This Call for papers seeks contributions for publication in the 2022-2023 issues. We invite Italian and non-Italian scholars, social worker, unionists to submit papers presenting and discussing the main results of researches on the broad array of topics related with work: the multiple models of work found in the formal and informal economies and related markets, organizations and institutions; the various principles of social organization, in terms of time, space, gender, age etc.; the multiple phenomena and aspects of society with which work is interwoven, including education and training, the daily life, migration dynamics and national and local welfare systems. More theoretical and methodological contributions are also welcomed.
We would be especially interested in receiving submissions that attempt to address the challenge covering more than one nation states or local communities and are open to dialogue with other disciplines. Priority will be given to essays that adopt an international comparative perspective.
Articles in Italian or English should be no more than 8,000 words in length (including references and appendices). They must be edited strictly according to the journal editorial standards (available at this link https://static.francoangeli.it/fa-contenuti/riviste/nr/sl-norme_en.pdf) and submitted through the journal’s OJS platform, by clicking on the «Submit a paper» button https://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=83 and following the submission guidelines.
If the article is not in line with the journal topics or standard, the author(s) will be informed within 45 days. If the article is judged suitable for the publication, the author(s) will be promptly informed. It will be sent to two independent referees for double-blind peer review process and will be later published on the first available issue of the journal.
The aim of this Special Issue is twofold. Firstly, it seeks to systematize the differentiated phenomena that are often simplistically labeled as Antiwork. We believe that scientific investigations are necessary to better delineate the boundaries between these phenomena, specify their analogies and differences, and clarify whether and to what extent it is possible – and appropriate – to investigate them using a unified theoretical framework and analytical tools. Secondly, the Special Issue aims to collect contributions that empirically map and delineate these phenomena. These contributions will focus on specific sectors or segments of the labor market, or national cases, and utilize comparative analysis to understand their real extent beyond simplistic narratives and media representations.
A Special Issue on ‘the stake in work conflicts’ offers the possibility to combine older and newer reflections to open a debate on what is the main field of work conflicts today. If inequality has grown in the latest decades in Italy as in the most part of countries, its translation in terms of social conflicts is not mechanical. For Touraine (1984) the class is a historical actor and therefore is either a ‘class for itself’ or it is not a class at all. Today, we witness redefinitions of economic conflicts: take for instance the slogan ‘we are the 99%’ of the Occupy movement, which is far from the traditional class concepts, and the emergence of the ‘precariat’ category, as distinct from that of ‘salariat’ (Meardi et al., 2021)
BACKGROUND
Logistics, intended as a management tool of flows of commodities and transport, has now established itself as one of the strategic aspects of the economy. The organizational complexity of a logistics chain is directly proportional to the increasing structuring of the firms in “networks” and the fragmentation of global value chains. The modern economy generates more and more synchronization needs, which adapt to the general trend of a reduction of production time cycles (Veltz, 2017).
The spread of Covid-19 has further increased the awareness that, in a context of strong interdependencies between economies, a shock that hits one of the links in the chain is enough for a systemic impact. While some observers affirm the fragility of global value chains and the trend of de-globalization, other foresee a growth in the logistics sector (Baldwin, 2020).
Since the pandemic began, global supply chains are however under severe pressures, affecting employment conditions. Distortions in the logistics labour market - such as the global shortage of truck drivers - are counterbalanced by the current pattern of strong competition along the entire logistics chain, which generally consists of three increasingly integrated dimensions: maritime activities, cargo handling in the port area and transport services in the hinterland.
There has been considerable conceptual confusion around the place of logistics in the context of the Marxian categories of circulation, distribution and production. Some authors underline that warehouse activities increasingly take over aspects of production, others claim a dominance of circulation and/or distribution over production due to a logistics turn of the economy. While much focus in logistics research has been on consumer retail, other sectors like energy, construction and industry might exhibit different characteristics (Bologna and Curi, 2019).
OBJECTIVES
This special issue seeks to outline the changing dynamics across the logistics chain, with particular attention to labour issues. From the industrial districts, object of several studies in Italy, we move on to the logistics districts, to the transport infrastructures and to the platforms (both digital and material). In this context, we aim to raise some questions which have not yet seen comprehensive responses, and might enable more precise empirical descriptions of the field of labour:
THEMATIC AREAS
In this perspective, the special issue aims to collect 5/6 contributions, in Italian and/or English. We invite to submit papers focusing on the workforce employed to ensure the flow, the handling, and the transport of goods on a global scale. Dock workers, porters, seafarers, truck drivers, airport workers, train drivers, but also couriers, riders or drivers involved in the last mile of urban logistics: all these profiles operate within that complex panorama that we call logistics, with different skills, contractual and working conditions from each other. Some of these professional profiles pertain to the transport of goods by land, sea or river, air or rail; others concern the movement and handling of goods in warehouses or distribution centres, in port or airport terminals, in intermodal railway terminals. To these professional profiles we might add the technical staff, the managers, the IT of the companies and freight forwarders, the logistics operators on behalf of third parties (3PL).
