Conflict,collaboration and commitment in British industrial relations |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Queally 380, 1 Gateway Road, Richmond, VA 23173, United States;2. Department of Economics, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90045, United States;3. Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies, 361 Stadium Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, United States;4. Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States |
| |
Abstract: | In this article, the author takes to task those who use the indicator of “strike activity” to measure the state of industrial relations. The case study is specifically that of the United Kingdom, but it has applications elsewhere as well.When this is done, and when it is pointed out that such a measure ignores complexities like the distribution curve of strikes and the qualitative gains from negotiations, it becomes clear that strike-prone British industry is a chimera.Nonetheless, Marchington warns against complacency. Even techniques of increased employee involvement and workplace flexibility, like briefing committees and quality circles, may not bring equal benefits to employers and employees. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|