MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955157083 · doi:10.7202/1062087ar

The Unexpected Survival of Employer Collective Action in the United Kingdom

2019· article· en· W2955157083 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philippe Demougin, Leon Gooberman, Marco Hauptmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective bargainingCorporate governanceCollective actionLiberalizationSalience (neuroscience)Political scienceCapitalismPolitical economyPoliticsEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research within employment relations has identified how employer collective organizations continue to thrive in countries featuring different institutional characteristics. In the UK, we identify 447 membership-based Employer Organizations (EOs) active within employment relations and human resource management. The volume of organizations identified prompts our research question: what explains the changing role and activities of UK EOs? Country-level studies of EOs continuation use a range of theoretical frameworks to analyze how these organizations have adapted to institutional and economic change, but the most effective mode of analysis is debated. Our contribution is to apply Schmitter and Streeck’s identification of logics driving the behaviour of employer collective organizations, previously applied to coordinated market economies as defined by the Varieties of Capitalism framework, to the UK’s liberal market economy. The article explores the extent to which liberalization prompted new behaviour within UK EOs. Some studies argue that EOs in coordinated market economies adapt by prioritizing logics driving influence over those linked to membership. We explore how the UK’s changing political economy spurred evolution in the application of logics and find that the opposite happened. EOs once used participation within collective bargaining agreements and the governance of tripartite bodies to prioritize the logic of influence but these institutions decayed. It might have been expected that such decay would have caused a withering of EOs but they reconstituted themselves instead. The declining salience of the logic of influence prompted employer bodies to focus to a greater degree on the logic of membership by offering a broader range of member-focused services. Our findings indicate that employer collective bodies can react to liberalization with adaptation, not extinction. We also argue that our methodology could shed light on EOs behaviour in North America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207