Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 2002 1
EDITORIAL
Kay Broadbent’s opening article examines the feminisation of part-time work in
Japan using Atkinson’s flexible firm model of a core and peripheral workforce as
a starting point for examining the segmentation of Japan’s labour market.
Broadbent finds that the model does not adequately explain why women are
predominant in the part-time workforce in Japan. The article suggests that the
disparity in employment conditions between female and male workers in the
periphery is fostering the development of a gender hierarchy in Japan’s nonfull-time workforce resembling that existing in ‘lifetime’ employment practices.
In Fang Lee Cooke’s article ‘Ownership change and reshaping of employment
relations in China: A study of two manufacturing companies’, the emergence of
new patterns of enterprise ownership, and consequently new employment relations which are distinctively different from those in the traditional SOEs, are
explored through two case studies. The paper explores how key elements of the
employment relations may have changed as a result of ownership change; why
the trade unions have failed to perform adequately, and what the impact has been
on workers of the new form of employment relations.
Ed Rose’s paper examines the nature of the labour process in a call centre in
the UK and the impact on union commitment. The paper considers issues such
as absenteeism and labour turnover, management control, work intensification,
and union and organisational commitment within a banking services call centre.
The main findings of the research indicate that employees were frustrated and
bored with repetitive and standardised work operations; that there were high
levels of managerial control and surveillance and that there was little opportunity
for exercising creativity and autonomy in the work situation. Employees who were
unionised were found to be moderately committed to their trade union despite
some disappointment concerning the apparent inability of local union representatives to pursue and process grievances effectively.
A three-paper Symposium based on papers presented at a workshop held in
Sydney in 2000 on ‘The Changing Nature of Inequality’ follows. Julie Froud,
Sukhdev Johal and Karel Williams begin the symposium by focusing on two
current drivers for inequality. The first is the link between household income
and the value of goods and services that a household can afford to consume, which
in turn feeds back into the kinds of jobs created; this is labelled the cheap
goods/cheap jobs nexus. The second is the growth of funded savings from some
households, which are directed onto stock markets from where these flows may
have destabilising effects on corporate decisions and asset prices. In both cases,
the authors argue, the drivers bring new elements of precariousness for individuals and their households, as well as the potential for instability at the macro
level. The paper argues that, from a policy perspective, it is important to focus
on the role of the household in mediating the consumption and saving choices
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VOL. 44, NO. 1, MARCH 2002, 1–2
2
THE JOURNAL
OF
I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S
March 2002
of individuals and as the unit that bears the risks that arise from labour and
capital markets.
Ian Watson then examines the connection between wage inequality and underemployment in Australia. The article presents a theoretical account based on
Marx’s notion of the reserve army of labour, as developed in the work of Botwinick.
Secondly, he presents the findings of a distributional analysis of the 1990 and
1997 Income Distribution Surveys. These findings show that wage inequality
increased markedly between 1990 and 1997, particularly for men. Importantly,
the bottom deciles experienced not only declining hourly earnings, but also
declining access to hours of work. The result was a considerable decline in weekly
earnings.
The final Symposium paper by Buchanan and Pocock offers some proposals
about what can be done about the changing dynamics driving inequality today.
The authors, in thinking through practical responses to inequality, build on two
literatures. The first concerns the need to rethink the linkages between economic,
social, labour market, skill formation and industrial relations policy on the basis
of an approach to the life cycle conceived in terms of ‘transitional labour
markets’. The second concerns the debate about union renewal based on the socalled ‘organising model’. The authors critique these two literatures and suggest
that we need better tools of analysis to understand the current situation and
better categories to help understand the links between work, social and economic
life and how this may assist in developing new policy ideas that would combat
inequality today.
Finally, before presenting the latest book reviews we also present an exchange
between Braham Dabscheck, the author of a number of earlier JIR articles that
sought to develop a theory of Industrial Relations, and Grant Michelson and Mark
Westcott, who published a critique of Dabscheck’s work(s) in the September issue
of this Journal. In the end, neither side makes any significant concessions in their
respective positions and readers are left to draw their own conclusions on the
merits and utility of the debate.
