Articles de revues sur le sujet « Unfair labour practices – Mauritius »

The concept of unfair labour practice has been introduced into South Africa through the Labour Relations Act and it is argued that certain psychometric testing practices can be interpreted as falling under the definition of an unfair labour practice. Empirical results are presented indicating that different ethnic groups obtain significantly different mean ability test scores. A case-study is cited to show that this would result in underprediction of performance on a criterion for the lower scoring of two groups if test scores are regarded as comparable. It is argued that any interpretation of psychometric data in South Africa that does not take account of possible differences between ethnic groups is likely to ignore a significant moderator variable, given the history of ethnically based discriminatory practices in this country. Arguments based on meta-analytical research in the USA, to the effect that psychometric ability tests do not discriminate unfairly against disadvantaged groups if the same tests and norms are used, should not be assumed to hold in South Africa. Various conceptions of what constitutes fairness in selection are considered, and it is concluded that there is a need for employers to make explicit in their selection policies the trade-off between economic and social costs of employment practices. Finally, some implications for users of psychometric tests in industry are considered, in order to forewarn of likely developments in this field.

AbstractThis paper compares the definitions, practices, and legal constraints on labour in Britain, France, Mauritius, and Reunion Island in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It argues that the way in which indentured labour was defined and practised in the colonies was linked to the definition and practice of wage labour in Europe and that their development was interconnected. The types of bondage that existed in the colonies were extreme forms of the notion, practices, and rules of labour in Europe. It would have been impossible to develop the indenture contract in the British and French empires if wage earners in Britain and France had not been servants. The conceptions and practices of labour in Europe and its main colonies influenced each other and were part of a global dynamic.

This article supplements current dialogue on the archaeology of slavery, offering an Indian Ocean counterpoint to a topic that has largely focused on the Atlantic world. It also delves into the essentially uncharted domain of the archaeology of indentured labour. New plural societies, characterized by cultural hybridity, were created around the world as a consequence of labour diasporas in the late historic period. What do these societies look like during the process of nation building and after independence? Can we study this development through archaeology? Focusing on Mauritius, this paper discusses the complexities of the island, and how it can be representative of similar newly formed plural societies in the Indian Ocean. During French and British imperial rule, the island served as an important trading post for a range of European imperial powers. These varied groups initiated the movement and settlement of African, Indian and Chinese transplanted communities. By exploring the dynamic nature of inter-group interaction on Mauritius, this paper emphasizes the nuanced nature of how different peoples arrived and made the island their home. Mauritius played a vital role in the transportation of forced and free labour, both within and beyond this oceanic world, and offers an important viewpoint from which to survey the ways in which historical archaeology can improve our understanding of the broader archaeo-historical processes of which these diasporas were an integral feature. The paper focuses on the outcomes of settlement, as viewed through the complex practices that underpin local food culture, the use and development of language and the way materials are employed for the expression of identity. The article also traces the roots of contemporary cultural retention for indentured labourers to administrative decisions made by the British, and ultimately explores how heritage and language can provide a powerful lens on mechanisms of cultural expression. In addition to illustrating the nuanced and multifaceted nature of group interaction on Mauritius itself, this article raises an issue of broader relevance—the need for historical archaeologists to give greater consideration to the Indian Ocean, rather than focusing on the Atlantic world. This would allow us to achieve a more informed understanding of European slave trading and associated systems of labour migration within a more global framework.

AbstractOn 27 April 1994 South Africans adopted a new constitution, with founding values of dignity, equality and freedom. Despite the new constitution, the majority of women remain victims within the workplace. They still find themselves a minority within senior management and are often subjected to sexual harassment. Women are either denied work opportunities for refusing to give in to a perpetrator's sexual advances or they are forced to work in an unpleasant environment that severely infringes on their dignity. There are five legal options available to victims of sexual harassment within the South African workplace. These are claims against the employer for: vicarious liability; automatically unfair dismissal; unfair labour practices; failing to create a safe working environment; and violating the Employment Equity Act. This article examines the strengths and weaknesses of these legal actions. It also makes further suggestions aimed at curbing workplace sexual harassment within South Africa.

The importance of linking leadership to talent management is a priority for the Mauritian economy at a time when the economy shifts from the industrial and labour-intensive sector to a services and knowledge-based economy. There is a necessity to link leadership to talent management where local managers are in need of improving their leadership abilities and develop the talent that their organisations may in turn depend upon. It is not merely learning or getting trained in leadership that matters but, more importantly, the need to generate talent from effective leadership strategies. This research article firstly explains the importance of leadership linked with talent. The text then focuses on innovative practices that selected Mauritian companies have undertaken and where talent leadership matters. From this standpoint, the researcher selects effective leadership strategies that might be much needed based from practices that are successful abroad and have positively impacted on the international context. The research emphasises new coaching methodologies linked with the development of leadership talent. Techniques like „coaching outside in coaching inside out‟, „onboarding‟, „pivotal leadership‟, „reinforcement coaching‟, are just new approaches that differ from traditional orientation and that are also much relevant in developing leadership talent in the current and future economic conjecture of Mauritius. They have to be adapted to the Mauritian context. Though the research is not exhaustive and is more focused on qualitative than quantitative interpretation, it sheds light onto the fast-developing concept of talent management in business organisations and the need to link leadership in a more conclusive manner.

Against the backdrop of measures adopted sequel to the outbreak of the pandemic, this research focuses on the impact of Covid-19 on the workplace. It highlights and interrogates the utility of responsive measures and also articulates recondite labour issues relating to changing work patterns, pay cuts, job losses culminating in growing unemployment rate, and occupational safety and health concerns within the context of extant labour standards. It also extends focus to the impact of Covid-19 on existing challenges revolving around working poverty, decent work deficit, unfair labour practices, and ineffective labour regimes. This research finds, inter alia, that impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the workplace is colossal, disruptive, and unprecedented, and that extant labour standards, having proved mute on a wide range of contingent workplace issues, can only provide some sort of protection in a detached manner. The research concludes with an array of far-reaching recommendations on the adoption of protective and remedial legal norms that are transient, flexible, and proactive enough to accommodate diverse situations capable of undermining the prospects for labour laws, regulations, and policies in the Covid-19 era.

The Labour Appeal Court in Kylie v CCMA decided the vexed question as to whether or not the CCMA has jurisdiction to resolve a dispute of unfair dismissal involving a sex worker. Both the CCMA and the Labour Court had declined to assume jurisdiction to resolve the dispute on the basis that the employee’s contract of employment was invalid and therefore unenforceable in law. The Labour Appeal Court, on the other hand, overturned the Labour Court’s decision and held that the CCMA has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, regardless of the fact that sex work is still illegal under the South African law. For this decision, the Labour Appeal Court relied on section 23(1) of the Constitution, which provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. According to the Labour Appeal Court the crucial question for determination by the court was if a person in the position of a sex worker enjoyed the full range of constitutional rights including the right to fair labour practices. In the court’s reasoning the word everyone in section 23(1) of the Constitution is a term of general import and conveys precisely what it means. In other words everyone, including a sex worker, has the right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in the Constitution. A critical analysis of the judgment is made in this case note. The correctness of the court’s judgment, particularly insofar as it relates to the approach to and the determination of the issue of jurisdiction, is questioned. It is argued that the Court lost focus on the main issue in the appeal, namely jurisdiction, and instead proceeded to place heavy emphasis on the employee’s constitutional rights. Relying on a handful of cases of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court, the case note concludes that the approach adopted by the Labour Appeal Court in the determination of the appeal was incorrect - hence its decision. Given the critical importance of the matter, and the attendant implications of the judgment for labour litigation in South Africa, it is hoped that a similar case will soon come to the attention of a superior court and that a definitive pronouncement will be made.

Decriminalising (or legalising) sex work is argued to improve sex workers’ safety and provide access to labour rights. However, there is a paucity of empirical research comparing how different regulatory approaches affect working conditions in the sex industry, especially in relation to venues that are managed by third parties. This article uses a mixed methods study of the Australian legal brothel sector to critically explore the relationship between external regulation and working conditions. Two dominant models of sex industry regulation are compared: decriminalisation and licensing. First, the article documents workplace practices in the Australian legal brothel sector, examining sex workers’ agency, autonomy and control over the labour process. Second, it analyses the capacity of each regulatory model to protect sex workers from unsafe and unfair working conditions. On the basis of these findings, the article concludes that brothel-based sex work is precarious and substantively excluded from the protective mantle of labour law, notwithstanding its legality. It is argued that the key determinant of conditions in the legal brothel sector is the extent to which the state enforces formal labour protections, as distinct from the underlying regulatory model adopted.

This case note is an analysis of Numsa obo Members v Elements Six Productions (Pty) Ltd [2017] ZALCJHB 35 (7 February 2017). The jurisprudence advanced in this case is pertinent to balancing the employer and employee’s rights in the context of collective bargaining. The worker’s right to strike is one of the rights entrenched in the South African constitution. In addition, this right to strike should not be directly or indirectly undermined without a just cause. The preamble of the South African Constitution seeks to redress the unjust laws of the past including those in the employment arena. Furthermore, unfair discrimination is also one of the prohibited practices which are sanctioned not only domestically but internationally as well in terms of the International Labour Conventions. This note contributes to the existing literature of labour law by critically analysing the decision reached by Tlhotlhalemaje J.

- The purpose is to contribute to related sociological research since it seems to be very limited (from the early 1960s), to clarify the role of interpreters as social actors and to represent the corresponding labour market, trying to overcome the idea of interpretation as mechanicalexercise. The theoretical part is concentrated on the history and on parameters reflecting the present rules governing this activity. Some preceding sociological research have been included to illustrate the main themes explored in the past. The practical part aims to explain the structure of the labour market and social conditions of interpreters in Italy. The author finds a feminization of the profession and confirms the growing relevance of English and community interpreting. Professional skills strengthen together with the demand for the simultaneous mode, causing difficult market penetration. The economic crisis and competition boost unfair practices (above all in the North). Nevertheless the profession is highly followed.

Dismissals are commonplace in employment and arise for various reasons. One such reason is the unacceptable or undesirable conduct of an employee, which is recognised as a dismissal for misconduct. Notwithstanding the employers’ right to effect dismissals, employees are considerably protected by the law (s 185 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA)). An employee has the right to challenge his/her dismissal by referring an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA (s 191 of the LRA). This is not surprising considering the fact that fairness is the cornerstone of the employment relationship (as evident from s 23(1) of the Constitution, which states that “everyone has the right to fair labour practices”; see also Blanpain and Weiss Changing Industrial Relations and Modernisation of Labour Law (2003) 182). While it is indisputable that employers should act fairly towards its employees, a significant principle that has been highlighted in the determination of fairness is that it must accommodate and balance the conflicting interests and rights of both employers and employees (National Education Health & Allied Workers Union v University of Cape Town (2003) 24 ILJ 95 (CC) par 38 and 40).

Labour hire, the practice of hiring out employees to clients by a labour broker, has been a part of Namibia’s history since the early 1900s in the form of the contract labour system. This form of employment was characterized by inhumanity and unfair labour practices. These employees were subjected to harsh working conditions, inhumane living conditions and influx control. The contract labour system continued until 1977, when it was abolished by the General Law Amendment Proclamation of 1977. It was during the 1990s that the hiring out of employees returned in the form of labour hire. It continued in this form without being regulated until it was banned in the Namibian Labour Act of 2007. In 2009 Africa Personnel Services, Namibia’s largest labour broker, brought a case before the court against the Namibian Government in an attempt to have the ban nullified on grounds of unconstitutionality. It argued that the ban infringed on its right to carry on any trade or business of its choice as contained in section 21(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia. APS triumphed. It was not until April 2012 that new legislation was promulgated in order to officially lift the ban and to regulate labour hire in its current form. This new legislation came into force in August 2012. Various very important provisions are contained in the Labour Amendment Act 2 of 2012 concerning labour brokers. Part IV of the Employment Services Act 8 of 2011, containing provisions for the regulation of labour brokers as juristic persons per se, was also introduced and came into force in September 2012. The aim of this note is to serve as a lesson to the South African government as to what could happen if labour brokers continue without legislation properly addressing the pitfalls associated with labour brokers. Also, it could serve as an example as to how the employees of a labour broker should be protected. In this regard the history of labour hire and the current strides in Namibia cannot be ignored.

Unfair trading practices (UTPs) imposed by parties with superior power in the context of a vertical relationship are an issue at the periphery of competition law, private law, and, sometimes, sectoral regulation. For a long time, the mainstream competition law approach has been to relegate such issues to other areas of law and regulation. In the EU, where complaints about the prevalence of such practices in the agricultural and food supply chain have been voiced for decades, the approach of the European Commission has been to pursue a strict separation between competition issues and fair-trading issues. This article questions the reasonableness of such a strict division of labour. Taking the sum of various initiatives undertaken to regulate UTPs in the agri-food supply chain as a case study, it argues that the effect of limiting competition law enforcement on this issue has been counterproductive. The article firstly explains the background of the problem and the issue of UTPs in the agri-food supply chain. Secondly, it maps the various legislative developments which have taken place at the EU Member State level. Thirdly, by referring to Grabosky’s (1995) regulatory studies typology of counterproductive regulation, the article focuses attention on some of the perverse side effects which arise when regulation of power imbalances and UTPs occurs at the national level in the context of an integrated market like the EU. In light of the analysis, it expresses doubt that these pitfalls will be fully corrected by Directive 2019/633 on UTPs in the food supply chain. The conclusion is that national legislative developments have not been able to make up for the lack of supra-national enforcement of EU competition law on this issue and have possibly even exacerbated the problem at hand. The article concludes that supranational competition law enforcement can play a key role in addressing the fundamental problems underlying business-to-business unfair trading practices. It argues that this role cannot be played by other instruments in the context of an integrated market with multi-level governance. This article shows that while competition law may not be capable of solving all the problems with UTPs, it remains indispensable in safeguarding the proper functioning of the internal market as well as the interests of consumers and taxpayers.

Abstract This article examines the main factors behind bad working conditions in the Call Centers of Morocco. The research is based on fieldwork including 15 semi-structured interviews and in the analysis of government records, labour legislation, academic studies, statistics and other reports from international organizations. The interviews were carried out in Arabic and French in 2018 in Casablanca, Rabat, Fès, Meknès and they involved workers, former workers, trade union leaders and employers from the Call Center sector. Thanks to the interviews we are able to assess in detail the issues faced by workers and, consequently, to explore them. The article highlights the fact that the bad working conditions are caused by a combination of multiple factors, such as the effects of neoliberal reforms, the economic dependence on Europe but also the inefficiency of the labour inspections. The first part discusses the broad factors including the telecommunications’ sector reforms, international agreements, legal and tax reforms that exacerbate directly or indirectly the working conditions. The second part aims to investigate the centers organization and other micro-factors that affect the possibility of claiming rights and speaking out against unfair practices.

The right to freedom of religion is one of the fundamental human rights. This is evident from several sections of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution), including sections 9, 15 and 31. Section 9(4) prohibits unfair discrimination (whether direct or indirect) against anyone on one or more of the grounds listed in section 9(3), which includes religion. Section 15(1) states that everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion, while section 31(1)(a) provides that persons belonging to a religious community may not be denied the right to practise their religion with other members of the community.In line with the Constitution, labour legislation such as the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) and the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) also protects this right. Section 187(1)(f) of the LRA provides that if an employee is discriminated against and is dismissed based on religion, among other grounds, such a dismissal will be deemed to be an automatically unfair dismissal. Section 6(1) of the EEA prohibits unfair discrimination, whether direct or indirect, in any employment policy or practice based on prohibited grounds such as religion. It is evident from all the above provisions that the right to freedom of religion is vital to people’s lives, including employees’ lives.Although an employee has the right to practise religion, he or she also has the common-law duty to render services or to put his or her labour potential at the disposal of the employer as agreed in terms of the contract of employment – except during the employee’s annual leave, sick leave and maternity leave. An employee may therefore be in breach of this duty if he or she refuses to work or deserts his or her employment or absconds from his or her employment or is absent from work without permission. In addition to the above duty, employees have a duty to serve the employer’s interests and to act in good faith. Often, employees’ right to freedom of religion collides with their duty to render services and to serve the employer’s interests; employees present various reasons related to their religious practices for their failure to render services. As a result, employers are regularly required to be lenient and make efforts to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs in the workplace. At times, this becomes a burden to employers as they have to accommodate employees with diverse individual religious interests, but also ensure that their businesses remain operational. Religion remains one of the most contentious and problematic areas for employees and employers to deal with in the workplace.The discussion that follows evaluates the court’s finding in view of relevant constitutional provisions, labour law legislation and common law. It further considers the position under American law regarding religion and reasonable accommodation in the workplace.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare the recruitment practices of the French and UK retail industry. It analyses the influence of specific business constraints, labour market institutions and employment patterns on recruitment practices. It devotes attention to incidences of the shift from classic to web-based hiring methods. Design/methodology/approach – The cases of two leading food retail chains are explored. This research draws on a mixed approach using semi-structured interviews, the analysis of online job-advertisement content and web sites. Findings – According to the literature, local and informal hiring channels (walk-in application, word-of-mouth, in-store adverts) are mainly used to fill low-paid vacancies in food retail chains. They are congruent with the key screening criteria as they allow face-to-face selection and provide candidates from the surrounding area. However, the food retail chains in this research have implemented a centralised and at-a-distance process which contrasts with the classic methods. Based on an “Internet-only scheme” and online testing, it is especially selective in the UK. Research limitations/implications – The number of semi-structured interviews is limited. Additional investigations are needed to evaluate whether the at-a-distance processes are isolated or whether they reflect growing practices. Practical implications – Retail food employers have to maintain a diversity of local hiring channels and not to indiscriminately embrace the at-a-distance scheme, which is not adapted to evaluate the key requirements. Social implications – A centralised and at-a-distance recruitment process decreases unfair face-to-face discrimination in selection but at the same time introduces indirect discrimination. This process may be interpreted as a way to target students; there is a risk that it exacerbates inequalities in low-wage labour markets. Originality/value – The topic is poorly explored. There is a need to understand web-based recruitment.

Section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits unfair discrimination directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including among others disability. In terms of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act (EEA), no person may unfairly discriminate, directly or indirectly, against an employee, in any employment policy or practice, on one or more grounds, including among others disability or on any other arbitrary ground. Section 6(1) applies to employees, which includes applicants; but it is only limited to conduct occurring within the scope of an “employment policy or practice”. In Marsland v New Way Motor & Diesel Engineering (2009) 30 ILJ 169 (LC), the court concluded that discrimination based on the fact that a person suffers from a mental health problem, has the potential to impair the fundamental dignity of that person as a human being, or to affect them in a comparably serious manner. Consequently, discrimination based on mental illness must be treated as a prohibited ground of discrimination. However, as it was pointed out in Hoffmann v South African Airways 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC), it may in some instances be justified to discriminate on the ground of mental illness, if it is proved that the discrimination is based on an inherent requirement of a job. Section 15 of the EEA requires that, when the employer implements affirmative action measures, he/she must make reasonable accommodation for people from designated groups, in order to ensure that they enjoy equal opportunities and are equitably represented in the workforce of a designated employer. Section 1 defines “reasonable accommodation” as “any modification or adjustment to a job or to the working environment that will enable a person from a designated group to have access to or participate or advance in employment”. Section 6(3) of the EEA provides that harassment is a form of discrimination and is prohibited among others on the ground of disability or any other arbitrary ground. Harassment is also a form of misconduct. The employer is required to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and failure to do so, the employer is liable for such harassment. Where an employee who has a mental illness, commits an act of harassment against another employee, the employer should take into account its duty to reasonably accommodate the offending employee, the duty to take steps to prevent harassment and the fact that it may be automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for misconduct which was committed because of mental illness.

AbstractThe proliferation of agency employment in Pakistan is a serious social problem and a public policy concern because of the potentially negative implications for agency workers’ basic statutory rights. Agency workers are normally given a vastly different, often negligible, package of benefits compared to their permanent counterparts and are generally excluded from collective bargaining arrangements. Unions regard the use of agency employment as a threat to their jurisdiction and membership. This study explored the motives, nature and implications of agency employment in six case study organisations in Pakistan. A total of eighty-nine interviews, undertaken with employers’ representatives, agency and union officials and agency workers revealed sufficient evidence confirming previous anecdotal evidence that some employment agencies are not truly genuine and the set up was merely a legal fiction. Evidence suggested that agency employment often involves dubious, unfair, law-evading and at times illegal practices, such as the use of pay-rolling agencies. The pay-rolling agency system is potentially an attempt by employers to bypass statutory obligations concerning workers’ benefit entitlements and trade union rights by paying workers through an agency to illustrate the indirectness of employment. It thus appeared from the evidence that the use of temporary agency workers is, in many instances, a labour relations strategy rather than a matter of workforce flexibility, and challenges the widely held belief that temporary work has only been a natural and inevitable response to changes in the economy.

The paper reports a study of stress responses in workers at a sawmill in a small rural community which had been affected by prolonged industrial relations conflict. Workers went on strike in July 1997 over a dispute over contributions to a provident fund and there was much conflict and hardship in the community in the ensuing months. In December, a large sample of workers completed a set of scales which measured anxiety, depression, specific impacts of the strike and three stress response moderators (social support, sense of coherence [SOC] and religious practice). In a factor analysis, two factors were identified. The first was interpreted as a “response to the strike” factor. The positive pole of this factor was associated with having difficulty coping with the stress of the strike, being sensitive to the negative impact of unfair labour practices, responding positively to trade union activity and having a larger number of social supports. The second factor was interpreted as representing “negative versus positive cognitive set”. The positive pole of this factor was associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression and somatic symptoms and low levels of SOC and involvement in religious practice. Although the correlational methodology does not allow for the demonstration that particular variables served as stress response moderators, the results suggested that response to the strike was largely independent of the stress response moderators and was probably mediated by other social and interpersonal factors. The inverse relation between anxiety and depression, on the one hand, and SOC, on the other, replicates previous findings and is discussed in terms of incompatibility of competing cognitive sets.

Abstract Building upon the concept of emotional labour, this study explores one pre-service teacher’s emotional responses to her internship teaching experiences. Interviews, observations, and self-reflection statements revealed that her emotional struggles and tensions were generated, in part, from dissatisfaction with what she experienced as a gap between her theoretical understanding and the reality of ELT and with the perceived unfair practices and negative attitudes towards English learners. The student teacher’s efforts to manage her emotions in and out of the classroom became her emotional labour, and her emotional awareness of and resistance to what she perceived as negative attitudes towards her students evoked a deeper emotional reflexivity, which led to her emotional and professional growth. The results suggest that a student teacher’s understanding of her own emotions in relation to teaching may serve as a catalyst for problematizing practices and construct/transform teacher identity, leading to important implications for teacher education.

This study investigates the effect of outsourcing practice on employment relations in Multinational Corporations with special focus on Shell Petroleum Producing and Development Company (SPDC). The study also examined the importance of employment relations in organizational performance. Descriptive research methodology was adopted in this study. The questionnaire that was administered in the field survey was the abbreviated version of Hewitt’s Human Resource Outsourcing Survey Questionnaire. The research findings showed that: the management of SPDC engages in unfair labour practices in order to trivialize workers conditions of service; mere transferring human resource management to a third party does not necessarily improve labour-management relations; outsourcing affects workers’ performance in Nigeria; there is positive relationship between employment relations and organisational performance. Based on the research findings, it recommends that the management of SPDC must discontinue its unfair labour practices; should improve the working conditions of its contract staff and show more interest in their career development; should focus attention on fostering mutual employment relations by ensuring that all its human resource policies are not counter-productive especially its outsourcing policy. JEL: L20; L23; L53 <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0799/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>

This article reports on a study that investigated the effectiveness of child labour laws intended to promote child rights and the protection of children from unfair and forced labour. Legal scholars distinguish between child work and child labour: forced child labour manifests itself in abusing children sexually, forcing children to work on farms, and compromising children’s rights to education. Although South Africa, Zimbabwe and Zambia have laws in place to protect children from child labour, the abuse of children continues in these countries. Furthermore, although these three countries are signatories to conventions of the International Labour Organisation that seek to eliminate child labour, they have been unable to stem the tide of child labour. This article argues that there is a need for the three countries to work closely together to implement policies that reverse or fight against child labour. The researchers used a qualitative methodology to interpret the variations in the application of child labour laws. They found there are no harmonised laws to deal with child labour in South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Hence, this article recommends that an independent supranational organisation be established in Southern Africa to monitor, evaluate, and implement progressive laws to eradicate child labour in line with internationally recognised best practices as set out in child labour laws.

This article examines the linkage between the Nigerian Declaration Project and the levels of commitment to industrial peace among the employers’ associations, labour unions and government agencies in Nigeria, through a systematic review of the relevant literature and four key informant interviews among the representatives of prominent stakeholders in the Nigerian industrial relations system. The study adopted the open-systems theory of industrial relations to provide a basis for an understanding of the circumstances that led to the implementation of the Nigerian Declaration Project and the extent of actors’ participation in its implementation as well as the outcomes of the Project at workplaces in Nigeria. Findings from the study revealed that the Nigerian Declaration Project has enhanced the levels of commitment to the pursuit of industrial peace in Nigeria, although efforts made by the Nigerian government to achieve a peaceful coexistence between labour and management at workplaces remain inadequate in Nigeria. The findings also revealed the harrowing experience of unfair labour practices and the escalation of industrial actions, including strikes and other industrial actions in Nigeria, despite the existence of the relatively new laws such as the Trade Disputes Act 2004, the Trade Union Amendment Act 2005, the National Industrial Court Act 2006, the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010, and the Pension Reform Act 2014. The article therefore recommends that the collective interests in the pursuit of justice at workplaces be intensified until a lasting peace is achieved for sustainable development of industrial relations practices in Nigeria.

Trade unions are bodies that are not bound by any other organization and being free from the influence of employers makes them very powerful. Trade unions are also relationships between employers and their employees. Since the beginning of the 2008 financial crisis to now, there has been a decline in union membership of more than half a million. However, in this research, we found that unfair labour practices take the form of organization politics. Our main motive in this study was to identify the relationship between human resources practices and employee intention to join unions in the Malaysian education sector. We chose a particular university in Malaysia whose name is kept private and confidential. The study sample size was 120, which is sufficient for partial least squares structural equation modelling analysis. The study results reveal that the work environment, rewards, and compensation significantly influence employee intention to join a union. However, even if the employees intend to join the union, organizational politics moderate their decision to do so, and may prevent them from joining the union. The limitations of this study and suggested future research are also discussed.

Interrogating the precariat who soldier on in the face of numerous challenges in the agricultural and hospitality industries in Zimbabwe has become necessary in the light of the dilapidating economic environment in Zimbabwe. This study sought to unveil the factors behind the precariat who soldier on despite challenges faced at the workplace. A sample size of 16 participants was chosen from each company through convenience and purposive sampling. Data were gathered using a combination of unstructured interviews, content analysis of secondary sources and self-administered questionnaires. A thematic analysis approach was used to interpret and analyse the study findings. With the use of the employment strain model, the research established that despite the myriad of challenges faced by the precariat, there are motivating factors that help them to endure all the hardships. The findings revealed that entrepreneurial activities, counterproductive behaviours, and working hard helped to endure hardships. Organisations are on the receiving end of poor performance, poor quality service, high costs and high accident rates, among other things. Recommendations are for the companies to develop precarious employment policies to govern the working conditions for the precariat, to adhere to the existing legal frameworks for precarious work, and for the HR department to advise workers and management that the precariat should be treated equitably and enjoy workplace representation and protection against unfair labour practices.

An employment relationship creates certain rights and protection for the respective parties concerned. For example, an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed or subjected to unfair labour practices in the execution of his or her duties. On the other hand, an employer has the right to lay down rules in order to regulate the conduct required from its employees. The Code of Good Practice recognises this right of the employer: Dismissal , which requires all employers to adopt disciplinary rules that establish the standard of conduct required from employees. If an employee fails to adhere to the required rules or standards, the employer has recourse in the form of discipline. Disciplinary action is usually initiated in response to poor work performance or unwarranted behaviour by workers and is aimed at restraining employees from behaving in a manner that could hamper production and the functioning of the organisation. When an employer exercises the right to discipline, regard must be had to the employee’s right to be treated fairly. It is therefore important that disciplinary procedures should maintain a proper balance between the rights of the respective parties in the disciplining process.The aim of this note is to compare the procedures for disciplining conventional employees in terms of the LRA with the procedures to discipline magistrates in terms of the Magistrates Act. The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate whether the disciplinary regime applicable to magistrates effectively ensures that they are appropriately and timeously disciplined when necessary in order to ensure a well-functioning judiciary. The note will commence with an outline of the legislative and regulatory framework of the respective disciplinary processes. This will be followed by an evaluation of whether the disciplinary regime governing magistrates contributes to a well-functioning judicial system. The note will conclude with recommendations regarding streamlined processes that would provide role players in the judiciary with certainty about the applicable remedies and the appropriate dispute resolution institutions where their disputes may be resolved.

Introduction The research from which this piece derives explores political remix video (PRV), a genre in which remixers critique dominant discourses and power structures through guerrilla remixing of copyrighted footage (“What Is Political Remix Video?”). Specifically, I examined the works of political video remixer Elisa Kreisinger, whose queer remixes of shows such as Sex and the City and Mad Men received considerable attention between 2010 and the present. As a rhetoric scholar, I am attracted not only to the ways that remix functions discursively but also the ways in which remixers are constrained in their ability to argue, and what recourse they have in these situations of legal and technological constraint. Ultimately, many of these struggles play out on YouTube. This is unsurprising: many studies of YouTube and other user-generated content (UGC) platforms focus on the fact that commercial sites cannot constitute utopian, democratic, or free environments (Hilderbrand; Hess; Van Dijck). However, I find that, contrary to popular belief, YouTube’s commercial interests are not the primary factor limiting remixer agency. Rather, United States copyright law as enacted on YouTube has the most potential to inhibit remixers. This has led to many remixers becoming advocates for fair use, the provision in the Copyright Act of 1976 that allows for limited use of copyrighted content. With this in mind, I decided to delve more deeply into the framing of fair use by remixers and other advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Social Media. In studying discourses of fair use as they play out in the remix community, I find that the framing of fair use bears a striking similarity to what rhetoric scholars have termed vernacular discourse—a discourse emanating from a small segment of the larger civic community (Ono and Sloop 23). The vernacular is often framed as that which integrates the institutional or mainstream while simultaneously asserting its difference through appropriation and subversion. A video qualifies as fair use if it juxtaposes source material in a new way for the purposes of critique. In turn, a vernacular text asserts its “vernacularity” by taking up parts of pre-existing dominant institutional discourses in a way that resonates with a smaller community. My argument is that this tension between institutional and vernacular gives political remix video a multivalent argument—one that presents itself both in the text of the video itself as well as in the video’s status as a fair use of copyrighted material. Just as fair use represents the assertion of creator agency against unfair copyright law, vernacular discourse represents the assertion of a localised community within a world dominated by institutional discourses. In this way, remixers engage rights holders and other institutions in a pleasurable game of cat and mouse, a struggle to expose the boundaries of draconian copyright law. YouTube’s Commercial InterestsYouTube’s commercial interests operate at a level potentially invisible to the casual user. While users provide YouTube with content, they also provide the site with data—both metadata culled from their navigations of the site (page views, IP addresses) as well as member-provided data (such as real name and e-mail address). YouTube mines this data for a number of purposes—anything from interface optimisation to targeted advertising via Google’s AdSense. Users also perform a certain degree of labour to keep the site running smoothly, such as reporting videos that violate the Terms of Service, giving videos the thumbs up or thumbs down, and reporting spam comments. As such, users involved in YouTube’s participatory culture are also necessarily involved in the site’s commercial interests. While there are legitimate concerns regarding the privacy of personal information, especially after Google introduced policies in 2012 to facilitate a greater flow of information across all of their subsidiaries, it does not seem that this has diminished YouTube’s popularity (“Google: Privacy Policy”).Despite this, some make the argument that users provide the true benefit of UGC platforms like YouTube, yet reap few rewards, creating an exploitative dynamic (Van Dijck, 46). Two assumptions seem to underpin this argument: the first is that users do not desire to help these platforms prosper, the second is that users expect to profit from their efforts on the website. In response to these arguments, it’s worth calling attention to scholars who have used alternative economic models to account for user-platform coexistence. This is something that Henry Jenkins addresses in his recent book Spreadable Media, largely by focusing on assigning alternate sorts of value to user and fan labour—either the cultural worth of the gift, or the satisfaction of a job well done common to pre-industrial craftsmanship (61). However, there are still questions of how to account for participatory spaces in which labours of love coexist with massively profitable products. In service of this point, Jenkins calls up Lessig, who posits that many online networks operate as hybrid economies, which combine commercial and sharing economies. In a commercial economy, profit is the primary consideration, while a sharing economy is composed of participants who are there because they enjoy doing the work without any expectation of compensation (176). The strict separation between the two economies is, in Lessig’s estimation, essential to the hybrid economy’s success. While it would be difficult to incorporate these two economies together once each had been established, platforms like YouTube have always operated under the hybrid principle. YouTube’s users provide the site with its true value (through their uploading of content, provision of metadata, and use of the site), yet users do not come to YouTube with these tasks in mind—they come to YouTube because it provides an easy-to-use platform by which to share amateur creativity, and a community with whom to interact. Additionally, YouTube serves as the primary venue where remixers can achieve visibility and viral status—something Elisa Kreisinger acknowledged in our interviews (2012). However, users who are not concerned with broad visibility as much as with speaking to particular viewers may leave YouTube if they feel that the venue does not suit their content. Some feminist fan vidders, for instance, have withdrawn from YouTube due to what they perceived as a community who didn’t understand their work (Kreisinger, 2012). Additionally, Kreisinger ended up garnering many more views of her Queer Men remix on Vimeo due simply to the fact that the remix’s initial upload was blocked via YouTube’s Content ID feature. By the time Kreisinger had argued her case with YouTube, the Vimeo link had become the first stop for those viewing and sharing the remix, which received 72,000 views to date (“Queer Men”). Fair Use, Copyright, and Content IDThis instance points to the challenge that remixers face when dealing with copyright on YouTube, a site whose processes are not designed to accommodate fair use. Specifically, Title II, Section 512 of the DMCA (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998) states that certain websites may qualify as “safe harbours” for copyright infringement if users upload the majority of the content to the site, or if the site is an information location service. These sites are insulated from copyright liability as long as they cooperate to some extent with rights holders. A common objection to Section 512 is that it requires media rights holders to police safe harbours in search of infringing content, rather than placing the onus on the platform provider (Meyers 939). In order to cooperate with Section 512 and rights holders, YouTube initiated the Content ID system in 2007. This system offers rights holders the ability to find and manage their content on the site by creating archives of footage against which user uploads are checked, allowing rights holders to automatically block, track, or monetise uses of their content (it is also worth noting that rights holders can make these responses country-specific) (“How Content ID Works”). At the current time, YouTube has over 15 million reference files against which it checks uploads (“Statistics - YouTube”). Thus, it’s fairly common for uploaded work to get flagged as a violation, especially when that work is a remix of popular institutional footage. If an upload is flagged by the Content ID system, the user can dispute the match, at which point the rights holder has the opportunity to either allow the video through, or to issue a DMCA takedown notice. They can also sue at any point during this process (“A Guide to YouTube Removals”). Content ID matches are relatively easy to dispute and do not generally require legal intervention. However, disputing these automatic takedowns requires users to be aware of their rights to fair use, and requires rights holders to acknowledge a fair use (“YouTube Removals”). This is only compounded by the fact that fair use is not a clearly defined right, but rather a vague provision relying on a balance between four factors: the purpose of the use, character of the work, the amount used, and the effect on the market value of the original (“US Copyright Office–Fair Use”). As Aufderheide and Jaszi observed in 2008, the rejection of videos for Content ID matches combined with the vagaries of fair use has a chilling effect on user-generated content. Rights Holders versus RemixersRights holders’ objections to Section 512 illustrate the ruling power dynamic in current intellectual property disputes: power rests with institutional rights-holding bodies (the RIAA, the MPAA) who assert their dominance over DMCA safe harbours such as YouTube (who must cooperate to stay in business) who, in turn, exert power over remixers (the lowest on the food chain, so to speak). Beyond the observed chilling effect of Content ID, remix on YouTube is shot through with discursive struggle between these rights-holding bodies and remixers attempting to express themselves and reach new communities. However, this has led political video remixers to become especially vocal when arguing for their uses of content. For instance, in the spring of 2009, Elisa Kreisinger curated a show entitled “REMOVED: The Politics of Remix Culture” in which blocked remixes screened alongside the remixers’ correspondence with YouTube. Kreisinger writes that each of these exchanges illustrate the dynamic between rights holders and remixers: “Your video is no longer available because FOX [or another rights-holding body] has chosen to block it (“Remixed/Removed”). Additionally, as Jenkins notes, even Content ID on YouTube is only made available to the largest rights holders—smaller companies must still go through an official DMCA takedown process to report infringement (Spreadable 51). In sum, though recent technological developments may give the appearance of democratising access to content, when it comes to policing UGC, technology has made it easier for the largest rights holders to stifle the creation of content.Additionally, it has been established that rights holders do occasionally use takedowns abusively, and recent court cases—specifically Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.—have established the need for rights holders to assess fair use in order to make a “good faith” assertion that users intend to infringe copyright prior to issuing a takedown notice. However, as Joseph M. Miller notes, the ruling fails to rebalance the burdens and incentives between rights holders and users (1723). This means that while rights holders are supposed to take fair use into account prior to issuing takedowns, there is no process in place that either effectively punishes rights holders who abuse copyright, or allows users to defend themselves without the possibility of massive financial loss (1726). As such, the system currently in place does not disallow or discourage features like Content ID, though cases like Lenz v. Universal indicate a push towards rebalancing the burden of determining fair use. In an effort to turn the tables, many have begun arguing for users’ rights and attempting to parse fair use for the layperson. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for instance, has espoused an “environmental rhetoric” of fair use, casting intellectual property as a resource for users (Postigo 1020). Additionally, they have created practical guidelines for UGC creators dealing with DMCA takedowns and Content ID matches on YouTube. The Center for Social Media has also produced a number of fair use guides tailored to different use cases, one of which targeted online video producers. All of these efforts have a common goal: to educate content creators about the fair use of copyrighted content, and then to assert their use as fair in opposition to large rights-holding institutions (though they caution users against unfair uses of content or making risky legal moves that could lead to lawsuits). In relation to remix specifically, this means that remixers must differentiate themselves from institutional, commercial content producers, standing up both for the argument contained in their remix as well as their fair use of copyrighted content.In their “Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Online Video,” the Center for Social Media note that an online video qualifies as a fair use if (among other things) it critiques copyrighted material and if it “recombines elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements” (8). These two qualities are also two of the defining qualities of political remix video. For instance, they write that work meets the second criteria if it creates “new meaning by juxtaposition,” noting that in these cases “the recombinant new work has a cultural identity of its own and addresses an audience different from those for which its components were intended” (9). Remixes that use elements of familiar sources in unlikely combinations, such as those made by Elisa Kreisinger, generally seek to reach an audience who are familiar with the source content, but also object to it. Sex and the City, for instance, while it initially seemed willing to take on previously “taboo” topics in its exploration of dating in Manhattan, ended with each of the heterosexual characters paired with an opposite sex partner, and forays from this heteronormative narrative were contained either within in one-off episodes or tokenised gay characters. For this reason, Kreisinger noted that the intended audience for Queer Carrie were the queer and feminist viewers of Sex and the City who felt that the show was overly normative and exclusionary (Kreisinger, Art:21). As a result, the target audience of these remixes is different from the target audience of the source material—though the full nuance of the argument is best understood by those familiar with the source. Thus, the remix affirms the segment of the viewing community who saw only tokenised representations of their identity in the source text, and in so doing offers a critique of the original’s heteronormative focus.Fair Use and the VernacularVernacular discourse, as broadly defined by Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, refers to discourses that “emerge from discussions between members of self-identified smaller communities within the larger civic community.” It operates partially through appropriating dominant discourses in ways better suited to the vernacular community, through practices of pastiche and cultural syncretism (23). In an effort to better describe the intricacies of this type of discourse, Robert Glenn Howard theorised a hybrid “dialectical vernacular” that oscillates between institutional and vernacular discourse. This hybridity arises from the fact that the institutional and the vernacular are fundamentally inseparable, the vernacular establishing its meaning by asserting itself against the institutional (Howard, Toward 331). When put into use online, this notion of a “dialectical vernacular” is particularly interesting as it refers not only to the content of vernacular messages but also to their means of production. Howard notes that discourse embodying the dialectical vernacular is by nature secondary to institutional discourse, that the institutional must be clearly “structurally prior” (Howard, Vernacular 499). With this in mind it is unsurprising that political remix video—which asserts its secondary nature by calling upon pre-existing copyrighted content while simultaneously reaching out to smaller segments of the civic community—would qualify as a vernacular discourse.The notion of an institutional source’s structural prevalence also echoes throughout work on remix, both in practical guides such as the Center for Social Media’s “Best Practices” as well as in more theoretical takes on remix, like Eduardo Navas’ essay “Turbulence: Remixes + Bonus Beats,” in which he writes that:In brief, the remix when extended as a cultural practice is a second mix of something pre-existent; the material that is mixed for a second time must be recognized, otherwise it could be misunderstood as something new, and it would become plagiarism […] Without a history, the remix cannot be Remix. An elegant theoretical concept, this becomes muddier when considered in light of copyright law. If the history of remix is what gives it its meaning—the source text from which it is derived—then it is this same history that makes a fair use remix vulnerable to DMCA takedowns and other forms of discipline on YouTube. However, as per the criteria outlined by the Center for Social Media, it is also from this ironic juxtaposition of institutional sources that the remix object establishes its meaning, and thus its vernacularity. In this sense, the force of a political remix video’s argument is in many ways dependent on its status as an object in peril: vulnerable to the force of a law that has not yet swung in its favor, yet subversive nonetheless.With this in mind, YouTube and other UGC platforms represent a fraught layer of mediation between institutional and vernacular. As a site for the sharing of amateur video, YouTube has the potential to affirm small communities as users share similar videos, follow one particular channel together, or comment on videos posted by people in their networks. However, YouTube’s interface (rife with advertisements, constantly reminding users of its affiliation with Google) and cooperation with rights holders establish it as an institutional space. As such, remixes on the site are already imbued with the characteristic hybridity of the dialectical vernacular. This is especially true when the remixers (as in the case of PRV) have made the conscious choice to advocate for fair use at the same time that they distribute remixes dealing with other themes and resonating with other communities. ConclusionPolitical remix video sits at a fruitful juncture with regard to copyright as well as vernacularity. Like almost all remix, it makes its meaning through juxtaposing sources in a unique way, calling upon viewers to think about familiar texts in a new light. This creation invokes a new audience—a quality that makes it both vernacular and also a fair use of content. Given that PRV is defined by the “guerrilla” use of copyrighted footage, it has the potential to stand as a political statement outside of the thematic content of the remix simply due to the nature of its composition. This gives PRV tremendous potential for multivalent argument, as a video can simultaneously represent a marginalised community while advocating for copyright reform. This is only reinforced by the fact that many political video remixers have become vocal in advocating for fair use, asserting the strength of their community and their common goal.In addition to this argumentative richness, PRV’s relation to fair use and vernacularity exposes the complexity of the remix form: it continually oscillates between institutional affiliations and smaller vernacular communities. However, the hybridity of these remixes produces tension, much of which manifests on YouTube, where videos are easily responded to and challenged by both institutuional and vernacular authorities. In addition, a tension exists in the remix text itself between the source and the new, remixed message. Further research should attend to these areas of tension, while also exploring the tenacity of the remix community and their ability to advocate for themselves while circumventing copyright law.References“About Political Remix Video.” Political Remix Video. 15 Feb. 2012. ‹http://www.politicalremixvideo.com/what-is-political-remix/›.Aufderheide, Patricia, and Peter Jaszi. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2008. Kindle.“Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Online Video.” The Center For Social Media, 2008. Van Dijck, José. “Users like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content.” Media Culture Society 31 (2009): 41-58.“A Guide to YouTube Removals,” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, 15 June 2013 ‹https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-YouTube-removals›.Hilderbrand, Lucas. “YouTube: Where Cultural Memory and Copyright Converge.” Film Quarterly 61.1 (2007): 48-57.Howard, Robert Glenn. “The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 25.5 (2008): 490-513.Howard, Robert Glenn. “Toward a Theory of the World Wide Web Vernacular: The Case for Pet Cloning.” Journal of Folklore Research 42.3 (2005): 323-60.“How Content ID Works.” YouTube. 21 June 2013. ‹https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en›.Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York U P, 2013. Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York U P, 2006. Kreisinger, Elisa. Interview with Nick Briz. Art:21. Art:21, 30 June 2011. 21 June 2013.Kreisinger, Elisa. “Queer Video Remix and LGBTQ Online Communities,” Transformative Works and Cultures 9 (2012). 19 June 2013 ‹http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/395/264›.Kreisinger, Elisa. Pop Culture Pirate. < http://www.popculturepirate.com/ >.Lessig, Lawrence. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin Books, 2008. PDF.Meyers, B.G. “Filtering Systems or Fair Use? A Comparative Analysis of Proposed Regulations for User-Generated Content.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 26.3: 935-56.Miller, Joseph M. “Fair Use through the Lenz of § 512(c) of the DMCA: A Preemptive Defense to a Premature Remedy?” Iowa Law Review 95 (2009-2010): 1697-1729.Navas, Eduardo. “Turbulence: Remixes + Bonus Beats.” New Media Fix 1 Feb. 2007. 10 June 2013 ‹http://newmediafix.net/Turbulence07/Navas_EN.html›.Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration and California’s Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple U P, 2002.“Privacy Policy – Policies & Principles.” Google. 19 June 2013 ‹http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/›.Postigo, Hector. “Capturing Fair Use for The YouTube Generation: The Digital Rights Movement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the User-Centered Framing of Fair Use.” Information, Communication & Society 11.7 (2008): 1008-27.“Statistics – YouTube.” YouTube. 21 June 2013 ‹http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html›.“US Copyright Office: Fair Use,” U.S. Copyright Office. 19 June 2013 ‹http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html›.“YouTube Help.” YouTube FAQ. 19 June 2013 ‹http://support.google.com/youtube/?hl=en&topic=2676339&rd=2›.

The task of the unpaid reviewer in academic publishing has always been a taxing one. Although the notion is one of blind peer review, the selection of reviewers is far from random. Journals try to balance a prospective reviewer’s expertise with their availability, and with their track record of returning a useful review on time. Ideally, the reviewer should have a specific (reasonably expert) knowledge of the paper’s topic, but should also retain enough in common with the interested, but jargon-averse, academic reader to empathise with non-specialist journal subscribers. Reviewers should be able to judge the quality of the argument, of the writing, and of the contribution of the article to the field. It’s a tough ask, and now there is a further layer of concern: will the reviewer – having satisfied all the foregoing – be able to spot ‘self-plagiarism’? Self-plagiarism is a relatively new evil – at least, few people in the author’s circle appear aware of it. Googling the term results in some 8,000 hits (whereas plagiarism scores 3,150,000). At first blush, the usual interpretation of plagiarism – the pinching of some one else’s intellectual property without acknowledgement – seems to rule out the possibility of self-plagiarism. Surely, if the ideas and words are your own, a little judicious re-purposing is all grist to the mill? Indeed, most of the anti-plagiarism sites, for example: What is Plagiarism? (Georgetown University), don’t include the term at all. Instead, the site offers examples of five types of plagiarism, most of them familiar to seasoned markers of student work, which are sufficiently rigorous to include “the ‘apt phrase’”, defined as the lifting of a part sentence. Their comment on the example they give for ‘apt phrase’ plagiarism involves four words in an original paragraph: “This passage is almost entirely original, but the phrase ‘dissolved into a conglomeration’ is taken directly from Arendt [the example used for illustration]. Even though this is a short phrase, it must be footnoted. Only phrases that have truly become part of general usage can be used without citation.” Georgetown University, then, sees plagiarism predominantly as a matter of correct attribution of authorship. Most journals have a requirement that no work offered to them for review should previously have been published, and that concurrent submissions to multiple journals are not permitted. The issue here, it seems, is that a journal’s reputation is built upon the originality and usefulness of its contents. Journal editors like to feel that they are ‘advancing the field’ with each edition and they are building a readership that can count upon learning something new (or, at least, provocative) for each hour invested in consuming their journal. Where papers have appeared in other forms (based, for example, on a presentation recorded in conference proceedings) this may be acceptable to the journal, provided it is acknowledged, and experienced editors will often check that papers developed from conference presentations have not previously been posted on the web. If two journals in ignorance each accept and publish the same paper at the same time then that reflects very poorly on the academic who failed to deal honestly with the editors. The issue here is one of resources – the printed page, in particular, is expensive – and of the reviewers’ time. Given the unpaid and voluntary labour of reviewers, and the amount of time and energy that goes into deciding which papers to accept or reject, journals think very poorly of someone who ‘withdraws’ a paper after acceptance on the grounds that s/he has got a better offer/earlier publication elsewhere. Most journals would not welcome future papers from that author. If self-plagiarism were a simple matter of passing off published paper A as published paper B (say, by changing the title and offering it elsewhere), then it would be seen to be deceitful and perpetrators would receive little respect from their peers. But these extreme cases are not (generally) the kind of self-plagiarism against which authors are warned. So what is the authorship problem widely referred to as ‘self-plagiarism’? The SPlaT website (SPlaT) is happy to explain: Self-plagiarism occurs when an author reuses portions of their previous writings in subsequent research papers. Occasionally, the derived paper is simply a re-titled and reformatted version of the original one, but more frequently it is assembled from bits and pieces of previous work. … It is our belief that self-plagiarism is detrimental to scientific progress and bad for our academic community. Flooding conferences and journals with near-identical papers makes searching for information relevant to a particular topic harder than it has to be. It also rewards those authors who are able to break down their results into overlapping least-publishable-units over those who publish each result only once. Finally, whenever a self-plagiarised paper is allowed to be published, another, more deserving paper, is not. Among the more chilling examples of self-plagiarism identified by the developers of SPlaT is “cryptomnesia (reusing one’s own previously published text while unaware of its existence)” (SPlaT). The avoidance of cryptomnesia is one reason why authors are encouraged to use the SPlaT tool. Academic and journal reviewers are also regarded as potential users, and the software is designed to work in three modes – ‘reviewer’s workbench’, ‘author’ and ‘web spider’. It is indeed a crypromnesiac’s concern that the ‘apt phrase’ that came so creatively to the author in an earlier paper might appear again, unwittingly, in the guise of an original composition. However, the injunction to use SPlaT as a ‘reviewer’s workbench’ (where “SPlaT compares a paper under review to a record of the author’s previously published articles extracted from their web site and online article repositories” [SPlaT]) begs the question as to how a review may remain blind – in the sense of not identifying the author of the work to be reviewed – if the ‘workbench’ and/or ‘web spider’ modes of SPlaT are pressed into service. Might it be the case, notwithstanding the foregoing, that the problem of self-plagiarism is as authentic as ‘social anxiety disorder’ (SAD), incidences of which multiplied dramatically once a drug, Paxil, had been shown effective in treating it? In a Washington Post article (Vedantam), the journalist-author comments: “according to a marketing newsletter, media accounts of social anxiety rose from just 50 stories in 1997 and 1998 to more than 1 billion references in 1999 alone” and goes on to say, “The education and advertising campaigns have raised concerns that pharmaceutical companies, traditionally in the business of finding new drugs for existing disorders, are increasingly in the business of seeking new disorders for existing drugs”. Prior to the publicity about SAD, Paxil was an anti-depressant with sales languishing way behind Prozac and Zoloft. The identification (and treatment) of social anxiety disorder did wonders for its marketing. Could it be that self-plagiarism has only come into existence as a major concern for academia now that there is a tool for its detection? Social anxiety disorder may be an authentic scourge – as may self-plagiarism – and the fact that it has been publicised in concert with its cure (or detection) does not mean that the remedy serves no useful purpose. On the contrary, once a population of professionals is attuned to a new way of viewing symptoms and practices then valuable advances may result. However, such advances are only possible when the community concerned has had a chance to consider the matter and discuss the ramifications. At the present, we run the risk of allowing the designers of anti-self-plagiarism software to be the judges and the jury of this new way to commit academic crime. One way to avoid charges of self-plagiarism is self-citation. Leaving aside crytomnesia, it is perfectly possible to cite the already-published reference when an author is aware of reusing a previously-published phrase or idea. Unfortunately, this remedy is also generally frowned upon in many academic circles. The practice undermines the principle of blind peer review – since the identity of the author soon becomes clear in such repeated instances – while readers may become irritated, suspecting that self-citation is a clumsy ruse to improve the citation index ratings of the originally-published article. The issue is of concern to more than journal editors: it also relates to text- and reference-book editors and publishers. One ‘for instance’ was discussed a year ago by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) who conducted a hypothetical on “self-plagiarism of textbook chapters” and threw the discussion open to the members’ list. The initial self-plagiarism case-study situation was complicated by the supposition that Author A (of Book A) had self-plagiarised a previously-published chapter which had been jointly authored by Author A and Author B (Book B). Notwithstanding this complication, the WAME Ethics Committee addressed themselves to four questions: Is [Does] reuse of a person’s writings in another textbook, but authored by the same person, meet the definition of plagiarism? If so, what degree of identical components needs to be present for this definition to be met? Is it appropriate for authors to write for different textbooks in the same field? If so, can they write on the same topic? If not, what are the potential infringements on the author’s rights to pursue their career/income? Should the editors of these textbooks agree to exclude authors that write for one another’s textbooks? Or is that unfair restraint of trade? For example, if all four textbooks were to agree to limit or completely avoid any overlap among authors, it could effectively deny entry of another textbook into that market. For book A, the author had a co-author. Since this shared work was used for book B, what is the author’s responsibility to the original co-author? (WAME) These are good questions and they are the kinds of questions we should be asking ourselves about self-plagiarism in our own ‘media and culture’ academic circles. In particular, in the case of textbooks, it is precisely because an author has a standing in the field, and has published on equivalent matters, that editors seek them out and ask them to contribute chapters. Whilst all reputable writers would expect to originate a new chapter according to the specific brief given, it is possible (some might even say likely) that there is an overlap in approach and phraseology. In the case of Books A and B, the overlap stretched the bounds of coincidence in that: “One table is essentially identical, although other tables in the two chapters are different. In addition, there are some passages that contain identical phrases. Most of these appear to have been reworded, but many identifiable words and phrases are identical between the two chapters. There are also areas where the text is completely different” (WAME). However, this hypothetical case is clearly not a situation where the same authorial product was disguised with a new title. Although the whole debate is worth reading, the general consensus of the Ethics Committee was along the lines of (specifically citing one response): I do not see a problem with the author reusing his own material to write a chapter in another textbook (readers of textbooks as opposed to research articles are not expecting originality). The problem is that he should have done this with the concurrence of the two editors and if he signed over his copyright the permission of publisher of textbook A. He should of course also have consulted with his co-author. I think the editors should inform the publishers and his employer of the facts and let them decide what course of action to take. (WAME) The references to re-using the material transparently, and the editors of the textbooks informing the author’s employer, are a constant refrain from a number of contributors to the discussion. Some WAME list discussants offer defences to the charge of self-plagiarism: “the main problem here is not whether the same, or very similar, information can or should be published in more than one place” commented Frank Davidoff, “that sort of thing is done all the time, and can serve important functions. After all, different people read different textbooks, and if it’s important for the information to get out there, why shouldn’t it be made as widely available as possible?” Andrew Herxheimer thought the readers’ perspective had not been given sufficient consideration: “If I were keenly interested in the contents of the chapter in textbook B, I might well wish to know how they had developed, and to look at earlier versions of the material, and to understand why the contents and emphases etc had changed in the way they had.” “The choice of an author for a review monograph or textbook chapter is based always on perusal of the existing reviews and chapters, hoping that the new publication can contain something just as good” argued Rick Nelson, going on to say, “that obligates the author to produce something as similar to his previous publication as possible, and yet different – an impossible task even if such writing were a priority endeavor, which it never is.” (WAME). Irving Hexham, of the Department of Religious Studies, University of Calgary, appears to have been substantially ahead of the game in discussing self-plagiarism in the 1990s. His consideration of the issue is generally more sympathetic than SPlaT’s, or WAME’s. For example, “Self-plagiarism must be distinguished from the recycling of one’s work that to a greater or lesser extent everyone does legitimately”, and: Academics are expected to republish revised versions of their Ph.D. thesis. They also often develop different aspects of an argument in several papers that require the repetition of certain key passages. This is not self-plagiarism if the complete work develops new insights. It is self-plagiarism if the argument, examples, evidence, and conclusion remain the same in two works that only differ in their appearance. (Hexham) It appears that Hexham and SPlaT have very different ideas of what constitutes self-plagiarism. Their different perspectives may be influenced by disciplinary perspectives and wider contexts – journal article or textbook chapter, a cannibalised conference paper or thesis – and by whether or not they have authored software to catch the offending behaviour. At least one Australian academic (not in M/C – Media and Culture) has been asked by their University to justify their publications against a charge of self-plagiarism, however, which is how the topic has become visible and why the need for debate has become urgent. Incidentally, the opening sentence of the opening paragraph to the Introduction of the paper on “Splat: A System for Self-Plagiarism Detection” is almost identical to the Abstract for a paper published two years later as “Self-Plagiarism in Computer Science”, viz: “We are all too aware of the ravages of scientific misconduct in the academic community. Students submit assignments inherited from the [sic] their friends who took the course the year before, on-line paper-mills allow students to browse for term papers on popular topics, and occasionally researchers are found out when falsifying data or publishing the work of others as their own.” (Collburg et al.) “We are all too aware of the ravages of misconduct in the academic community. Students submit assignments inherited from their friends, online papermills provide term papers on popular topics, and occasionally researchers are found falsifying data or publishing the work of others as their own.” (Collburg & Kubourov) Further, in these two papers there is a difference in authorship line-up, as with the WAME example… So what of the reviewers in all this? The Journal of Optical Networking, published by the Optical Society of America, comments that “self-plagiarism causes duplicate papers in the scientific literature, violates copyright agreements, and unduly burdens reviewers, editors, and the scientific publishing enterprise.” (JON). In an environment of blind peer review, where the reviewer does not know the author’s identity and is not in a position to check the body of their published work, the acid test becomes whether (in the reviewer’s opinion) the article advances the debate by offering something new. The submission should also repay the time and effort expended in reading and considering the contents. Other than that, issues of in/valid repurposing, repackaging, recycling and redeveloping arguments and findings require debate and determination at a discipline-wide level, rather than at the coalface of reviewers’ practice. References Collburg, Christian, and Stephen Kobourov. “Self-Plagiarism in Computer Science”, Communications of the ACM, 48.4 (April 2005): 88-94. Collburg, Christian, Stephen Kobourov, Joshua Louie, and Thomas Slattery. “SPlaT: A System for Self-Plagiarism Detection” IADIS International Conference WWW/INTERNET, Algarve, Portugal 5-8 November 2003. 09 Oct 2005 http://splat.cs.arizona.edu/icwi_plag.pdf>. Georgetown University. What Is Plagiarism?, Georgetown University Honor Council, Georgetown University, n.d. 9 Oct. 2005 http://www.georgetown.edu/honor/plagiarism.html>. Hexham, Irving. The Plague of Plagiarism, Department of Religious Studies, University of Calgary, 1999 published on University of Missouri Kansas City, Douglas E Cowan Website. 9 Oct. 2005 http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/plague.htm#self>. JON. “From the Board of Editors: On Plagiarism”, Journal of Optical Networking, Optical Society of America, 4.3 (2005): 142-3, 9 Oct. 2005 http://www.osa-jon.org/abstract.cfm?URI=JON-4-3-142>. Vedantam, Shankar. “Drug Ads Hyping Anxiety Make Some Uneasy”, Washington Post 16 July (2001): p. A01; also published in PR in the News, Council of Public Relations Firms, 9 Oct. 2005 http://www.prfirms.org/resources/news/drug071601.asp>. SPlaT. SPlaT Website, Computer Science Department, University of Arizona, March 2005. 9 Oct. 2005 http://splat.cs.arizona.edu/>. WAME. “Self-Plagiarism of Textbook Chapters”, World Association of Medical Editors, Ethics Committee and list discussants, October 2004. 9 Oct. 2005 http://www.wame.org/selfplag.htm>. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Green, Lelia. "Reviewing the Scourge of Self-Plagiarism." M/C Journal 8.5 (2005). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/07-green.php>. APA Style Green, L. (Oct. 2005) "Reviewing the Scourge of Self-Plagiarism," M/C Journal, 8(5). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/07-green.php>.