This article examines the influence of New Public Management ideas on recent changes in the Portuguese central government. Its purpose is to analyse the tendency to make public organizations more autonomous and to decentralize following the example of other countries inspired by the practice of the private sector and New Public Management stressing managerial flexibility. The message it conveys is that changes were primarily guided by values of the public domain, juridicial concerns and the primacy of politics, building a public governance that emphasizes the role of politicians and opens the administrative system to the sociopolitical environment.
Equal employment opportunity has been an explicitly stated national goal since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In furtherance of this goal, Congress authorized creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce compliance with the act's provisions against discrimination in employment, and to work with state and local fair employment practices agencies in their enforcement of related antidiscrimination laws. These joint efforts have led to complex intergovernmental relations among national, state, and local governmental organizations. The impetus for this study lies in understanding the relationship between national and state administrative agencies charged with enforcing antidiscrimination statutes in the public and private workplace. Such understanding is important in refining current theory and practice regarding equal employment opportunity. Although extensive literatures exist in the areas of intergovernmental relations and civil rights, research is sparse regarding the linkage between equal employment opportunity as a public policy in a federal system and its implementation through intergovernmental means.[1] Three primary questions underlie this research. First, to what extent and in what ways does the presence of overlapping authority help or hinder administrative enforcement? Second, what variation exists in the degree of interdependence between the EEOC and state fair employment practices agencies, and what effect does the degree of interdependence have on enforcement? Third, what is the nature and extent of bargaining in the development of consensus between the national agency and state entities, and how does it affect the content of contracts between them? The Evolution of Employment Discrimination Policy Employment discrimination policy has developed within the context of a federal system of governance. Both the national government and individual states create and execute policies.[2] A division of responsibility between levels of government based on the nature of the program or service provided is part of the ongoing debate over proper allocation of authority among governmental levels (Rivlin, 1992). From early conflict over slavery to clashes over desegregation and voting rights, disagreement about the nature of federalism has often centered on issues related to states rights in a federal system (Nice, 1987). Traditional views about dual federalism, in which power and responsibility is divided between the national and state governments and each exercises authority in its respective jurisdiction, reinforced the perspective that states, when enacting segregation laws, were exercising authority in their own relatively autonomous sphere. The national government, however, exerted authority in a variety of areas, including fair employment, particularly during the New Deal and Great Society periods. When the national Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, over 20 states had some type of fair employment law, and several states had laws requiring racially segregated employment.[3] The coordinated enforcement requirement in Title VII of the act, which indicated that the newly created EEOC was to work with subnational fair employment agencies, was reinforced by views about cooperative and creative federalism. Instead of separate spheres of authority, there were areas of overlap, with power and responsibility for certain policies shared between national and state governments to varying degrees. Growing federal involvement in the implementation of civil rights policy was challenged during the Reagan administration as part of an overall effort to shift many governmental responsibilities to the states (Amaker, 1988; Nathan and Doolittle, 1987). Devolution and decentralization varied by state and program (Lester, 1986; U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1993). Fair housing enforcement by states increased (Lamb, 1991) and fair employment enforcement showed a mixed approach (Wood, 1990). ā¦
The 1990s has been labeled as the decade of the small in Canada (Candalino and Knowlton 1994). While large Canadian firms are trying to be more competitive through downsizing, re-engineering, and decentralization, small firms are forging ahead (Candalino and Knowlton 1994; Morgan 1994). This is particularly true for small Canadian firms that are developing innovations with a clear competitive advantage and are leaders in sunshine industries such as high technology (Candalino and Knowlton 1994). Many of the firms are also picking up products and services dropped by large firms in their downsizing efforts. As a result, small Canadian firms are making major inroads in global markets (Morgan 1994). Small firms play a significant role in the Canadian economy. They contribute nearly 40 percent of Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employ about half the labor force (Labbe 1994). Also, small businesses create nearly 60 percent of the new jobs in Canada. Hence their success is critical for the Canadian economy (Morgan 1994). Recognizing the importance of small firms in the stability of the economy, the Canadian government has set up programs like the Program for Export Market Development and Promotional Projects Programs to encourage their start-up and growth. Canadian provinces have also enacted legislation to encourage small business. For example, in Ontario, the Small Business Development Corporation Act provides tax breaks for individuals investing in small firms. However, regardless of this support, the success of small firms in the global market depends on their ability