Article Sidebar

Submitted
June 8, 2016
Published
June 8, 2016
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 265 Download : 598

Main Article Content

Abstract

At the praxis level, the Indonesian labor relations have not been reaching a coalition stage. Therefore democracy at work should be developed in order to prevent the industrial relations from adversarial one. There are some kinds of workerparticipation to improve the relationship between the labor and the laborer, such as peacefull collective bargaining, Works Council or Board of Directors involvement arid also Employee stock ownership plan. This kind of partnerships will createa democratic treatment for any labor issues in Indonesia.

Keywords

labor democracy industrial relations

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
uwiyono, uwiyono. (2016). Mekanisme Penetapaii Kebijakan Pengupahan di Indonesia: Suatu Tinjauan Perbandingan Hukum. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 8(18), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol8.iss18.art7
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Adams; Roy. 1995. IndustrialRelations Under- Liberal Democracy: North America In Comparative Perspective. .Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.
  2. American Society for Training'and Development: 1992. "America andThe New Economy." MontlyLabor Review 115 (February),
  3. N0..2. ,
  4. Auer, Peter. 1999. "Europe'sEmployment Revival: four small European countries compared." Geneve: ILO Symposium:
  5. Social Dialogue and Employment Success.
  6. Bakels. HL. 1987. Schets van Nederlands Arbeidsrecht. Kluwer, Deventer.
  7. Bergqvist, Olof. 1982. "Worker Participation in Decisions Within Undertakings in Sweden." Comparative Labor Law 5 (Winter), No.1.
  8. Blasi, Joseph R. and Douglas L Kruse. 1991. "Strategic Problems and Tactical Promise: Unions and Employee Ownership." Labor Law Journal 42 (Spring), No. 8.
  9. Brody, David H. et. al. 1988. "Aalternaaative to the United States System of Labor Reelations: AComparativ Analysis of the Labor Relations System in the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, and
  10. Sweden." Vanderbiit Law Reyies 41 (Winter), No, 3.
  11. Compa, Lance. 1993. "Labor Standard inInternational Trade."Law and Policy in Internationaal Business 25 (Fall), No.1.
  12. Creasman, R. Lee. 1991. Will the AriiericanWith Disabilities Act Disaable Employers? Labor LawJournal 42 (January). No.- 1.
  13. Direktur Jenderal BinawasDepnaker, Laporan Perkembangan Pemogokan di Indonesia Tahun 1995 sampai dengan April 2000.
  14. Halbach, Guhter, et.al. 1994. Labor Law in Germany: An Overview, trans., EvaMaria Foster, et.al. Bonn: Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.
  15. Hemstadt, Owen E.1992."Whay Some Union Hesitate to Participate in Labor-Management Cooperative Programs.
  16. The Labor Lawyer 5 (Winter), No. 1. Kafker, Scott. 1989. "Exploring Saturn:An Examination of the Philosophy of "Total" Labor Management Cooperation and the Limitations Presented by NLRA".
  17. The Labor Lawyer 5 (Fall). No. 4. Kaufman, Julie Lynn. 1989. "Democratic ESOP's: Can Workers Control Their Future?" The Labor Lawyer 5 (Fall), No. 4.
  18. Kompas, 5 November 2001, 23 November 2001,14 Desember 2001.
  19. Krislov, Joseph. 1989. "How does the Japanese Industrial Relations System Differ?" Labor Law Journal 40 (June), No. 6.
  20. Kuwahara, Mashiro Ken, 1982. "Worker Par ticipation in Decisions Within Undertak ings in Japan." Comparative Labor Law5 (W/nferj, No. 1.
  21. Levine, Marvin J. 1992. "Labor and Management response to Totai Quality Management," Labor Law Journal 43 (January), No.1.
  22. Merrifield, Leroy. 1982. "Worker Participation in Decisions Within Undertakings." Comparative Labor Law 5 (Winter), No. 1.
  23. Ray. Dougias E., Caivein William Sharpe & Robert N Strassfeld. 1999. Under standing Labor Law, New York and San Franscisco: Methew Bender & Co.,Inc. , -
  24. Reynolds, Joy K. 1992; "A Perspective on the Electrornation Case From, the-US Department of Labor." Labor Law Journal 37 (June), No. 2. '
  25. Richardi, Rheinhard. 1982. "Worker Participation in Decision Within Undertakings in The Federal Republic of Germany." Comparative Labor Law 5 (Winter), No.1.
  26. Rockefeller, John Djr. 1996. "Cooperation in industry." The International Labour Review 135, No. 3-4. Sharp, Ronald M. 1989." "Codetermination; A Postmortem." Labor Law Journal 42 (August), No. 6: Sioane,Arthur A. 1994.
  27. Labor Relations. New Jersey; Prentice Hall. The Swedish Institute. 2001. "Labour Relation in Sweden." Fact Sheet on Sweden
  28. (January).
  29. Trebilock, "Anne, et.al. 1994 Towards Social Dialogue: Tripartite Cooperation in National Economic and Social Policy-Making. Geneve: international Labour Organization. - .
  30. Weis, Manfred. 1982. Labor Law and Indus-trial Relations in the Federal Republic of Germany. New York: Kiuwer Law & Taxation Publishers