探索酒店员工参与和工作环境：来自丹麦和新西兰的案例研究

Abstract  摘要

我们探索的直接表现形式对工作环境的质量参与的基础上，每两个酒店在新西兰和丹麦多方法的案例研究的相对影响。直接参与程度是在新西兰的酒店更高，然而，工作量和应力比在丹麦那些高。这证实了文献是否问题参与始终是工作环境有利。在另一方面，参与的代表形式的出现提供了更多的机会，因为在这项研究的丹麦员工更优质的工作环境（QWE）享受通过集体谈判与合作委员会更大的影响力，而且比新西兰人经验较少的工作量压力。We explore the relative impact of direct and representative forms of participation on quality of the work environment, based on multi-method case studies of two hotels each in New Zealand and Denmark. The degree of direct participation is higher at the New Zealand hotels, yet, workload and stress is higher than in the Danish ones. This confirms literature that questions whether participation is always beneficial to the work environment. On the other hand, representative forms of participation appear to offer greater opportunities for a better quality of work environment (QWE) since Danish employees in this study enjoy greater influence through collective bargaining and cooperation committees, and experience less workload stress than the New Zealanders.  

Introduction  介绍

这是在文献中员工的参与是密切相关的工作环境（QWE）或相关的概念，如员工福利或工作满意度的质量很好的描述。虽然研究首当其冲表明，参与扮演着在工作环境中的积极作用，也有发现，表明呈负相关。正是考虑到这一点，在酒店业的丹麦和新西兰的工作场所这一比较研究的目的是为更广泛的项目包括来自各个部门（努森及马基，，2014年）的工作场所的一部分。我们的目的是调查员工参与和工作环境质量之间的关系，通过案例研究在一些工作场所的性质。这项研究分析了参与直接和代表性的形式。It is well described in the literature that employee participation is closely linked to the quality of work environment (QWE) or related concepts, such as employee well-being or job satisfaction. Whilst the brunt of research suggests that participation plays a positive role in the work environment, there are also findings that indicate a negative association. It was with this in mind that this comparative study of Danish and New Zealand workplaces in the hotel sector was undertaken as part of a wider project including workplaces from a range of sectors (Knudsen & Markey, 2014). Our aim was to investigate the nature of the relationship between employee participation and work environment quality through case studies in a number of workplaces. The study analysed both direct and representative forms of participation.  
The field of comparative employment relations is generally underdeveloped (Barry & Wilkinson, 2011). One of the most common approaches is through comparison of employment relations themes across different countries; some consider a number of themes (Bean, 1985; Eaton, 2000), but the “extent of comparison … is patchy or underdeveloped” (Barry & Wilkinson, 2011: 3) and the themes broad and necessarily selective. Other comparisons focus on single issues, such as trade unions, but these are normally institutionally based (Fairbrother & Yates, 2003; Frege & Kelly, 2004; Verma & Kochan, 2004; Frege, 2007). Very few comparative studies focus on non-institutional themes at the organisational, rather than general level, through case studies that allow detailed analysis.  The rationale for these national case study comparisons was founded on important similarities, but contrasting systems of employee participation. New Zealand and Denmark are of similar size and industry structure. Some critical contributors to the work environment, notably work/life balance and occupational health and safety (OHS) problems, including stress, have recently been major policy concerns in both countries. However, the range and depth of representative employee participation is greater in Denmark than New Zealand, and a comparison allows consideration of the possible impact of this variable.  The article is structured as follows. First, it presents a review of the literature on employee participation, followed by a brief section on how participation interacts with work environment quality. The next section deals with main features of industrial relations in New Zealand and Denmark respectively, with a special view on the hotel sector. This is followed by a section on methodology, which also includes a brief description of the four case hotels. Subsequently, the findings of the study are presented; this includes data regarding participation and work environment, and then associations between the two datasets are explored. Finally, the conclusion highlights the main findings and discusses these against relevant parts of the literature. Our main focus is to establish whether various forms of participation impact positively or negatively on the quality of the work environment.   


