Talk:Industrial relations

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnnnnnaLu. Peer reviewers: AnnnnnaLu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

IR perspectives
I just added a section on IR perspective theories (unitary and pluralistic). I am currently studying this subject and had a lot of reading about it.I'll be happy if people had a look at it and contributed as well. I added my reference to the References list. --Pinnecco 11:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You left out the Marxist perspective. I'll try and find time to do something on this. - Dave Smith 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right! I wanted to focus on the main IR perspectives, because Marxism is (quoting) "no a theory of IR per se, but a method of social enquiry into power relationships", which considers class conflict as a catalytic source of change. It views trade unions as a "method of accommodating the contradictions inherent in capitalism". Marxists look to a political revolution, dictated by the proletariat.


 * There is also the Systems Perspective which was modeled by John Dunlop (Industrial Relations Systems, 1958) which I barely understand so I am not the right one to write about it. --Pinnecco 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pinnecco. You will see that I have added a section on the Marxist perspective and amended the introduction accordingly. Once you start looking at the process of workplace relations, which is a commonly held definition of IR, then the Marxist view has to come into play. Dunlop's system approach is not so much a perspective (which would take a view of IR from a particular standpoint) but is an attempt to "provide tools of analysis to interpret and gain understanding of the widest possible range of industrial relations facts and practices" (See your source, pages vi and ix). He suggests four interrelated elements: actors, contexts, ideology and rules. Out of interest, where did you get your quote about the Marxist position from? - Dave Smith 13:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Dave Smith. I am not very sure that I understood you when you said "See your source, pages vi and ix". You mean the book (Mullins,. 2005) which I used as refference? If so, pages vi and ix are not relevant :). The quoting I did on marxism is a PPT print-out by my lecturer on HRM.


 * Good work on the Marxism section. Concerning Marxim's perception of conflict, I understand that it is innevitable due to the struggle of classes, and a revolution (often by force) is necessary.


 * As for Dunlop's view, do you think is worth mentioning it after the three perspectives, emphasising what you quoted? "Dunlop's system approach is not so much a perspective (which would take a view of IR from a particular standpoint) but is an attempt to "provide tools of analysis to interpret and gain understanding of the widest possible range of industrial relations facts and practices" (See your source, pages vi and ix). He suggests four interrelated elements: actors, contexts, ideology and rules" --Pinnecco 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you had quoted Industrial Relations Systems, 1958 by John Dunlop and so the pages I referred to are from that text. Not sure what PPT is.


 * PPT = Power point file (a PowerPoint presentation)


 * Ah ... OK - Dave Smith 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Marxist view is that conflict in society is what brings about change (not necessarily violently but conflict recognises a confrontation between two classes - so it may be a general strike or a more traditional revolution such as in Cuba).


 * If you are going to make use of Dunlop, then you would need to add in a lot of other thinking such as: the input-output model, social action, control of the labour process, HRM and social partnerships. So it is really a whole new section dealing with the nature of IR. - Dave Smith 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I had an HR exam today and we were told to study this subject. In order to consolidate my views and everything I was readying, I thought about contributing to this article. :) Think I did alright... In sense I wrote what I wrote here, but I have chosen my words better when contributing to this article (don't we always?) --Pinnecco 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Inevitably, writing an article will help you learn. You did OK here. - Dave Smith 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Bruce E. Kaufman (1993), considerable debate exists whether IR covers all employment relationships or exclusively organized employment relationships. If the article examines IR more broadly, more discussion could be brought in about the history of both labor law, employment law, and perhaps brief discussions of matters such as antipoverty programs and workforce development (I am speaking about specifically US laws and programs, since that's what I know about, though it would be interesting to include laws/programs of other countries). Personally, this is the direction I would like to see the article take. There is just so much that is interesting that falls under the umbrella of IR as an interdisciplinary study incorporating economics, sociology, law, and business practices; this article could really help people see what an important field this is. The danger of the taking the broad view with the article, of course, is that it might get unwieldy and a little incoherent.

Maybe someday I'll get the time to expand this article, at least somewhat. I think the ideas above to add info about Dunlop are great.Wells 298 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

'Industrial Relations Rally'
The note below the picture has to be of a trade union rally. I've never heard of an industrial relations rally' before! I'll change it if no one objects. - Dave Smith 12:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed this - Dave Smith 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good day sir, i don't really understand industrial relations very well, can u please explain, where they work, can they establish on their own.


 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. Can you ask your question a different way? - Dave Smith 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is really good....
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/01/07879638/0787963801.pdf

If anyone has got time, please integrate the content to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.212.130 (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Labor studies
I've set up a redirect of the terms "labor studies" and "labour studies" to this article. There may be some fine point of distinction between the academic discipline of "labor studies" and that of industrial or labor relations, but this article covers the field pretty well in any case.Robbie dee (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with HRM (narrowly defined)
It could be written from John W. Budd "A meta-paradigm for revitalizing industrial relations" in Whalen (2008). Daphne Taras' chapter also has some points on that. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD fyi
There is currently an AfD for the recently-created employee relations articles. Several editors (including myself) have recommended a redirect to industrial relations. Just thought I'd let people here know in case they wanted to contribute to the proposal. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A bit US centric?
It would be nice to see some more international coverage. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 03:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Review from AnnnnaLu
AnnnnnaLu (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It provides different sources for reference in addition to the basic information on it. The page is written in simple grammar with less use of jargons. It can be considered as being simple enough to be used by amateurs wishing to get into this field or researchers who need information on industrial relations.

Although the page, industrial relations, has maintained general simplicity over its course it seems to have over-presented content relating to theories and perspectives rather than applications in the real world. In my opinion, the page could be helped a lot if it had emphasized on the current applications of the knowledge of industrial relations. a lot of users and visitors might seemingly be interested in solving conundrums in the industrial sector but the page does not give any guidance or direction.

Reversion and deleted revisions
I'm wondering why my copy-editing and referencing was recently reverted and the revisions themselves removed. They introduced no copyrighted material to the article. If there is in fact a copyright issue, it would have preceded my edits. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, I suspect that the source you cited as having been plagiarized from in fact got the information from Wikipedia in the first place. The web site acknowledges that they lift content from Wikipedia in their terms of use. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's possible, mistakes happen.


 * One common reason for false positives as if material is added to an article at some time, removed at some later time and then restored. I did a casual check to see if that seem to be the case but it did not.


 * The material you added matches the material at this site.


 * Can you tell me how you think this happened? S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a simpler explanation. I misread the diff. The copypatrol report inexplicably provided a link to material wasn't added to the article, but was already present. I haven't quite figured out why, but I'm not going to worry about it as I reverted my removal. Sorry.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's alright – it happens. Thanks for correcting it, . 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What is Industrial relations
what is Industrial relations 105.112.212.163 (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)