Ron Callus and Russell Lansbury
Kay Broadbent’s opening article examines the feminisation of part-time work in
Japan using Atkinson’s flexible firm model of a core and peripheral workforce as
a starting point for examining the segmentation of Japan’s labour market.
Broadbent finds that the model does not adequately explain why women are
predominant in the part-time workforce in Japan. The article suggests that the
disparity in employment conditions between female and male workers in the
periphery is fostering the development of a gender hierarchy in Japan’s nonfull-time workforce resembling that existing in ‘lifetime’ employment practices.
In Fang Lee Cooke’s article ‘Ownership change and reshaping of employment
relations in China: A study of two manufacturing companies’, the emergence of
new patterns of enterprise ownership, and consequently new employment relations which are distinctively different from those in the traditional SOEs, are
explored through two case studies. The paper explores how key elements of the
employment relations may have changed as a result of ownership change; why
the trade unions have failed to perform adequately, and what the impact has been
on workers of the new form of employment relations.
Ed Rose’s paper examines the nature of the labour process in a call centre in
the UK and the impact on union commitment. The paper considers issues such
as absenteeism and labour turnover, management control, work intensification,
and union and organisational commitment within a banking services call centre.
The main findings of the research indicate that employees were frustrated and
bored with repetitive and standardised work operations; that there were high
levels of managerial control and surveillance and that there was little opportunity
for exercising creativity and autonomy in the work situation. Employees who were
unionised were found to be moderately committed to their trade union despite
some disappointment concerning the apparent inability of local union representatives to pursue and process grievances effectively.
A three-paper Symposium based on papers presented at a workshop held in
Sydney in 2000 on ‘The Changing Nature of Inequality’ follows. Julie Froud,
Sukhdev Johal and Karel Williams begin the symposium by focusing on two
current drivers for inequality. The first is the link between household income
and the value of goods and services that a household can afford to consume, which
in turn feeds back into the kinds of jobs created; this is labelled the cheap
goods/cheap jobs nexus. The second is the growth of funded savings from some
households, which are directed onto stock markets from where these flows may
have destabilising effects on corporate decisions and asset prices. In both cases,
the authors argue, the drivers bring new elements of precariousness for individuals and their households, as well as the potential for instability at the macro
level. The paper argues that, from a policy perspective, it is important to focus
on the role of the household in mediating the consumption and saving choices
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VOL. 44, NO. 1, MARCH 2002, 1–2
2
THE JOURNAL
OF
I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S
March 2002
of individuals and as the unit that bears the risks that arise from labour and
capital markets.
Ian Watson then examines the connection between wage inequality and underemployment in Australia. The article presents a theoretical account based on
Marx’s notion of the reserve army of labour, as developed in the work of Botwinick.
Secondly, he presents the findings of a distributional analysis of the 1990 and
1997 Income Distribution Surveys. These findings show that wage inequality
increased markedly between 1990 and 1997, particularly for men. Importantly,
the bottom deciles experienced not only declining hourly earnings, but also
declining access to hours of work. The result was a considerable decline in weekly
earnings.
The final Symposium paper by Buchanan and Pocock offers some proposals
about what can be done about the changing dynamics driving inequality today.
The authors, in thinking through practical responses to inequality, build on two
literatures. The first concerns the need to rethink the linkages between economic,
social, labour market, skill formation and industrial relations policy on the basis
of an approach to the life cycle conceived in terms of ‘transitional labour
markets’. The second concerns the debate about union renewal based on the socalled ‘organising model’. The authors critique these two literatures and suggest
that we need better tools of analysis to understand the current situation and
better categories to help understand the links between work, social and economic
life and how this may assist in developing new policy ideas that would combat
inequality today.
Finally, before presenting the latest book reviews we also present an exchange
between Braham Dabscheck, the author of a number of earlier JIR articles that
sought to develop a theory of Industrial Relations, and Grant Michelson and Mark
Westcott, who published a critique of Dabscheck’s work(s) in the September issue
of this Journal. In the end, neither side makes any significant concessions in their
respective positions and readers are left to draw their own conclusions on the
merits and utility of the debate.
Ron Callus and Russell Lansbury