The politics of job retention schemes in Britain: The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and the Temporary Short Time Working Compensation Scheme

IF 2.3 2区社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Critical Social Policy Pub Date : 2022-04-07 DOI:10.1177/02610183221086515

J. Wiggan, C. Grover

引用次数: 2

Abstract

The UK Government's introduction of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) in March 2020 was pitched as unprecedented. Yet, during the 1970s and 1980s, UK governments also operated wage subsidy job retention schemes. Indeed, despite their professed liberal market orientation, Thatcher's radical right Conservative governments presided over the expansive Temporary Short Time Working Compensation Scheme (TSTWCS) between 1979 and 1984. Drawing upon the work of Gallas (2016), we contend this embrace of wage subsidy schemes by Conservative governments almost 40 years apart emanate from a class politics focused on securing the subordination of labour. In our analysis, the TSTWCS is understood as a mechanism to dampen disquiet with the early Thatcher Government's project to restore employer dominance. And the CJRS is a mechanism to preserve the labour market relations of domination and exploitation successfully embedded by the Conservatives in the 1980s.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

英国工作保留计划的政治:冠状病毒工作保留计划和临时短期工作补偿计划

英国政府于2020年3月推出了冠状病毒就业保留计划(CJRS)，这是前所未有的。然而，在20世纪70年代和80年代，英国政府也实施了工资补贴就业保留计划。事实上，尽管他们宣称自由市场导向，撒切尔的激进右翼保守党政府在1979年至1984年期间主持了广泛的临时短期工作补偿计划(TSTWCS)。根据Gallas(2016)的工作，我们认为保守党政府对工资补贴计划的接受源于一种专注于确保劳工从属地位的阶级政治。在我们的分析中，TSTWCS被理解为一种机制，以减轻对早期撒切尔政府恢复雇主主导地位的项目的不安。而且，CJRS是一种机制，旨在维护保守党在上世纪80年代成功嵌入的支配和剥削的劳动力市场关系。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Critical Social Policy Multiple-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

8.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Social Policy provides a forum for advocacy, analysis and debate on social policy issues. We publish critical perspectives which: ·acknowledge and reflect upon differences in political, economic, social and cultural power and upon the diversity of cultures and movements shaping social policy; ·re-think conventional approaches to securing rights, meeting needs and challenging inequalities and injustices; ·include perspectives, analyses and concerns of people and groups whose voices are unheard or underrepresented in policy-making; ·reflect lived experiences of users of existing benefits and services;