to manage human assets (Deshpande and Golhar 1995). Today's global market expects reasonably priced, high quality products delivered on time. Hence, small firms need a highly motivated, skilled, and satisfied workforce that can produce quality goods at low cost (Holt 1993). It is therefore important that small firms implement an appropriate human resource management strategy to develop such a work force. It is not surprising that, next to general management, small firms rank personnel management as their most important management activity (Hess 1987). Unfortunately, recruiting, motivating, and retaining employees are some of the biggest problems faced by small firms (Hornsby and Kuratko 1990; Mathis and Jackson 1991). However, in practice, other functional areas such as finance, production, and marketing usually get more attention than does personnel management (McEvoy 1984). For example, one study suggested that training in personnel management is not as critical as training in finance or marketing in small firms (Curran 1988). Even textbooks on small business management pay scant attention to personnel management issues (Deshpande and Golhar 1995; Hess 1987). Other research, however, suggests that inadequate and inefficient management of human resources has often resulted in low productivity, high dissatisfaction, and turnover among the employees (Mathis and Jackson 1991). Previous research has found lack of progressive HRM practices to be the leading cause of failures of small firms (McEvoy 1984). Thus there is little consensus among researchers regarding the role of HRM in the success of small firms. The empirical research in this study tries to resolve this issue by presenting a comparative study of small and large Canadian firms. Literature Review The purpose of a good HRM program is to recruit, select, motivate, and retain employees with such required characteristics as concern for the firm's success, ability to work in groups, and quantitative skills (Deshpande and Golhar 1994). Most of the published research in the U.S. and Canada investigating HRM issues in small businesses is conceptual and has concentrated on various HRM topics like selection, training and development, compensation, and industrial relations. For example, Gatewood and Field (1987) propose a model selection program for small business, while Curran (1988) suggests several training strategies for a small business. ā¦
ConclusionsIn Spring, negligence again presents itself as the avenue through which judges reform private law.The emphasis throughout was on negligence, although the speeches of Lords Woolf and Slynn demonstrate that contract could have provided a remedy.It is somewhat surprising that the contractual analysis did not dominate the speeches, especially since Scally indicates that the contractual analysis should be preferred in cases involving harm arising from e m p l ~y m e n t .~~ Yet only Lord Woolf held that the 'primary source of any liability is contractual rather than tortious,' since the relationship with the defendants arose from the previous engagement;55 the other Law Lords did not address the point.We might also ask what would have happened if the plaintiff had brought the action in defamation.Would their Lordships have found a remedy by reforming the law of defamation?For example, would they have held that qualified privilege should not be available to employers or, if available, it should be rebuttable by proof of carelessness rather than malice?Certainly, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspaperss6 suggests that the House of Lords is willing to take a fresh look at the rules of defamation where political values are at stake; would it do so where more personal or commercial values are at stake?It seems doubtfuls7; perhaps the employer's qualified privilege has stood too long in a tort 'beyond the redemption of the courts'58 for the judiciary to re-examine it.59And perhaps the return of a more liberal view of negligence makes it unnecessary. Agitating for Part-Time Workers' Rights Charlotte Villiers and Fidelma White"In 1994, progress was made for part-timers in the pursuit of their rights at work.In Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Employment,' the House of Lords, having recognised the standing of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), granted a declaration that provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (EPCA) indirectly discriminate against women and therefore are incompatible with European Community law.This involved reversing the decisions of the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal.This case is significant for a number of reasons.First, while the case recognises the need to protect part-time workers, the EOC was successful because it was held ~ 54 supra n 48, at pp 302-304 (per Lord Bridge).55 supra n 1, at p 390. Cf South Pacific Manufacturing Co Lid v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd, supra n 18, at p 297 (per Cooke P). 56 [1993] AC 534.57 But see Lord Woolf, supra n 1, at p 400: 'it by no means follows that so far as references are concerned the same view should be taken of public policy as was taken when Whiteley v A d a m was decided.' 58 Slim v Daily Telegraph Lid [1968] 2 QB 157 (per Diplock LJ).59 cf White v Jones, supra n 3, at p 216 (per Lord Mustill), and Hedley, 'Recovering Lost Legacies: White v Jones in the Lords' [1995] 1 Web JCLI: 'if we are truly convinced that the will admitted to probate does not reflect [the testator's] wishes at the time of his death, why admit it to probate at all?'
In this paper, we argue that discussion of worker participation in decisionāmaking is very limited in its usefulness unless the analysis looks at the structure of decisionāmaking, particularly in terms of centralization, in the organization concerned. The issues of worker participation are not instructive per se . If there is decentralization, it may assist the effectiveness of participation structures at lower levels, but the problem remains of the degree to which the costs of some decentralization are tradedāoff by the ādominantācoalitionā in the corporation against the benefits of centralization of decisionāmaking in the areas of finance and senior personnel.