We ask for conceptual, ethnographic and / or qualitative/quantitative contributions that provide a description of the system of governance, the larger political economy and the impact on working conditions in this strategic sector of the global economy.
Papers may include, but are not limited to, the following topics:
- Working conditions along the maritime-logistics chains
- Impact of technological innovations, digitalization and automation on the reorganization of work
- Forms of resistance and mobilizations at workplace
- Power relationships, racialization and genderization at workplace
- Distortions, challenges, and trends of the logistics labour market
- Management of the logistics labour force
- Relationships between national-supranational regulations, and effects on logistics labour regimes
- Bargaining, representation, and conflicts across the maritime-logistics chains
- Relationship of the logistics sector to the larger political economy of capitalism
- Conceptualisation of labour in logistics with Marxian frameworks
CONDITIONS AND DEADLINES
Article proposals in Italian or English should be submitted via email to the Journal web page: http://ojs.francoangeli.it/_ojs/index.php/sl/about/submissions no later than December 15, 2023.
Authors should follow the instructions to upload the complete articles. Articles should be no longer than 8,000 words, and must adhere to the journal’s style and editorial standards:
https://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/NR/Sl-norme_EN.pdf
Any article that does not comply with the word limit or the style and editorial standards indicated in this call for papers will not be accepted. Correctly formatted articles submitted via the journal’s online platform shall be subject to a process of double-blind peer review.
References
Allen W.B. (1997) “The Logistics Revolution and Transportation”, Annals, AAPSS, 533, 106-116.
Baldwin R., Weder De Mauro B. (2020) Economics in the time of Covid-19, London, CEPR Press.
Bottalico A. (2019) “Antwerp and Genoa. Two ports in transition between traditional labour systems and global production networks”, Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa, Rivista quadrimestrale, 2/2019.
Bologna, S., & Curi, S. (2019). “Relazioni industriali e servizi di logistica: Uno studio preliminare”. Giornale di diritto del lavoro e di relazioni industriali, 161/2019, pp 125-156.
Fox‐Hodess K. (2017) “(Re‐)Locating the Local and National in the Global: Multi‐Scalar Political Alignment in Transnational European Dockworker Union Campaigns”, British Journal of Industrial Relations.
Ness I., Alimahomed-Wilson, J. (Eds.) (2018). Choke points: Logistics workers disrupting the global supply chain, London, England: Pluto Press.
Nowak J. (2021) “Do choke points provide workers in logistics with power? A critique of the power resources approach in light of the 2018 truckers’ strike in Brazil”, Review of International Political Economy.
Veltz P. (2017) La société hyper-industrielle. Le nouveau capitalisme productif, Seuil, Paris.
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES
Gender disparity in academic careers is a global phenomenon, although its causes and consequences vary among different national contexts. Despite the progress that has been made in recent years and the increasing attention paid to the issue, for instance in Europe with the Lisbon Agenda and the creation of the European Research Area in 2000, achieving gender equality in various workplaces and professions, including academia, remains a major challenge. While female university students perform better than their male counterparts, the situation suddenly changes in postdoctoral fellowship positions, and it worsens further throughout the subsequent stages of academic careers. In Italy, for instance, as in other countries, women remain significantly underrepresented not only in early career stages but also in full professorships and in leadership positions (Checchi, Cicognani and Kulic 2018; Murgia and Poggio 2019; Picardi 2019; Gaiaschi and Musumeci 2020). These phenomena are known as the ‘leaky pipeline’/and or ‘glass door’ (regarding women more likely to leave their academic careers and less likely to obtain tenured positions), and as the ‘glass ceiling’ (women less likely to achieve full professorships). Notwithstanding the growing feminization of the academic professions, universities are still the domain of persisting gender gaps stemming from gender stereotypes and inequality practices (van den Brink and Benschop 2011). In more recent times, these gaps seem to have been reinforced by the emerging practices of science production and evaluation of scientific performance and excellence, as well as by the new work arrangements in scientific organizations due to the growing hegemony of neoliberal models. Moreover – as a huge body of scientific evidence shows – also the Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to exacerbating gender inequality in academia, especially for those in the most precarious posts (King and Frederickson 2020).
