外文翻譯--雇主和雇員之間的自愿合作關(guān)系能夠滿足員工表達(dá)自我意愿的權(quán)力嗎[（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　2400單詞，1.4萬英文字符，4500漢字</p><p>　　出處：Buren H J V, Greenwood M. Enhancing Employee Voice: Are Voluntary Employer-Employee Partnerships Enough?[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2008, 81(1):209-221.<

2、/p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)）</p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　題 目 </p><p>　　學(xué) 院

3、 </p><p>　　專 業(yè) 人力資源管理 </p><p>　　班 級(jí) </p><p>　　學(xué) 號(hào)

4、 </p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名 </p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師 </p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><

5、;p>　　Enhancing Employee Voice: Are Voluntary Employer– Employee Partnerships Enough?</p><p>　　Harry J. Van Buren，Michelle Greenwood</p><p>　　Summary：One of the essential ethical issues in the

6、 employment relationship is the loss of employee voice. Many of the ways employees have previously exercised voice in the employment relationship have been rendered less effective by (1)the changing nature of work, (2) e

7、mployer preferences for flexibility that often work to the disadvantage of employees, and (3) changes in public policy and institutional systems that have failed to protect workers. We will begin with a discussion of how

8、 work has </p><p>　　KEY WORDS: employment, unions, partnerships, consent</p><p>　　Much has changed in the employment relationship in the last 20 years. Work has become increasingly globalized. R

9、eturns to education for employees have increased; employees with low levels of education compete with many others worldwide for low wages while employees with high levels of education still experience wage increases. Com

10、panies in developed countries like Australia and the United States have increasingly moved into service-and information-oriented industries; manufacturing(including agr</p><p>　　One of the essential ethical

11、issues in the employment relationship is the loss of employee voice–the ability of employees to raise concerns and to negotiate about the terms of exchange with their employers(including wages, working conditions, and so

12、 on)and to negotiate changes thereof. In the past, many employees exercised voice in the employment relationship through membership in a union that bargained collectively on their behalf. But unions have declined in impo

13、rtance in the private sector in</p><p>　　Often lost in discussions about the utility of changing employment patterns is a discussion of the ethical principles that should underpin employer–employee relations

14、hips. Much of the literature on employment practices has considered whether particular kinds of practices are good or bad for employers (Roehling et al.,2000) or employees (Berg, Kalleberg, and Appelbaum,2003;Guest and C

15、onway , 1999).Our analysis will begin with a discussion of how work has changed in the last 20 years in countries </p><p>　　How have employment practices changed in the last 20 years?</p><p>　　E

16、mployment practices have changed radically in the last 20 years. Such changes can be ascribed to a variety of factors. Corporations are increasingly using labor from multiple countries. Employers have sought greater flex

17、ibility in hiring, firing, and deploying workers .There have also been vast changes in terms of public policy and institutional systems to protect workers. All of these changes together help explain how work–and employee

18、 treatment–has changed in the last 20 years.</p><p>　　The use of labor from multiple countries</p><p>　　It is well established that many corporations use labor from multiple countries, whether i

19、n their own operations or indirectly through the use of suppliers (Kaplinsky,2004; Williamson,1998). At one time, globalization was largely thought to affect manufacturing employment primarily. However, globalization has

20、 increasingly affected professional-and service-class jobs (Jang,2005;Ostry and Spiegel, 2004). Scheve and Slaughter(2004) argue that globalization of labor markets has increased the volatil</p><p>　　The eff

21、ects of globalized labor markets on employee voice are 2-fold.First,as an organization’s employees and suppliers are spread across many different countries, it is harder for them to coordinate action and to exercise voic

22、e(including using collective bargaining)than if they are all concentrated in one country. The use of labor from multiple countries therefore decreases dependence on any one labor source, with negative effects on the abil

23、ity of employees in any one locale to exercise voice.</p><p>　　It is true that there can be salutary effects of capital flows to developing countries. However, competition for capital therefore causes many p

