英语论文网

acturing, Science and Finance Union (MSF), and a workplace case study. The argument presented here focuses principally on the issue of voice mechanisms (Hirschman, 1970). One of the preconditions for the development of 'effective' partnership, so the argument runs, is the establishment of clearly delineated and sustainable negotiating partners and constituencies. To what extent, however, are trade unionists entering into the new terrain of partnership with the necessary support mechanisms and established voice mechanisms that will allow them to make a series of complex exchanges with management? The paper begins by outlining the context and meanings of partnership. After a discussion on methodology, the empirical findings are then presented. In conclusion concerns are raised with regards to the paucity of voice mechanisms within British industrial relations and the concerns trade unionists have regarding such issues (Towers, 1997). The paper argues that the main challenge for the evolution of partnership at the British workplace is the ability of the social partners to remake industrial relations around a more proactive pluralist dialogue without the economic and institutional guarantees of the post war era. Hence the idiosyncrasies and legacies of Britain's involvement culture continue to frame the nature of contemporary strategies at work and their acutely political character.

The Context of Partnership: The Third Way
The mid-to-late 1990s represented a turning point in the political and ideological climate of industrial relations. The re-emergence of centre and centre-left governments in parts of Europe and the USA pointed to a putative rejection of 'New Right' hegemony. Instead, a new political discourse, based around 'The Third Way', began to emerge, which questioned the economic privileging of market forces and the ideology of individualism [ii] . In simple terms, the consequences for labour relations are twofold (albeit inferred rather than explicit). Firstly, it allows more space for state intervention in the arena of labour relations, in order to ensure that support mechanisms exist for the most disadvantaged and un-represented in society. In the UK, for example, this is evident in the introduction of the National Minimum Wage and Statutory Trade Union Recognition procedures. Secondly, it lays the basis for a 'new' pluralist dialogue between employers and unions by emphasising the importance of consensual workplace relations to economic development. Of key concern here is the perceived need for the social actors to shift the locus of engagement away from distributive sectional interests to integrative mutual-sum issues such as training and development (see Stuart, 1996).

Whilst the politics of the 'Third Way' is more sensitive to the requirements and rights of labour it is underpinned by a framework of reciprocal responsibilities. In this respect, the dialogue between labour and capital within the employment relationship has to be premised on a shared understanding of the 'threats' confronting them. Capital has to provide the opportunities for employee development, whilst labour has to recognise the 'business case' and amend its demands accordingly. In essence, then, advocates of the Third Way propose a 'coerced pluralism', whereby the social partners recognise that they are not independent, but mutually dependant. This is a key part of the c