Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme

Sadık KILIÇ (Yrd. Doç. Dr., Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Çalışma Ekonomisi ve Endüstri İlişkileri Bölümü Çalışma ve Toplum, 2016/3)
Çalışma ve Toplum
1 0
Yıl: 2016 Cilt: 3 Sayı: 50 Sayfa Aralığı: 1203 - 1230 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme

Öz:
Bu çalışmanın amacı, endüstri ilişkileri teorisi ve uygulaması bağlamında birbirinin tezadı olan iki stratejinin dinamiklerini ve ortaya çıkardığı sonuçları (ve sorunları) analiz etmektir. Bu amaçla yapılan incelemede, öncelikle, paydaşlık ilişkilerinin nasıl geliştirildiği, söylem düzeyinde işçiler ve sendikalar için ne tür vaatler içerdiği ve gerçekte ne gibi sonuçlar ortaya çıkardığı saptanmaktadır. Daha sonra örgütlenme stratejisine niçin ihtiyaç duyulduğu ve ne tür teorik temeller üzerinde inşa edildiği tartışılmakta ve ortaya çıkardığı sonuçlar irdelenmektedir. Çalışmanın sonunda iki temel çıkarımda bulunulmaktadır. Birincisi, paydaşlık ilişkilerinin sendikalar için bir yeniden canlanma stratejisi olmasının önünde ciddi teorik ve pratik zorluklar bulunmaktadır, hatta paydaşlık ilişkileri sendikaların zayıflamasına neden olmaktadır. İkincisi, örgütlenme modeli, sendikaların elindeki en önemli strateji tercihi olmasına ve oldukça güçlü teorik temellere dayanmasına rağmen, gerek teoriye uygun olarak uygulanamamasından gerekse bazı ilave stratejilerle desteklenememesinden beklenen hedeflerin uzağında kalmış gibi görünmektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: İşletme İktisat

Two Rival Strategies for Union Revitalisation: Partnership Versus Organising

Öz:
The objective of this study is to analyse the dynamics and outcomes of partnership and organising, which are two contradictory trade union strategies in the context of industrial relations theory and practice. For this purpose, in the first place, issues like how the partnership relations are developed, the content of the promises for unions and workers which have been made during this period in the discourse, and the outcomes of partnership relations in reality have been determined in this study. In the next step, the reasons, which make the disquisition of organizing strategies essential, its theoretical foundations and consequences have been discussed and examined. As a conclusion, two main inferences have been drawn. The first inference is that, there are huge theoretical and practical obstacles in partnership strategy's way to be a union revitalisation strategy. Moreover, partnership relations cause to weaken trade unions. The second inference is that, although organising model has still been the strongest strategy in the hand of trade unions and it has been constructed on robust theoretical bases, it seems that the strategy has not been applied successfully enough to provide union revitalisation. It is assumed that the reasons of this phenomenon are the lack of implementation of the strategy as envisaged in the theory and being not supported sufficiently by some other union strategies.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: İşletme İktisat
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Ackers, P. (2002). Reframing Employment Relations: The Case for Neo--Pluralism. na'nstrial Relations oarnal, 33(1), 2--19.
  • Ackers, P., Payne, J. (1998). British Trade Unions and Social Partnership: Rhetoric, Reality and Strategy. T/oe International ]onrnal of Haman Resoarce Management, 9(3), 529--550.
  • Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organisations. Personnel Management(August), 28--37.
  • Avgar, A., Kuruvilla, S. (2011). Dual Alignment of Industrial Relations Activity: From Strategic Choice to Mutual Gains. Advances in Indnstrial and Labor Relations, 78, 1--39.
  • Bacon, N. (1999). Union Derecognition and the New Human Relations: Steel Industry Case Study. [Vor/e Emplcy/ment Sociegi, 73(1), 1--17.
  • Bacon, N., Storey, J. (2000). New Employee Relations Strategies in Britain: Towards Individualism and Collectivism. Britis/o ]onrnal of Inelastrial Relations, 38(3), 407--427.
  • Badigannavar, V. (2009). Does Labor--Management Partnership Deliver Mutual Gains? Evidence from the UK Public Sector. Adi/antes in Inelastrial (? Labor Relations, 76, 407--427.
