• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >A new framework of enterprise unionism: A comparative study of nine Asian countries.
【24h】

A new framework of enterprise unionism: A comparative study of nine Asian countries.

机译：企业工会主义的新框架：对9个亚洲国家的比较研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Why do workers in some countries organize themselves by enterprise contrary to their counterparts in other parts of the world? This thesis proposes a new theoretical (socio-political) framework to solve this "puzzle." In contrast to popular (internal labor market and cultural) hypotheses, the proposed framework emphasizes political dynamics and the role of the state in labor relations and argues that the initial period of the collective bargaining era constituted a critical juncture (state labor policy) that occurred in distinctive ways in different countries and that these differences played a central role in shaping union structure in different countries in the following decades. The study conducts both an in-depth case study of the Japanese situation and the first systematic comparative study of union structure in nine Asian countries to test the validity of the proposed framework.;The study found a highly dominant, stable enterprise union system in Japan (>90%), Thailand (90%), and Malaysia (80%), where the state has consistently implemented an enterprise union system; and a dominant, but unstable enterprise union system in Korea (90%) and the Philippines (71%), where the state has implemented an enterprise union policy, with some interruptions. On the other hand, it found enterprise unions to be insignificant in Hong Kong (18%), where the state labor policy has been laissez-faire; and no enterprise unions until 1994 in Indonesia, where the state had implemented a centralization policy of labor unions. In the middle-ground of this spectrum are Taiwan (29%), where the state has pursued a dual union system of craft unions (which are the majority) and enterprise unions; and Singapore (43%), where the state policy has gradually swung from laissez-faire toward an enterprise union system since 1984. The reasons for the different state policies are explained in detail. The in-depth case study of the Japanese situation not only confirms these findings, but also provides strong evidence against popular hypotheses. I believe that the proposed framework significantly enhances our understanding of enterprise unionism in Asian countries. Future research should explore the validity of this framework through comparative studies of Latin American countries, where enterprise unions have also been observed.
机译：为什么某些国家的工人通过企业组织起来而与世界其他地方的工人相反？本文提出了一个新的理论（社会政治）框架来解决这一“难题”。与流行的（内部劳动力市场和文化）假设相反，拟议的框架强调了政治动力和国家在劳资关系中的作用，并认为集体谈判时代的初期构成了发生的关键关头（国家劳动政策）在接下来的几十年中，这些差异在塑造不同国家的工会结构中发挥了核心作用。该研究对日本情况进行了深入的案例研究，并且在亚洲9个国家进行了首次系统的工会结构的系统比较研究，以检验所提出的框架的有效性。研究发现，日本具有高度主导性，稳定的企业工会体系。 （> 90％），泰国（90％）和马来西亚（80％），该州一直实行企业工会制度；以及韩国（90％）和菲律宾（71％）的主要但不稳定的企业工会制度，该州已实施企业工会政策，但受到一些干扰。另一方面，它发现企业工会在香港是微不足道的（18％），那里的国家劳工政策是自由放任的。直到1994年，印尼才开始建立工会的集中化政策。在这一范围的中间地带是台湾（29％），台湾实行了手工工会（占多数）和企业工会的双重工会制度。以及新加坡（43％），自1984年以来，国家政策已逐渐从自由放任转向企业联合制度。详细解释了制定不同国家政策的原因。对日本情况的深入案例研究不仅证实了这些发现，而且还提供了反对流行假设的有力证据。我认为，拟议的框架极大地增进了我们对亚洲国家企业工会主义的理解。未来的研究应该通过对拉丁美洲国家的比较研究来探索该框架的有效性，在拉丁美洲国家中也发现了企业工会。

著录项

  • 作者

    Jeong, Dae Yong.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.;

  • 授予单位 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.;
  • 学科 History Asia Australia and Oceania.;Sociology Industrial and Labor Relations.;Business Administration Management.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2005
  • 页码 215 p.
  • 总页数 215
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号