Employee participation  
Employee participation and work environment quality  
Employee relations and employee participation in Denmark and New Zealand  
The hotel sector  
Methodology  
Findings 
 
Conclusion  总结

Obviously, the empirical material that this article is based upon is not sufficient to generalise. Material from two cases in each of the two countries cannot represent either the industry or the country. However, a few remarks on how the pattern of participation unfolds in these four cases in two countries are appropriate.  On average, we find work environment quality to be slightly better at the Danish hotels. Can this be explained by the fact that Danish hotel workers enjoy more direct participation at their workplaces than their New Zealand colleagues? The answer to this question is: No! Regarding direct participation, our data show that the New Zealand employees, with few exceptions, are equipped with a higher degree of influence, learning and information sharing than the Danes; however, they also experienced relatively high stress levels in this environment. The findings, thus, lend support to the participation literature that questions the notion of participation as always beneficial to the work environment and workers’ well-being (Busck et al., 2010, Kalleberg et al., 2009).  The problem, as we see it, with the high level ofparticipation granted to the New Zealand hotel workers is that it is all granted on the premises of management. The New Zealand employees receive information, they enjoy learning opportunities, and they get influence on their immediate work  
environment, but they have no influence on any of the important framework conditions of work (cf. Hyman & Mason, 1995). In other words, the form of participation practised in the New Zealand hotels is what Pateman (1970) called “pseudo”, or what Hyman and Mason (1995) characterised as employee involvement, motivated by management desire for organisational efficiency through employee motivation. “Pseudo” participation or employee involvement, then, is not necessarily associated with better QWE.  Influence on the framework conditions of work is available to a considerable extent in the Danish hotels through the fact that workers there are covered by a national collective agreement, which contains a number of limitations to employers’ ability to freely exploit labour power. This may be characterised as Pateman’s “partial” participation, or what Hyman and Mason (1995) called employee participation. When Danish workers can be seen to score better on the questions related to workload and stress, this could very well be a reflection of the stronger forms of representative participation enjoyed by the Danish employees, notably because they are covered by a collective agreement, but also perhaps due to the dialogues occurring in the cooperation and OHS committees.  This brings us to an evaluation of the relative strength of participation in its different manifestations in the New Zealand and Danish hotels, using Blyton and Turnbull’s (2004) terms of depth and scope. The partial participation operating in the Danish hotels, through representative structures associated with the collective agreement and cooperation and OHS committees, provided greater depth of participation than in the New Zealand hotels with their relatively higher degree of direct, or “pseudo”, participation focused on task autonomy, information sharing and learning. We may also say, for the same reasons, that the scope of participation in the Danish hotels was greater than the New Zealand ones, since the latter cases confined participation to operational matters. In contrast, the Danish cases, to some extent, involved workers and their representatives in tactical matters related to work organisation and technology, if not more strategic issues. The Danish hotels, indeed, provided instances of very partial participation because the weak level of workplace representation meant that most consultation and negotiation occurred at a higher level in the organisation. Nevertheless, overall, these greater opportunities for participation contributed to a greater depth and scope and, therefore, strength of participation in the Danish hotels.  Two main conclusions may, therefore, be drawn from these case studies. First, by themselves, direct forms of participation that closely align with Pateman’s (1970) concept of “pseudo” participation do not necessarily lead to good QWE, and may even be associated with a poor QWE through work intensification. Secondly, representative forms of participation, even if partial, appear to offer greater opportunities for a better QWE. This distinction in terms of the impact on QWE warrants further exploration, through case studies and more general quantitative research, particularly in terms of the degree of impact from stronger and weaker structures of representative participation.   

Acknowledgements  致谢

The Danish part of this study received financial support from the Danish Work Environment Research Foundation (Arbejdsmilj.forskningsfonden). The New Zealand part of the study received financial support from the New Zealand Department of Labour.    