  • Badigannavar, V., Kelly, J. (2004). Labour--Management Partnership in the UK Public Sector. J. Kelly, P. Willman içinde, Union Organization ana'ActioiQ/ (s. 110--128). London: Routledge.
  • Badigannavar, V., Kelly, J. (2005a). Why Are Some Uinon Organizing Compaigns More Succesful Than Others. Britis/o ]onrnal of Indnstrial Relations, 43(3), 515--535.
  • Badigannavar, V., Kelly, J. (2005b). Labour--Management Partnership in the Non--union Retail Sector. International ]oarnal of Haman Resonrce Management, 76(8), 1529--1544.
  • Badigannavar, V., Kelly, J. (2011). Partnership and Organizing: An Empirical Assessment of Two Contrasting Approaches to Union Revitalization in the UK. Economic ana' Inelastrial Democragi, 32(1), 5--27.
  • Baruch, Y. (1998). The Rise and Fall of Organizational Commitment. Hit/nan Systems Management, 7(2), 135--143.
  • Behrens, M., Hamann, K., Hurd, R. (2004). Conceptualizing Labour Union Revitalization. C. Frege, J. Kelly içinde, Varieties of Unionisrn: Strategies for Union Revitalization in Globalizing Economy (5. 11--30). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Bender, K. A., Sloane, P. J. (1999). Trade Union Membership, Tenure and the Level of Job Insecurity. Applied Economics, 7, 123--135.
  • Blyton, P., Turnbull, P. (2004). The Dynamics of Ernplgzee Relations (3 b.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Boxal, P., Haynes, P. (1997). Strategy and Trade Union Effectiveness in Neo-- liberal Environment. British ]onrnal ofIna'nstrial Relations, 35(4), 567--591.
  • Braverman, H. (1998). Lahor and Monopoh/ Capital (25th Anniversary Edition b.). New York: Monthly Review Press.
  • Bronfenbrenner, K. (1997). The Role of Union Strategies in NLRB Certification Elections. Ina'nstrial and Lahor Relations Reoietn, 0(2), 195--212.
  • Bronfenbrenner, K. (2009). No Holds Barred: The Intensijication of Emp/(yer Opposition to Organizing. Washington: Economic Policy Institute.
  • Brown, W. (2000). Potting Partnership into Praotiie in Britain. Cambridge: ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
  • Bryson, A., Gomez, R., Willman, P. (2004). The End of Affair? The Decline in Employers' Propensity to Unionize. J. Kelly, P. Willman içinde, Union Organization andActioigt (s. 129--149). London: Routledge.
  • Cam, E. (2013). [yerinde Soy/al Data/0g. Ankara: Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı.
  • Charlwood, A. (2002). Why Do Non--union Employees Want to Unionize? Evidence from Britain. British ]onrnal ofIndnstrial Relations, 40(3), 463--491.
  • Charlwood, A. (2003). Willingness to Unionize amongst Non--union Workers. H. Gospel, S. Wood içinde, Representing Workers: Trade Union Recognition and Members/oil) in Britain (s. 51--71). London: Routledge.
  • Clark, A. E. (2005). Your Money or Your Life: Changing Job Quality in OECD Countries. British ]onrnal ofIndustrial Relations, 43(3), 377--400.
  • Cohen, S. (2009). Opening Pandora's Box: The Paradox of lnstitutionalised Organising. G. Gall içinde, The Fntnre of Union Organising: Bnila'ingfor Tornorron/ (s. 28--44). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Cranford, C. J., Ladd, D. (2003). Community Unionism: Organising for Fair Employment in Canada. fast Lahonr, 3, 46--59.
  • Cregan, C. (2013). Does Workplace Industrial Action Increase Trade Union Membership? An Exchange Relationship Approach to Union Joining and Leaving Behavior. The International ]onrnal 0f Hainan Resonrie Management, 24(1), 3363--3377.
  • Cullinane, N., Dundon, T. (2014). Unitarism and Employer Resistance to Trade Unionism. The International ]onrnal of Hit/nan Resonrre Manage/neni; 25(18), 2573--2590.
  • Cully, M., Woodland, S., O'Reilly, A., Dix, G. (1999). Britain at Work: As Depiotea' h} the 7998 Workplace Einplty/ee Samy. London: Routledge.
  • Çoban, B. (2013). Sendikal Örgütlenmede Yeni Deneyimler ve Degişen Stratejiler. Çalisrna oe Top/inn, 38, 3375--412.
