INDUSTRIAL ACTION AND THE INDIVIDUAL WORKER

2013 ◽  
pp. 321-337
2017 ◽  
pp. 250-263
Author(s):  
Robert Dubin

2020 ◽  
pp. 409-430
Author(s):  
Michael Ford

This chapter adopts a historical perspective on the development of criminalization of health and safety law. In so doing, it emphasizes the divergence in perspective between criminal lawyers and labour lawyers on fundamental matters of value. Criminal lawyers have tended to focus on the development of criminalization-limiting principles as an exercise in normative theory, whereas labour lawyers have tended to focus on instrumental outcomes in terms of whether health and safety outcomes are improved. If criminal law works in that instrumental sense, then so much the better, and that supersedes niceties about the justifiability of criminalization. This chapter identifies the central importance of criminalization as a tool of deregulation in the modern era, following the removal of a civil right to seek compensation for breach of statutory duties under the health and safety legislation. By channelling enforcement exclusively through the criminal law, the individual worker is thereby disempowered in their standing to control the legal process and its outcomes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 476-487
Author(s):  
Lauro Ericksen

This paper discusses 過労死 (Karōshi)’s phenomenon, stating it as a social labor-related issue. It presents Karōshi as sudden death by overworking. This paper objective consists in showing it as a singular and particular case of Japanese workaholism, rooted in its own cultural work system, conceptualizing Karōshi as a singularity in Japanese cultural system, putting it, and also 過労自殺 (Karōjisatsu), as an existential damage beyond the  individual worker. Karōshi surpasses the line of personal damage and can be considered a cultural collective damage.


1987 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-302
Author(s):  
B. W. Napier

The government's recent Green Paper “Trade Unions and Their Members” contains several radical proposals for the reform of labour law, among them the suggestion that no union member should be subject to penalties by his trade union for disobedience to the union's call to take strike action. This proposal is based partly on a philosophy of committed individualism—everyone has a right to decide to work whatever a trade union has to say about the taking of industrial action—and partly on the government's concern over the well-publicised sanctions which unions such as the N. U. M. and the N. U. J. have recently imposed on members who have rejected official calls to participate in industrial action. The suggestion is made at a time when the actual impact of strikes (measured in terms of working days lost) is at its lowest point for twenty years and at a stage when, as one commentator has observed, “[t]he trend in this area of law, as developed in the courts and by Parliament, is towards strengthening the position of the union member who refuses to participate in industrial action”. Given its conviction that the taking of industrial action should be a matter left to individual choice (para. 2.22), it is hardly surprising that the government appears to view sympathetically the possibility of extending to members disciplined by their union (by expulsion or some lesser sanction) the right of complaint to an industrial tribunal.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Pellegrino ◽  
Nicola Costantino

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to focus on productivity as it unfolds during the execution of a particular task, i.e., reinforced concrete operations. The main aim is understanding whether the learning effect explaining the improvement of productivity in subsequent cycles of a given repetitive construction process is mainly attributable to a pure worker learning (independent on the specific site) or to the experience developed by the crew on the site conditions. Design/methodology/approach The authors conduct a research that empirically investigates and compares the change in productivity data of a single worker during his/her working life and that of a crew involved in specific repetitive work, such as the concreting activities of a multi-storey building. Findings The findings suggest differentiating between productivity gain as a result of the learning effect of the individual worker throughout his/her working life (which is independent of the specific project and site) and that of a crew composed by more workers which repeat reinforced concrete operations in a given specific project. Research limitations/implications Despite the great attention reserved to learning in construction, few researchers discuss on the real applicability of the learning curve (LC) theory in the construction industry. The authors contribute to this literature by empirically investigating the contributions that the learning effect of the individual worker and that of a crew repeating a given task (i.e. reinforced concrete operations) in a given project have on the productivity improvement for subsequent cycles of the repetitive construction process. Practical implications The findings of this study have important managerial implications. The shape of the LC of the individual worker implies that learning increases relatively slowly in his/her working life (particularly after one to two years), while the effects of the crew experience are immediately significant in a time range of few weeks. This means that a single “one-off” multi-storey building project will show in the first storey the “historical,” individual productivity of the individual workers (i.e. not going to vary significantly in the next few weeks). The productivity improvement in the further storeys will only depend on the project-specific (and collective, for the crew) “learning” due, for example, to better coordination or to other issues that are progressively solved moving from the first storey to the following ones. So, the project-specific LC increases in a faster way than the individual one, and the overall productivity can be improved by accelerating the project-specific learning rate with more accurate project-specific design and management. Originality/value This paper enhances the understanding of the contributions that the learning effect of the individual worker and that of a crew repeating a given task (i.e. reinforced concrete operations) in a given project have on the productivity improvement for subsequent cycles of the repetitive construction process. This will contribute to improve the planning and control of site work activities, avoiding time and money wastefulness.


Curationis ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Cilliers

Staff development as a function of the industrial psychologist tries to educate and train the individual worker to become a more self-actualising and integrated individual. The process used involves the identification of individual development needs, creating an individual development plan, determining individual development activities and evaluating the development programme. Staff development benefits the organisation as its staff becomes more satisfied, autonomous and productive.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document