24、olitical leaders(whether concerned about the fate of their citizens or not)to bid down for capital, lowering worker protections and effective wage levels as a result(Stiglitz,2000).A practical effect of globalization is

25、the creation of opportunities for employers to exploit employees. It is not necessary in many cases for a company actually to move from </p><p>　　Employer preferences for flexibility</p><p>　　Ca

26、vanaugh and Noe(1999) suggest that the dominant model for contemporary employment practices in the United States includes three components: personal responsibility for career development, commitment to a particular kind

27、of work rather than a particular employer, and an expectation of job insecurity. From the employer’s perspective, such a model of employment transforms labor relationships from long-term relationships to short-term trans

28、actions.</p><p>　　More interesting for the present analysis is the decline in internal labor markets and the corresponding costs imposed on employees. Internal labor markets have traditionally served the int

29、erests of employers and employees: employers benefit by having access to a pool of labor that(1)has knowledge of the organization and(2)can be categorized in terms of skills and abilities that particular organizations ne

30、ed, while employees benefit by being able to construct career ladders within a single organ</p><p>　　Employers increasingly want to avoid such costs, as employment practices like downsizing and the use of co

31、ntingent workforces illustrate (Leana and Van Buren,1999). Employees, however, generally prefer more stable employment relationships(Freeman and Rogers, 1999).Transitions between employers are not always easily navigated

32、 by employees, even under the best of circumstances; there are personal and financial costs associated with finding a new job. Further, some individuals–especially older peop</p><p>　　Changes in public polic

33、y and institutional systems</p><p>　　In many countries oriented toward neo-liberal economics–including Australia and the United States–legislation in the middle part of the 20th century sought to expand righ

34、ts for workers, including collective-bargaining rights. The high water mark of employee rights in the United States, for example, with regard to collective bargaining and unionization came in the 1950s and 1960s, and hav

35、e steadily eroded ever since(Morris, 2005).For a variety of reasons–changes in employer preferences, globaliz</p><p>　　The cumulative effects of labor union decline have left a void in worker voice at work,

36、 eroded the standard of living in America, and weakened our democracy. Standard calls for union resurgence–to put forth more resources toward traditional union organizing, to reform labor law, or even to promote greater

37、dialogue, cooperation, or consensus between business and labor–have not worked and will not on their own reverse the decline in worker voice.</p><p>　　Imbalances in power between employers and employees help

38、 to explain why employee voice and the likelihood of employee collective action have both declined over time. Our analysis in this article is primarily normative in nature; analyses of whether particular employment pract

39、ices are good or bad for employers are beyond the scope of this article. There is some evidence that high-involvement and-commitment employment practices have positive effects for employers and employees (Appelbaum et al

40、.,20</p><p>　　Employees as organizational stakeholders and the ethical duties owed them</p><p>　　Employees have long been recognized as organizational stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984

41、; Van Buren, 2003). We propose that the particular moral claims of employees should have practical effects on their abilities to exercise voice in the employment relationship, but it is first important to define what we

42、mean by “voice ”and “fairness”. </p><p>　　By “voice” we mean that employees are able to in some way participate meaningfully in creating and changing the terms of the employment relationship. We recognize th

43、at the modifier “meaningfully” is subject to interpretation and is therefore imprecise, but we believe that the utility of voice in the employment relationship involves participation by employees in setting the terms of

44、employment instead of allowing employers to set the terms of employment unilaterally. Adams(2005)notes that voice o</p><p>　　Voice has collective and individual components (Budd,2004).Collective voice is bes

45、t understood in terms of unionization and collective bargaining. Individual voice involves the direct relationship between a particular employee and an employer. Collective and individual voice together are arguably comp

46、lements rather than substitutes; without collective voice, it is unlikely that individual voice can be freely exercised. That said, collective voice has been the traditional focus of enhancing emplo</p><p>　

47、　By ‘‘fairness,’’ we simply mean procedural (fair procedures for structuring the employment relationship–including hiring and promotion) and distributive (who gets the benefits of economic activity) fairness. Van Buren(2