  • Danford, A., Richardson, M., Steward, P., Tailby, S., Upchurch, M. (2005). Partnership and the High Pefiormance Workplace: Work: and Employment Relations in the Aenrosoace neli/sta). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Danford, A., Richardson, M., Tailby, S., Upchurch, M. (2009). Union Organising and Partnership in Manufacturing, Finance and Public Services in Britain. G.Gall içinde, Union Reoitalisation in Aa'oancecl Economies: Assessing the Contrihation of Union Organising (s. 56--82). London: Palgrave Macmillan. D'Art, D., Turner, T. (2002). The Decline of Worker Solidarity and the End of Collectivism? Economic and Indnstrial Democragr, 23, 7--34.
  • D'Art, D., Turner, T. (2003). Independent Collective Representation: Providing Effectiveness, Fairness, and Democracy in the Employment Relationship. Emplry/ee Resoonsihilities ana' Rightsfoarnal, 75(4), 169--1 81.
  • Davis--Blake, A., Broschak, J. P., George, E. (2003). Happy Together? How Using Nonstandard Workers Affects Exit, Voice, and Loyalty among Standard Employees. Academy ofManagement]oarnal, 46(4), 475--485.
  • Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., Scheck, C. L. (1997). Test ofJob Security's Direct and Mediated Effects on Withdrawal Cognitions. ]onrnal of Organizational Behaoionr, 78, 323--349.
  • Dickens, L., Hall, M. (2003). Labour Law and Industrial Relations: New Settlement? P. Edwards içinde, Indnstrial Relations: Theog/ and Practice (s. 124-- 156). London: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Doeringer, P. B. (1991). Tarhnlance in the American Workplace. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Dundon, T. (2001). Put Up and Shut Up: Social Mobilisation and Employee Attitudes in Non--union Firms. British Universities Inclastrial Relations Association Conference (s. 1--18). Manchester Manchester Metropolitan University.
  • Dunn, S. (1990). Root Methaphor in the Old and New Industrial Relations. British oarnal of na'nstrial Relations, 28(1), 1--31.
  • Eapen, G. (2010). Flexihiliglr Flexible Companies fltr the Uncertain World. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  • Fairbrother, P. (2005). Review Article: G. Gall, Union Organizing. Campaining for Trade Union Recognition. Capital Class, 87, 257--262.
  • Fairbrother, P. (2008). Social Movement Unionism or Trade Unions as Social Movements. Employee Resoonsihilities Rights ]onrnal, 20(4), 213--220.
  • Fiorito, J. (2004). Union Renewal and the Organising Model in the United Kingdom. Lahor Stadiesfonrnal, 29(2), 21--53.
  • Freeman, R. B. (1995). The Limits of Wage Flexibility to Curing Unemployment. Oogora' Review ofEconomic Poligl, 77(1), 63--72.
  • Freeman, R. B. (2007). Do Workers till Want Union? More Than Ever. Washington: Economic Policy Institute.
  • Freeman, R. B., Rogers, J. (2002). Open Source Unionism: Beyond Exclusive Collective Bargaining. WorkingUSA, (4), 8--40.
  • Frege, C. M., Kelly, J. (2003). Union Revitalization Strategies in Comparative Perspective. Enropean fonrnal ofInelastrial Relations, 9(1), 7--24.
  • Frege, C. M., Kelly, J. (2004). Union Strategies in Comparative Context. C. M.
  • Frege, J. Kelly içinde, Varieties of Unionisrn: Strategies for Union Reoitalization in Gloha/izing Eeono/ny (s. 31--44). New York: Oxford University Press. Gall, G. (2003). Introduction. G. Gall içinde, Union Organizing: Campaigningfor Trade
  • Union Recognition (s. 1--18). London: Routledge.
  • Gall, G. (2004). British Employer Resistance to Trade Union Recognition. Hainan Resoree Managernentfonrnal, 74(2), 36--53.
  • Gall, G. (2009a). 'Union Organising' Past, Present and Future. G. Gall içinde, The Fatnre of Union Oganising: Bailelingfor Tomorrow (s. 1--9). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gall, G. (2009b). What is to be Done with Union Organising? G. Gall içinde, Union Reoitalisation in Advanced Eeonornies: Assessing the Contrihntion of Union Organising (s. 1--16). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gall, G., Fiorito, J. (2011). The Backward March of Labour Halted? Or, What ls To Be Done with 'Union Organising'? The Cases of Britain and the USA. Capital e'? Class, 35(2), 233--251.
