Федербединг: причины, проявления и последствия избыточной занятости.

Featherbedding is the practice of hiring more workers than are needed to perform a given job, or to adopt work procedures which appear pointless, complex and time consuming merely to employ additional workers. The term "make work" is sometimes used as a synonym for featherbedding. The term "featherbedding" is usually used by management to describe behaviors and rules sought by workers. The term may equally apply to mid and upper level management, particularly in regard to top heavy and "bloated" levels of middle and upper level management. Featherbedding has also been occasionally used to describe rent seeking behavior by corporations in response to economic regulation.

Legal scholars and certain social theorists argue that featherbedding may be an expression of the concept of a job as a property right. Such analysts argue that while the owner or employer has the "right" to extract profit because of his or her investment of capital, the worker has the "right" to extract profit because of his or her investment of labor. Featherbedding, it is argued, arises and becomes a significant problem if the job property right is not part of the legal regime and remains unprotected (such as the United States). Seizing on economists' emphasis on power in the workplace, other social theorists conclude that featherbedding is a result of weak labor unions and unenforced and unprotected worker rights. Under that analysis, featherbedding is a response by unions to their weakness, not strength. The literature is replete with "featherbedding" or "restrictive" rules that are hard to justify. Yet, before using these examples to condemn work rules as such, one has to be clear as to what the reasons are behind the restrictions. Why, for example, have unions resorted to job control devices, such as rules of demarcation and jurisdiction or seniority rules that sometimes conflict with flexibility? Frequently one finds that these rules originate in serious problems of employment insecurity or grave deficiencies in the security or recognition of trade unions. Improved workplace employment rights, improved economic policies and less antagonistic labor management relations, it is argued, would reduce featherbedding. Others see certain kinds of featherbedding as a corrective for market failure. For example, the delivery of social services is often not quantifiable except in the extreme. When the market is unable to quantify a good or service, the market will fail to price it accurately and so market failure results. In complex organizations, or in those whose inputs and outputs are difficult to quantify, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine what constitutes featherbedding. For example, defining "quality health care" is problematic, as is defining a "quality education". In such situations, frontline professional workers place heavy emphasis on work rules and minimums. Many white collar professionals (particularly, those such as nurses and teachers) and highly skilled craft workers place heavy emphasis on staffing minimums, for example, as a means of ensuring a "high quality" outcome. While some argue that this is an exercise in the professional judgment of such workers, others call that featherbedding and point to the low level of evidence that such rules improve outcomes.

In Brazil, featherbedding is considered endemic in government owned and private sector industries. Some analysts argue that featherbedding is a reaction to economic insecurity, and helps stabilize the national economy by spreading wealth.

In France, featherbedding was encouraged by the nationalized rail transportation system after World War II with a view of reducing the unemployment rate. Also, railway express rates were kept very low. The railroad ran at a huge deficit as a result.

In postwar Japan, featherbedding is uncommon. A post war consensus emerged among labor unions that featherbedding was not in the best interest of workers, and unions in Japan have tended to avoid the practice. A heavy government emphasis on full employment and a strong social safety net helped reinforce this consensus.

There are no national, regional, or local statutes or regulations governing labor unions in Sweden. No national bureau or agency oversees or regulates labor relations, and no agency monitors or regulates internal trade union matters. Nevertheless, despite relatively close relationships between employers and unions, featherbedding is almost unknown in Sweden.

In the United Kingdom, featherbedding is also referred to as "overmanning".

In the United States, the Taft–Hartley Act defines and outlaws featherbedding. However, as previously noted, the U. S. Supreme Court has narrowly defined featherbedding and left most practices undisturbed.