An alternative employee rights paradigm: Labor process theory

A dialectical relationship exists between the capitalist desire for accumulation of wealth and profits, and the rights of employees. Labor process theory exposes facets of the fundamental incongruity between the interests of employers and workers in a capitalist political economy. An analysis of employee rights through the labor process framework facilitates the potential for human emancipation by illuminating the ideological, political, and economic sources of domination and repression that are embedded in the capitalist system. In this article, three core elements of labor process theory—the social relations of production, the managerial control imperative, and the restructuring of work—are used to highlight ways in which organizations maintain their hegemonic position. This exposé offers the basis for an alternative paradigmatic view of the employment relationship and informs our thinking of how employee rights are impacted, and often tempered, in work organizations. Portions of this article were presented by both authors at the 12th Annual International Labour Process Conference March, 1994 in Birmingham, England.     

Exploring the boundaries of the framing effect: The moderating roles of disparate expected values and perceived costs of judgmental errors

Framing effects on retail store choice decisions were investigated in four experiments. Subjects preferred the store that guaranteed (a sure option) good prices (experiment 1), product availability (experiment 2), or a rebate (experiment 3) when consequences were framed in terms of gains; subjects preferred the risky option when consequences were framed in terms of losses. Consistent with fuzzy-trace theory, framing effects were reduced when the expected values of options were disparate in a direction that disfavored sure gain or probabilistic loss options (experiment 2) and when the perceived costs of committing a judgmental error were high (experiment 3). Experiment 4 shows that the moderating effects of disparate expected values and costs of judgment errors generalize to within-subject designs.     

Intellectual Capital and Uncertainty of Knowledge: Control by Design of the Management System

This research, couched in the resource-based view of the firm, investigates the potential for reducing an organization’s decision uncertainty within its intellectual capital (IC) operating environment. Using structural equation modeling, we empirically test if organizational design can reduce the perceived uncertainty related to an IC context, which we refer to as knowledge uncertainty. We found evidence that decentralization and technology infrastructure support a results-based IC management control system which in turn is associated with reduced internal decision uncertainty. Finally, our statistics support a good overall fit for our model. Our findings suggest that if managers structure their organizational control systems appropriately for developing IC capabilities, these systems can lead to reduced internal uncertainty regarding human, structural, and relational capital.     

Splitting Accountability Hairs: Anomalies in the Adaptation of IFRS for SMEs in the UK and Ireland

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed a significant shift in the financial reporting frameworks available in the UK and Ireland affecting entities of all sizes with the Financial Reporting Council issuing three financial reporting standards replacing the extant UK GAAP. This paper reports the results of a content analysis of 151 comment letters sent to the standard-setter in response to its policy proposal. The paper explains why the standard-setter stepped back from its controversial proposal to enforce IFRS for SMEs based on the absence of public accountability. Additionally, the standard-setter addressed all concerns positively apart from two, representing two anomalies. First, despite being opposed by the majority of the respondents, the standard-setter published a new framework for wholly-owned subsidiaries of listed companies allowing them to make substantially less disclosure. Second, the standard-setter is yet to respond to the call by the accounting profession and the Not-for-profit sector to publish a sector-specific framework.