48、001)notes that there is a relationship between stakeholder participation in creating and maintaining corporate policies and practices–which we cast here in terms of collective and individual employee voice –and both proc

49、edural and distributive fairness. Power imbalances and lack o</p><p>　　We suggest that voice and fairness are therefore related in all stakeholder-organizational relationships, including the employment relat

50、ionship. Kochan (2005:158)is instructive in this regard:</p><p>　　Union leaders have come to recognize the need to go beyond collective bargaining to get access to where the real power lies in corporations a

51、nd where the key decisions are made that shape workers’ long-term security and welfare–in the inner circle of executive decision making and corporate governance. This level of management has traditionally been viewed as

52、off-limits to workers and their unions. </p><p>　　Similarly, Rawls(2001:57)notes that the basic structure of a well-ordered society ‘‘comprises social institutions within which human beings may develop their

53、 moral powers and become fully cooperating members of a society of free and equal citizens.’’ When employees feel compelled to accept unfair contracts of adhesion or lack the ability to exercise voice in the employment r

54、elationship, they cannot be fully cooperating free and equal citizens in their organizational lives. </p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　雇主和雇員之間的自愿合作關(guān)系能夠滿足員工表達(dá)自我意愿的權(quán)力嗎？</p><p>

55、;　　Harry J. Van Buren，Michelle Greenwood</p><p>　　原文摘要：雇員表達(dá)自我意愿權(quán)力的減少是雇傭關(guān)系中的一個(gè)基本倫理問題。在以前的雇傭關(guān)系中，很多能讓員工自由發(fā)言的方式已變得不那么有效,其主要原因有：（1）工作性質(zhì)的變化。（2）雇主偏好的靈活性對(duì)員工產(chǎn)生不利影響。（3）公共政策與制度系統(tǒng)的變化沒能保護(hù)員工。我們即將展開的工作主要針對(duì)，在過去的十年，這項(xiàng)工作在澳大利亞

56、和美國等20個(gè)國家是如何改變的。員工作為組織的利益相關(guān)者，我們要重視對(duì)其道德義務(wù)虧欠問題，并特別重視權(quán)力問題。然后，我們將考慮雇主出于自愿性的行動(dòng)，如，社會(huì)審計(jì)是否足以確保員工權(quán)益。最終將得出這樣一個(gè)結(jié)論：通過雇主和雇員一起努力，使公共政策的在確保雙方伙伴關(guān)系公平化的影響的變化可能更大。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：雇用，工會(huì)，合伙，同意</p><p>　　在過去20年里，勞動(dòng)關(guān)系有了很

57、大的變化。人們的工作變得越來越國際化。雇員的教育水平雖然得到了提高，但是許多教育程度較低的員工卻在于世界各地的人競(jìng)爭(zhēng)一份相對(duì)較低的工資，而教育水平較高的員工仍然在經(jīng)歷工資的增加。發(fā)達(dá)國家的公司正在逐步轉(zhuǎn)向信息服務(wù)產(chǎn)業(yè)，如在澳洲和美國等地；制造業(yè)(包括農(nóng)業(yè))在經(jīng)濟(jì)中，變得相對(duì)不那么重要。穩(wěn)定、長期的勞動(dòng)關(guān)系已經(jīng)離公司越來越遠(yuǎn)了。對(duì)于對(duì)倫理和就業(yè)之間的相互關(guān)系感興趣的學(xué)者而言，這是一段十分有趣的時(shí)間。</p><p>

58、;　　在雇傭關(guān)系中，員工表達(dá)意見的權(quán)限、提高待遇的能力、如何協(xié)商員工待遇（包括工資、勞動(dòng)條件等）以及其他相關(guān)條件的協(xié)商，是一個(gè)基本的道德問題。在過去，許多員工憑借工會(huì)會(huì)員資格，通過工會(huì)代表進(jìn)行集體性的討價(jià)還價(jià)來行使自己的權(quán)利。但是，在許多國家，工會(huì)在私營部門的重要性已經(jīng)下降了很多（多元化對(duì)企業(yè)績效，2005）。在大部分國家，集體談判的權(quán)利更僅僅只是一種空談。許多國家，包括澳大利亞和美國，雇員入工會(huì)率正在隨著不斷時(shí)間降低(de Ruyte

