IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v26y2012i2p349-359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using equality to challenge austerity: new actors, old problems

Author

Listed:
  • Hazel Conley

Abstract

This article critically examines the potential for ‘new actors’ in industrial relations to use developments in equality law to challenge government economic policy. The author draws on documentary analysis of the Fawcett Society’s attempt to gain a judicial review of the 2010 emergency budget alongside legal theory in relation to reflexive regulation and literature that examines ‘new actors’ in industrial relations. The aim is to stimulate debate on the role of the state and social movements in pursuing gender equality and how the latter might compete with or complement the role of trade unions. The concluding argument is that, while reflexive legislation provides opportunities for social movements to complement trade union activity, the role of the state remains contradictory, ultimately thwarting legal enforcement of equality when its economic authority and the interests of capital are threatened.

Suggested Citation

  • Hazel Conley, 2012. "Using equality to challenge austerity: new actors, old problems," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 26(2), pages 349-359, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:26:y:2012:i:2:p:349-359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wes.sagepub.com/content/26/2/349.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Glynne Williams & Vanessa Beck, 2015. "Redefining retirement: age equality and the rise of performance management," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5-6), pages 365-380, November.
    2. Brian Abbott & Steve Williams, 2014. "Widening the ‘representation gap'? The implications of the ‘lobbying act’ for worker representation in the UK," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(6), pages 507-523, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:26:y:2012:i:2:p:349-359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.