Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain:
Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain:
复制标题
英国的平等机会政策和实践：
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Noon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Hoque;M. Noon
本文使用 1998 年工作场所员工关系调查 (WERS 98) 的数据评估了英国平等机会 (EO) 政策的性质和影响率。本文确定了更有可能采用正式性别、种族、残疾和年龄政策的工作场所类型。然后，它评估这些政策是“实质性的”还是仅仅是“空壳”：首先，通过评估已采用平等机会政策的工作场所在多大程度上也采取了支持平等机会的做法；其次，评估在已采用 EO 实践的工作场所中能够接触到 EO 实践的员工比例。总而言之，“空壳”论更有说服力。较小的工作场所、私营部门工作场所和没有人力资源或人事专家的工作场所被认为更有可能制定“空壳”政策。虽然加入工会的工作场所更有可能制定正式政策，但这些政策构成“空壳”的可能性并不低。最后，讨论了研究结果的政策、经济和法律影响。
This article evaluates the nature and incidence of equal opportunities (EO) policies in the UK using data from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS 98).The article identifies the types of workplaces that are more likely to adopt formal gender, ethnicity, disability and age policies. It then assesses whether the policies are ‘substantive’ or merely ‘empty shells’: first, by evaluating the extent to which workplaces that have adopted EO policies have also adopted supporting EO practices; and second, by evaluating the proportion of employees who have access to EO practices in workplaces where they have been adopted. On balance, the ‘empty shell’ argument is more convincing. Smaller workplaces, private sector workplaces and workplaces without an HR or personnel specialist are identified as being more likely to have an ‘empty shell’ policy.While unionized workplaces are more likely to have a formal policy, those policies are no less likely to constitute ‘empty shells’. Finally, the policy, economic and legal implications of the findings are discussed.