  • Gall, G., McKay, S. (2001). Facing 'Fairness at Work': Union Perception of Employer Opposition and Response to Union Recognition. Indnstrial Relations fonrnal, 32(2), 94--113.
  • Gallie, D., Felstead, A., Green, F. (2001). Employer Policies and Organizational Commitment in Britain 1992--97. fonrnal of Management Stadies, 38(8), 1083-- 1101.
  • Geare, A., Edgar, F., McAndrew, l. (2009). Workplace Values and Beliefs: An Empirical Study of Ideology, High Commitment Management and Unionisation. The International fonrnal of Hit/nan Resonree Management, 20(5), 1146--1 171.
  • Geary, J. F. (2003). New Forms of Work Organization: Still Limited, Still Controlled But Still Welcome? P. Edwards içinde, Inelastrial Relations: Theog/ and Praetiee (s. 338--367). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Goos, M., Manning, A. (2007). Lousy and Lovely Jobs: The Rising Polarization of Work in Britain. The Reoien/ ofEeonornies and Statisties, 89(1), 118--133.
  • Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: Review and Conceptual Analysis. onrnal ofBasiness Ethies, 261 --278.
  • Guest, D. E., Peccei, R. (2001). Partnership at Work: Mutuality and Balance of Advantage. British fonrnal ofIndnstrial Relations, 39(2), 207--236.
  • Haynes, P., Allen, M. (2001). Partnership as Union Strategy Preliminary Evaluation. Empty/e67 Relations, 23(2), 164--187.
  • Heery, E. (2002). Partnership versus Organising: Alternative Futures for British Trade Unionism. Indastrial Relations ]oarrnal, 33(1), 20--35.
  • Heery, E., Kelly, ]., Waddington, ]. (2003). Union Revitalization in Britain. Enropean ]onrnal ofIndastrial Relations, 9(1), 79--97.
  • Heery, E., Simms, M., Delbridge, R., Salmon, ]., Simpson, D. (2000). Organising Unionism Comes to the UK. Employee Relations, 22, 38--57.
  • Hyman, R. (2002). The Future of Unions. ]ast Labonr, 7, 7--15.
  • ILO. (2015). Global Wage Report 2074-2075: Wages and Income Ineqaaligr. Geneva: ILO.
  • ]errard, M., Cockfield, S., Buttigieg, D. (2009). The 'Servicing--Organising-- Community Continuum': Where Are Australian Unions Today? G. Gall içinde, T/oe Fntnre of Trade Unions: Baileling yor Tomorrow (s. 97--113). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Kalleberg, A. L. (2003). Flexible Firms and Labor Market Segmentation. Work: and Oreapations, 30(2), 154--175.
  • Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition. Ameriran Soriologiral Review, 74, 1--22.
  • Kaufman, B. E. (2008). Paradigms in Industrial Relations: Original, Modern and Versions In--between. British ]onrnal ofIndastrial Relations, 46(2), 314--339.
  • Kelly, ]. (1997). The Future of Trade Unionism: Injustice, Identity and Attribution. Emplty/ee Relations, 79(5), 400--414.
  • Kelly, ]. (1998). Ret/oin/éing Inelastrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism and Long War/es. London: Routledge.
  • Kelly, ]. (2004). Social Partnership Agreements in Britain: Labor Cooperation and Compliance. Indastrial Relations, 43(1), 267--292.
  • Kelly, ]., Badigannavar, V. (2004). Union Organizing. J. Kelly, P. Willman içinde, Union Organization anelAetioigr (s. 32--50). London: Routledge. Kessler, I., Purcell, ]. (2003). Individualism and Collectivism in Industrial Relations. P. Edwards içinde, Indastrial Relations: Tneogl and Praetire (2 b., s. 313--337). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Kılıç, S. (2014). Endüstri Ilişkileri Teorisi ve Insan Kaynakları Yönetimi. Çalrsnra ne Toplam, 42, 111--136.
  • Kılıç, S., Yıldız, K. (2015). Iş Arayanlarin Sendika Talebi ve Sendika Algisı: Türkiye'deki Temsil Boşluğu Hakkinda Bazı Isaretler. Sğaset Ekaonomi ne Yonetim, Özel Sayi, 91--204.
  • Kochan, T. A., Osterman, P. (1994). Mntnal Gains Enterprise: Foging Winning Partnership among Lalroar, Management and Government. Boston: Harvard University Press.
  • Kochan, T., Katz, H. C., McKersie, R. (1995). Transformation ofArnerican Inelastrial Relations (3 b.). New York: Basic Books.
  • Machin, S. (2003). Trade Union Decline, New Workplaces and New Workers. H. Gospel, S. Wood içinde, Representing Workers: Trade Union Recognition ancl Mernlaers/oio in Britain (s. 15--28). London: Routledge.
  • MacKenzie, R., Stuart, M., Forde, C., Greenwood, I., Gardiner, J., Perrett, R. (2006). 'All that is Solid?': Class, Identity and the Maintenance of Collective Orientation amongst Redundant Steelworkers. Sociology, 40(5), 833--852.
  • Martin, R. (1999). Mobilization Theory: New Paradigm for Industrial Relations. Hainan Relations, 52(9), 1205--1216.
  • Martinez--Lucio, M., Stuart, M. (2004). Swimming againt the Tide: Social Partnership, Mutual Gains and the Revival of 'tired' HRM. International onrnal ofHnrnan Resonrces Management, 75(2), 410--424.
  • McAdam, D. (1988). Micromobilization Context and Recruitment to Activism. International Social Mooernent Researe/o, 7, 125--154.
  • McCarthy, N. (2009). Union Organising in Recognised Environment: Case Study of Mobilisation. G. Gall içinde, Union Reoitalisation in Advanced Economies: Assessing t/oe Contribation of Union Oganising (s. 107--130). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Metcalf, D. (2002). British Unions: What Future. A. Bryson içinde, Fatnre of Unions in Modern Britain (s. 5--16). London: LSE, The Leverhulme Trust.
  • Moody, K. (2009). Union Organising in the US: New Tactics, Old Barriers. G. Gall içinde, T/oe Fatnre of Union Organising: Bnila'ing for Tomorrow (s. 10--27). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Nickell, S. (1997). Unemployment and Labor Market Rigidities: Europe versus North America. Tne ]oarnal ofEconomic Perspectives, 77(3), 55--74.
  • Noon, M. (1992). HRM: Map, Model or Theory? P. Blyton, P. Turnbull içinde, Reassessing Hainan Resonrce Managernent (s. 16--32). London: SAGE Publication.
  • O'Grady, F., Nowak, P. (2004). Beyond New Unionism. ]. Kelly, P. Willman içinde, Union Organization andActioiQ/ (s. 150--163). London: Routledge. Oxenbridge, S., Brown, W. (2002). The Two Faces of Partnership? An Assessment of Partnership and Co--operative Employer/Trade Union Relationships. Ernploee Relations, 24(3), 262--276.
  • Peetz, D. (2002). Sypathy for the Devil? Australian Unionism and Public Opinion. Anstralian ]oarnal ofPolitical cience, (1), 57--80.
  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in toe Tn/eng/ First Centng. (A. Goldhammer, Çev.) The USA: Harvard University Press.
  • Pollert, A. (2010). Spheres of Collectivism: Group Action and Perspectives on Trade Unions among the Low--Paid Unorganized with Problems at Work. Capital d? Class, 34(1), 115--125.
  • Quinlan, M., Johnstone, R. (2009). The Implications of De--Collectivist Industrial Relations Laws and Associated Developments for Worker Health and Safety in Australia, 1996--2007. Inclastrial Relations ]onrnal, 40(5), 426--443.
  • Robinson, 1. (2008). What Explains Unorganized Worker's Growing Demand for Unions? Labor Stadiesfonrnal, 33(3), 235--243.
  • Rose, M. (2005). Job Satisfaction in Britain: Coping with Complexity. Britisbfonrnal of ndiistrial Relations, 43 (3), 455--467.
  • Selamoğlu, A. (2004). Örgütlenme Sorunu ve Sendikal Yapıda Değişim Arayışı. Çalış/na be Toplnm(2004--2), 39--54.
  • Tapia, M. (2013). Marching to Different Tunes: Commitment and Culture as Mabilizing Mechanisms of Trade Unions and Community Organizations. Britisb ]onrnal ofIndnstrial Relations, 7(4), 666--688.
  • Thompson, P., Harley, B. (2007). HRM and the Worker: Labor Process Perspective. P. Boxal, J. Purcell, P. Wright içinde, Tbe O>g"orcl Handbook: of Hainan Resonrce Management (s. 147--165). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Reooliition. New York: Random House. Towers, B. (1997). Tbe Representation Gap: Change and Reform in tbe Britisb and American Workplace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Tufts, S. (1998). Community Unionism in Canada and Labor's (Re)Organization of Space. Antibode, 30(3), 227--250.
  • Turner, L. (2004). Why Revitalize? Labour's Urgent Mission in Contested Global Economy. C. Frege, J. Kelly içinde, Varieties of Unionism: Strategiesfor Union Reoitalization in Globalizing Economy (s. 1--10). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Turner, L., Hurd, R. W. (2001). Building Social Movement Unionism: The Transformation of American Labor Movement. L. Turner, H. C. Katz, R.
  • W. Hurd içinde, Re/éina'ling tbe mooement: Labor's gnost/or releoance in tbe tit/engr jirst rentngı (s. 9--26). New York: Cornell University Press. Turner, T., D'Art, D. (2012). Public Perceptions of Trade Unions in Countries of the European Union: Casual Analysis. Labor Stadiesfoiirnal, 37(1), 33--55.
  • Urhan, B. (2005). Türkiye'de Sendikal Örgütlenmede Yaşanan Güven ve Dayanışma Sorunları. Çalisma oe Toplant, 4, 57--88.
  • Urhan, B. (2012). İşçilerin Sendikaya Üye Olma Nedenleri ve Sendikaların Yeni Üye Kazanmaya Yönelik Stratejileri. 'İş, Giic' Endüstri İliski/eri oe İnsan Kip/naklari, 74(2), 33--56.
  • Visser, J. (2006). Union Membership Statistics in 24 Countries. Montné/ Labor Review, fannagi, 38--49.
  • Waddington, J. (2003). Trade Union Organization. P. Edwards içinde, Indnstrial Relations: T/oeogi and Praetiee (s. 214--254). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Wills, J. (2001). Community Unionism and Trade Union Renewal in the UK: Moving beyond the Fragments at Last? Transactions of the Institnte of British Gegrapners, 26(4) 464--483.
  • Yıldırım, E., Uçkan, B. (2010). İşverenlerin Sendikasızlaştırrna Modelleri ve Türkiye Örneği. Çalışma ne Top/ant, 25, 163--184.
  • Zeytinoğlu, I. U., Yilmaz, G., Keser, A., lnelmen, K., Uygur, D., Özsoy, A. (2013). Job Satisfaction, Flexible Employment and Job Security among Turkish Service Sector Workers. Etme/ate and Iade/stria! Dernoeragl, 34(1), 123-- 144.
APA Kılıç S (2016). Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. , 1203 - 1230.
Chicago Kılıç Sadık Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. (2016): 1203 - 1230.
MLA Kılıç Sadık Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. , 2016, ss.1203 - 1230.
AMA Kılıç S Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. . 2016; 1203 - 1230.
Vancouver Kılıç S Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. . 2016; 1203 - 1230.
IEEE Kılıç S "Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme." , ss.1203 - 1230, 2016.
ISNAD Kılıç, Sadık. "Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme". (2016), 1203-1230.
APA Kılıç S (2016). Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. Çalışma ve Toplum, 3(50), 1203 - 1230.
Chicago Kılıç Sadık Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. Çalışma ve Toplum 3, no.50 (2016): 1203 - 1230.
MLA Kılıç Sadık Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. Çalışma ve Toplum, vol.3, no.50, 2016, ss.1203 - 1230.
AMA Kılıç S Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. Çalışma ve Toplum. 2016; 3(50): 1203 - 1230.
Vancouver Kılıç S Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme. Çalışma ve Toplum. 2016; 3(50): 1203 - 1230.
IEEE Kılıç S "Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme." Çalışma ve Toplum, 3, ss.1203 - 1230, 2016.
ISNAD Kılıç, Sadık. "Sendikaların Yeniden Canlanması İçin İki Rakip Strateji: Paydaşlık ve Örgütlenme". Çalışma ve Toplum 3/50 (2016), 1203-1230.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 3:38

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları