Theoretical Issues with New Actors and Emergent Modes of Labour Regulation

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONIn view of the widespread transformations affecting the world economy (Coutu and Murray, 2005), observers are increasingly noting the inadequacy of efforts, dating back to Fordism, to theorize industrial relations, particularly the systems model (Dunlop, 1958) and the strategic model (Kochan, Katz and McKersie, 1986). These models feature only three actors: unions, employers, and the government, which interact primarily within the framework of the Nation-State: (Translation)[A structurationist approach to industrial relations] allows us to recognize the potential fluidity or plasticity of institutions, particularly during times of major social transformations. In industrial relations, one could hypothesize that the Fordist (or Keynesian) crisis and the attempts to break free from these regulations in a fast-paced era of globalization, is one such episode of major transformation. That is why we think it is justified to study the boundaries between industrial relations systems or the social practices that contribute, on a small or large scale, to their systemization (Bellemare and Briand, 2006, p. 11).In a context where new emergent actors are making a significant impact on industrial relations, business-to-business (B2B) technology services companies (B2BTSC) are good subjects to study regarding emergent modes of the regulation of labour because 2 of their extensive exposure to international competition on the product and international labour markets. As part of the knowledge economy, they hire highly qualified information technology professionals. The study of work-life balance (WLB) in this segment of the labour market sheds light on the wider canvas of industrial relations and human resource management (HRM) practices in the so-called new economy.Given that modes of regulation are emerging from these situations, new actors and new issues should be integrated into theoretical models of industrial relations (IR) systems if their current complexities are to be explained. This article re-examines the classical identification of IR actors and illustrates its flaws with the case of the B2B sector in the Montreal Area. To demonstrate the presence of actors who are as important as they are unrecognized in the IR system of this branch of industry, we adopt Bellemare's (2000) definition of the IR actor and discuss how it impacts the definition of the boundaries of IR systems. The case study of the B2BTSC is used here as an example that supports the relevance of a wider theoretical framework in progress rather than developed. This example is used as part of a plea for a theoretical renewal and in that way of reasoning, addresses the question: are there new modes of regulation in this economic sector and if so, are there new actors besides the traditional employeremployees -state IR triangle? As we conclude so, our example supports our wider case but is not generalised at this early state; it will be added to a bank of examples that feeds the work towards theoretical renewal of IR. Bellemare (2000) put forw...

Professionalization, risk transfer, and the effect on gender gap in project management

“…IT experts talk only about the client's control over the job (Legault and Bellemare, 2008), and scarcely even mention company management:…”

“…B2BTS firms may have a few HR policies, but the HR department plays a very unobtrusive role, does not intervene in the relationships between project managers and employees, and gives the former a great deal of latitude in applying HR policies (Chasserio & Legault, 2005;Legault and Bellemare, 2008). When establishing working conditions such as the IT experts' hours, schedules, application of HR flextime or telecommuting policies, the project manager's decisions are essentially based on the client's wishes.…”

“…In the end, the client's appraisal is crucial to employees' assessments, reputations, and employability, and thus becomes a key regulating factor, both individual and collective, because the team effectively punishes anyone who refuses to work overtime (Legault and Bellemare, 2008;Watts, 2009). In this sector, employee loyalty, long held to be a major indicator of commitment, is replaced by a willingness to agree to anything to satisfy a client when working on a project, particularly overtime (Alvesson, 2000;Anderson-Gough, Grey, and Robson, 2000;Chasserio & Legault, 2009;Singh andVinnicombe, 2000, Watts, 2009).…”

The perils of project-based work: Attempting resistance to extreme work practices in video game development

“…In this environment firms bring on workers in a variety of employment relationships for various purposes at various times that are all dictated by the specifications of the project Hodgson, 2004). Within this environment, the irontriangle of resource constraints (budget, schedule, scope) are paramount drivers in the lives of project team members (Chasserio and Legault, 2009;Legault and Bellemare, 2008;Zackariasson et al, 2006). These constraints lift the project, and the client, to a position of an all-powerful entity Hodgson, 2002;Hodgson and Cicmil, 2007).…”

Ocularcentric Labour: “you don’t do this for money”

“…In the last decade there has been growing recognition of the inadequacy of industrial relations (IR) theories to explain the changing character of work and society in the 21 st Century (Ackers, 2002;Legault and Bellemare, 2008;Piore, 2008;Lansbury, 2009). It remains clear that the institutional framework and all that we have considered, researched, taught and theorized over the last fifty years remains the solid core of IR.…”