59、r and Burgess,2003;Johnstoneet al.,2004;Kochan,2005)，這對(duì)工人行使權(quán)利和表達(dá)觀點(diǎn)的權(quán)力造成了損害。對(duì)許多員工而言，喪失表達(dá)意見的權(quán)力意味著，雇員在雇主的雇傭關(guān)系之中附著了一份這樣的合同——雇主決定了雇傭的條件，無論員工是否接受或者滿意(Radin and Werhane,2003;Van Buren,2003)。大多數(shù)的員工，除非他們的技能被看成是極其少見的，或者他們具有擁有巨大市場(chǎng)力

60、量的價(jià)值，或者由工會(huì)協(xié)議所保護(hù)，是不能夠?yàn)榱藙趧?dòng)關(guān)系的基本要素的，包括工資、福利、糾紛解決機(jī)制，而討價(jià)還價(jià)的(Blades,1</p><p>　　在討論關(guān)于改變雇傭模式的效用時(shí)，我們經(jīng)常迷失。事實(shí)上，道德準(zhǔn)則才是雇傭關(guān)系的基石。大部分有關(guān)雇傭行為的文獻(xiàn)，已經(jīng)考慮到了某些特定的實(shí)踐對(duì)雇主(Roehling et al.,2000)或雇員(Berg, Kalleberg, and Appelbaum,2003;Gu

61、est and Conway , 1999)是好是壞。我們的分析將會(huì)以這樣討論內(nèi)容作為開端——過去的二十多年里，在美國、澳洲等國家，這項(xiàng)工作是如何改變的。主要關(guān)注對(duì)象是作為組織利益相關(guān)者的員工，以及雇主對(duì)員工欠缺道德責(zé)任的問題，并重點(diǎn)介紹了權(quán)利的問題。我們將考慮像社會(huì)監(jiān)督這類出于雇主自愿的行為是否能夠充足保證雇員的公平,得出的結(jié)論是,將雇主和雇員的關(guān)系轉(zhuǎn)變成一種團(tuán)結(jié)的伙伴關(guān)系將會(huì)為改變公共政策為勞動(dòng)關(guān)系的公正提供的更多保證。</p

62、><p>　　在過去的20年中，雇傭行為是如何改變的？</p><p>　　就業(yè)實(shí)踐在過去20年發(fā)生了劇變。這樣的變化可以歸結(jié)于多種因素的共同影響。公司越來越多地從多個(gè)國家勞動(dòng)雇用員工。在招聘、解雇和使用員工的過程中，雇主尋求更大的彈性。公共政策與制度系統(tǒng)在保護(hù)工人方面也有巨大的變化。所有的這些改變都有助于解釋工作和員工待遇在過去20年里是如何改變。</p><p>　

63、　從多個(gè)國家雇傭勞動(dòng)力</p><p>　　許多企業(yè)從多個(gè)國家雇傭勞動(dòng)力是已經(jīng)被證實(shí)的，包括他們的直接操作以及通過供應(yīng)商的間接使用(Kaplinsky,2004; Williamson,1998)。同時(shí)，全球化被很大程度上認(rèn)為是影響就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)的主要因素?？梢哉f，全球化日益影響專業(yè)服務(wù)等級(jí)的工作(Jang,2005;Ostry and Spiegel, 2004)。Scheve和Slaughter (2004)認(rèn)為，

64、由于職業(yè)的多樣性，勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)的國際化增加了工資和就業(yè)的波動(dòng)性。</p><p>　　勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)全球化對(duì)員工表達(dá)自主意愿的影響是普通因素的兩倍。首先，當(dāng)一個(gè)組織的職員和廠商遍及許多不同的國家時(shí)，相較于如果他們都集中在一個(gè)國家，行動(dòng)會(huì)更加難以協(xié)調(diào)，實(shí)行的意愿（包括用集體談判）的難度更高。因此，從多個(gè)國家雇傭勞動(dòng)力降低了對(duì)單一勞動(dòng)力來源的依賴性，但也對(duì)來自于同一國家的員工表達(dá)意愿造成了負(fù)面影響。第二，當(dāng)企業(yè)將工作從一個(gè)

