IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecolab/v15y2005i2p181-198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two and Two Make Five: Industrial Relations and the Gentle Art of Doublethink

Author

Listed:
  • Braham Dabscheck

Abstract

The paper employs George Orwell's notion of doublethink in examining three contemporary industrial relations issues. They are the Cole Royal Commission into the building and construction industry, bargaining fees and employee entitlements. The Cole Royal Commission was an inquisition into the heresy of unionism. The decision of a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on bargaining fees has found that collective bargaining does not pertain to the employer-employee relationship. This decision encourages free-riding to weaken unions. On the other hand, various employee entitlement schemes, developed by the Australian government, to meet obligations of companies to employees when the former collapse, enable, or encourage, companies to free-ride on the backs of taxpayers. The paper concludes with the observation that a bleak future awaits unions.

Suggested Citation

  • Braham Dabscheck, 2005. "Two and Two Make Five: Industrial Relations and the Gentle Art of Doublethink," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 15(2), pages 181-198, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:15:y:2005:i:2:p:181-198
    DOI: 10.1177/103530460501500202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/103530460501500202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/103530460501500202?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Braham Dabscheck, 2006. "The Contract Regulation Club," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 16(2), pages 3-24, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:15:y:2005:i:2:p:181-198. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.