Compulsory proportional representation: allaying potential concerns

dc.contributor.authorHarcourt, Mark
dc.contributor.authorLam, Helen
dc.date.accessioned2013-11-25T04:27:58Z
dc.date.available2013-11-25T04:27:58Z
dc.date.copyright2008-09
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description.abstractThe present union certification system has many faults, the most important of which is its failure to deliver employee representation to all but a small and declining minority of workers. As an alternative, compulsory proportional representation (CPR) would have many advantages, particularly when compared with other reform proposals, most of which are designed to only reinvigorate, modify, or supplement the existing system. Would CPR have any disadvantages? We identify four potential concerns: reduced freedom to contract, increased interunion competition and raiding, depleted union strength, and compromised union independence. However, we argue that some of these problems would be more imagined than real, some less serious than expected, and some would have secondary effects to compensate any shortcomings.en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationHarcourt, M., & Lam, H. (2008). Compulsory proportional representation: allaying potential concerns. WorkingUSA, 11(3), 349-361.en_NZ
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1743-4580.2008.00210.xen_NZ
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10289/8231
dc.language.isoenen_NZ
dc.publisherWileyen_NZ
dc.relation.isPartOfWorking USAen_NZ
dc.relation.ispartofWorkingUSA
dc.relation.urihttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-4580.2008.00210.x/abstracten_NZ
dc.titleCompulsory proportional representation: allaying potential concernsen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
pubs.begin-page349en_NZ
pubs.elements-id33100
pubs.end-page361en_NZ
pubs.issue3en_NZ
pubs.volume11en_NZ
Files
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: