Search

This article provides an innovative defence of co-determination by way of exploring two of the most significant theorised objections to it from neo-liberal and libertarian perspectives, namely, the defence of the right to manage as freely chosen by employees and employers alike, and the right to manage being the most efficient, lowest transaction cost mode of employee governance. Instead, we focus upon management preference emanating from the endowment effect, and manifested in management style and ideology, as a more credible explanation for management’s support for its prerogative to manage. The endowment effect prompts both strong employer and manager objections to co-determination and weak employee willingness to seek it because humans place more value upon items currently in their possession than upon those they do not possess. We explore this argument by examining the experience of co-determination in Germany. The significance of our argument lies in identifying managerial preference as the key variable to be challenged and changed in order to pacify management opposition to co-determination through political, ideological and institutional means.

With the ever‐increasing popularity of social media, whistle‐blowing, which generally refers to the disclosure of organisational wrongdoing, has entered a new era. Whistle‐blowing via virtual platforms has transformed not just the channel of disclosure, but also the associated motives, processes and outcomes. The impact on the whistle‐blower, the organisation and the public can often be accelerated and is seen as being more significant than traditional whistle‐blowing through internal means or external dedicated authorities or journalists. Yet systematic research on this changing phenomenon is just emerging, and regulation (e.g. for rewards, safeguards or protection) is lagging behind. In this paper, we specifically examine the impetus, as well as the benefits and drawbacks, of using online channels such as social media, blogging or websites, for whistle‐blowing by both employees and non‐employees, taking into consideration recent case law and development. A number of recommendations are proposed for virtual whistle‐blowers, organisations and governments.

This review highlights some of the principal issues and debates surrounding age discrimination at the workplace. Essentially, the existing research in this area can be divided into three broad, although somewhat overlapping, categories. The first explores the underlying causes and consequences of age discrimination at the workplace from one or other theoretical tradition. The second broad body of literature encompasses empirical studies which document the nature and extent of age discrimination, based on the use of official statistics, and/or firm-level survey evidence. The third explores the effects of various governmental initiatives to reduce the incidence of age discrimination and policy options in this area. Even though age discrimination is widely accepted to be prevalent, its causes are rather more contentious. Age discrimination has variously been ascribed to market imperfections, the product of rational choices and the effects of long-term changes in the nature of the economy. Policy interventions may be prompted by economic pressure, demographic changes or cultural shifts, and have involved voluntary codes as well as legislation. Although voluntary codes have generally proved ineffective, the literature indicates that more formal regulations may still have only limited efficacy, underscoring the deeply rooted nature of age discrimination in society.

The present union certification system has many faults, the most important of which is its failure to deliver employee representation to all but a small and declining minority of workers. As an alternative, compulsory proportional representation (CPR) would have many advantages, particularly when compared with other reform proposals, most of which are designed to only reinvigorate, modify, or supplement the existing system. Would CPR have any disadvantages? We identify four potential concerns: reduced freedom to contract, increased interunion competition and raiding, depleted union strength, and compromised union independence. However, we argue that some of these problems would be more imagined than real, some less serious than expected, and some would have secondary effects to compensate any shortcomings.

The North American union certification system has not met the representation needs of most workers. In this essay, certification's effectiveness is critically examined. The exclusive representation and winner-take-all approach satisfies only two out of seven categories of union and nonunion workers with different representational preferences. The “winners” are those who successfully exercise their choice to be either unrepresented or represented by their most preferred union. All others are “losers.” A compulsory proportional representation alternative is proposed which allows for both union and nonunion forms of representation, representative election based on proportional votes, and mandatory workplace representation. The merits of this alternative in balancing the needs of both voting majorities and minorities and protecting worker rights from management encroachment are discussed. Some preliminary suggestions on its implementation are offered.

We critically examine the right-to-manage as a legal default rule. Identifying its deficiencies, we then assess the merits of process and content defaults and identify potentially non-waivable terms and conditions. Finally, we suggest how different options may be combined within systems.

This study examines the effects of unions on employer compliance with antidiscrimination legislation in New Zealand, using a sample of 227 employers. The results do indicate that unions do reduce discriminatory practices. More specifically, higher levels of unionization do increase the level of employer compliance. However, other union characteristics, such as union size and strike propensity, appeared to have no influence on employer practice.

Over the last thirty years, collective rights to organize into unions, bargain collectively and strike have been weakened in both New Zealand and the UK. At the same time, individual rights to due process and to protection from discriminatory or unjust management decisions have been strengthened, leading some to conclude that collective and individual rights are unrelated, incompatible or mutually exclusive. On the contrary, we use evidence of employer compliance with anti-age provisions in the New Zealand Human Rights Act to show that the two sets of rights can be highly complementary: the presence of unions strengthens individual protection from discriminatory treatment.

This article explores the effects of the legal prohibition of age discrimination in New Zealand, based on a survey of the recruiting practices of individual organisations. Its findings indicate that many firms continue to breach the law through a continued emphasis on age during the recruitment process. Age-related information is directly or indirectly requested from a sizeable percentage of job applicants. The findings highlight the importance of the socio-economic context in which legislation is enacted. As with unwritten rules, the impact of law in a specific context is inevitably circumscribed by the deeply embedded nature of practice, especially if enforcement is lax.