65、國家轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個(gè)國家，由員工要求過多帶來的威脅也會(huì)制約員工的表現(xiàn)。許多全球化的支持者，以全球化能夠?yàn)閯趧?dòng)者創(chuàng)造更多的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)為理由贊美勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)全球化的價(jià)值(Friedman,2005;Rivoli, 2005)。但是，從多個(gè)國家雇傭勞動(dòng)力也會(huì)造成員工由于擔(dān)心自己如果不降低對(duì)工資和福利的需要，自己的工作會(huì)被其他當(dāng)?shù)厝隧斕娴目只拧?lt;/p><p>　　對(duì)發(fā)展中國家而言，這的確是有益的資本流動(dòng)。然而，出于對(duì)資本的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)

66、，這會(huì)導(dǎo)致許多政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人（無論是關(guān)心的命運(yùn)）采取降低工人的保護(hù)和有效工資水平的方法來競(jìng)購資本(Stiglitz,2000)。全球化的實(shí)際效果，是為雇主創(chuàng)造了利用雇員的機(jī)會(huì)。在很多情形下，企業(yè)在實(shí)際上并不需要從一個(gè)國家轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個(gè)國家，對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)移行動(dòng)唯一存在的或者僅僅只是預(yù)感存在的威脅，只是對(duì)工資或者工作條件的提升做好充足的避免工作。</p><p><b>　　雇主喜愛的靈活性</b></

67、p><p>　　Cavanaugh和Noe (1999)認(rèn)為，在美國，當(dāng)代雇傭行為的主導(dǎo)模式包括三個(gè)組成部分：職業(yè)發(fā)展的個(gè)人責(zé)任，致力于建立一個(gè)特定的工作而不是特殊的雇主，以及對(duì)工作不安全感的期待。從雇主的角度來看，這種雇傭模型的會(huì)將長遠(yuǎn)的勞資關(guān)系改變?yōu)橐环N短期交易。</p><p>　　在目前分析之中，更有趣的是，將內(nèi)部勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)的下降及相應(yīng)的成本強(qiáng)加在了雇員身上。內(nèi)部勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)對(duì)雇員和雇主

68、的利益有傳統(tǒng)性服務(wù)：顧主通過有權(quán)獲得公用勞動(dòng)力而獲利：(1)掌握組織的相關(guān)知識(shí)；(2)根據(jù)特殊組織需要的能力和技術(shù)來分類，而員工則通過能夠在一個(gè)單一的組織中搭建事業(yè)階梯而獲利。然后，內(nèi)部勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)將自己的成本費(fèi)用強(qiáng)加在雇主身上：這些成本費(fèi)用可以根據(jù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)維護(hù)成本（用于確保內(nèi)部勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)正常工作的維護(hù)昂貴維護(hù)費(fèi)用）和穩(wěn)定性成本（為了保證內(nèi)部勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)的正常工作，雇主必須提供這樣的保障——當(dāng)員工忠于組織時(shí)能夠獲得工作提升機(jī)會(huì)和不被裁員的保護(hù)，

69、see McCall,2001）。</p><p>　　可能發(fā)生的關(guān)勞動(dòng)人口說明的作用和雇傭行為減少的可能性使得雇主越來越想避免這樣的成本(Leana and Van Buren,1999)。然而，通常雇員都比較喜歡穩(wěn)定的勞動(dòng)關(guān)系(Freeman and Rogers, 1999)。即便是在最理想的環(huán)境下，雇主和雇員之間的轉(zhuǎn)變并不總能輕易的飛躍；個(gè)人因素和財(cái)務(wù)費(fèi)用與找到一個(gè)新工作是密切相關(guān)的。此外，一些個(gè)別而特殊

