Industrial Relationsの概念に関する研究
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Since about 1940, we have often happened to meet the terms of "industrial relations" in many books concerning: labor relations or personnel management. We, however, haven't got the concurred meaning of it. This article intends to regulate the concepts of industrial relations in many books and define the concept of it. For this attempt, I review at the first section the opinions in many books as following; D. Yoder, Personnel Management and Industrial Relations, 1938, Everyman's Encyclopedia (New ed.) 1958, Charles Wiedermann, Labor-Management Relations, 1959, Aspley and Whitmore (ed.), Industrial Relations Handbook, 1943, Bethel, Atwater and Stackman, Industrial Organization and Management. 1951, and Yoder, Heneman, Turnbull and Stone (ed.), Handbook of Personnel Management and Labor Relations, 1958. Some of them would use the terms as same as the labor relations, and some of them as the personnel relations. If it were so, they wouldn't be able to make the reason clear why the words of "industrial relations" have been used. Prof. Yoder would use it as labor relations in the broadest meaning, including the economic, psychological and sociological problems. His opinion is very suggestive, but he has not maked the concept itself and also the inner-relations of the above, mentioned problems clear. What meaning, then, is to be given to the "industrial relations"? "Industrial Relations Systems" by John Dunlop presents a new answer to this question. Prof. Dunlop sets forth the concept of "industrial relations systems" to concrete the concept of industrial relations. His theory presents the industrial relations system as a dynamic unit composed of four basic factors three groups of actors - workers, managers, and governmental agencies; a complex of rules - agreements, statues, orders, decrees, regulations, policies, practices, and customs; an environmental context comprised of the existing technology, market and budgetary constraints, and the power relations in a larger society; and an ideology which is shared by the actors. His theory is very periodical and fruitful, it however, remains, not less the unresolved problems; for instance, wouldn't we have any environmental factors besides the four factors that he presents? or wouldn't be there the necessity to make the inner-relations of the many rules established by, actors clear ?, and so on. Reviewing these opinions, I would define the concepts of industrial relations as following; the industrial relations are the relations between the workers' hierarcy and managers' hierarcy in the modern industrial society. The characteristics of these relations are actually decided by the conditions in and out business, and the relations would take the form of the formal and informal rules. My opinion seems to be the same to Dunlop's, however, it is different in some points: (1) the specialized governmental agencies is not one of actors, but one of the environmental factors, (2) capital and labor marketings are to be added to the above mentioned environmental factors, and so on.
- 1960-10-25
論文 | ランダム
- 沖縄県学校給食における郷土料理推進のための一考察（第1報） 郷土の行事食を含む学校給食献立年間計画と郷土料理提供数・種類数の調査
- 氷・シリカ微粒子混合物の力学強度に関する実験的研究
- 第1回CPS衝突実験実習報告
- 氷微惑星の衝突破壊 (特集 系外惑星研究の展開(1))
- 月衝突盆地補償メカニズムの比較研究