Abstract

The International Labour Organization (ILO) promotes labour standards and decent work to counter a global ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of job regulation. By analysing Thailand's experiences, we consider three questions: 1) How might we characterize Thai capitalism?; 2) What are Thailand's labour market contexts for human resource management and industrial relations?; and 3) What is Thailand's situation regarding decent work and how is it related to politics, ILO labour standards and labour law? We identify two Thai labour‐market contexts: state‐owned and private enterprises where there is unionization (Type A); and public services/smaller enterprises/informal work where unionization is negligible (Type B). We find implementation of decent work is patchy. We suggest that Thailand reforms its tripartite agency to promote decent work and improve human resource management. These steps are more likely to be more effective and sustained under a parliamentary democracy than under a military junta. Our analysis has relevance also for other economies.

Highlights

  • The International Labour Organization (ILO) promotes labour standards and decent work to counter a global ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of job regulation

  • Industrial relations and decent work practices are substantially influenced by government policy and action, which varies in Thailand under the contrasting regimes of parliamentary democracy and military junta

  • We focus on evaluating decent work for Type A workers who work in contexts that generally exhibit more pluralism than in Type B, so there are more prospects for implementing decent work in Type A

Read more

Summary

Discussion of Thai experiences

Industrial relations and decent work practices are substantially influenced by government policy and action, which varies in Thailand under the contrasting regimes of parliamentary democracy and military junta. Employers’ and workers’ unions are registered, so under state control and could be dissolved if their action is seen as illegal Separation of the 2 laws (for private and state-owned enterprises) is state control, which weakens unions State-owned enterprise workers have more benefits, for example, in terms of pay, welfare and employment security National centres of unions are fragile with 16 peak organizations that fragment bargaining power Labour Court cases may run for years Workers’ welfare committees are independent from unions, but are not mandated in enterprises with

Rights at work
Social protection
Findings
Social dialogue
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.