References  文献

Andersen V., Bramming P., & Nielsen F. (2008). Arbejdsmilj. for fremtiden. .je p. arbejdsmilj.et. Copenhagen: LO (Landsorganisationen I Danmark).Innovative workplace practices and occupational injuries and illnesses in the USA. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22(4): 485-516.  Barry, M. & Wilkinson, A. (2011). Reconceptualising Employer Associations under Evolving Employment Relations: countervailing power revisited. Work, Employment and Society, 25(1): 149-162  Bean, R. (1985). Comparative Employment Relations. London: Croom Helm.  Bernard, E. (1995). Canada: Joint committees on occupational health and safety. In J. Rogers & W. Streeck (eds.), Works councils: consultation, representation, and cooperation in industrial relations (pp.351-374). Chicago: University of Chicago Press  Blumenfeld, S. (2010). Collective bargaining. In E. Rasmussen. (ed.), Employment Relationships: Workers, Unions and Employers in New Zealand (pp.40-55). Auckland: Auckland University Press  Blumenfeld, S., & Ryall, S. (2013). New Zealand union membership 2006-12. The Employment Agreement. Wellington: Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, Issue 41: October.  Blyton, P., & Turnbull, P. (2004). The Dynamics of Employee Relations. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.  Boxall, P., Haynes, P., & Macky, K. (2007), Employee voice and voicelessness in New Zealand. In R. Freeman, P. Boxall & P. Haynes (eds.), What Workers Say. Employee Voice in the Anglo-American Workplace (pp.145-165). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press  Boxall, P., Macky, K., & Rasmussen, E. (2003). Labour turnover and retention in NZ: The causes and consequences of leaving and staying with employers. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 41(2): 195-214.  Busck, O., Knudsen, H., & Lind, J. (2010). The transformation of employee participation: Consequences for the work environment. Economic andIndustrial Democracy, 31(3): 285-306  CASA (Center for Alternativ Samfundsanalyse), (2002). Sundhed og arbejdsmilj. i hotel- og restaurationsbranchen, K.benhavn: CASA.  Department of Labour (2002). Fact sheet: Employee participation systems. 
Eaton, A., & Nocerino, T. (2000). The effectiveness of health and safety committees: Results of a survey of public-sector workplaces the effectiveness of health and safety committees. Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(2): 265-90.  Eller N.H. (2003). Pr.sentation af anstrengelses-bel.nningsmodellen [the ‘effort reward model’] – den nye stressmodel. Ugeskrift for L.ger, 165(40): 3815-3820  Eriksson, T., & Li, J. (2008). Restructuring meets Flexicurity: Housekeeping work in Danish hotels. In N. Westergaard-Nielsen (ed.), Low-wage work in Denmark (pp.186-217). New York: Russell Sage Ernst & Young (2013). The Hospitality Sector in Europe: An assessment of the economic contribution of the hospitality sector across 31 countries. [Report commissioned by The Brewers of Europe with support from HOTREC]Trade Unions in Renewal: A Comparative Study. London: Routledge.  Foley J.R., & Polanyi, M. (2006). Workplace democracy: Why bother? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 27(1): 173-191  Foster, B., Rasmussen, E., & Coetzee, D. (2013). Ideology versus reality: New Zealand employer attitudes to legislative change of employment relations. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 37(3): 50-64  Frege, C. (2007). Employment Research and State Traditions: A Comparative History of Britain, Germany and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Frege, C., & Kelly, J. (eds) (2004). Varieties of Unionism: Comparative Strategies for Union Renewal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Geare, A., Edgar, F., McAndrew, I., Harney, B., Cafferkey, K., & Dundon, T. (2014). Exploring the ideological undercurrents of HRM: workplace values and beliefs in Ireland and New Zealand. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(16): 2275-2294.  Harris, L.A. (2011). Legislation for participation: An overview of New Zealand’s health and safety representative employee participation system. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 36(2): 45-60  Harrison, D., & Legendre, C. (2003). Technological innovations, organizational change and workplace accident prevention. Safety Science, 41: 319-348  Haworth, N. (2004). Beyond the Employment Relations Act: The wider agenda for employment relations and social equity in New Zealand. In E. Rasmussen (ed.), Employment Relationships: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act (pp.190-205). Auckland: Auckland University Press   
