Journal article
Flexible scheduling, degradation of job quality and barriers to collective voice
- Abstract:
- This article examines the operation of flexible scheduling in practice through a case study of a large retail firm in the United Kingdom. It includes analysis of 39 semi-structured interviews, participant observation of shop floor work and non-participant observation of union organizing as well as analysis of key documents. The findings highlight the high level of generalized temporal flexibility across employment statuses. This temporal flexibility enables firm flexibility without necessitating a reliance upon contingent workers. Temporal flexibility is found to entail manager-control of flexible scheduling and is shown to be damaging to perceptions of job quality as it acts as a barrier to work-life balance. Union presence and collective bargaining at the firm are found to be ineffective at influencing flexible scheduling so as to improve job quality. This ineffectiveness can be explained by the union operating in an employer-dominated industrial relations environment in which its associational power is unable to compensate for a lack of institutional and structural economic power.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Accepted manuscript, pdf, 282.2KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1177/0018726716631396
Authors
+ Economic and Social Research Council
More from this funder
- Grant:
- ES/I017011/1
- Grant:
- ES/I901957/1
- Publisher:
- SAGE Publications
- Journal:
- Human Relations More from this journal
- Publication date:
- 2016-01-01
- Acceptance date:
- 2016-01-06
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1741-282X
- ISSN:
-
0018-7267
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:633913
- UUID:
-
uuid:aebd47f8-39c6-4b65-ad50-23f0c874b19b
- Local pid:
-
pubs:633913
- Source identifiers:
-
633913
- Deposit date:
-
2016-07-13
- ARK identifier:
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Alex J. Wood
- Copyright date:
- 2016
- Notes:
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2016. This is the accepted manuscript version of the article. The final version is available online from SAGE at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726716631396
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record