70、的老人和不同膚色人，發(fā)現(xiàn)他們更難找到新工作，很少有工作能夠提供與目前相似的工資和福利(Blair,1995)。最后，隨著員工年齡的增長和家人成員的成長，會(huì)出現(xiàn)一種他們生活工作穩(wěn)定的假象；有家庭責(zé)任的雇員更加傾向于能夠給他們的將來帶來希望的穩(wěn)定的雇傭關(guān)系?？偠灾?，在雇員和雇主對(duì)待雇傭關(guān)系的態(tài)度之間有一種不匹配的參數(shù)。</p><p>　　公共政策與制度系統(tǒng)的變化</p><p>　　在二十

71、世紀(jì)，許多面向新自由主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的國家，包括澳大利亞和美國中部地區(qū)，嘗試通過立法來擴(kuò)大工人的權(quán)利，其中就包括集體談判的權(quán)利。在美國，自20世紀(jì)50年代和60年代以來，員工的高水位權(quán)利，例如，關(guān)于集體談判和組織進(jìn)入工會(huì)，被不斷侵蝕((Morris, 2005)。在許多國家，由于在雇主喜好方面的種種變化，全球化和除了三大公共策略以外的政治哲學(xué)的改變雇傭關(guān)系，以將員工作為最終收益方面的嘗試都失敗了。在很大程度上，是由于公共政策選擇。它加強(qiáng)了雇主

72、傷害雇員的方面，就如同在美國，不能阻止工人去組建一個(gè)獨(dú)立工會(huì)一樣失敗(Bronfenbrenner, 1997)。員工表達(dá)意愿權(quán)力的喪失已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了很多年，不易轉(zhuǎn)變。在這一點(diǎn)上，Kochan (2005:171–172)是有指導(dǎo)性意義的：</p><p>　　勞動(dòng)者工會(huì)減少的持續(xù)性影響在員工意愿表達(dá)中留下了一個(gè)空白，侵蝕了美國的生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，削弱了我們的民主制。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的建立需要工會(huì)復(fù)興，為傳統(tǒng)工會(huì)組織提供更多的資源，改革

73、勞動(dòng)法，甚至制造更多的對(duì)話、合作，或者是在商業(yè)和勞動(dòng)途徑之間找到一致性。員工意愿表達(dá)權(quán)力是不會(huì)自動(dòng)逆轉(zhuǎn)，自動(dòng)減少的。</p><p>　　雇主和雇員之間權(quán)限的不平衡可以解釋為什么員工的意愿和員工集體行動(dòng)的可能性都下降了。</p><p>　　我們?cè)谶@篇文章中的分析，主要是性質(zhì)的規(guī)范；分析特定雇傭行為對(duì)雇主而言是好或壞都超出了本文的范圍。有一些證據(jù)顯示，高參與和承諾性的雇傭行為，能夠?qū)椭骱?/p>

74、雇員產(chǎn)生積極的影響(Appelbaum et al.,2000)。我們注意到，這里有許多的雇主認(rèn)為彈性的就業(yè)安排和對(duì)雇員的道德責(zé)任虧欠是與其利益相符合的。如果是這樣，那么請(qǐng)注意發(fā)展中的實(shí)證都表明，從雇主立場(chǎng)和公共政策機(jī)制建立更加公正的勞動(dòng)關(guān)系，以確保滿足雇主能滿足雇員的基本道德責(zé)任為基礎(chǔ)是有益的。</p><p>　　員工是組織的利益相關(guān)者并且需要基本的道德責(zé)任保護(hù)</p><p>　　員

75、工一直被公認(rèn)為是組織的利益相關(guān)者Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Van Buren, 2003)。我們建議，在雇傭關(guān)系中，員工的特殊道德要求，必須對(duì)他們的能力和鍛煉的他們表達(dá)意愿的能力有實(shí)際效果，但，首先最重要的是，去明確定義，什么是我們所說的“表達(dá)意愿的權(quán)力”和“公正”。</p><p>　　“表達(dá)意愿的權(quán)力”是指勞動(dòng)者可以用某種方式有意義地來參與創(chuàng)建和改變勞動(dòng)關(guān)系的條款。我們認(rèn)識(shí)

76、到，“有意義地”是僅僅為了去解釋定義，因此并不明確，但是我們相信表達(dá)意愿的權(quán)力在雇傭關(guān)系中的效用包括讓員工參與制定勞動(dòng)合同，而不是讓雇主單方面的設(shè)置雇傭條件。亞當(dāng)斯(2005)指出，表達(dá)意愿的權(quán)力就其本身而言是沒有價(jià)值的；只有當(dāng)它能夠糾正一些市場(chǎng)失靈，才有價(jià)值。我們建議用表達(dá)意愿的權(quán)力來糾正一個(gè)重要的市場(chǎng)問題：雇員在影響雇主對(duì)其待遇方面的無能。并不是所有的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)主體都和資源、知識(shí)、以及與討價(jià)還價(jià)力量平等(亞當(dāng)斯,2005)。當(dāng)然，由像

77、員工這種企業(yè)利益的相關(guān)者來行使表達(dá)意愿的權(quán)力，并不能保證一個(gè)特殊的結(jié)果，卻更有可能得到一個(gè)更加公正、公平的結(jié)果。在這一點(diǎn)上，Budd (2004:75)，根據(jù)羅爾斯正義的無知之幕理念(1971年),建立了一種理論，他寫道“當(dāng)獨(dú)裁專制的勞動(dòng)關(guān)系的無知面紗被掀開，我們就會(huì)看到卑躬屈膝的下場(chǎng)……大多數(shù)人，將會(huì)選擇創(chuàng)造工作環(huán)境，而不是聽從面紗后的語言?！?lt;/p><p>　　表達(dá)意見的權(quán)力有集體因素也有個(gè)人因素(Budd

78、,2004)。工會(huì)和集體談判就是對(duì)表達(dá)意見的權(quán)力的集體部分的最好解釋。個(gè)人的部分則包括一個(gè)特定雇員和雇主之間的直接關(guān)系。集體部分和個(gè)人部分集中在一起能夠進(jìn)行相互補(bǔ)充而不是替代；沒有集體的部分，就個(gè)人表達(dá)意愿的權(quán)力就不可能自由地行使。也就是說，集體部分已經(jīng)是提升員工在雇傭關(guān)系中的權(quán)力的傳統(tǒng)焦點(diǎn)，而且，它在許多國家，包括美國和澳大利亞，很大程度上受到了侵蝕。</p><p>　　“公平”這個(gè)詞，我們簡(jiǎn)單討論程序上的（

79、構(gòu)造勞動(dòng)關(guān)系勞動(dòng)的公平程序，包括雇用和晉升）和分配方面的（誰會(huì)從經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)中獲利）公平。Van Buren (2001)注意到，利益相關(guān)者參與建立和保持公司政策和實(shí)踐，即集體和個(gè)人表達(dá)意愿的權(quán)力，和過程及分配的公平之間，有一種聯(lián)系。雖然，權(quán)利失衡和利益相關(guān)者表達(dá)意愿權(quán)力的缺少并不會(huì)不可避免地造成不公平的交易，但是卻必然加大這種可能性。在這里，我們首要關(guān)心的是，公平對(duì)待員工的增長。</p><p>　　我們建議，表達(dá)

80、意愿的權(quán)力和公平在所有組織關(guān)系中都是相關(guān)的，包括雇傭關(guān)系。Kochan(2005)在這一點(diǎn)上是有教育意義的：</p><p>　　工會(huì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人已經(jīng)開始逐步認(rèn)識(shí)到，他們需要超越的集體談判以得到合作中真正權(quán)利所倚賴之處，并且要在高級(jí)主管決策制定和企業(yè)管理的內(nèi)部系統(tǒng)中，找到?jīng)Q定員工長期保障和福利的關(guān)鍵。這一水平的管理通常被視為工人和他們的工會(huì)不可碰觸的極限。</p><p>　　同樣地，Rawls