Hay, D.M. (2003). Employee Participation: A Handbook for Health and Safety Representatives. Palmerston North: Workplace Press.  Haynes, P., Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2005). Non-union voice and the effectiveness of joint consultation in NewZealand. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26 (2): 229-256.  Heller, F. (1998a). Playing the devil’s advocate: limits to information sharing in theory and practice. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G. Strauss & B. Wilpert (eds.), Organizational participation. Myth and Reality (pp.144-189). New York: Oxford University Press  Heller, F. (1998b). Myth and reality: valediction. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G. Strauss & B. Wilpert (eds.), Organizational Participation. Myth and Reality (pp.220-249). New York: Oxford University Press  Human Resources Institute of New Zealand (2012). The 2012 New Zealand Staff Turnover Survey.  Managing Employee Involvement and Participation. London: Sage.  J.rgensen, C. (2012). Employment and Industrial Relations in the Hotels and Restaurants: Denmark.  Kalleberg, A.L., Nesheim, T., & Olsen, K.M. (2009). Is participation good or bad for workers? Effects of autonomy, consultation and teamwork on stress among workers in Norway. Acta Sociologica, 52(2): 99-116  Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books  Klein Hesselink, J. (2004). EU hotel and restaurant sector: Work and employment conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions  Knudsen, H. (1995). Employee Participation in Europe. Sage: London.  Knudsen, H., & Markey, R. (2014). Employee participation and quality of work environment: Denmark and New Zealand. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 30(1): 105-126  Kristensen, T.S., Hannerz, H., H.gh, A., & Borg, V. (2005). The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire – a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 31(6): 438-449  Lamm, F. (2010). Participative and productive employment relations: the role of health and safety committees and worker representation. In E. Rasmussen (eds.), Employment Relationships: Workers, Unions and Employers in New Zealand (pp.168-184). Auckland: Auckland University Press  
 Lamm, F., Rasmussen, E. & Anderson, A. (2013a). The Case of the Disappearing Department of Labour: Whither goes state protection for vulnerable workers. In M. Sargeant and M. Ori. (eds.) Vulnerable Workers and Precarious Working. (pp. 184-219). Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne Lamm, F., Frick, K., Jamieson, S., Martin, C. & Donnell, N. (2013b). Editors’ Note: Managing Occupational Health and Safety in Culturally Diverse Workplaces. Special Issue of Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 11(1): 3-17.  Lind, J. (1995). The modernisation of trade unions in Denmark. Transfer, 1(1): 44-63  LO (Landsorganisationen i Danmark). (2011). Udfordringerne for den danske model, K.benhavn, LO.  Lo, K., & Lamm, F. (2005). Occupational stress in the hospitality industry – an employment relations perspective. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 30(1): 23-48.  Marchington, M. (2005). Employee involvement: Patterns and explanations. In B. Harley, J. Hayman, P. Thompson. (eds.), Participation and Democracy at work: essays in honour of Harvie Ramsay (pp.20-36). London: Palgrave.  Markey, R., Gollan, P., Hodgkinson, A., Chouraqui, A., & Veersma, U. (eds.) (2001). Models of Employee Participation in a Changing Global Environment – diversity and interaction. Aldershot: Ashgate.  Nichols, T., Walters, D., & Tasiran, A. (2007). Trade unions, institutional mediation and industrial safety: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(2): 211-25  NZTRI (New Zealand Tourism Research Institute), (2007). Food and Beverage Service Sector Productivity Study, New Zealand. Auckland: Department of Labour  Oxenbridge, S., & Moensted, M. (2011). The relationship between payment systems, work intensification and health and safety outcomes: a study of hotel room attendants. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 9(2): 7-26.  Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Ramsay, H. (1977). Cycles of control: Worker participation in sociological and historical perspective. Sociology, 11(3): 481-506.  Ravenswood, K., Harris, C., Williamson, D., & Markey, R. (2013), ‘Missing in action: building a case for culturally diverse OSH committees in New Zealand hotels’, Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 11(1): 45-59.  Statistics New Zealand (2007). Household Labour Force Survey: December Quarter 2007. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.   
Statistics New Zealand (n.d). Tourism satellite account: 2013.  Unions in the 21st Century. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.  Visser, J. (2009). The ICTWSS Database: Database on Institutional Characteristics of Trade Unions, Wage Setting, State Intervention and Social Pacts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.  Wall, T., & Lischeron, J. (1977). Worker participation: A critique of the literature and some fresh evidence. London: McGraw-Hill.  Walters, D., & Frick. K. (2000). Worker participation in the management of occupational health and safety: Reinforcing or conflicting strategies’, in K. Frick, P.L. Jensen, P.L, M.Quinlan & T. Wilthagen (eds), Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management: Perspectives on an International Development (pp.43-66). Oxford: Pergamon  Walters D., & Nichols T. (2007). Worker Representation and Workplace Health and Safety. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  Walters, D., Nichols, T., Connor, J., Tasiran, A., & Cam, S. (2005). The role and effectiveness of safety representatives in influencing workplace health and safety. Research Report 363, London: UK Health and Safety Executive.  Wedderburn, A. (2006). Shift Work and Health. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European  Whiteford, A., & Nolan, M. (2007). A Employment Profile of the Hospitality Industry. [A report to the Hospitality Standards Institute].