Dynamics of Neo-Liberal Workplace and Employment Relations: Implications and Challenges to Social Partners
Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science,
The challenges facing social partners in Employment Relations occasioned by evolving global dynamics continue to task the actors; stretching the capacity of institutional arrangements for managing employment relations, even in the face of globalization and socio-economic challenges. Indeed, one of the inevitable implications of global capitalism on contemporary workplace has been the accentuating challenges, and evolving “new” roles for social partners in employment relations, within the tripartite arrangement of industrial relations system. In the context of this evolving challenges, institutions and actors of Industrial Relations are confronted with how to tackle emerging issues such as; the volatility of the labour market, vulnerability and precarity, mobility of labour, labour policy reforms, part-time work and flexible work arrangement, on the one hand, and how to cope with the consequences of neo-liberal dictates such as privatization and restructuring, with implications for industrial harmony, and productivity in the workplace. In the emerging context, social partners are to be more innovative and strategic in coming up with approaches, attitudes and practices, not only at sustaining employment relations, but indeed on the need to further ensure decent work for all. For instance, Labour (trade unions) as one the strategic partner in Industrial Relations, has come to realize that beyond negotiations on working conditions, they wish to extend their mandate to participate in the formulation of productivity polices at a consultative level, with the management, and even on broad national public policy that have direct impact on the living conditions of the entire citizenry, at the national level. This posture, the State (also a strong partner) is often uncomfortable with; arguing that Labour should limit itself to its traditional roles of improving the terms of employment and welfare of workers. In view of these diverse interests in which industrial relations constituents are pitched, this paper contends that priority should therefore be given to ways of evolving sustainable framework of social dialogue that will continuously assure industrial harmony within the context of ever-fluid environment. This paper contributes to understanding the relevance of participative (social) dialogue as resilient institutional framework in the context of the new challenges.
- Sustainable framework
- trade unions
- socio-economic challenges
- employment relations
How to Cite
2. Aundt W. “Globalization and the open economy” in North American Journal of Economics and Finance (Greenwich C.T). 1997;8(1).
3. Cares R. Multinational enterprise and economic analysis Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; 1982.
4. Bain J, McLauchlan H, Elliott M, Cohen P. The specificities of protein kinase inhibitors: an update. Biochemical Journal. 2003;371(1):199-204.
5. Fajana, S, Owoyemi O, Elegbede T. Human resource management in Nigeria. Journal of Management and Strategy. 2011;2(2).
6. Fashoyin. Social dialogue and labour market performance in the Philippines. Working paper no 14 In focus Programme on social dialogue, labour law and labour Administration, ILO; 2003.
7. Gustaren B. Dialogue and Development Stockholm Swedish Center for working life Hoffman, Reiner, Jocobi, Otto, Keller, Berndt and Weius Manfred (eds) (200) Transnational industrial Relations in Europe, Germany, Hons Bockler Stiflung; 1992.
8. Christarson B. “Global and Local Subcontracting space, ethnicity, and the organisation of apparel Production”, In world Development (Oxford). 1995;23(8).
9. Clegg H. A new approach to industrial democracy, Oxford, Basil Blackwell; 1963.
10. Dunlop T. Industrial relations system, Buston M.A. Harrard Business School Press; 1993.
11. Elmslie B. “Harder than you think: Free trade and International labour standards” in New labour Forum (New York, NY). 1997;1.
12. Epstein G. Globalization and labour bargaining power: A survey, political economy research Institute university of Massachusetts – Amhart; 2001.
13. Wilberg P. The therapist as listener: Martin Heidegger and the missing dimension of counselling and psychotherapy training. New Gnosis Publications; 2004.
14. Thompson JN. The geographic mosaic of coevolution. InThe geographic mosaic of coevolution. University of Chicago Press; 2005
15. Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KR. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for information systems. 2003;12(1):50.
16. Hossain I. Export processing zones in Bangladeh and industrial relations in Obera et al; 2001b.
17. Hummels D. “Specialization and the Charging nature of world trade” In FRBONY Economic Review New York; 1998.
18. Hyman R. Social dialogue in Western Europe the state of the art. Infocus program on Strengthening Social Dialogue, General, ILO; 2000.
19. Indrami, et al. EPZS and their workers in India: A study of the Noida EPZ, in Oberai et al; 2001.
20. ILO Africa. A Brannual newsletter of Africa regional office of ILO; 2001.
21. Juris Herry. Thompson Mark, Daniel Wilbir (eds). Industrial relations in a decade of economic change, WI, Industrial Relations Research Association; 1985.
22. Kelly P. Promising democracy and peace through social dialogue: A study of the social dialogue institutions and processes in Indonesia In focus programme on strengthening social Dialogue Genera KD; 2002.
23. Malberg JE. Implications of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in antidepressant action. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience. 2004; 29(3):196-205.
24. Kucera D. “Core labour standards and foreign direct investment” in international labour review, (General). 2002;141.
25. Kuruvilla S. Impact of globalization on economics and IR/HR system – theory and evidence in sivananthiran and venkotta, Ratnam; 1999.
26. Manandhar N. Industrial relations in Nepal, business age, Kathmandri; 199.
27. Mikkel M. “Social dialogue in central and Eastern Europe-present state and future development” 13th/IRA conference, Berlin; 2004.
28. Milberg W. “Foreign direct investment and development: Balancing costs and benefits” in International monetary and financial issues for 1990s’ (Geneva). 1999;XI.
29. Marilyn CS, Lytleb SL. Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and university culture. InInternational handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Springer, Dordrecht. 2004;601-649.
30. Oberai et al. Promoting harmonious labour relations in India, New Delhi, ILO – SAAT; 2001.
31. Palpaceur F. Global value chairs, note for discussion. General, lLO; 2002.
32. Ratna SRN. Supplementing collective bargaining with social dialogue in the context of globalization. 13th/IRA Conference, Berlin; 2003.
33. Shivananthiran, et al. Globalization and labour management in South Africa, New Delhi, lLO; 1999.
34. Fashoyin T. Tripartite co-operation, social dialogue and national development in international labour review. 2004;4: 143.
35. Fajana S. Global trends and industrial relations in Nigeria. Faculty of Business Administration University of Lagos; 2004.
36. Fajana S, Shadare O. Workplace relations, social dialogue and political milieu in Nigeria. International Journal of Business Administration. 2012;3(1).
37. Fajana S. Strengthening social dialogue in the utilities sector in Nigeria. ILO Working Paper (WP. 272); 2010.
Abstract View: 56 times
PDF Download: 24 times