Raising the floor: New directions in public and private enforcement of labor standards in the United States

Fine, Janice; Bartley, Tim

doi:10.1177/0022185618784100

Cited by 34 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bair et al . 2020; Bartley 2018a; Fine and Bartley 2019). We know what happens because we see the outcomes for labour, but detailed analysis of exactly how the diverse roles of state and corporation intersect in the politics of the GVC promises fruitful insights into how the rules that govern transnational industrial relations may continue to evolve.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughts and A Future Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

Uneven Development, Uneven Response: The Relentless Search for Meaningful Regulation of GVCs

Morris

Jenkins

Donaghey

2020

Brit J Industrial Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The regulation of employment in global value chains (GVCs) is a story of the interaction of corporation and state in transnational space, where uneven international development has allowed the commodification and exploitation of international labour. Global standards are well articulated by bodies such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UN. We know what ‘decent work’ should look like as well as what all workers should enjoy as basic employment and human rights. Yet, internationally, the different mechanisms of private and public regulation fail at the point of implementation and across the world we see no fundamental shift in the condition of labour in terms of its capacity for social or economic upgrading. This article examines the regulatory mechanisms, and outcomes of regulation, of industrial relations in GVCs. It commends a future research agenda to illuminate the interaction between different sources of standards and rules and the complexities of intersecting private and public regulation, in the pursuit of enforceable, meaningful regulation of work and employment in international supply chains.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Thoughts and A Future Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

Uneven Development, Uneven Response: The Relentless Search for Meaningful Regulation of GVCs

Morris

Jenkins

Donaghey

2020

Brit J Industrial Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While these mechanisms are commonly associated with global supply chains and production networks (Anner, 2018), studies have shown how they can be used to reinforce employment protections in a domestic context (e.g. Fine and Bartley, 2018;Weil, 2014;Wright and Brown, 2013). These mechanisms include:…”

Section: Intensification Of Exogenous Pressuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a new web of rules

Wright

Wood

Trevor

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review “institutional experimentation” for protecting workers in response to the contraction of the standard employment relationship and the corresponding rise of “non-standard” forms of paid work. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on the existing research and knowledge base of the authors as well as a thorough review of the extant literature relating to: non-standard employment contracts; sources of labour supply engaging in non-standard work; exogenous pressures on the employment relationship; intermediaries that separate the management from the control of labour; and entities that subvert the employment relationship. Findings Post-war industrial relations scholars characterised the traditional regulatory model of collective bargaining and the standard employment contract as a “web of rules”. As work relations have become more market mediated, new institutional arrangements have developed to govern these relations and regulate the terms of engagement. The paper argues that these are indicative of an emergent “patchwork of rules” which are instructive for scholars, policymakers, workers’ representatives and employers seeking solutions to the contraction of the traditional regulatory model. Research limitations/implications While the review of the institutional experimentation is potentially instructive for developing solutions to gaps in labour regulation, a drawback of this approach is that there are limits to the realisation of policy transfer. Some of the initiatives discussed in the paper may be more effective than others for protecting workers on non-standard contracts, but further research is necessary to test their effectiveness including in different contexts. Social implications The findings indicate that a task ahead for the representatives of government, labour and business is to determine how to adapt the emergent patchwork of rules to protect workers from the new vulnerabilities created by, for example, employer extraction and exploitation of their individual bio data, social media data and, not far off, their personal genome sequence. Originality/value The paper addresses calls to examine the “institutional intersections” that have informed the changing ways that work is conducted and regulated. These intersections transcend international, national, sectoral and local units of analysis, as well as supply chains, fissured organisational dynamics, intermediaries and online platforms. The analysis also encompasses the broad range of stakeholders including businesses, labour and community groups, nongovernmental organisations and online communities that have influenced changing institutional approaches to employment protection.

show abstract

“…This article also speaks to the call from other social scientists and social movements for justice and fairness in the treatment of farmworkers, especially through Fair Trade certification schemes (Jaffee, Kloppenberg, and Monroy ; Brown and Getz ) or corporate‐labor initiatives (Fine and Bartley ). Similar to the agricultural economics literature, social justice concerns are linked to the observation that many US labor laws, such as overtime and rights‐to‐organize, omit farm laborers (Farmworker Justice ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Earnings, Wages, and Poverty Outcomes of US Farm and Low‐Skill Workers

Barham¹,

Melo²,

Hertz³

2020

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American Community Survey supports rich comparisons of welfare outcomes across low-skill workers, including the native-born and immigrants, in farm and nonfarm occupations. Evidence from 2016-17 suggests that farm and nonfarm labor markets are integrated, especially for immigrants. Although US-born workers typically earn higher wages than immigrants, in some occupations, immigrants have higher wages and/or earnings. Immigrant farmworkers receive somewhat lower wages than citizens do but work more hours and generate similar earnings. Household poverty rates are above the national average for an array of low-skill workers, especially among immigrants. The most substantial welfare difference is in health insurance access, where coverage is much higher for US-born workers. Labor market and social policy implications of these findings are explored.

show abstract

Raising the floor: New directions in public and private enforcement of labor standards in the United States

Cited by 34 publications

References 41 publications

Uneven Development, Uneven Response: The Relentless Search for Meaningful Regulation of GVCs

Uneven Development, Uneven Response: The Relentless Search for Meaningful Regulation of GVCs

Towards a new web of rules

Earnings, Wages, and Poverty Outcomes of US Farm and Low‐Skill Workers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About