطار ذلك، تتمثل قيمة هذا البحث برأينا بمحاولة ملئ فجوة التبادلية في علاقات المدراء- والمرؤوسين- المرؤوسين، والتركيز عليها بشدة لتفسير تلك القضية المحددة آنفة الذكر. وبحكم كون البحث الحالي، طبيعته تتصف بالمراجعة العامة للفكر الاكاديمي المطروح على الساحة، فإنه يرتبط بمصطلحات علمية سلوكية كثيرة ابرزها: سلوك العاملين (Employees behaviour) اتجاهات العاملين (Employees attitudes)، احتواء العاملين (Employees involvement) العلاقات الصناعية (Industrial relations)، ادارة الموارد البشرية التطبيقية (Applied human resources management).   [1])) ان  (Karin Sanders) استاذ علم النفس التنظيمي والعمل بجامعة (Twenke, The Netherlands) و (Birgit Schyns)، استاذة مساعدة بدراسات الموارد البشرية بجامعة (Tilburg, The Netherlands).


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayunita Nur Rohanawati

AbstractThis study aims to determine the social security system adopted by Indonesia, see Indonesia as a function of the welfare state as mandated by the 1945 Constitution has not done well, and to know the view of progressive legal theory legislation related to social security in providing solutions to the problems of social security the workforce. This research is devoted to the study of normative legal systematics, which is intended to determine the implementation of a theory of the legal conditions that exist in society. Results of this study produces a secondary data. The data obtained from the document collection process or library materials. Of the collection process, the data were analyzed qualitatively, systematically arranged, and presented descriptively. The results showed that Indonesia is still not able to fully administer social security for the people, where social security is still a “black and white” but the State has not been able in practice to assume responsibility for the implementation of social security as a whole. About social security, the Government is still not able to provide significant changes to the equalization gain social security for the workers, but changes in social security regulations on labor is performed repeatedly. Necessary party whom dared to take a policy or decisions that benefit the workers to realize the welfare of the workers. Parties reffered to the law is used as a progressive peeler, is a party that has an important role that enterpreneurs and the Industrial Relations Court Judge.Keywords: Social Security, Labour, Progressive LawIntisariPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui sistem jaminan sosial yang dianut Indonesia, melihat fungsi Indonesia sebagai negara kesejahteraan sesuai amanat Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 belum terlaksana dengan baik, serta untuk mengetahui teori hukum progresif memandang peraturan perundang-undangan terkait jaminan sosial tenaga kerja dalam memberikan solusi atas permasalahan jaminan sosial tenaga kerja tersebut.Penelitian ini bersifat normatif yang dikhususkan pada penelitian sistematika hukum, yang dimaksudkan untuk mengetahui implementasi pelaksanaan suatu teori terhadap kondisi hukum yang ada di masyarakat. Hasil penelitian ini menghasilkan suatu data sekunder. Data tersebut diperoleh dari proses pengumpulan dokumen atau bahan pustaka. Dari proses pengumpulan tersebut, data yang diperoleh dianalisis secara kualitatif disusun secara sistematis dan disajikan secara deskriptif.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia masih belum mampu secara seutuhnya menyelenggarakan jaminan sosial bagi rakyat, dimana jaminan sosial tersebut masih sebatas “hitam diatas putih” namun, negara belum mampu dalam pelaksanaannya untuk mengemban tanggung jawab pelaksanaan jaminan sosial tersebut secara utuh. Tentang jaminan sosial tenaga kerja, pemerintah masih belum mampu memberikan perubahan yang signifikan terhadap pemerataan perolehan jaminan sosial tenaga kerja bagi para pekerja tersebut, padahal perubahan peraturan tentang jaminan sosial tenaga kerja tersebut berulang kali dilakukan. Diperlukan pihak yang berani untuk mengambil suatu kebijakan atau keputusan yang bermanfaat bagi pekerja demi terwujudnya kesejahteraan bagi pekerja. Pihak sebagaimana dimaksud jika hukum progresif yang digunakan sebagai alat pengupas, adalah pihak yang memiliki peran penting yaitu pengusaha dan Hakim Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial.Kata Kunci: Jaminan Sosial, Tenaga Kerja, Hukum Progresif.


2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wade Jacoby ◽  
Martin Behrens

Our purpose in this article is to analyze changes in the German wagebargaining system, a system that has attracted enormous attentionfrom scholars of comparative political economy and comparativeindustrial relations. We argue that the wage bargaining portion ofthe German model is neither frozen in place, headed for deregulation,nor merely “muddling through.” Rather, we see the institutionalcapacities of the key actors—especially the unions and employerassociations—making possible a process we term “experimentalism.”In briefest form, experimentalism allows organizations that combinedecentralized information-gathering abilities with centralized decision-making capacity to probe for new possibilities, which, oncefound, can be quickly diffused throughout the organization. We willshow that the capacity for such experimentalism varies across actorsand sectors. And, to make things even tougher, neither major Germansocial actor can sustain innovation in the longer term withoutbringing along the other “social partner.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document