Endüstri İlişkilerinde Yeni Paradigmalar: Mobilizasyon, Kollektivizm ve Esneklik Tartışmaları

Öz

Öz

Globalization started by the 1980s and new developments in working life makes the basic frame of industrial relations change. The main reason of these developments is the inter-disciplinary character of industrial relations having interaction with economics, sociology, business administration, law, politics, history etc. The continuous change in these fields makes it an obligation for industrial relations to change. In this context, deficiency of theories and thoughts in industrial relations puts the new searches into agenda constantly. Especially in the face of strong accents made by the authors about the necessity of a new theory approriate for the developments happened after 1980s, there has been an increasing effort for developing new theories in the field of industrial relations for 20 years. Hence, different theory searches by different authors have been witnessed in different times. There are two main thoughts which are at the forefront of these searches and called as theory. These are collectivism and mobilization theories. Apart from those two, post-fordizm caused an important change in regards of industrial relations as a production paradigm based on flexibility in 1980s. It has also been quite effective for defining the frame of industrial relations for the last 20 years. Important changes happened both in the roles of actors constituting the system and in their mutual interaction. This fact not only made new theories and new thoughts necessary, but also put the discussions into agenda.The main aim in this paper, to analyse both the change in the roles of actors constituting the industrial relations system and the new searches. Firstly, the current situation of Kelly’s industrial relations investigations and position of the theory which he tries to develop in industrial relation system will be assessed. After defining the new concepts in industrial relations, a brief assessment of the ampirical appropriateness of Kelly’s mobilization theory in industrial relations will be fulfilled. As third, the impact of post-fordist production paradigm in industrial relations will be analysed. As last, the discussions about whether the things happening in industrial relations are change or transformation

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Industrial Relations, Collectivism, Mobilization, Flexibility

Kaynakça

1. Ackers, P.Payne, J, (1998); "British trade unions and social partnership: rhetoric, reality and strategy", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No.3.
2. Adrienne E. Eaton, (1990); "The Role of the Local Union in a Participative Program," Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No.1, Spring.
3. Akan. Taner, (2005); Endüstri ilişkileri sisteminin teorik çerçevesi olarak stratejik endüstri ilişkileri sistemi: Türkiye örneği, “İş,Güç” Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi Cilt:7 Sayı:2 , Haziran
4. Bartezzaghi. Emilio, (1999); “The evolution of production models: is a New Paradigm Emerging?,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol:19, Issue:2
5. Bilgin. M.Hüseyin, (2001); Endüstri İlişkilerinde Dönüşüm ve Yeni Eğilimler, Kamu-İs Dergisi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2/2001.
6. Çelik. Aziz, (2006); AB Sosyal Politikası, Uyum Sürecinin Uyumsuz Alanı, Kitap Yayınevi, İstanbul
7. Clarke, O. Bamber, G.J and Lansbury, R.D, (1998), ‘Conclusions: Towards a, synthesis of international and Comparative experience in employment relations’, In Bamber, G.J. and Lansbury, R. D, International and Comparative Employment Relations, London. Sage.
8. Crouch,C. J, (1993); Industrial Relations and European State Traditions, Oxford, The Clarendon Pres.

9. Dunlop. John T, (1958); Industrial Relations Systems, New York: Holt Erickson, Christopher and Kuruvilla, Sarosh, (1998); “Industrial Relations System Transformation”, Industrial and Labor Relation Review, Vol. 52, No:1
10. Fairbrother Peter, (2000); ”British Trade Unions Facing the Future,” Capital&Class, Issue 71, Summer.
11. Ferner, A. (1994); ‘The State as Employer’, (ed:R. Hyman and A. Ferner), New Frontiers in European Industrial Relations, Oxford: Blackwell.
12. Giddens. Anthony, (1991); Modernity and Self identity, Polity, Cambridge, 1991.
13. Hayes, R.H and Pisano, G.P. (1996); "Manufacturing Strategy: At the intersection of two paradigm shifts", Production and Operations Management, Vol: 5, No:1.
14. Howell. Chris,(2004); “Is there a Third Way fo Industrial Relations?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42:1, March.
15. Hyman. R, (1994); “Theory and Industrial Relations”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1994, 32(2).
16. Ichniowski, Casey, Kathryn Shaw, Giovanna Prennushi, (1995); "The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity." NBER Working Paper No. 5333.
17. Jill Kriesky and Edwin Brown, (1993); "The Union Role in Employee Involvement Programs: A Case Study at the Boise Cascade Company's Jackson Mill," Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3.
18. Katz, H and Darbyshire, O, (2000); Converging Divergences: Worldwide Changes in Employment Relations, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.
19. Kelly. John, (1999); “Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism and Long Waves,” Human Relations, Sept, Vol: 52
20. Kenney, M, Florida, R, (1993); Beyond Mass Production: The Japanese System and Its Transfer to the United States, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
21. Klaus Peter Kisker, (1998); “XXI. Yüzyıla Doğru İşsizlik ve Endüstri İlişkilerinde Yeni Boyutlar”, Küreselleşme, Rekabet gücü ve Endüstri İlişkilerinde Dönüşüm, V.Ulusal Endüstri İlişkileri Kongresi, Ankara.
22. Kocabaş. Fatma, (2004); “Endüstri İlişkilerindeki Dönüşüm”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı:10, Yıl:Haziran 2004
23. Kochan, Thomas, Harry Katz and Robert McKersie, (1986); The Transformation of American Industrial Relations, New York: Basic Books.
24. Kochan, Thomas, Paul Osterman, (1994); The Mutual Gains Enterprise, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
25. Koray. Meryem, Çelik. Aziz, (2007); Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’de Sosyal Diyalog, Belediye-İş Yayınları, Ankara
26. Kurtulmuş. Numan, (1996); Sanayi Ötesi Dönüşüm, İz Yayıncılık, İstanbul Labour Market Trends, Ekim 1998.
27. Lichtenstein. Nelson, (2001); Industrial Democracy in America: The Ambiguous Promise, by Nelson Lichtenstein, Howell John Haris, New York: Cambridge University Press
28. Lipset, Seymour Martin and Ivan Katchanovski, (2001); "The Future of Private Sector Unions in the U.S." Journal of Labor Research, 22 (Spring 2001).
29. Locke, R., Kochan, T. and Piore, M, (1995); ‘Re-conceptualising Comparative Industrial Relations: Lessons From International Research’. International Labour Review, Vol: 134:2.
30. Lordoğlu. Kuvvet, (1993); “Bir Özelleştirme Hikâyesi Üstüne”, İktisat Dergisi. C.XXIX
31. Lowell Turner, (1988); "Battles for Work Reorganization in the U.S. Auto Industry," presented at "Industrial Relations in Times of Deregulation" conference, Werner-Reimers-Stiftung, Bad Homburg, Germany, September-October. Mimeo. MaxPlanck Institut fur Gesellschaftforschung, Koln, Germany.
32. Mark. Patridge, (1993); “Technology, International Competitiveness and Union Behavior”, Journal of Labor Research, Spring 1993, Vol:14, Issue:2
33. Maurice, M., Sellier, F., Silvestre J. J, (1986); The social foundations of industrial power: A Comparison of France and Germany, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. P.B. Beaumont, (1995); The Future of Employment Relations, SAGE Publications, London
35. Piore, M. and Sabel. C, (1984); The Second Industrial Divide, New York: Basic Books.
36. Purcell. J, Ahlstrand. B, (1989); “Corporate Strategy and the Management of Employee Relations in the Multi-divisional company”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1989, 27(3).
37. Robert Zieger, (2000); Labor History, Kasım, Vol:41, Issue: 4.
38. Roche. William, K, (1999), The End of New Industrial Relations? EUI Working Paper, SPS No. 99/8
39. Rubinstein, Saul A, (2001); “Unions As Value-Adding Networks: Possibilities For The Future of U.S. Unionism”, Journal of Labor Research, Summer, Vol: 22, Issue:3. Şenkal. Abdulkadir, (1999); Sendikasız Endüstri İlişkileri, Kamu-İş Yayınları, Ankara Shorter Edward and Tilly Charles, (1971); "The Shape of Strikes in France 1830-1960," Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol:13
40. Shorter ve Tilly, (1974); Strikes in France 1830-1968, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
41. Sisson. K, (1987); The Management of Collective Bargaining An International Comparison, Oxford. Blackwell.
42. Sisson. Keith, (1993); “In Search of HRM?" British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol:31, No:2 (June).
43. Sylvia. Ostry, (1997); Globalization Implications for Industrial Relations, Conference on Globalisation and Innovation Systems, Bonn, Germany, December 1-2.
44. Towers. B, (1997); The Representation Gap: Change and Reform in the British and American Workplace, Oxford University Press, Oxford
45. Voss, C.A, (1995); "Alternative paradigms for manufacturing strategy", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol:15, No: 4.
46. Yıldırım. Engin, (1997); Endüstri İlişkileri Teorileri, (Sosyolojik Bir Değerlendirme), Değişim Yayınları, Sakarya
47. Yıldırım. Engin, (2000); Endüstri İlişkiler Ders Notları, Sakarya
48. Yorgun. Sayim,(2004); “Endüstri ilişkilerinde Değişim-Dönüşüm Tartışmaları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, CMİS Dergisi, Sayı: 6, Cilt: 18