RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      노동법과 교섭

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A75806390

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      During the last fifty years in America, legal principles have been developed requiring certain types of bargaining behavior from parties negotiating in good faith. These principles, established through the legal system under American federal labor law, fit within the theoretical structure of negotiation as developed by social scientists. Labor law requires conduct of good faith bargaining, fundamental for all negotiation.<br/>
      Attachment to these procedural guidelines has been proven not only a theoretically sound practice for effective bargaining, but also a practically effective means for negotiation. Labor and management negotiations work within these structures, arriving at mutually agreeable collective bargaining contracts. There is no evidence to suggest that the utilization of these procedural guidelines by negotiators involved in other types of bargaining would not similarly lead to desirable results.<br/>
      Communication, trust, and information are essential elements of any negotiation. The procedures developed under the American National Labor Relations Act enhance communication through requiring in-person meetings of sufficient length with negotiators of sufficient authority to discuss and agree, create trust by requiring good faith, open-mindedness, and compliance with commitments, and facilitate the exchange of information.<br/>
      Observance of the procedural rules by all negotiators will promote effective and efficient negotiation. Therefore Korean labor law should develop such procedural guidelines for effective and desirable negotiation.
      번역하기

      During the last fifty years in America, legal principles have been developed requiring certain types of bargaining behavior from parties negotiating in good faith. These principles, established through the legal system under American federal labor law...

      During the last fifty years in America, legal principles have been developed requiring certain types of bargaining behavior from parties negotiating in good faith. These principles, established through the legal system under American federal labor law, fit within the theoretical structure of negotiation as developed by social scientists. Labor law requires conduct of good faith bargaining, fundamental for all negotiation.<br/>
      Attachment to these procedural guidelines has been proven not only a theoretically sound practice for effective bargaining, but also a practically effective means for negotiation. Labor and management negotiations work within these structures, arriving at mutually agreeable collective bargaining contracts. There is no evidence to suggest that the utilization of these procedural guidelines by negotiators involved in other types of bargaining would not similarly lead to desirable results.<br/>
      Communication, trust, and information are essential elements of any negotiation. The procedures developed under the American National Labor Relations Act enhance communication through requiring in-person meetings of sufficient length with negotiators of sufficient authority to discuss and agree, create trust by requiring good faith, open-mindedness, and compliance with commitments, and facilitate the exchange of information.<br/>
      Observance of the procedural rules by all negotiators will promote effective and efficient negotiation. Therefore Korean labor law should develop such procedural guidelines for effective and desirable negotiation.

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2024 평가예정 계속평가 신청대상 (등재유지)
      2019-01-01 평가 우수등재학술지 선정 (계속평가)
      2016-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2012-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2007-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
      2006-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
      2004-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2003-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2001-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 1.09 1.09 0.99
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.89 0.82 1.527 0.28
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