The Councils are the major means through which participation 'take place, but the rank and file partner is under-represented on themthe scope of his participation remains potential rather than actual.Central Council has rights which do give it certain sanctions againstChairman and Board, if the need arose; it appoints three Trustees ofConstitution, who then become directors, and it also nominates five odirectors. The main day-to-administration of a large welfare fund, but it is entided to 'discussmatter whatsoever and make any suggestion that they shall see fit toCentral Board or to the Chairman' .2 However, the Council doesnormally conduct detailed policy discussions, so that althoug~ theo~ally, it has very wide scope its actual participatory influence w.ould ap ·to be very limited (p. 177). The Central Council has 140 members, abothr~uarters elected and the rest appointed by the Chairman ofPartnership including all senior management. Candidates for the Coelections come from all ranks of partners, but those standing and dare more likely to be of managerial status than the rank and file. Fro ·1957-8 to 1966-7 the proportion of managerial rank councillorsvariedfrom6I% to 70% (pluS2o% to24% exofticio members) and thatrank and file partners from 8% to 19%·3 In the sub-committees, w · ·carry out a large part of the work, there is a marked shift to hi~management membership. .The Branch Councils, modelled on the Central Council and suborc:linaeeJto it, are somewhat more representative of the rank and file, who com,prise about half the elected membership. (The councils average 35 ~bers, about IS% ex officio.) Apart from administering its own welf.arefunds the Branch Council can sponsor resolutions to the Central Council.which, if adopted, become recommendations to management. About six to1 FJanders et al., pp. 76 and 42 tr. Secrecy is maintained over wages, a source of grievanceto many partnen. Committees for Communication exist, which are soldyrank and file bodies. These are essentially grievance-settling bodies that have nofunds or executive powers and cannot themselves take remedial action, so are ollittle relevance from the participatory point of view (sec p. so ff.).2 FJanders et al. (1968, p. 64). For nomination powers, etc., sec pp. 64-s.a FJanders et al., p. 6o, Table S· Twenty-two per cent of men and 2S% of womeDcandidates had held some special status in the Partnership (p. 8.4).78
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
