It is the contention of this article that the nature of the employment relationship has not been adequately defined in the academic literature and that an understanding of how control is exercised in the relationship is needed if its dynamics and consequences are to be better understood. Even within the employment relations literature, where one would expect to find such endeavours, relatively little attention has been directed to defining the nature of the employment relationship. While many writers have discussed aspects of the relationship, their focus has been mainly upon either specific aspects of the relationship, such as conflict, or upon issues associated with the relationship, ranging from institutional arrangements to workplace practices (Gardner and Palmer 1992; Deery, Plowman et al, 2001; De Cieri and Kramar 2003). Only in the discipline of law, driven by the necessity to provide definition to the rights and obligations applying to non-slave and non-feudal workers, does a detailed explanation of what constitutes an employment relationship exist. Yet even this definition, based upon the notion of 'control' has been seen by some to be inadequate (Mills 1982). Furthermore, legal definitions of the employment relationship vary according to the different statutes; for example, in Australia, what is legally seen to constitute a matter relevant to the relationship (or an employment matter) has been defined considerably more broadly in the State of NSW than federally.
In this article, although the employment relationship is seen to have sociological, psychological, economic and legal dimensions, it is the nature of control in the relationship that is seen to lie at the core of its definition. We draw upon the insights to the nature of control in the relationship from a multi-disciplinary perspective to develop an analytical model that might assist in identifying and analysing different employment relationship 'types' distinguished by the source and nature of their control and power elements.
INTRODUCTION
It is an understatement that the employment relationship has been widely discussed and analysed in academic and other literature for a very long time. The employment relationship has provided a continuing focus for sociologists, psychologists, economists, historians, anthropologists, lawyers and others from the more traditional disciplines including scientists and engineers. In more recent history, it has provided a fundamental element of studies in industrial relations, human resource management and employment relations. Although all of these disciplinary areas have provided insights to the nature of the employment relationship, few have actually sought to define what it is, to develop an understanding of its core nature, the factors that determine its existence, which distinguish it from other relationships and which might shape important variations in its core nature. There would appear to be two main reasons that might account for this phenomenon. First, researchers have approached the topic from their own particular disciplinary base and have therefore focused on those aspects of the employment relationship of interest to them rather than upon in its totality. Secondly, the task may be too grand or even impossible; perhaps it is not possible to define and understand the nature of the relationship in its totality.
It is certainly apparent that the second of these possible causations provides a continuing barrier to the development of an all-encompassing model of the employment relationship because it is both influenced by and impacts upon every other aspect of human existence. It can readily be seen that the employment relationship influences the economic, social and psychological lives of those engaged, both within and out of work. Even those who are not in such a relationship have their lives defined in terms of this absence.
Despite these difficulties, however, the need to attempt to develop an improved understanding of the nature of the employment relationship is of tremendous contemporary importance. Profound changes in the way work is organised over recent decades has led to an international call for the employment relationship to be more fully and appropriately defined so as to protect the rights of those engaged in work (ILO 2005). The decline in full-time on-going employment and the rise of short-term contract-based work relationships has led many to question whether traditional legal definitions of the employment relationship are adequate in the face of growing numbers of people who are providing services for others yet do not conform to traditional legal definitions of the relationship and hence are not entitled to the associated rights and protections (Howe and Mitchell 1999; Fudge, Tucker et al, 2002; Rubery, Earnshaw et al, 2002; Malos, Haynes et al, 2003).
Societal demand for workers in various contexts to be accountable to a broad base of societal stakeholders rather than just their immediate employer has further challenged traditional (and limited) understandings of the employment relationship. Those providing labour within the private sector have been subject to growing demands from a variety of stakeholders that challenges any notion of their being accountable only to their employer. These demands emanating from stakeholders outside the immediate relationship are effect competing with the employer as sources of control over the actions of workers. Some of these are not so new such as individual employees legal obligations with respect to OH&S legislation but others are more recent including those emanating from what might be termed the area of corporate responsibility, perhaps best encapsulated in Australia by the requirements of the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX 2006). Within the public sector, the need to develop an improved understanding of the nature of the employment relationship is perhaps best illustrated by the evidence of public concerns regarding accountability and a feared politicisation of the employment relationship of senior public servants (Thompson 1991; Mulgan 1998; Hawkes 1999; Nethercote 2003; Haidar and Pullin 2004).
Therefore, whilst it is recognised that an all-encompassing definition of the employment relationship is not feasible (or …
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar