Partnership and the Politics of Trade Union Policy Formation in the UK: The Case of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central objective of the chapter is to challenge what we consider to be the binaristic nature of recent debates around social partnership in the UK, particularly the argument that trade unions have clear strategic choices facing them in terms of ‘moderation’ or ‘militancy’ (see Ackers, 2002; Kelly, 1996, 1998). As Roche and Geary (2002) note, this debate can be broken down into two camps: advocates and critics. The former, such as Ackers and Payne (1998), argue that partnership offers trade unions an historical oppor-tunity to come ‘out of the cold’, play a leading role in corporate decision-making processes and gain ‘broader social legitimacy’. At a tactical level, this presupposes that trade unions have no choice but to engage with the partnership agenda because ‘both management and government, and indirectly customers, are highly intolerant of union behaviour that does not “add value” to the organisation’ (see Ackers et al., 2004). This line of analysis is disputed by a wide range of critics (Kelly, 1996, 2001, 2004; Martinez Lucio and Stuart, 2004; Richardson et al., 2004; Stuart and Martinez Lucio, 2002; Wray, 2004). 1 They question the degree of independence afforded trade unions within the (essentially managerial) partnership agenda, the absence of institutional preconditions for effective delivery of partnership and ultimately the extent of mutual gains derived from engagement with partnership. To date, however, most analysis has considered the effects of These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".