'Zones of contention' in industrial relations: Framingpluralismas praxis

This article addresses debates in contemporary industrial relations about practical application ofpluralism. We compare the potential efficacy of 'radical-pluralism' and 'neo-pluralism'. Data comes from analysis of employment relationships in two unionised public transport sector organisations, in the comparative country contexts of the UK and Republic of Ireland. It is argued that radical-pluralist framing of the employment relationship is better equipped than neo-pluralism to provide deeper and contextually sensitive understandings of the realities of unequal employment relationships. Desired (pluralist) democratic values differ from real world application of joint regulation (praxis). This raises implications regarding constraints on state regulation and public policy goals institutionalising pluralism as fluid and uneven praxis.

Automated summary

The article discusses the practical application of pluralism in contemporary industrial relations, comparing the efficacy of radical-pluralism and neo-pluralism. It argues that radical-pluralism provides a deeper and contextually sensitive understanding of unequal employment relationships compared to neo-pluralism. The discrepancy between desired democratic values of pluralism and the real-world application of joint regulation raises implications for state regulation and public policy goals in institutionalizing pluralism as a fluid and uneven practice.