The aim of this special issue is to advance knowledge on gender inequalities in academic careers both in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) disciplines, and on the role played by gender equality policies enacted and implemented in universities and research-performing and funding organizations in order to address inequalities. Specifically, the panel is interested in understanding the following issues: how gender differences and gender inequalities are (re)produced at various stages of academic careers (recruitment, retention, career advancement) and in different disciplines in academia, and how they are connected to the structural and cultural factors that operate at the individual, organizational, and institutional levels (Risman 2004). Moreover, it is interested in the role of public policies and programmes in promoting change and enhancing equity. This entails both disentangling the role of cultural factors (i.e. norms on gender roles) versus structural barriers (i.e. recruitment/ selection/ evaluation rules and practices) and considering the complex interaction among the micro level (individual attitudes, preferences, and decisions), the meso level (organizational practices, cultures and processes), and the macro level (institutional settings and national regulations and policies).
STATE OF THE ART
Gender inequality is a persistent phenomenon all over the world and in every socio-economic domain (OECD 2017). Although the underrepresentation of women in academia and research has triggered interest among scientists, the debate on the barriers to women’s full participation, and on the main factors accounting for gender disparity, is still open. Scholars discuss whether this is due to overt gender discrimination, unconscious gender bias, a gender gap in scientific productivity, or to other more or less visible or subtle factors. The mainstream literature comprises two main approaches to account for the gender imbalance in academic and research contexts: supply-side explanations, and demand-side explanations (Carriero and Naldini, 2021).
According to the former, the disadvantaged position of women in academia is due to ‘individual self-selection’ mechanisms. In this corpus of literature, an array of reasons are cited to explain the gender gap in scientific performance and the disadvantaged position of women in career advancement. It is posited that women may have lower self-confidence, may be less competitive, so that they have lower levels of risk appetite, confidence and competitiveness (Azmat and Petrongolo 2014). Women, it is maintained, may have stronger preferences for family responsibilities than men (Hyde 2005; Croson and Gneezy 2009; Pautasso 2015; Passaretta and Triventi 2021; Weisshaar 2017). Bosak and Sczesny (2008) claim that women identify themselves as less suitable for higher ranks due to an inherent notion that associates masculine characteristics with leadership. Thus, women researchers are supposed to behave differently from men. Self-selecting mechanisms produce different choices in terms of research field, time allocation between work and family, between teaching and research, but also in term of research and publishing strategies. As a result of these (individual) self-selection mechanisms, female researchers tend to show productivity lower than that of their male colleagues (Abramo et al. 2009; Misra et al. 2012; Abramo and D’Angelo 2015; Mairesse and Pezzoni 2015; Nielsen 2016; Jappelli et al. 2017; Uhly et al. 2017; Filandri and Pasqua 2019; Ooms et al. 2019).
A second set of explanations of the gender gap in academia are ‘demand-side’ ones based on the idea of organizational gender bias and discriminatory behavior in recruitment and promotions, and on cultural/institutional barriers, including resistances against the implementation of gender equality policies in academic institutions. Gender bias can have diverse origins. There is a ‘taste bias’ when women are excluded because of prejudice and sexist views (Pollard-Sacks 1999) or ideological beliefs about who is eligible for certain professions (Witz 1990). There are also wider cultural barriers that reveal enduring gender bias preconceptions and stereotypes about the definition of masculinity/femininity in recruitment procedures, career promotions, and the way in which scientific ‘excellence’ is constructed (Addis, Villa 2003; Addis 2008; den Brink and Benshop 2011). In addition, gender bias appears to be at work in the perceived importance of the various components of academic work (Moss-Racusin et al. 2012). Women tend to be more involved in teaching than men and to devote more time to student support and less prestigious management work – a pattern known as ‘academic housekeeping’ (Castaño, Vázquez and Martínez 2019), yet in evaluation criteria ‘excellence’ in research (i.e. publications) takes precedence over teaching in all scientific fields (Garforth and Kerr 2009). Scholarly work is increasingly analysing the role of gender equality policies in transforming inequalities in universities, as well as in removing the resistances raised against policy implementation by actors seeking to maintain the unequal status quo (Lombardo and Bustelo 2021). This literature has also explored the agency of individual and institutional feminist actors in countering such resistances and effectively implementing gender equality policies in universities (Verge 2021, Tildesley, Lombardo and Verge 2022). More recent literature has highlighted the emergence of new inequalities due to the affirmation of the neo-liberal agenda and to the consequent redefinition of organizational practices and processes, all of which have remarkable gender implications (Bozzon, Murgia, Poggio 2018, Poggio 2018). Gender inequalities in academia can be also affected by the structural and normative opportunities that characterize different national contexts (as in the case of the welfare system) (Musselin 2005). Finally, a huge body of research conducted since the onset of the Covid-19 epidemic has shown how it has impacted differently on women and men scholars, exacerbating the already-existing imbalances (Pereira 2021).
THEMATIC AREAS
This call for papers for Sociologia del Lavoro (journal indexed in Scopus) is seeking original theoretical and/or empirical, quantitative and/or qualitative contributions, in English, that will broaden and deepen our understanding of gender inequalities in university careers, and of gender policies to address such inequalities. Possible studies might cover any of the following topics, or ones related to them:
CONDITIONS AND DEADLINES
Article proposals in English should be uploaded to the publisher’s OJS platform, following the guidelines on the journal's web page: http://ojs.francoangeli.it/_ojs/index.php/sl/about/submissions by no later than September 15, 2023.
Authors should follow the instructions to upload complete articles. Articles must not exceed 8,000 words and must adhere to the journal's style and editorial standards: https://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/NR/Sl-norme_IT.pdf
Any article that does not comply with the word limit or the style and editorial standards will not be accepted. Correctly formatted articles submitted via the journal's online platform shall be subject to a double-blind peer review process.
References
Addis, E. (2008) Genere ed eccellenza, in “La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali” n. 2, pp. 199-230.
Addis, E. and Villa, P. (2003) The editorial boards of Italian economics journals: women, gender, and social networking, in “Feminist Economics” Vol. 9, n. 1, pp. 75-91.
Azmat, G. and Petrongolo, B. (2014) Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments?, in “Labour Economics” Vol. 30, pp. 32-40.
Bosak, J. and Sczesny, S. (2008) Am I the right candidate? Self-ascribed fit of women and men to a leadership position, in “Sex Roles” Vol. 58, n. 9-10, pp. 682-688.
Bozzon, R., Murgia, A., Poggio, B. (2018) “Gender and precarious careers in academia and research. Macro, meso and micro perspectives” in A. Murgia, B. Poggio (eds.) Gender and Precarious Research Careers: A Comparative Analysis, Routledge, pp. 15-49.
Cariero, R. and Naldini, M (2022) Gender Disparity in Access to Academia in Italy. The barriers to women’s early career stages (with Carriero, R.), in "Polis", 1, pp. 5-32.
Castaño C., Vázquez-Cupeiro, S. and Martínez-Cantos JL. (2019) Gendered management in Spanish universities: Functional segregation among vice-rectors, in "Gender and Education" Vol. 31, n. 8, pp. 966–985.
Checchi, D., Cicognani, S. and Kulic, N. (2019) Gender Quotas or Girls’ Networks? Evidence from an Italian Research Selection, in “Work, Employment and Society” Vol. 33, n. 3, pp. 462-482.
Croson, R. and Gneezy, U. (2009) Gender differences in preferences, in “Journal of Economic Literature”, Vol. 47, n. 2, pp. 448-474.
Filandri, M. and Pasqua, S. (2019) “Being good isn’t good enough’: gender discrimination in Italian academia, in “Studies in Higher Education”, pp. 1-19.
Gaiaschi, C. and Musumeci, R. (2020) Just a Matter of Time? Women’s Career Advancement in Neo-Liberal Academia. An Analysis of Recruitment Trends in Italian Universities, in “Social Sciences”, Vol. 9, n. 9, pp. 163.
Garforth, L. and Kerr, A. (2009) Women and science: What's the problem?, in “Social Politics”, Vol. 16, n. 3, pp. 379-403.
Hyde, J. S. (2005) The gender similarities hypothesis, in “American Psychologist”, Vol. 60, n. 6, pp. 581-592.
King, M. M., & Frederickson, M. (2020, September 12). The Pandemic Penalty: The gendered effects of COVID-19 on scientific productivity. SocArXiv. September 12.
Le Feuvre, N. (2009) Exploring women's academic careers in cross-national perspective: Lessons for equal opportunity policies, in “Equal Opportunities International”, Vol. 28, n. 1, pp. 9-23.
Lombardo, E. and Bustelo, M. (2021) Sexual and sexist harassment in Spanish universities: policy implementation and resistances against gender equality measures, in "Journal of Gender Studies", Vol. 31, n. 1., pp. 8-22 Open access https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1924643
Mairesse, J. and Pezzoni, M. (2015) Does gender affect scientific productivity?, in “Revue économique”, Vol. 66, n. 1, pp. 65-113.
Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H. and Templer, A. (2012) Gender, Work Time, and Care Responsibilities Among Faculty 1, in “Sociological Forum”, Vol. 27, n. 2, pp. 300-323.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. and Handelsman, J. (2012) Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students, in “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”, Vol. 109, n. 41, pp. 16474-16479.
Murgia, A. and Poggio, B. (2018) Gender and precarious research careers: A comparative analysis, London, Routledge.
Musselin, C. 2005. “European Academic Labour Markets in Transition”, in "Higher Education" Vol, 49, pp. 135 154.
OECD (2017) The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle, Paris, OECD Publishing.
Ooms, W., Werker, C. and Hopp, C. (2019) Moving up the ladder: heterogeneity influencing academic careers through research orientation, gender, and mentors, in “Studies in Higher Education”, Vol. 44, n. 7, pp. 1268-1289.
Passaretta, G. and Triventi, M. (2021) Inequality at the top. The gender wage gap among the Italian educational elites, Discussion paper, https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/updgw/.
Pautasso, M. (2015) The Italian university habilitation and the challenge of increasing the representation of women in academia, in “Challenges”, Vol. 6, n. 1, pp. 26-41.
Pereira, Maria do Mar (2021), Researching Gender Inequalities in Academic Labour during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Avoiding Common Problems and Asking Different Questions, "Gender, Work & Organization", 28 (S2), 498-509.
Picardi, I. (2019) The glass door of academia: Unveiling new gendered bias in academic recruitment, in “Social Sciences”, Vol. 8, n. 5, pp. 160.
Poggio, B. (2018) “Structural changes in higher education in the neoliberal age. Insight from Connell’s theory”, in R. Connell, P. Martin, J. W. Messerschmidt, M. Messner (a cura di) Gender Reckonings: New Social Theory and Research, pp. 234-260, New York, New York University Press.
Pollard, D. A. (1999) Unconscious Bias and Self-Critical Analysis: The Case for a Qualified Evidentiary Equal Employment Opportunity Privilege, in “Washington Law Review”, Vol. 74, n.4, pp. 913-1032.
Risman, B. J. (2004) Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism, in “Gender and Society”, Vol. 18, n. 4, pp. 429-450.
Tildesley, R., Lombardo, E. and Verge, T. (2022) Power Struggles in the Implementation of Gender Equality Policies: The Politics of Resistance and Counter-resistance in Universities, in "Politics & Gender". Vol. 18, n. 4, pp. 879-910 Open access, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X21000167
Uhly, K. M., Visser, L. M. and Zippel, K. S. (2017) Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academia, in “Studies in Higher Education”, Vol. 42, n. 4, pp. 760-782.
Van den Brink, M. and Benschop, Y. (2011) Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs, in “Organization”, Vol. 19, n. 4, pp. 507-524.
Verge, T. (2021) Gender equality policy and universities: Feminist strategic alliances to re-gender the curriculum. "Journal of Women, Politics & Policy". Epub. June 2, 2021.
Weisshaar, K. (2017) Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in academia, in “Social Forces”, Vol. 96, n. 2, pp. 529-560.
Witz, A. (1990) Patriarchy and professions: The gendered politics of occupational closure, in “Sociology”, Vol. 24, n. 4, pp. 675-690.
CALL FOR SPECIAL ISSUES n. 165 (1) 2023
Labor transformations in the ecological transition: work, welfare and social movements in the era of climate justice
edited by Maura Benegiamo (Università di Pisa), Paul Guillibert (Universidade de Coimbra), Matteo Villa (Università di Pisa)
Download call for papers [EN/IT] (PDF)
Deadline for paper submission: 15/09/2022
CALL FOR SPECIAL ISSUES n. 166 (2) 2023
Labour migrations, inequalities and regulation from the great recession to the pandemic crisis
edited by Maurizio Avola (Università di Catania), Roberto Impicciatore (Università di Bologna), Nazareno Panichella (Università di Milano)
Download call for papers [IT/EN] (PDF)
Deadline for paper submission: 15/12/2022
CALL FOR SPECIAL ISSUES n. 167 (3) 2023
New Directions in Labour Process Theory
edited by Francesco Bagnardi (Scuola Normale Superiore), Vincenzo Maccarrone (University College Dublin)
Download call for papers [IT/EN] (PDF)
Deadline for paper submission: 15/03/2023
Objectives and contents of the special issue
The aim of this special issue is to analyse the transformation of the relationship between labour law and sociology, with particular reference to the period that began after the 2008 financial crisis and worsened with the health crisis, through multidisciplinary contributions in which the elements of convergence and friction between the sociological and juridical point of view regarding the transformations of labour and productive organisations are recognised.
The relationship between the sociological and legal perspectives on labour has changed more than once since labour law emerged as an autonomous discipline from civil law between the two world wars.
The social science perspective has played a decisive role in the development of the foundational categories of so-called 'classic' labour law. For the 'classic' labour lawyers, the employment contract differs from other civil and commercial contracts to the extent that the employment relationship is to be understood, sociologically, as a relationship of subordination and subservience, rather than a contract between equals. The ability to legally recognise a de facto power relationship between two subjects – employer and employee – is the essential basis on which labour law has been built, triggering a process of civilisation of the enterprise (Supiot 1994, ch. IV).
A very close relationship with sociological analysis also underlies the development of trade union law. Suffice it to recall that the construct of inter-union order – the basis of the promotional rules of the Act 300/1970 – was developed in Italy by Gino Giugni in the wake of the institutionalism of Commons and Perlman.
Since the 1990s, the neo-reformist turn in labour law has been accompanied by a reversal of perspective. The weakening of labour protection was justified on the basis of the permanent employment emergency, accompanied by the idea that labour was less and less in need of protection.
The reconstructions of the organisational transformations that emphasised the presumed gains in workers' autonomy in the so-called post-Fordist production processes, and the idea that the organisational choices of companies were in any case marked by an intrinsic rationality, guaranteed by the market (and the financial markets), have contributed to this possibility.
Since the mid-1980s, labour law has undergone a profound transformation, which has affected the two essential pillars of the discipline. First, the hegemonic power of the category of subordination, the keystone of the entire system, has been weakened. The elaboration of the construct of parasubordination around a procedural rule indicative of the attractiveness of labour law, has allowed, by a heterogony of ends, a gradual exit of labour relations from the area of protection.
Secondly, the prohibition of interposition in labour relations has been progressively weakened, first with the introduction of temporary agency work (1997), then with the staff leasing (2003), which coincided with the repeal of Act No 1369 of 1960 and with numerous interventions unequivocally aimed at favouring the processes of breaking up the production cycle, starting with the amendment to the notion of a branch of a company (Art. 32, Legislative Decree No 276/03).
After the financial collapse of 2008, the worsening of inequalities, the increase in poverty and the worsening of working conditions have prompted the social sciences not only to renew their attention to the conditions of workers and the unemployed, but also to analyse the causes, devoting increasing attention to the dynamics of social power underlying the transformations and developing strategies and instruments of regulation.
The sociology of work and organisations and the labour law doctrine have proceeded, essentially in parallel, to examine two issues that remain of central importance for the legal regulation of work: (a) the dynamics of organisational action in labour relations, within and beyond the purely hierarchical relations traditionally governed by the managerial power of the employer; (b) the question of the 'boundaries of the enterprise', or rather the processes of segmentation of production processes, outsourcing and delocalisation, with their consequences in terms of protection of labour and trade union action.
More recently, a further area of study common to the two disciplinary areas has become (c) the so-called 'digital work', articulated in the double dimension of the processes of digitalisation of industry (so-called Industry 4.0) and the growing importance of organisation through digital platforms. On this front there are now some empirical findings of sociological research and some achievements of positive and living law (especially – but not only – with reference to the work of the so-called riders).
As far as the analysis of collective action and its regulation is concerned, in both disciplinary areas a growing attention has been paid to (d) strategies for adjusting union action in the new forms of work.
Finally, it is foreseeable that, following the health emergency linked to the Covid-19 pandemic, a further research front that will engage both sociologists and labour lawyers will be (e) the study of employment and organisational dynamics in an unprecedented economic conjuncture that has led to an increase in the use of digital technologies as well as the elaboration of regulatory instruments to deal with them.
The special issue aims to explore the conditions, limits and potentialities of the dialogue between sociology of work and organisations, on the one hand, and labour law, on the other, on the five thematic areas outlined above.
To this end, we invite proposals for articles that address at least one of these thematic cores, focusing in particular on the acquisitions of the sociology of work and organisations and labour law in the last fifteen years: