雇主和雇员之间的自愿合作关系能够满足员工表达自我意愿的权力吗

本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译题 目 民营企业人才储备计划的问题分析及对策研究 学 院 商学院 专 业 人力资源管理 班 级 学 号 学生姓名 指导教师 外文题目 Enhancing Employee Voice: Are Voluntary Employer Employee Partnerships Enough?外文出处 Journal of Business Ethics 外文作者 Harry J. Van Buren，Michelle Greenwood. 原文：Enhancing Employee Voice: Are Voluntary Employer Employee Partnerships Enough?Harry J. Van Buren，Michelle GreenwoodSummary：One of the essential ethical issues in the employment relationship is the loss of employee voice. Many of the ways employees have previously exercised voice in the employment relationship have been rendered less effective by (1)the changing nature of work, (2) employer preferences for flexibility that often work to the disadvantage of employees, and (3) changes in public policy and institutional systems that have failed to protect workers. We will begin with a discussion of how work has changed in the last 20 years in countries like Australia and the United States, and then take up the issue of employees as organizational stakeholders and the ethical duties that are owed them, with special attention given to issues of power. We will then consider whether voluntary action by employers such as social auditing is sufficient to ensure equity for employees, and conclude with a discussion of how changes in public policy might ensure greater fairness in the employment relationship by bringing employers and employees together in partnership. KEY WORDS: employment, unions, partnerships, consentMuch has changed in the employment relationship in the last 20 years. Work has become increasingly globalized. Returns to education for employees have increased; employees with low levels of education compete with many others worldwide for low wages while employees with high levels of education still experience wage increases. Companies in developed countries like Australia and the United States have increasingly moved into service-and information-oriented industries; manufacturing(including agriculture)has correspondingly become less important in such economies. Companies have increasingly moved away from stable, long-term employment relationships. For scholars interested in the intersection of ethics and employment practices, it is a most interesting time. One of the essential ethical issues in the employment relationship is the loss of employee voicethe ability of employees to raise concerns and to negotiate about the terms of exchange with their employers(including wages, working conditions, and so on)and to negotiate changes thereof. In the past, many employees exercised voice in the employment relationship through membership in a union that bargained collectively on their behalf. But unions have declined in importance in the private sector in a number of countries (Kochan, 2005)and in other countries the right to collective bargaining is little more than a chimera. In a number of countriesincluding Australia and the United Statesunionization rates have fallen over time (de Ruyter and Burgess,2003;Johnstoneet al.,2004;Kochan,2005),to the detriment of workers rights and abilities to exercise voice. For many employees, the loss of voice has meant that their relationships with employers are governed by contracts of adhesion, in which employers set terms of employment that employees can either take or leave (Radin and Werhane,2003;Van Buren,2003).Most employeesunless their skills are perceived to be so rare and valuable that they possess significant market power or are covered by a union contractare unable to bargain over basic elements of the employment relationship, including wages, benefits, and dispute resolution mechanisms(Blades,1967;Keeley,1983;LeRoy and uille,2002;Witt,2000).1Employees, in short, feel more insecure in their jobs because they are in fact less secure(Wallulis,1998). Often lost in discussions about the utility of changing employment patterns is a discussion of the ethical principles that should underpin employeremployee relationships. Much of the literature on employment practices has considered whether particular kinds of practices are good or bad for employers (Roehling et al.,2000) or employees (Berg, Kalleberg, and Appelbaum,2003;Guest and Conway , 1999).Our analysis will begin with a discussion of how work has changed in the last 20 years in countries like Australia and the United States. We will then take up the issue of employees as organizational stakeholders and the ethical duties that are owed them, with special attention given to issues of power. We will then consider whether voluntary action by employers such as social auditing is sufficient to ensure equity for employees, and conclude with a discussion of how changes in public policy might ensure greater fairness in the employment relationship by bringing employers and employees together in partnership.How have employment practices changed in the last 20 years? Employment practices have changed radically in the last 20 years. Such changes can be ascribed to a variety of factors. Corporations are increasingly using labor from multiple countries. Employers have sought greater flexibility in hiring, firing, and deploying workers .There have also been vast changes in terms of public policy and institutional systems to protect workers. All of these changes together help explain how workand employee treatmenthas changed in the last 20 years.The use of labor from multiple countriesIt is well established that many corporations use labor from multiple countries, whether in their own operations or indirectly through the use of suppliers (Kaplinsky,2004; Williamson,1998). At one time, globalization was largely thought to affect manufacturing employment primarily. However, globalization has increasingly affected professional-and service-class jobs (Jang,2005;Ostry and Spiegel, 2004). Scheve and Slaughter(2004) argue that globalization of labor markets has increased the volatility of wages and employment for a variety of occupations. The effects of globalized labor markets on employee voice are 2-fold.First,as an organizations employees and suppliers are spread across many different countries, it is harder for them to coordinate action and to exercise voice(including using collective bargaining)than if they are all concentrated in one country. The use of labor from multiple countries therefore decreases dependence on any one labor source, with negative effects on the ability of employees in any one locale to exercise voice. Second, the threat of moving jobs from one country to another if workers demand too much from employers also constrains employee behavior. Many proponents of globalization extol the value of globalized labor markets in terms of creating opportunities for workers(Friedman,2005;Rivoli, 2005).But the use of labor from multiple countries also can cause employees to lower their demands for wages and benefits out of fear that if they do not, their jobs will be moved to another locale. It is true that there can be salutary effects of capital flows to developing countries. However, competition for capital therefore causes many political leaders(whether concerned about the fate of their citizens or not)to bid down for capital, lowering worker protections and effective wage levels as a result(Stiglitz,2000).A practical effect of globalization is the creation of opportunities for employers to exploit employees. It is not necessary in many cases for a company actually to move from one country to another; the mere threat(or perception of a treat)to move operations is sufficient to prevent increases in wages and working conditions.Employer preferences for flexibility Cavanaugh and Noe(1999) suggest that the dominant model for contemporary employment practices in the United States includes three components: personal responsibility for career development, commitment to a particular kind of work rather than a particular employer, and an expectation of job insecurity. From the employers perspective, such a model of employment transforms labor relationships from long-term relationships to short-term transactions.More interesting for the present analysis is the decline in internal labor markets and the corresponding costs imposed on employees. Internal labor markets have traditionally served the interests of employers and employees: employers benefit by having access to a pool of labor that(1)has knowledge of the organization and(2)can be categorized in terms of skills and abilities that particular organizations need, while employees benefit by being able to construct career ladders within a single organization. But internal labor markets impose their own costs on employers: these costs can be categorized in terms of network maintenance costs(it is costly to maintain the internal systems needed to make internal labor markets work)and stability costs (in order for internal labor markets to work, employers need to provide assurances that loyalty to the organization will be rewarded to employees through provision of promotion opportunities and less exposure to layoffs; see McCall,2001). Employers increasingly want to avoid such costs, as employment practices like downsizing and the use of contingent workforces illustrate (Leana and Van Buren,1999). Employees, however, generally prefer more stable employment relationships(Freeman and Rogers, 1999).Transitions between employers are not always easily navigated by employees, even under the best of circumstances; there are personal and financial costs associated with finding a new job. Further, some individualsespecially older people and people of colorfind it more difficult to find new jobs, much less jobs that pay comparable salaries and benefits(Blair,1995). Finally, as employees age and their families grow, there is a presumptive preference for stability on their part; employees with family obligations would generally prefer stable employment relationships that will allow them to plan for the future. There is, in short, a mismatch between the preferences of employers and employees with regard to the employment relationship.Changes in public policy and institutional systems In many countries oriented toward neo-liberal economicsincluding Australia and the United Stateslegislation in the middle part of the 20th century sought to expand rights for workers, including collective-bargaining rights. The high water mark of employee rights in the United States, for example, with regard to collective bargaining and unionization came in the 1950s and 1960s, and have steadily eroded ever since(Morris, 2005).For a variety of reasonschanges in employer preferences, globalization, and changing political philosophies to name but threepublic policy in a number of countries has failed to respond to changes in the employment relationship in ways that would have ultimately benefited employees. In large part there have been intentional public-policy choices that have strengthened the hand of employers to the detriment of employeesas is the case of failing to protect workers seeking to organize an independent labor union in the United States (Bronfenbrenner, 1997).The loss of employee voice has occurred over many years and will not be easily reversed. On this point Kochan(2005:171172)is instructive: The cumulative effects of labor union decline have left a void in worker voice at work, eroded the standard of living in America, and weakened our democracy. Standard calls for union resurgenceto put forth more resources toward traditional union organizing, to reform labor law, or even to promote greater dialogue, cooperation, or consensus between business and laborhave not worked and will not on their own reverse the decline in worker voice.Imbalances in power between employers and employees help to explain why employee voice and the likelihood of employee collective action have both declined over time. Our analysis in this article is primarily normative in nature; analyses of whether particular employment practices are good or bad for employers are beyond the scope of this article. There is some evidence that high-involvement and-commitment employment practices have positive effects for employers and employees (Appelbaum et al.,2000). We note here that many employers perceive flexible employment arrangements and inattention to ethical obligations owed to employees to be congruent with their interests. If this is so, then attention to developing empirical evidence related to the efficacy of more-just employment relationships from employers standpoints and to public-policy mechanisms to ensure that employers satisfy their ethical obligations would be merited.Employees as organizational stakeholders and the ethical duties owed themEmployees have long been recognized as organizational stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Van Buren, 2003). We propose that the particular moral claims of employees should have practical effects on their abilities to exercise voice in the employment relationship, but it is first important to define what we mean by “voice ”and “fairness”. By “voice” we mean that employees are able to in some way participate meaningfully in creating and changing the terms of the employment relationship. We recognize that the modifier “meaningfully” is subject to interpretation and is therefore imprecise, but we believe that the utility of voice in the employment relationship involves participation by employees in setting the terms of employment instead of allowing employers to set the terms of employment unilaterally. Adams(2005)notes that voice on its own has no value; it is only valuable to the extent that it corrects some market failure. We propose that voice corrects an important market failure: the inability of many employees to effect changes in their treatment by employers. Not all economic actors are equal with regard to resources, knowledge, and bargaining power (Adams,2005). Voice exercised by stakeholders like employees does not, of course, ensure a particular outcome but rather makes a more-just outcome more likely. On this point Budd(2004:75),building on Rawls idea (1971)of the veil of ignorance, notes that faced with the prospect of being on the subservient end of the autocratic employment relationship once the veil of ignoranceis lifted.most would instead create workplaces with a voice mechanism from behind the veil.Voice has collective and individual components (Budd,2004).Collective voice is best understood in terms of unionization and collective bargaining. Individual voice involves the direct relationship between a particular employee and an employer. Collective and individual voice together are arguably complements rather than substitutes; without collective voice, it is unlikely that individual voice can be freely exercised. That said, collective voice has been the traditional focus of enhancing employee power in the employment relationship and has largely been eroded in many countries, including both the United States and Australia. By fairness, we simply mean procedural (fair procedures for structuring the employment relationshipincluding hiring and promotion) and distributive (who gets the benefits of economic activity) fairness. Van Buren(2001)notes that there is a relationship between stakeholder participation in creating and maintaining corporate policies and practiceswhich we cast here in terms of collective and individual employee voice and both procedural and distributive fairness. Power imbalances and lack of stakeholder voice do not make unfair treatment of stakeholders by an organization inevitable, but certainly more likely. Our primary concern here is increasing fair treatment of employees. We suggest that voice and fairness are therefore related in all stakeholder-organizational relationships, including the employment relationship. Kochan (2005:158)is instructive in this regard:Union leaders have come to recognize the need to go beyond collective bargaining to get access to where the real power lies in corporations and where the key decisions are made that shape workers long-term security and welfarein the inner circle of executive decision making and corporate governance. This level of management has traditionally been viewed as off-limits to workers and their unions. Similarly, Rawls(2001:57)notes that the basic structure of a well-ordered society comprises social institutions within which human beings may develop their moral powers and become fully cooperating members of a society of free and equal citizens. When employees feel compelled to accept unfair contracts of adhesion or lack the ability to exercise voice in the employment relationship, they cannot be fully cooperating free and equal citizens in their organizational lives. 译文：雇主和雇员之间的自愿合作关系能够满足员工表达自我意愿的权力吗？Harry J. Van Buren，Michelle Greenwood原文摘要：雇员表达自我意愿权力的减少是雇佣关系中的一个基本伦理问题。在以前的雇佣关系中，很多能让员工自由发言的方式已变得不那么有效,其主要原因有：（1）工作性质的变化。（2）雇主偏好的灵活性对员工产生不利影响。（3）公共政策与制度系统的变化没能保护员工。我们即将展开的工作主要针对，在过去的十年，这项工作在澳大利亚和美国等20个国家是如何改变的。员工作为组织的利益相关者，我们要重视对其道德义务亏欠问题，并特别重视权力问题。然后，我们将考虑雇主出于自愿性的行动，如，社会审计是否足以确保员工权益。最终将得出这样一个结论：通过雇主和雇员一起努力，使公共政策的在确保双方伙伴关系公平化的影响的变化可能更大。关键词：雇用，工会，合伙，同意在过去20年里，劳动关系有了很大的变化。人们的工作变得越来越国际化。雇员的教育水平虽然得到了提高，但是许多教育程度较低的员工却在于世界各地的人竞争一份相对较低的工资，而教育水平较高的员工仍然在经历工资的增加。发达国家的公司正在逐步转向信息服务产业，如在澳洲和美国等地；制造业(包括农业)在经济中，变得相对不那么重要。稳定、长期的劳动关系已经离公司越来越远了。对于对伦理和就业之间的相互关系感兴趣的学者而言，这是一段十分有趣的时间。在雇佣关系中，员工表达意见的权限、提高待遇的能力、如何协商员工待遇（包括工资、劳动条件等）以及其他相关条件的协商，是一个基本的道德问题。在过去，许多员工凭借工会会员资格，通过工会代表进行集体性的讨价还价来行使自己的权利。但是，在许多国家，工会在私营部门的重要性已