劳动法信任工人吗?质疑管理特权背后的潜在假设

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2023-08-26 DOI:10.1093/indlaw/dwad022
Valerio De Stefano, Ilda Durri, Charalampos Stylogiannis, Mathias Wouters
{"title":"劳动法信任工人吗?质疑管理特权背后的潜在假设","authors":"Valerio De Stefano, Ilda Durri, Charalampos Stylogiannis, Mathias Wouters","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwad022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores the relationship between modern labour law, trust-based management, and collective labour relations. It begins by examining the historical origins of labour law, which was established to give employers the means to govern their workforce, based on the assumption that workers were untrustworthy. We argue that this notion still persists, albeit in a refined form, and that advancements in technology can exacerbate the negative consequences of managerial prerogatives. The article highlights the need to re-examine the extent of managerial prerogatives and provides several examples of businesses that have adopted trust-based models of organization, leading to positive outcomes. However, the study cautions that trust-based models can be used as a guise for employers to retain greater control over their employees and emphasizes the critical role of collective labour relations in ensuring true trust. The article concludes by arguing that policymakers must challenge the hierarchy-centred model of the employment contract and promote practices that reinforce social dialogue and collective voice in order to reap the benefits of trust-based business practices. This study sheds light on the need to re-evaluate the current employment landscape and consider alternative models that prioritize trust, autonomy, and social dialogue in the workplace.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Labour Law Trust Workers? Questioning Underlying Assumptions Behind Managerial Prerogatives\",\"authors\":\"Valerio De Stefano, Ilda Durri, Charalampos Stylogiannis, Mathias Wouters\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/indlaw/dwad022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article explores the relationship between modern labour law, trust-based management, and collective labour relations. It begins by examining the historical origins of labour law, which was established to give employers the means to govern their workforce, based on the assumption that workers were untrustworthy. We argue that this notion still persists, albeit in a refined form, and that advancements in technology can exacerbate the negative consequences of managerial prerogatives. The article highlights the need to re-examine the extent of managerial prerogatives and provides several examples of businesses that have adopted trust-based models of organization, leading to positive outcomes. However, the study cautions that trust-based models can be used as a guise for employers to retain greater control over their employees and emphasizes the critical role of collective labour relations in ensuring true trust. The article concludes by arguing that policymakers must challenge the hierarchy-centred model of the employment contract and promote practices that reinforce social dialogue and collective voice in order to reap the benefits of trust-based business practices. This study sheds light on the need to re-evaluate the current employment landscape and consider alternative models that prioritize trust, autonomy, and social dialogue in the workplace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad022\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad022","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文探讨了现代劳动法、信托管理与集体劳动关系之间的关系。它首先考察了劳动法的历史起源,劳动法的建立是为了给雇主管理劳动力的手段,基于工人不值得信任的假设。我们认为,这种观念仍然存在,尽管以一种改进的形式存在,而且技术的进步可以加剧管理特权的负面后果。这篇文章强调了重新审视管理特权程度的必要性,并提供了几个采用基于信任的组织模式的企业的例子,这些模式导致了积极的结果。然而,该研究警告说,基于信任的模式可能被雇主用作对员工保持更大控制的幌子,并强调集体劳动关系在确保真正信任方面的关键作用。文章最后指出,政策制定者必须挑战以等级为中心的雇佣合同模式,促进加强社会对话和集体声音的实践,以便从基于信任的商业实践中获益。这项研究揭示了重新评估当前就业形势的必要性,并考虑在工作场所优先考虑信任、自主和社会对话的替代模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does Labour Law Trust Workers? Questioning Underlying Assumptions Behind Managerial Prerogatives
Abstract This article explores the relationship between modern labour law, trust-based management, and collective labour relations. It begins by examining the historical origins of labour law, which was established to give employers the means to govern their workforce, based on the assumption that workers were untrustworthy. We argue that this notion still persists, albeit in a refined form, and that advancements in technology can exacerbate the negative consequences of managerial prerogatives. The article highlights the need to re-examine the extent of managerial prerogatives and provides several examples of businesses that have adopted trust-based models of organization, leading to positive outcomes. However, the study cautions that trust-based models can be used as a guise for employers to retain greater control over their employees and emphasizes the critical role of collective labour relations in ensuring true trust. The article concludes by arguing that policymakers must challenge the hierarchy-centred model of the employment contract and promote practices that reinforce social dialogue and collective voice in order to reap the benefits of trust-based business practices. This study sheds light on the need to re-evaluate the current employment landscape and consider alternative models that prioritize trust, autonomy, and social dialogue in the workplace.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1