Work and life can employee representation influence balance
Identifieur interne : 001C16 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001C15; suivant : 001C17Work and life can employee representation influence balance
Auteurs : Doris Ruth Eikhof ; Jeff Hyman ; Juliette SummersSource :
- Employee Relations [ 0142-5455 ] ; 2007-07-13.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the influence of different forms of organisational representation on the provision of worklife balance employment policies. Designmethodologyapproach The article uses onsite semistructured interviews with employees, HR and line managers and trade union representatives in four case studies as well as survey responses from a total of 17 institutions in the financial services sector. Findings Employees do influence worklife balance issues in the financial services sector, and worklife balance initiatives had greater breadth, codification and quality where independent unions were recognised. In all cases however, the extent of departure from minimal statutory levels of provision was not great. Research limitationsimplications The nature of the study and its focus on Scotland may limit the generalisability of the findings into other sectors or regions. Practical implications In light of the evolving worklife balance legislative framework, this article should be of practical interest to trade unions, practitioners and academics. It demonstrates that organisations and unions need to retain and develop a focus on worklife balance applications. Originalityvalue The article indicates the prevalence of management control of the worklife balance agenda and management's discretion in the operation of worklife issues. Employees and their representatives accepted this control, and their private individualised responsibility for balancing work and life, without challenge. These results inform current understanding of how worklife balance legislation, based on a voluntarist agenda, translates into practice.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/01425450710759208
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Work and life can employee representation influence balance</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Ruth Eikhof, Doris" sort="Ruth Eikhof, Doris" uniqKey="Ruth Eikhof D" first="Doris" last="Ruth Eikhof">Doris Ruth Eikhof</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Stirling, UK University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hyman, Jeff" sort="Hyman, Jeff" uniqKey="Hyman J" first="Jeff" last="Hyman">Jeff Hyman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management Studies, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Summers, Juliette" sort="Summers, Juliette" uniqKey="Summers J" first="Juliette" last="Summers">Juliette Summers</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/01425450710759208</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001C16</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001C16</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Work and life can employee representation influence balance</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Ruth Eikhof, Doris" sort="Ruth Eikhof, Doris" uniqKey="Ruth Eikhof D" first="Doris" last="Ruth Eikhof">Doris Ruth Eikhof</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Stirling, UK University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hyman, Jeff" sort="Hyman, Jeff" uniqKey="Hyman J" first="Jeff" last="Hyman">Jeff Hyman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management Studies, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Summers, Juliette" sort="Summers, Juliette" uniqKey="Summers J" first="Juliette" last="Summers">Juliette Summers</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Employee Relations</title><idno type="ISSN">0142-5455</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2007-07-13">2007-07-13</date><biblScope unit="volume">29</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="367">367</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="384">384</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0142-5455</idno></series><idno type="istex">061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/01425450710759208</idno><idno type="filenameID">0190290404</idno><idno type="original-pdf">0190290404.pdf</idno><idno type="href">01425450710759208.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0142-5455</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the influence of different forms of organisational representation on the provision of worklife balance employment policies. Designmethodologyapproach The article uses onsite semistructured interviews with employees, HR and line managers and trade union representatives in four case studies as well as survey responses from a total of 17 institutions in the financial services sector. Findings Employees do influence worklife balance issues in the financial services sector, and worklife balance initiatives had greater breadth, codification and quality where independent unions were recognised. In all cases however, the extent of departure from minimal statutory levels of provision was not great. Research limitationsimplications The nature of the study and its focus on Scotland may limit the generalisability of the findings into other sectors or regions. Practical implications In light of the evolving worklife balance legislative framework, this article should be of practical interest to trade unions, practitioners and academics. It demonstrates that organisations and unions need to retain and develop a focus on worklife balance applications. Originalityvalue The article indicates the prevalence of management control of the worklife balance agenda and management's discretion in the operation of worklife issues. Employees and their representatives accepted this control, and their private individualised responsibility for balancing work and life, without challenge. These results inform current understanding of how worklife balance legislation, based on a voluntarist agenda, translates into practice.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><editor><json:item><name>Doris Ruth Eikhof</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Stirling, UK University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item></editor><author><json:item><name>Doris Ruth Eikhof</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Stirling, UK University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Jeff Hyman</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Management Studies, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Juliette Summers</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Job satisfaction</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Trade unions</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Employee participation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Human resource management</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Financial services</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Scotland</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the influence of different forms of organisational representation on the provision of worklife balance employment policies. Designmethodologyapproach The article uses onsite semistructured interviews with employees, HR and line managers and trade union representatives in four case studies as well as survey responses from a total of 17 institutions in the financial services sector. Findings Employees do influence worklife balance issues in the financial services sector, and worklife balance initiatives had greater breadth, codification and quality where independent unions were recognised. In all cases however, the extent of departure from minimal statutory levels of provision was not great. Research limitationsimplications The nature of the study and its focus on Scotland may limit the generalisability of the findings into other sectors or regions. Practical implications In light of the evolving worklife balance legislative framework, this article should be of practical interest to trade unions, practitioners and academics. It demonstrates that organisations and unions need to retain and develop a focus on worklife balance applications. Originalityvalue The article indicates the prevalence of management control of the worklife balance agenda and management's discretion in the operation of worklife issues. Employees and their representatives accepted this control, and their private individualised responsibility for balancing work and life, without challenge. These results inform current understanding of how worklife balance legislation, based on a voluntarist agenda, translates into practice.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.772</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>519 x 680 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>6</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1666</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7895</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>50019</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>18</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>231</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Work and life can employee representation influence balance</title><refBibs><json:item><host><author></author><title>Family Friendly Working Putting Policy into Practice</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Myths at Work</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Theories of Organizational Stress</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Britain at Work</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Understanding Organizational Change</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Nature and Pattern of FamilyFriendly Employment Policies in Britain</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Having None of it Women, Men and the Future of Work</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>G. Gall</name></json:item></author><host><volume>23</volume><issue>4</issue><author></author><title>Employee Relations</title></host><title>From adversarialism to partnership Trade unionism and industrial relations in the banking sector in Britain</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>F. Green</name></json:item></author><host><volume>39</volume><pages><last>80</last><first>53</first></pages><issue>1</issue><author></author><title>British Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>It's been a hard day's night the concentration and intensification of work in late twentieth century Britain</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S. Hardy</name></json:item><json:item><name>N. Adnett</name></json:item></author><host><volume>8</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>European Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>The parental leave directive towards a familyfriendly social Europe</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E. Heery</name></json:item></author><host><volume>36</volume><issue>3</issue><author></author><title>British Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>The relaunch of the Trades Union Congress</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. Hyman</name></json:item><json:item><name>D. Scholarios</name></json:item><json:item><name>C. Baldry</name></json:item></author><host><volume>19</volume><issue>4</issue><author></author><title>Work, Employment & Society</title></host><title>Getting on or getting by Employee flexibility and coping strategies for home and work</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. Hyman</name></json:item><json:item><name>C. Baldry</name></json:item><json:item><name>D. Scholarios</name></json:item><json:item><name>D. Bunzel</name></json:item></author><host><volume>41</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>British Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>Work life imbalance in call centres and software development</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Inside the Workplace Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Parental and Dependency Leave</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S. McKay</name></json:item></author><host><volume>39</volume><pages><last>303</last><first>285</first></pages><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>British Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>Annual Review Article, Between flexibility and regulation rights, equality and protection at work</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M. Marchington</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Teamworking</title></host><title>Teamworking and employee involvement terminology, evaluation and context</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>All Change at Work</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P. Nolan</name></json:item><json:item><name>P. Marginson</name></json:item></author><host><volume>28</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>British Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>Skating on thin ice David Metcalf on trade unions and productivity</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>I. Roper</name></json:item><json:item><name>I. Cunningham</name></json:item><json:item><name>P. James</name></json:item></author><host><volume>32</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Personnel Review</title></host><title>Promoting family friendly policies is the basis of the government's ethical standpoint viable</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Future of Employment Relations</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. Waddington</name></json:item><json:item><name>C. Whiston</name></json:item></author><host><volume>35</volume><issue>4</issue><author></author><title>British Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>Why do people join unions in a period of membership decline</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S. Williams</name></json:item></author><host><volume>35</volume><pages><last>514</last><first>495</first></pages><issue>4</issue><author></author><title>British Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>The nature of some recent trade union modernization policies in the UK</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>C. Yates</name></json:item></author><host><volume>13</volume><issue>6</issue><author></author><title>Gender, Work and Organisation</title></host><title>Challenging misconceptions about organizing women into unions</title></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>29</volume><publisherId><json:string>er</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>384</last><first>367</first></pages><issn><json:string>0142-5455</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><subject><json:item><value>HR & organizational behaviour</value></json:item><json:item><value>Employment law</value></json:item><json:item><value>Industrial/labour relations</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Employee Relations</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/er</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>management</json:string><json:string>industrial relations & labor</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>economics & business </json:string><json:string>industrial relations</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/01425450710759208</json:string></doi><id>061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514</id><score>0.6272568</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Work and life can employee representation influence balance</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><availability><p>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</p></availability><date>2007</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Work and life can employee representation influence balance</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Doris</forename><surname>Ruth Eikhof</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Stirling, UK University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</affiliation></author><editor><persName><forename type="first">Doris</forename><surname>Ruth Eikhof</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Stirling, UK University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</affiliation></editor><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Jeff</forename><surname>Hyman</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Management Studies, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">Juliette</forename><surname>Summers</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Employee Relations</title><idno type="pISSN">0142-5455</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/er</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2007-07-13"></date><biblScope unit="volume">29</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="367">367</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="384">384</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/01425450710759208</idno><idno type="filenameID">0190290404</idno><idno type="original-pdf">0190290404.pdf</idno><idno type="href">01425450710759208.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2007</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the influence of different forms of organisational representation on the provision of worklife balance employment policies. Designmethodologyapproach The article uses onsite semistructured interviews with employees, HR and line managers and trade union representatives in four case studies as well as survey responses from a total of 17 institutions in the financial services sector. Findings Employees do influence worklife balance issues in the financial services sector, and worklife balance initiatives had greater breadth, codification and quality where independent unions were recognised. In all cases however, the extent of departure from minimal statutory levels of provision was not great. Research limitationsimplications The nature of the study and its focus on Scotland may limit the generalisability of the findings into other sectors or regions. Practical implications In light of the evolving worklife balance legislative framework, this article should be of practical interest to trade unions, practitioners and academics. It demonstrates that organisations and unions need to retain and develop a focus on worklife balance applications. Originalityvalue The article indicates the prevalence of management control of the worklife balance agenda and management's discretion in the operation of worklife issues. Employees and their representatives accepted this control, and their private individualised responsibility for balancing work and life, without challenge. These results inform current understanding of how worklife balance legislation, based on a voluntarist agenda, translates into practice.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>Job satisfaction</term></item><item><term>Trade unions</term></item><item><term>Employee participation</term></item><item><term>Human resource management</term></item><item><term>Financial services</term></item><item><term>Scotland</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-HOB</label><item><term>HR & organizational behaviour</term></item><label>cat-ELAW</label><item><term>Employment law</term></item><label>cat-ILR</label><item><term>Industrial/labour relations</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2007-07-13">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">er</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/er</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Employee Relations</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0142-5455</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/01425450710759208</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">0190290404.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">0190290404</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">research-article</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Research paper</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-HOB</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">HR & organizational behaviour</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-ELAW</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Employment law</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-ILR</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Industrial/labour relations</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Work and life: can employee representation influence balance?</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="editor"><string-name><given-names>Doris</given-names> <surname>Ruth Eikhof</surname></string-name><x>, </x><string-name><given-names>Chris</given-names> <surname>Warhurst</surname></string-name><x> and </x><string-name><given-names>Axel</given-names> <surname>Haunschild</surname></string-name><aff>University of Stirling, UK; University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</aff></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Jeff</given-names> <surname>Hyman</surname></string-name><aff>Department of Management Studies, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</aff></contrib><x></x><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Juliette</given-names> <surname>Summers</surname></string-name><aff>Department of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>13</day><month>07</month><year>2007</year></pub-date><volume>29</volume><issue>4</issue><issue-title>What work? What life? What balance? Critical reflections on the work‐life balance debate</issue-title><issue-title content-type="short">Reflections on work‐life balance</issue-title><fpage>367</fpage><lpage>384</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2007</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="01425450710759208.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</title><x> – </x><p>The purpose of this article is to assess the influence of different forms of organisational representation on the provision of work‐life balance employment policies.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Design/methodology/approach</title><x> – </x><p>The article uses on‐site semi‐structured interviews with employees, HR and line managers and trade union representatives in four case studies as well as survey responses from a total of 17 institutions in the financial services sector.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Findings</title><x> – </x><p>Employees do influence work‐life balance issues in the financial services sector, and work‐life balance initiatives had greater breadth, codification and quality where independent unions were recognised. In all cases however, the extent of departure from minimal statutory levels of provision was not great.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Research limitations/implications</title><x> – </x><p>The nature of the study and its focus on Scotland may limit the generalisability of the findings into other sectors or regions.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Practical implications</title><x> – </x><p>In light of the evolving work‐life balance legislative framework, this article should be of practical interest to trade unions, practitioners and academics. It demonstrates that organisations and unions need to retain and develop a focus on work‐life balance applications.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Originality/value</title><x> – </x><p>The article indicates the prevalence of management control of the work‐life balance agenda and management's discretion in the operation of work‐life issues. Employees and their representatives accepted this control, and their private individualised responsibility for balancing work and life, without challenge. These results inform current understanding of how work‐life balance legislation, based on a voluntarist agenda, translates into practice.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Job satisfaction</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Trade unions</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Employee participation</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Human resource management</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Financial services</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Scotland</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta><ack><p>The authors would like to thank the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for funding the project on which this article is based. Particular thanks are offered to Barbara Ballard of Joseph Rowntree Foundation for her continual support and enthusiasm for this project. Thanks are also extended to Sue Bond and Sarah Wise for their assistance in preparing data for this article and to the referees and editors for providing valuable comments.</p></ack></front><body><sec><title>Introduction: work‐life tensions and their resolution</title><p>Traditionally, temporal terms of employment have been determined unilaterally by the employer according to their operational needs. In sectors with strong union representation, employees may have been able to negotiate terms for working time, but its formal provision was in the hands of employers. And this remains so, despite the right to request flexible working introduced in 2005. There has been no formal expectation on employers to accommodate to the out‐of‐work needs of employees. Any conflicts between work and home were expected to be resolved in the private domains of the employee with minimal interference to work. Management attitudes toward work‐life conflicts can be surprisingly resistant to change. The 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS) study shows that 69 per cent of managers in the private sector believe that it was the responsibility of individuals to balance their work and domestic demands (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Kersley <italic>et al.</italic>, 2006</xref>, p. 271). A recent study indicated that spill‐over from work to home was absorbed largely through adjustments employees made to their domestic lives (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Hyman <italic>et al.</italic>, 2005</xref>).</p><p>Nevertheless, there have been shifts towards making work‐life boundaries more permeable. Policy interest stems from the economic desirability of raising levels of employment participation of women with young children (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11">Hardy and Adnett, 2002</xref>) and is accompanied by a growing sensitivity to tensions employees face between work and non‐work lives, especially in terms of child‐care. Work‐life tensions have been compounded by factors such as work intensification, long working hours (see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Green, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Taylor, 2001</xref>) as well as extended shift working and unpredictable (and often unpaid) overtime to meet extended work schedules (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">Hyman <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>). Perhaps in consequence of the interplay between these factors, reported levels of stress‐related illness and absence have reached significant levels (see, e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">Cooper, 2000</xref>). In addition, the UK policy perspective on equal opportunity and work life balance has been increasingly influenced by the European Employment Strategy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11">Hardy and Adnett, 2002</xref>) in which a social justice case for family‐friendly working is founded on offering greater equality of opportunity for employed parents, especially women, in terms of pay, advancement and in working conditions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Roper <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>).</p><p>The practical consequence of these developments has been a whole raft of new policy and legislative changes. In 1998, the Working Time Directive was passed, followed by the Part‐Time Directive in 2000, offering equal rights to part‐time employees. The Maternity and Parental Leave Directive contained in the 1999 Employment Relations Act (ERA), offered improved maternity rights and, for the first time, opportunities for unpaid leave to working parents. Paid maternity leave rights have been subsequently enhanced. The 1999 Act also provided employees with the right to take a reasonable amount of (unpaid) time off to deal with domestic emergencies, which could also include paternity leave. The 2002 Employment Act provided opportunities for employees to request flexible working arrangements from their employers. Since 2003, fathers can also take up to two weeks paid paternity leave.</p><p>From an organisational perspective, policy concerns have also been buttressed by a business case which links improved labour recruitment, retention, greater commitment and enhanced performance with appropriate work‐life and flexible work arrangements (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Cully <italic>et al.</italic>, 1999</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Dex and Smith, 2002</xref>). In an associated endorsement, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has promoted flexibility as a means to remove “unnecessary obstacles that prevent parents from achieving their full potential within the labour market” (cited in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Taylor, 2001</xref>, p. 9).</p><p>Sensitive to employer demands to retain and enhance the policy emphasis on labour market flexibility, the Government has addressed the issues of family‐friendly employment. Its approach provides a low‐lying platform of minimum rights for employees alongside positive encouragement for individual employers and their staff to make voluntary collective and individual agreements on issues of parental leave, providing that these at least meet the minimum statutory rights. These statutory regulations are determinedly minimalist, with much leave being unpaid, no requirement for employees to take leave, and no attempts to define “reasonable” time or circumstance in terms of domestic leave. Indeed, without enhancement, and associated with low pay and the current opt‐out potential from the Working Time Regulations, opportunities for employees to choose shorter working hours are limited (see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">McKay, 2001</xref>, p. 293). There is, however, potential scope for employers and employees to establish enhanced arrangements. A recent Labour Research Department Guide emphasises this point:<disp-quote><p>… trade unions and workplace negotiators, in particular, have a key role to play in improving the basic entitlements contained in the regulations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Labour Research Department, 2000</xref>, p. 5).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Recognising potential advantages in terms of member recruitment and for heightened organisational influence, the labour movement has readily embraced the issues of family‐friendliness, flexibility and work‐life balance. A number of negotiated enhancements have been achieved, notably in the public sector (see Bargaining Report, May 2002). White collar unions have undertaken campaigns to raise the issue of family policies with employers with the aim of extending membership.</p><p>It is clear that the government is offering opportunities for employees to express their voice over a popular issue, which attracts considerable and growing attention. Employers, unions and pressure groups all claim that they recognise and seek to resolve work‐life conflicts. This favourable context provides an opportunity to identify the extent to which employees' voice has been expressed in a flourishing sector of the economy and whether different patterns of influence can be linked with different representative arrangements.</p></sec><sec><title>Work‐life balance and employee voice</title><p>Debate continues over the extent and forms through which employees can and should influence issues that concern them at work. Central to this debate have been declines in trade union membership and activity and the concomitant rise in the use of human resource management techniques which promise direct communication between individual employee and employer but effectively extend little organisational influence to employees (see, e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Marchington, 2000</xref>).</p><p>From a union perspective, declines in membership, recognition and authority have left both employees and unions exposed to organisational decisions that could undermine security and employment conditions. This position has been critiqued from the perspective of social justice, claiming that at a time of product and labour market turmoil, employees should have the means to seek stability. An alternative argument is that by providing employees with a recognised and representative “voice”, for instance via trade unions, economic performance is enhanced rather than disrupted (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">Nolan and Marginson, 1990</xref>). This issue has been cogently summarised in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">Millward<italic> et al.</italic>'s (2000)</xref> rhetorical question derived from successive WERS and WIRS analyses: “Have employees lost their voice?”. Nevertheless, in a number of sectors the pace of membership decline has been arrested and in some cases reversed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6">Dawson, 2003</xref>, p. 130; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3">Bradley <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000</xref>, p. 161). Since 1997, successive Labour governments have attempted to balance (or consolidate, depending upon point of view, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3">Bradley <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000</xref>) promotion of deregulated flexible labour markets with a more participative dimension for union inputs, through endorsement of European Works Councils, recent Information and Consultation regulations, and voluntary initiatives such as partnership. This weakly‐interventionist “third‐way” tends to eschew direct employment regulation but does offer access for employee inputs into decision‐making (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Roper <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>). Further, a modified voluntarism, the scope of which was steadily eroded during the Conservative years in office, is still visible in areas such as vocational training (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Taylor, 2001</xref>).</p><p>In this relatively more benign climate, unions themselves have attempted to realign their appeal to potential and existing members by addressing contemporary issues such as health, non‐standard working conditions and the interests of women employees (see, e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Williams, 1997</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Waddington and Whistler, 1997</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Heery, 1998</xref>), although there is some contention that trade unions can be gender blind (see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26">Yates, 2006</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">Lindsay <italic>et al.</italic>, 2005</xref>). With much of the rhetoric of the new activism directed to appeal to individual interests through collective representation, an examination of employee influence over family and work‐life balance issues presents an excellent opportunity to consider the extent to which employee voice over a specific and highly visible issue is both being vocalised and responded to by employers.</p><p>The main policy emphasis is to reconcile the demands of work with family life. This article therefore examines the extent to which employee voice is exerted through the voluntary establishment and development of family‐friendly employment policies in the financial services sector. This sector shows at least some ostensibly favourable conditions such as relatively stable employment, high profile encouragement of family‐friendly working by some leading financial institutions (the campaigning group, National Work‐Life Forum has been supported by a number of retail banks), labour shortages coupled with high proportions of female employees of child‐rearing age, and some active union measures to seek and consolidate membership growth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">Gall, 2001</xref>). Evidence is sought for impacts of employee voice into organisational decisions regarding family‐friendly employment policies by exploring three different contexts: with union recognition, with staff associations and without formal collective arrangements for representation. If unions have been unable to make significant headway under these potentially favourable conditions, the issue of a new vitality and enhanced role as an employee mouthpiece becomes questionable.</p></sec><sec><title>The study</title><p>The research was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of its Work and Family Life programme. The study presented consisted of two linked phases. In the first phase, profiles of family‐friendly arrangements were identified in 17 finance sector organisations located in Scotland through a questionnaire checklist mapping out the details of the family‐friendly provisions supplemented by interviews with managers. Relevant formal documentation was also collected. The fourth section of the article examines this profile. As part of this phase, the impetus for the introduction of family‐friendly provisions was explored, along with evidence of pressures to change family‐friendly programmes, with particular emphasis on the roles of employees and their representatives. This data is presented in the fifth section.</p><p>In the second phase, empirical studies were conducted in four case‐study companies, drawn from the larger sample, between June 2000 and January 2001. This phase consisted of more intensive investigation of the ways in which family‐friendly provisions operate in practice in diverse settings. At least one company from each of the main representative categories was selected, namely, one with independent union recognition, two with in‐house staff association and one without formal representative status. The views of four main groups in the family‐friendly decision‐making process were sought, namely, line managers, employee representatives (where applicable), human resource specialists and employees. A total of 57 semi‐structured interviews were conducted with the first three groups while a written questionnaire was distributed to samples of employees. A total of 1,118 were sampled, producing 533 usable responses, representing a response rate of 48 per cent. Findings from the case‐study phase are presented in the sixth section.</p></sec><sec><title>Profiles of family‐friendly arrangements</title><p>The 17 organisations studied in the first phase of the study together employed over 50,000 staff in Scotland. All interviews were conducted at the head offices where the frameworks for the policies were established. From the companies that provided data, the mean proportion of women employed in the companies was 59 per cent and the average age of employees was 34 years. The sample consisted of four banks, all of which recognised a union, seven insurance/assurance companies, all except one with staff associations, one general finance company with strong mortgage interests which recognised a company union and five fund managing companies without formal representation.</p><p>The patterns of union recognition, non‐recognition and staff association representation reflected the traditions of the finance sector in respect of both the assurance companies and the banks. Banking institutions have tended to recognise trade unions, with UNiFI being the dominant union. Staff associations, unaffiliated to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), have dominated the insurance/assurance sector, though some companies recognise the Amicus general union. In other cases, recent shifts from in‐house staff association to TUC recognised trade unions have taken place. The establishments without formal representation tended to be small fund manager companies with a mean staff compliment of 194 for their Scottish operations. The mean number of employees in Scotland for the Staff Association companies was 3,079 and 7,020 for the unionised companies. There was neither trade union recognition nor staff association presence in any of the five fund managers included in the study. Again, this trend is not unusual in small, independent private sector service organisations.</p><p>Company respondents were first asked whether they had introduced any family‐friendly provisions beyond the Regulation minimum levels. Results are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0190290404001">Table I</xref>. To illustrate the patterns of provisions, companies are classified according to their form of employee representation.</p><p>The table illustrates three main points. First, union recognition made voluntary initiatives across the spectrum of family‐friendly provisions more likely. Second, smaller independent finance houses without formal employee representation offered some enhancements beyond the statutory requirements. Third, initiatives for family‐friendly provisions were less commonly found in companies with in‐house staff associations.</p><p>Only four companies, all with recognised trade unions, had taken tentative steps to provide direct support for childcare. One bank had introduced a pilot nursery place scheme paying so many hours per month at the nursery. However, they were considering abandoning the scheme due to “absolutely terrible take‐up”. Another bank offered childcare vouchers as an option in its flexible benefits scheme. An assurance company included interest free salary advances for childcare costs. The fourth company was reviewing potential childcare support options.</p><p>A similar exercise was undertaken to identify the presence of flexible working practices, such as part‐time working. These practices were more commonly found within the finance sector organisations than were family‐friendly policies. The patterns were consistent irrespective of the form of employee representation. One possible explanation is that there had been insufficient time for the legislatively supported family‐friendly provisions to be introduced at company level. A faster pace of implementation of family‐friendly provisions does appear to be associated with independent union presence. An alternative explanation is that flexible working practices are more consistent with employer needs to provide increasingly continuous service facilities. These may be more easily achieved through retaining experienced staff through a combination of flexible working practices. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that managers interviewed tended to think of family‐friendly employment exclusively or largely in terms of temporal flexibility.</p></sec><sec><title>Rationale for the establishment of family‐friendly provisions and flexible working practices</title><p>For a more detailed review of the implementation of family‐friendly provisions and flexible working practices, organisations were analysed in groups according to the type of employee representation.</p><sec><title>Organisations without formal representation</title><p>Interviews were conducted with management representatives in five organisations that had no formal arrangements for employee representation. A number of common themes emerged from these interviews.</p><p>First, the introduction of family‐friendly provisions and flexible working practices was motivated largely by issues of labour competitiveness. As one HR manager stressed:<disp-quote><p>Current voluntary provisions are in place because of retention, not attraction. If you are flexible, you will retain people (HR Manager, FM 4).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Second, with management concerns for employee retention operating as a prime stimulus, family‐friendly programmes in these organisations were primarily initiated and driven by management, without formal employee involvement in developing the individual policies.</p><p>Third, there were two main consequences of this management emphasis: the arrangements were largely informal, often without written details, and they were allocated to individual employees at the discretion of their line managers. For example, a senior manager commented on the formalisation of family‐friendly provisions:<disp-quote><p>We don't have a formal flexi‐system but we do allow each department to run their own flexi system so we will have certain people that take certain days off in lieu and things like that so they can work a wee bit flexibly. If they've clocked up extra hours they can take some time off if they need away early (Senior Manager, FM 2).</p></disp-quote></p><p>At FM 3, the difficulties faced by staff, and which compounded by a patronising stance adopted by managers, were described by the Director of Personnel:<disp-quote><p>Women returners usually ask for part‐time and are often initially refused by the managers but work through it by negotiation. The women have to work pretty hard at convincing their managers but this is not a bad thing because then they are sure about what they want to do (Director of Personnel, FM 3).</p></disp-quote></p><p>A fourth characteristic of these small organisations was that their “traditional environment … has been largely driven by men [and] this sort of thing just isn't in their frame of reference” (Head of HR, FM 4). Similar reasons for not formalising the family‐friendly provisions agenda prevailed at FM 3:<disp-quote><p>[There is a] lack of female employees at the top, [they are] employed in lower status jobs and the male driven organisation means that formal policies have not been pursued so far (Director of Personnel, FM 3).</p></disp-quote></p><p>The final point is that these small companies were sensitive to legislative and other external changes. Many had started recruiting specialist HR managers, though often with little formal power, and who were trying to use combinations of legislation, formal benchmarking, informal soundings and social change arguments to convince their (male) superiors to adopt more progressive and embedded policies into these companies. However, as one Head of Personnel commented: “It's evolving gradually. If you make quick change, people sort of back off.”</p></sec><sec><title>Organisations with staff associations</title><p>Companies recognising staff associations tended to be assurance‐based. The conservative and staid image of insurance has changed dramatically in recent years as intense competitive pressures have forced most of the companies to expand their operations into other financial services such as mortgages. Some had merged or been taken over and others were engaged in demutualisation exercises. Most had opened up call‐centre operations whilst reducing the number of branch outlets (see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">Gall, 2001</xref>).</p><p>Nevertheless, vestiges of the “old world” remained in their adherence to company‐dependant in‐house staff associations. Progress on implementing universal coverage family‐friendly provisions in these companies has not been rapid, either. Compared to the informal approaches adopted in the non‐union finance houses, more structured approaches were utilised to deal with employee issues. Many of the companies had established variants of staffing committees reporting to executive boards or other senior bodies. Nevertheless, staff association membership on these committees was either on a minority basis or employees were not represented at all. Hence one company had a policy‐vetting committee, composed of senior managers, which made the final decision on policies presented by the Staff Relations Department. Where employee representatives were present on committees, their influence was not palpably strong:<disp-quote><p>… non‐unionised but have a Staff Association and there is a consultative process rather than negotiation … Ultimately, if we don't agree we can say “we've consulted and we are going to do it anyway” (Assistant General Manager Personnel, Assur 4).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Apart from the more structured approach to employment relations that might be expected in large companies, similar constraints towards family‐friendly provisions as those noted for the non‐unionised companies above were identified. In some cases the culture seemed to be rather more resistant to change. In particular, the masculine ethos was identified as especially pervasive by a number of HR specialists (see also <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Franks, 1999</xref>, p. 45).</p><p>A second potential obstacle to change was the generally weak position of the HR function within the management hierarchy. Since they were largely seen as an advisory body for line managers, the scope for many HR specialists to engineer strategic change appeared to be limited. However, the issue of “business needs” emphasised throughout the interviews provided opportunities for the human resources staff (and occasionally the staff association) to press for family‐friendly arrangements. Recruitment and retention were identified by most respondents as pressure points for offering family‐friendly concessions. As with the non‐union group above, this was often undertaken in a pragmatic, individualised way, without codification, with the discretion of line managers providing the principal source of concessions granted. Benchmarking and staff loss were stated as the principal catalysts for drawing attention to changing terms and conditions.</p><p>Whilst enhanced voluntary family‐friendly provisions were hard to find among these companies, flexible working patterns were common and, indeed, were treated by many companies as the embodiment of family‐friendliness, notwithstanding their introduction primarily to serve the needs of the organisations.</p></sec><sec><title>Unionised companies</title><p>Details from seven unionised companies are available. These include four banks and three assurance/insurance companies. All were large organisations or part of major financial sector conglomerates. The recognised unions were Amicus and UNiFI and one TUC recognised single‐company union. One bank recognised both UNiFI and a rather weak staff association and for this reason is covered in this section.</p><p>As with the non‐union and staff association companies, recruitment and retention along with meeting business needs for service provision have provided the major stimuli for adopting family‐friendly provisions. As one manager commented:<disp-quote><p>… the most important reason for having family‐friendly provisions is retention and attracting the best employees … that's the whole business case. We're not going to chuck money away, but if people have been invested in for training, it makes sense to try and retain them (HR Manager, Bank 4).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Again in common with the other companies, management discretion in dealing with employees and their requests was also prevalent. The differences were that in unionised companies there were joint forums established for unions to contribute to these issues. Also, at least to a modest extent, unions appeared to have made an impression with their family‐friendly agendas. The entitlements introduced tended to be codified and included in staff handbooks.</p><p>At Assur 1, for example, through concern for staff retention, the company established a joint working party on the grounds that “we have a very good relationship with the union … they don't push for ridiculous agendas” (Staff Development Manager). Nevertheless, the company quickly established boundaries:<disp-quote><p>It was essentially about flexibility… I don't think people were daft enough to think that we had a huge pot of money, things like a crèche, absolutely no. The union did not push for any of these other types of measures (Staff Development Manager, Assur 1).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Notwithstanding the presence of the union, most of the agenda was:<disp-quote><p>… driven by HR from an employee relations standpoint although they do talk to them (unions) and allow them to throw their tuppence in and we'll take their views and see where we'll go from there (Staff Development Manager, Assur 1).</p></disp-quote></p><p>At Bank 4, it was made clear by the manager interviewed that “anything that is going to change substantially the way people work is bound to involve the unions”. Though when asked whether issues like home working will be negotiated the reply was less positive for the unions: “I think as a huge business case it will probably be consultative.” In other words, it would be management determined with some union input, rather than jointly determined through negotiation with the union.</p><p>In summary, it appeared that unions, especially with market and legislative support, were able to raise family‐friendly issues on to the agendas of consultative and other joint bodies. However, there was little evidence in this sector of formal agreements based on joint negotiations between the parties. The tendency was for unions to raise or pursue a matter and for management to respond according to its priorities. There may have been some fringe negotiations but the outcomes for establishing policies were still largely management determined.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Operationalising the policies: four case studies</title><p>The four case studies examined the extent of employee influence on workplace family‐friendly employment policy decisions, the ways in which any influence is expressed (specifically individually or collectively) and the implications of these findings for employee influence generally. The four companies studied are called Castle Funds, Edinburgh Life, E‐Bank and North Bank. Castle Funds, a fund management company, employed 213 staff. No formal representative system operated in this company though a Staff Relations Committee with nominees from each operational area had been established for communication and consultation purposes. Edinburgh Life was an established assurance company, employing 12,000 worldwide. The company had an in‐house non‐TUC affiliated staff association (ELSA). All staff were automatically members of ELSA and committee members were elected. E‐Bank was a retail tele‐bank owned by Edinburgh Life. E‐Bank employed 1,200 staff, mainly in Scotland. Staff at E‐Bank had the same ELSA representative arrangements as Edinburgh Life, though the two associations acted independently of one another. North Bank was a retail bank with approximately 800 branches in its network. It converted from building society status in 1997. North Bank recognised and negotiated with one TUC‐affiliated, company‐based union with around 80 per cent membership density.</p><sec><title>Castle funds</title><p>The Staff Relations Committee (SRC) had some policy input but on the whole it exerted very little influence on decision‐making. Any influence that the SRC exerted over policy tended to be informal. While issues could be brought to the attention of senior management via the SRC, the policy decision rested with the senior management group. Managers saw the SRC as a communications mechanism with senior management, with the employee nominees serving as information channels. While the employee members reported that some family‐friendly provisions had been introduced through “consultation”, they also stated that suggestions made by the SRC were only sometimes taken seriously by management, depending on the issue raised. In the words of one manager, this lack of decision‐making influence meant that “a lot of people see it [SRC] as a waste of time, especially if ideas keep getting knocked back”.</p><p>Overall, the SRC did not appear to have had a significant impact on the family‐friendliness of employees' working lives. Policy level influence remained in the gift of senior management, while operational level influence was practically non‐existent. Employee members received no family‐friendly policy training from either the SRC or the company. Despite their role as information channels, only one of the three representatives interviewed was familiar with statutory family‐friendly provisions.</p></sec><sec><title>Edinburgh life</title><p>Edinburgh Life shared a common ancestry with E‐Bank, but both companies and their representative bodies worked independently of one another. Nevertheless, the in‐house representative body at Edinburgh Life, ELSA, operated under similar terms of reference, membership structure and in a comparable corporate culture as the staff association at the bank. ELSA was supported by senior management and HR specialists, reflected in a formal partnership agreement, and at least tolerated by line managers. One possible explanation of this support may arise from the perceived lack of influence (or threat) provided by ELSA. Until recently, management was not procedurally bound to consult formally with staff representatives. One representative recalled that:<disp-quote><p>They [management] used to do this sneaky thing where they would call us for an information session on something they had already made a decision on and then tell the staff that ELSA had been consulted when we had just been informed. If it was something staff didn't like they would be angry with ELSA but we had no say in the decision (Staff representative, Edinburgh Life).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Nevertheless, representatives and managers appreciated ELSA as a “barometer of how things will be received by the staff” and for “sharing information” as well as for articulating employee opinion before it coalesced into an “issue”. Both management and staff seemed inclined to support ELSA in preference to a trade union. Staff had been asked to vote if they wanted to keep ELSA as opposed to an external union, and in the words of one representative, the “staff wanted to keep ELSA”. However, there was little obvious enthusiasm among constituents for ELSA either. According to one representative, “at the election they were struggling to get nominations. I think it is a combination of staff not really bothered and lack of faith in ELSA.”</p><p>Managers appeared happy with this quiescent relationship, described by one as “good, co‐operative, but ELSA don't achieve much. They [management] use ELSA to bounce ideas off but they don't have a say. Consultative rather than negotiating.” Originally, senior management spearheaded ELSA, and, according to one representative, the General Manager “went through a huge exercise to promote ELSA to increase awareness”. The representative judged the relations between the company and ELSA as “very good. It's the organisation's baby. It invented it and gave it to staff to use.”</p><p>Consequently, it was difficult to find concrete evidence that ELSA had been instrumental in improving family‐friendly employment. The extended coverage of parental leave from five years to eight years was attributed to the influence of ELSA, but this “success” was scarcely commented upon by interview respondents. Some representatives cited the increase in company provision for paternity leave from three to five days as an example of ELSA's direct influence. In the words of one representative: “I'm not sure if paternity leave was actually promoted through ELSA, but it was brought up through ELSA.” One manager, however, stated the main reason that the number of days was increased “was on the basis of managers operating their discretion”, which seems to confirm ELSA's somewhat subsidiary role in initiating change. For this same manager, even when success could be attributed to ELSA, the link too ELSA was viewed as only partial:<disp-quote><p>I don't think things have been introduced because of ELSA. I think management would have introduced them anyway. ELSA is important for sharing information. It's shared up‐down, down‐up, up to a point (Manager, Edinburgh Life).</p></disp-quote></p><p>ELSA representatives received very little training in their general responsibilities and none in dealing with family‐friendly issues. Their operational role seemed limited to the occasional support of employees when disputing implementation of company policy or exercise of management discretion with their line managers. Nevertheless, these protective roles were carried out only rarely.</p></sec><sec><title>E‐bank</title><p>As with Edinburgh Life, the status of the representative body at policy decision‐making level at E‐Bank appeared to be greater than that at Castle Funds. According to staff representatives, ELSA had the support of the Director of E‐Bank, was “supported wholeheartedly by the Executive”, and Personnel was also reported to be “very pro ELSA”.</p><p>However, ELSA was valued by management principally as a communications mechanism and not in a formal decision‐making role. It was used to sound out policies before broadcasting them to staff. Employee representatives saw their role as one of information sharing, communications with staff, or even to “canvass for management” in the words of one representative. Although ELSA was consulted concerning new policies, it had no official remit in decision‐making. ELSA had enjoyed some successes regarding family‐friendly provisions. A database of employees looking for job shares had been established on the back of an ELSA suggestion. Changes to shift patterns had been modified after consultation with ELSA, and ELSA had brought up the issue of the entitlement of partners in same‐sex couples to partner's benefits under the company pension scheme – which the company accepted as policy.</p><p>However, while these successes suggested that ELSA influenced new policies, management's view was that “a lot of the time it is things that senior management would have done anyway” (Call Centre Manager, E‐Bank). This view was also recognised by the employee representatives:<disp-quote><p>We can't change very much because we're not a union. We say how the staff are feeling and then it is up to the company whether they take it on board and what they do about it … it is basically a management decision, we can give feedback but it is basically up to the manager (ELSA Representative, E‐Bank).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Therefore, while ELSA could raise issues with management, it had no formal influence to prevent these issues from being ignored.<disp-quote><p>We do push for things that we don't get, like childcare. We have pushed for a crèche on the premises and they have refused, saying it is because of insurance (ELSA Rep and Call Centre Team Manager, E‐Bank).</p></disp-quote></p><p>The above issues indicate that the actual influence of the employee representative body on family‐friendly decision‐making at E‐Bank was both informal and relatively weak: management controlled the agenda. It was clear that the representatives saw their role as one where they were not to “cause waves” or to “stir up trouble”. They did not go beyond their information sharing and advisory role:<disp-quote><p>A father asked me recently if he might be able to get time off to go to pre‐natal classes with his wife, I phoned Personnel for him and they said he would have to strike up a deal with his manager (ELSA Rep, E‐Bank).</p></disp-quote></p><p>While their informative role was emphasised, the paucity of decision‐making influence exerted by ELSA at all levels meant that “nine times out of ten we can't actually help, we can just give advice – they have to go to their managers” (ELSA Representative, E‐Bank). The relatively weak impact of ELSA on policies at E‐Bank might explain why one representative reported that staff were “not that bothered” about these representative arrangements.</p><p>Given the consultative role earmarked for ELSA, the policy decision‐making locus remained with senior management, and the operational decision‐making locus with line managers. Significantly, in contrast to ELSA's positive relations with senior management, the employee representatives and many of the line managers interviewed reported a distinctly negative atmosphere between line managers and ELSA. This impacted on the influence of the employee representative agency at the operational level of family‐friendly polices.</p></sec><sec><title>North Bank</title><p>Unlike Castle Funds and E‐Bank, the independent North Bank union had a formal input and influence over decision‐making at the central level and was “taken very seriously” by senior management. Yet, despite the union's formal input at policy level, Human Resource and line managers disagreed with the union representatives about its actual level of influence over implementing policy. They maintained that the company only implemented those policies raised by the union that it would have done anyway. In the end the “company has driven most of the family‐friendly provisions rather than being pushed into them by the union” (Equal Opportunities Manager, North Bank). The impression of union influence was created because the “union only succeeds where the company lets it... the company will go with the union when it suits them. The union is not as powerful as it might be” (Training Manager, North Bank). Even some employee representatives agreed with this view. One union representative reported that at national level, the company would “pretty much do everything to push what they want through”.</p><p>Despite the union's formal decision‐making input at national level, the relationship between union and line managers at North Bank looked different at the operational level: “the union doesn't have the same teeth that it does at national level” (Union Representative, North Bank). Some employee representatives reported far less positive experiences:<disp-quote><p>At local level you are definitely looked on by management as an interference (Union Rep, North Bank).</p></disp-quote></p><p>At the operational end of family‐friendly policy in particular, the influence of the union appeared to be significantly weaker. While at national level union decision‐making input was formalised and negotiative, at local level union representatives had no decision‐making role. Similar to the other case study sites, their role was to inform members of their rights as and when members came to them with problems. However, both this local level informative role and higher‐level union influence over national policy was weakened by the attitude of the members who were described as both apathetic and as fearful of rocking the boat.</p><p>The weakness of union influence was attributed to the membership's unwillingness to take action:<disp-quote><p>People don't even vote. Everybody moans but when it comes down to it they won't do anything about it (Branch manager, North Bank).</p></disp-quote></p><p>The lack of action by the membership was also attributed to a fear of confronting managers and a lack of job security among employees (and by default also among their representatives),<disp-quote><p>People are scared of conflict, particularly with the managers that they work with … (Union Rep, North Bank).</p></disp-quote><disp-quote><p>A lot of people will ask me for information and ask me not to do anything about it … people don't want to rock the boat (Union Rep, North Bank).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Therefore, despite the signs of union influence at national level, issues of relative power distribution between employees, union representatives, and their managers at branch level were having a significant impact on the operationalisation of family‐friendly policies within North Bank.</p><p>This unwillingness of local representatives to confront management over issues had implications for the union's ability to represent its members effectively in the face of management resistance. Some employee representatives may have been unintentionally allowing family‐friendly practice to diverge from union negotiated national policy. Even though formal family‐friendly provisions at North Bank were more extensive that in either Castle Funds or E‐Bank, the influence of union negotiated policies was diluted at branch level. This was the consequence of the membership's and employee representatives' reluctance or inability to engage in adversarial relations with management at North Bank.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Discussion</title><p>The study assessed the influence of different forms of organisational representation on the provision of family‐friendly employment policies. It questioned whether employees' lost voice was returning, and if so, under what conditions, and whether it was being listened to. The area of family‐friendly employment is one in which all the social partners have expressed positive interest, and the overall sectoral context was favourable.</p><p>Within this framework it emerged that the spread of initiatives and extent of codification were greater where independent unions were recognised. Similarly, the quality of initiatives to employees, e.g. in terms of paid leave, was higher than in companies with staff associations. There also tended to be consultative forums available to discuss family‐friendly issues. In small companies without formal representation there was a spread of initiatives, but these tended to be informal and subject to the individual discretion of managers. In all these cases, however, the extent of departure from minimal statutory levels of provision was not great.</p><p>Analysis of the profiled companies reveals that in all companies, irrespective of representative format, the prime impetus for management to introduce policies were business concerns, and especially concerns over recruitment and retention of scarce labour. Meeting legislative requirements was another, though less compelling factor. Managers largely interpreted family‐friendliness as equalling temporally flexible work arrangements and few attempts were made by companies to extend family leave provisions beyond the legal minima laid down in the Regulations. Where unions were recognised, there was little evidence of collective bargaining to establish family‐friendly arrangements, and perhaps for this reason, company representatives reported little pressure from union or staff association representatives regarding further family‐friendly concessions. As with the small companies noted above, line management discretion over implementing family‐friendly provisions and flexible working was prominent.</p><p>Even in a unionised setting where four‐fifths of employees were union members, the level of representative influence was highly circumscribed. Bearing in mind the degree to which discretion over policies was delegated to immediate line managers, lack of influence at this level is an important factor. This weakness was further compounded by the lack of training and degree of ignorance exhibited by line managers about employee leave rights offered by the Regulations (see also <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Bond <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>). Further, little, if any training by representatives in family‐friendly issues was reported by employee representatives. It is perhaps not surprising that in none of the companies survey respondents cited employee representatives as important sources of information on family‐friendly provisions (see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Bond <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>, p. 61). Even at wider establishment or organisational levels, the influence of union or staff association was questionable. Many managers commented that their companies only introduced those initiatives that they wanted. The consequences of this dominance can be seen in the greater incidence of flexible working approaches designed to enhance operational capability.</p><p>Derived from the HR agenda of direct participation, one possibility is that individual employees were empowered to negotiate individually with their managers over work‐family issues. Survey respondents in the four case studies were asked to indicate their perceived levels of involvement in decision‐making in the provision and practice of family‐friendly provisions and atypical working practices in the organisations. Few respondents felt that they were able to make a difference to the sorts of family‐friendly arrangements introduced in their organisation. There were marginal differences between the organisations: 19 per cent of respondents at Castle Funds, 12 per cent at E‐Bank and North Bank and only 8 per cent at Edinburgh Life felt they could influence family‐friendly provisions. The majority of employees at Castle Funds were professionally qualified, and the culture emphasised a strong individualistic ethos to their work. The company was also faced with considerable competition for the services of these staff, so it is not surprising that a higher proportion of individual employees at Castle Funds felt able to influence policies. Over half the respondents across all organisations were of the opinion that: “I am never asked my views about family‐friendly working arrangements available in the workplace”. There were no appreciable differences between organisations.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>This article pursued two research questions: whether employees have a voice over work‐life issues and, if so, how instrumental this voice is in helping to establish family‐friendly employment policies within organisations. With regard to the first question, and echoing recent WERS analysis, it found that employees do have voice of some kind in financial sector services (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Kersely <italic>et al.</italic>, 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">Gall, 2001</xref>). In larger organisations the dominant voice tends to be a collective one, expressed either through independent trade unions or by employer‐supported staff associations. Typically, smaller enterprises lack collective means of expression, though there was some evidence of direct communication between individual employees and their employers. Family‐friendly policies appeared to be more widespread and more deeply embedded in enterprises that recognised unions. This association of course does not <italic>a priori</italic> infer that unions have a more effective voice. The four case studies examined the influence of different arrangements for articulating employee voice in greater detail. Both management accounts and the existing family‐friendly arrangements showed little indication of significant operational impact by trade unions, staff associations or individual employees.</p><p>This study predates the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations, resulting from the 2002 EU Directive. Nevertheless, the identified structural constraints suggest that this new requirement is unlikely to make a large impact in the short time it has been in place.</p><p>Several factors help to explain the apparent poverty of influence. In all four companies, line managers were offered the discretion or prerogative to apply policies according to organisational or even departmental needs. Employees and their representatives abided by this situation without challenge, suggesting an acceptance of the hegemony of “management's right to manage” and employee tolerance of private responsibility for work‐life balance. Where the union was recognised, acceptance was compounded by a general accommodative stance toward the employer and by absence of negotiation over family or domestic issues, which accords with the findings of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">Lindsay <italic>et al.</italic> (2005)</xref> on the variability of equal opportunities policy approaches within Scottish trade unions. Although many local reps were female, there was patchy awareness of work‐life policy or legislation. Invariably, the union would be involved through consultative or informative discussions, rather than by collective bargaining. Even if union representatives had been willing to confront managers in a more assertive way, for example over the lack of uniformity of provision associated with the differential exercise of managerial discretionary powers, they were well aware (as were managers) of the overall apathy or passivity of their members. Yet despite a relatively tight labour market and management claims that work‐life balance policy was prompted by recruitment and retention concerns, employees at North Bank were sensitive about “rocking the boat” and had accepted the notion of job insecurity – which ultimately supported management's control over their working time. Without strong member support, representatives would have limited opportunities and few resources with which to pressure managers to codify or to enhance company family‐friendly arrangements. A final component emerging from the case studies is that many managers (and some trade unions, see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Bond <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>) continue to adopt a gendered and possibly marginalised perspective of work‐life issues, indicating not just a management hegemony but a broader male/cultural hegemony of the traditional breadwinner, full‐time employee model which recent weak legislation and the current voluntarist approach to work‐life issues has done little to alter.</p><p>Though the union role was not palpably developed, levels of accommodation were higher and overall provision lower where staff associations formed the main instrument for employee voice. There were, however, instances at the small fund management company of individual employees negotiating informal arrangements with their managers to suit their individual circumstances. It should be borne in mind though, that labour at the “professional” end of the financial services sector has been in short supply, and that high proportions of these staff were highly educated, independent and assertive professionals operating in a tight labour market. In all cases, indeed, the major factor influencing employers to implement or extend family‐friendly policies has not been collective or individual employee pressures but labour market conditions backed by minimal statutory requirements.</p><p>The management of time is an essential workplace process over which employees, especially those with domestic responsibilities, need a measure of control in order to combat tensions between the demands of work and home. Evidence from the finance sector indicates that despite some softening of the political climate toward trade unions and a sectoral environment typified by scarcity of labour, there is little evidence that employees, whether individually or acting collectively, have been able to make any significant impressions on the work‐life agendas of companies. Earlier research has indicated that long working hours, another major dimension of potential work‐life conflict, have scarcely been touched either by the Working Time Regulations or by high‐profile concerns expressed in the media and elsewhere. In terms of work‐life balance and family‐friendly working (and indirectly, equal opportunities) the evidence suggests that the voices of employees remain firmly muted in this growing sector of the economy.</p></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0190290404001"><label><bold>Table I<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Family‐friendly provisions and presence of employee representation</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0190290404001.tif"></graphic></fig></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bond</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hyman</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Summers</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wise</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>Family Friendly Working? Putting Policy into Practice</italic></source>, <publisher-name>York Publishing Services</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>York</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bradley</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Erikson</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Stephenson</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Williams</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Myths at Work</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Polity Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Cambridge</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cooper</surname>, <given-names>C. (ed.</given-names><given-names>)</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Theories of Organizational Stress</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cully</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Woodland</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>O'Reilly</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dix</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Britain at Work</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dawson</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Understanding Organizational Change</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dex</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Smith</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>The Nature and Pattern of Family‐Friendly Employment Policies in Britain</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Policy Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Bristol</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Franks</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Having None of it: Women, Men and the Future of Work</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Granta</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gall</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>From adversarialism to partnership? Trade unionism and industrial relations in the banking sector in Britain</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Employee Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>253</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>75</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Green</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>It's been a hard day's night: the concentration and intensification of work in late twentieth century Britain</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>39</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>53</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>80</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hardy</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Adnett</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>The parental leave directive: towards a family‐friendly social Europe?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>European Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>157</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>72</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Heery</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>The re‐launch of the Trades Union Congress</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>36</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>339</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>60</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hyman</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Scholarios</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Baldry</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Getting on or getting by? Employee flexibility and coping strategies for home and work</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Work, Employment & Society</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>19</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>705</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>26</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hyman</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Baldry</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Scholarios</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bunzel</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Work life imbalance in call centres and software development</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>41</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>215</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>39</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kersley</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Alpin</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Forth</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bryson</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bewly</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dix</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Oxenbridge</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), <source><italic>Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Labour Research Department</string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Parental and Dependency Leave</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Labour Research Department</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lindsay</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Munro</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wise</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), <italic>Scottish Trade Unions' Approaches to Equalities: A Mapping Study</italic>, Research Report for STUC, One Workplace Project.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McKay</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Annual Review Article, Between flexibility and regulation: rights, equality and protection at work</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>39</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>285</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>303</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Marchington</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Teamworking and employee involvement: terminology, evaluation and context</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Procter</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Mueller</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Teamworking</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Macmilllan</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Basingstoke</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Millward</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bryson</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Forth</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>All Change at Work?</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Basingstoke</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nolan</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Marginson</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Skating on thin ice? David Metcalf on trade unions and productivity</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>28</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>227</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>48</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Roper</surname>, <given-names>I.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cunningham</surname>, <given-names>I.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>James</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Promoting family friendly policies: is the basis of the government's ethical standpoint viable?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Personnel Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>211</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>30</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Taylor</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>The Future of Employment Relations</italic></source>, Future of Work Programme Seminar Series, Economic and Social Research Council, <publisher-loc>Swindon</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Waddington</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Whiston</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Why do people join unions in a period of membership decline?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>515</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>46</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Williams</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>The nature of some recent trade union modernization policies in the UK</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>495</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>514</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Yates</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Challenging misconceptions about organizing women into unions</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Gender, Work and Organisation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>13</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>565</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>84</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><ref-list><title>Further Reading</title><ref id="frg1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab><italic>Bargaining Report</italic></collab></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Parental Leave and Pay</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bargaining Report</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>227</volume>, <issue>May</issue>, pp. <fpage>7</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app id="APP1"><title>About the authors</title><p>Jeff Hyman is Professor of Management in the Department of Management Studies, University of Aberdeen. He can be contacted at j.hyman@abdn.ac.uk</p><p>Juliette Summers is Lecturer in Human Resource Management in the Department Management, University of Stirling. She can be contacted at jcs1@stir.ac.uk</p></app></app-group></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Work and life can employee representation influence balance</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Work and life can employee representation influence balance</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Doris</namePart><namePart type="family">Ruth Eikhof</namePart><affiliation>University of Stirling, UK University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Doris</namePart><namePart type="family">Ruth Eikhof</namePart><affiliation>University of Stirling, UK University of Strathclyde, UK and University of Trier, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">editor</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jeff</namePart><namePart type="family">Hyman</namePart><affiliation>Department of Management Studies, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Juliette</namePart><namePart type="family">Summers</namePart><affiliation>Department of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007-07-13</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the influence of different forms of organisational representation on the provision of worklife balance employment policies. Designmethodologyapproach The article uses onsite semistructured interviews with employees, HR and line managers and trade union representatives in four case studies as well as survey responses from a total of 17 institutions in the financial services sector. Findings Employees do influence worklife balance issues in the financial services sector, and worklife balance initiatives had greater breadth, codification and quality where independent unions were recognised. In all cases however, the extent of departure from minimal statutory levels of provision was not great. Research limitationsimplications The nature of the study and its focus on Scotland may limit the generalisability of the findings into other sectors or regions. Practical implications In light of the evolving worklife balance legislative framework, this article should be of practical interest to trade unions, practitioners and academics. It demonstrates that organisations and unions need to retain and develop a focus on worklife balance applications. Originalityvalue The article indicates the prevalence of management control of the worklife balance agenda and management's discretion in the operation of worklife issues. Employees and their representatives accepted this control, and their private individualised responsibility for balancing work and life, without challenge. These results inform current understanding of how worklife balance legislation, based on a voluntarist agenda, translates into practice.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Job satisfaction</topic><topic>Trade unions</topic><topic>Employee participation</topic><topic>Human resource management</topic><topic>Financial services</topic><topic>Scotland</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Employee Relations</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-HOB">HR & organizational behaviour</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-ELAW">Employment law</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-ILR">Industrial/labour relations</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0142-5455</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">er</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/er</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="title"><title>What work What life What balance Critical reflections on the worklife balance debate</title></detail><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>367</start><end>384</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/01425450710759208</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">0190290404</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">0190290404.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">01425450710759208.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001C16 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001C16 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:061CD45B429E2C3EE0FA47E17E8A4E79078FD514
|texte= Work and life can employee representation influence balance
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |