Multinational Human Resource Management and the Law

Multinational Human Resource Management and the Law

Common Workplace Problems in Different Legal Environments

Matthew W. Finkin, Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Takashi Araki, Philipp Fischinger, Roberto Fragale Filho, Andrew Stewart and Bernd Waas

Multinational corporations face considerable complexity in setting the terms and conditions of employment. Differing national laws prevent firms from developing consistent sets of employment policies, but, at the same time, employees are often expected to work closely with colleagues located in many different countries and seek comparable treatment. This critical volume offers a comprehensive analysis of how these contradictory issues are dealt with in five countries – Australia, Brazil, Germany, Japan and the United States.

PART IV: PRIVACY, DIGNITY, AND AUTONOMY

Matthew W. Finkin, Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Takashi Araki, Philipp Fischinger, Roberto Fragale Filho, Andrew Stewart and Bernd Waas

Subjects: business and management, human resource management, law - academic, labour, employment law

Extract

Privacy, dignity, and autonomy may be defined differently across cultures and are manifested in the law in ways that reveal deep underlying assumptions about people, work, organizations, and markets. Consequently, multinational managers find them particularly challenging. “Autonomy” seems pretty clear conceptually: a right of self-determination, a freedom from control by others. As much cannot be said for “privacy” or even “dignity.” There is a rich texture of philosophical as well as anthropological and historical discussion of what we conceive of when we speak of “privacy” – and the conceptual wellspring grounding it, human dignity. Some of the historical context is discussed in Matthew Finkin, Menschenbild: The Conception of the Employee as a Person in Western Law, 23 COMP. LAB. L. & POL’Y J. 577, 590–91 (2002) (references omitted): The word “privacy” did not come into common English usage until the 16th century, a time of enormous economic development, domestically and internationally, both commercial and proto-industrial, and of urbanization. The two may not be unrelated. Ferdinand Schoeman has argued that the practice of privacy evolves only when there is a high degree of social and economic specialization, when this specialization liberates individuals from dependence on any group, and where social welfare and security come to depend as much on individual initiative as on cultural rigidity. This has been challenged … not so much on the historical record, which seems indubitable, as on the conclusion to be drawn to the extent it might discount an innate human need.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information