Abstract
In this section, theoretical approaches towards social dialogue in industrial relations are presented from multiple perspectives. Under each of these approaches, social partners and how they relate to each other and to the state are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
From these two concepts, which are used in drama literature, the protagonist can be interpreted as the main character or leading actor who wishes to do well. The antagonist, on the other hand, is the opposite of the leading character, i.e. they demonstrate an opposite effect or uncompromising contradiction. Using these concepts, the antagonist represents labour as the indispensable element of production; moreover, they represent the possessor of production means, which can be used to maximize profit.
- 2.
With the briefest expression, social autonomy means the creation of normative rules through collective agreements. For detailed information, see: Süzek (2006).
- 3.
For detailed information, see: Süzek (2006).
References
Ackers, P. (2007). Collective bargaining as industrial democracy: Hugh Clegg and the political foundations of British industrial relations pluralism. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(1), 77–101.
Akgeyik, T. (2006). İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi Boyutuyla Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk: (Bir Alan Araştırması). Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları, 52, 65–106.
Archer, R. (1998). Economic democracy—The politics of feasible socialism. Newyork: Oxford University Press.
Barutçugil, İ. (2004). Stratejik İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi. İstanbul: Kariyer Yayınları.
Blain, A. N. J., & Gennard, J. (1970). Industrial relations theory—A critical review. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 8(3), 389–407.
Buğra, A. (2008). Kapitalizm, Yoksulluk ve Türkiye’de Sosyal Politika. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Cangızbay, K. (2003). Sosyalizm ve Özyönetim - Reel Sosyalizmden Sosyalist Realiteye. Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi.
Çetik, M., & Akkaya, Y. (1999). Türkiye’de Endüstri İlişkileri. İstanbul: Economic and Social History Foundation of Turkey.
Clegg, H. A. (1975). Pluralism in Industrial Relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 13(3), 309–316.
Demsetz, H. (1988). Ownership, control, and the firm—The organization of economic activity. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Foley, J. R., & Polanyi, M. (2006). Workplace democracy: Why Bother? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 27, 173–191.
Hyman, R. (1975). Industrial relations: A marxist introduction. London: Macmillan.
Makal, A. (1997). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Çalışma İlişkileri: 1850–1920. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
Omay, U. (2008). 50. Yılında Dunlop’un Sistem Teorisini Yeniden Düşünmek. 1st Çalışma İlişkileri Kongresi, November 6–8, 2008, Sakarya.
Süzek, S. (2006). İş Hukuku. İstanbul: Beta Publications.
Talas, C. (1997). Toplumsal Ekonomi Çalışma Ekonomisi. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
Tokol, A. (2001). Endüstri İlişkileri ve Yeni Gelişmeler. Bursa: Uludağ Universitesi.
Uçkan, B., & Kağnıcıoğlu, D. (2004). Endüstri İlişkileri. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Yıldırım, E. (1997). Endüstri İlişkileri Teorileri: Sosyolojik Bir Değerlendirme. Adapazarı: Değişim Yayınları.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cam, E. (2019). Theoretical Framework. In: Social Dialogue and Democracy in the Workplace. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8482-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8482-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8481-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8482-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)