Redundancy Rights – Rights for Whom?
The 1965 Redundancy Payments Act was amended by the 1975 Employment Protection Act to give substantial rights to trade unions to challenge managerial decisions on redundancies. These included advance warning of impending redundancies, the right to make representations to the employer, and to receive the employer′s reply. Cabinet ministers, introducing the legislation, felt that it would generate negotiations either to quash the redundancies or to provide alternative solutions to impending job losses. In investigating 74 incidences of redundancy, covering 10,500 workers, it was found that these rights have, for the most part, merely oiled the process of managerial decisions over redundancies, by enjoining trade unions to such decisions; decisions on which they have no real impact. Rights for trade unions, then, in practice translate to gains for employers. An important caveat to this situation occurs where an agreement on redundancies exists, generally giving workers substantial benefits, although there ar...
Stress and coping in US organizations: The role of the Employee Assistance Programme
Abstract The organizational role of the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) is evaluated with particular respect to managerial and human resources policies and practices. Attention is given to models of the EAP, and an ideal-typical model is discussed. A synoptic view is taken covering the scope of the EAP, the sectors of application, the selection criteria for the EAP, as well as patterns of introduction-all within a contingency framework. A critical analysis is made of the roles of participants within the EAP process, as well as of problematic ethical and professional dimensions which the EAP introduces into organizational functioning. A final section treats the future forms of development which the EAP may follow to satisy both organizational and professional imperatives.
To Devolve or Not To Devolve? Welfare Reform in the States
This article analyzes variation in the degree to which states have responded to the devolution of welfare at the federal level by devolving authority over welfare policy to local government. I find that to the extent that states have devolved authority to lower levels of government, they tend to be states that already had a high degree of involvement of local government in welfare provision. In states without this record of local government involvement, the devolution that has occurred has not generated greater involvement of local government, but rather responsibility has been devolved to regional entities with ties to workforce development and with a substantial degree of business involvement. As states gain increasing authority over a redistributive policy, they may begin to treat it as a subset of a larger developmental policy—workforce development.