Institutional transfer: industrial relations in eastern Germany

Can industrial relations be successfully transferred between countries. Thispaper reviews experience in eastern Germany since unification in 1990. Theevidence is that the close integration in western Germany between the twoelements of the dual system of interest representation trade unions andworks councils has not been replicated in the east. Hence the formalidentity of institutions does not prevent substantial differences in theirfunctioning. This may be explained both in terms of the adverse economiccircumstances in the east since unification, and of the distinctive socio-cultural inheritance of the former system. -- Kann ein System industrieller Beziehungen erfolgreich von einem Land in einanderes übertragen werden. In dem Papier wird der entsprechende Prozeß in Ostdeutschland seit der Vereinigung untersucht. Dabei wird offenkundig,daß der enge Zusammenhang des Doppel-Systems der Arbeitnehmervertretung im Westen Deutschlands - Gewerkschaften und Betriebsräte - sich im Osten nicht wiederholt hat. Ganz im Gegenteil: Dieformale Gleichheit dieser institutionellen Regelungen steht substantiellen Unterschieden in der Umsetzung nicht entgegen. Dies kann sowohl durch diekritischen wirtschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen als auch durch die starke soziokulturelle Prägung aus DDR-Zeiten erklärt werden.

Three scenarios for industrial relations in Europe

The author outlines three scenarios for the future of industrial relations in Europe. The first – perhaps the most realistic – projects continuing erosion of national industrial relations systems and conditions of employment, in line with current trends. The second envisages that “elite reform” from above will succeed in re-engineering industrial relations and workers’ protection according to an ideal social policy agenda – an unlikely prospect given the overriding importance of financial considerations and globalized competition. The third scenario centres on a counter-movement from below which presents trade unions with the daunting challenge of mobilizing the discontented far beyond their traditional constituency

The very idea of democracy at work

The employer-employee relationship involves the right to command on the one hand, the duty to obey on the other. Is democracy at work possible? This article explores some of the contrasting understandings of industrial democracy over time and across countries, discusses how the historical advance of rights and citizenship at work has been reversed under neoliberalism, and ends by considering how labour movements might fight to regain the achievements of previous decades

What future for industrial relations in Europe?

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to perform a systematic cross-country comparison of key features of industrial relations in Europe in a context where consolidated post-war institutions are under attack on many fronts. The author discusses a number of key similarities and differences across the countries of Europe, and end by considering whether progressive alternatives still exist. Design/methodology/approach This paper draws upon academic literature and compares the contributions to this special issue in the light of common problems and challenges. Findings The trend towards the erosion of nationally based employment protection and collective bargaining institutions is widely confirmed. In most of Central and Eastern Europe, where systems of organised industrial relations were at best only partially established after the collapse of the Soviet regime, the scope for unilateral dominance by (in particular foreign-owned) employers has been further enlarged. It is also clear that the European Union, far from acting as a force for harmonisation of regulatory standards and a strengthening of the “social dimension” of employment regulation, is encouraging the erosion of nationally based employment protections and provoking a growing divergence of outcomes. However, the trends are contradictory and uneven. Originality/value This paper contributes to an updated cross-country comparative analysis of the ongoing transformations in European industrial relations and discusses still existing progressive alternatives

Theory in industrial relations: towards a materialist analysis

Ziel des Beitrags ist es, die angesichts einer veränderten Problemkonstellation zutagetretenden Defizite der akademischen Theorietradition aufzudecken und das Problem einer materialistischen Analyse der in den industriellen Beziehungen sich ausdrückenden Klassenkonflikten zu entwerfen. Dazu werden zunächst die traditionellen Forschungszugänge zu der Problematik der industriellen Beziehungen skizziert. Dabei wird festgehalten, daß der wesentliche Kontext dieser Ansätze sich seit den beiden ersten Nachkriegsjahren entscheidend verändert hat. In der Konsequenz daraus wird im folgenden Absatz der marxistische Ansatz herangezogen, weil (1) die kapitalistischen Produktionsverhältnisse einen strukturellen Antagonismus zwischen Kapital und Arbeit widerspiegeln und reproduzieren; (2) der Kapitalismus gleichzeitig die Arbeiter kollektiv organisiert und hiermit die wesentliche Basis schafft für effektiven Widerstand gegen das Kapital und die Prioritäten der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise. Unter der Frage einer möglichen Konvergenz werden anschließend die aktuellen Entwicklungen betrachtet. Im Hauptteil wird in drei wesentlichen Punkten die Bedeutung der marxistischen Analyse herausgearbeitet: die Dynamik der Kapitalakkumulation; die Natur der arbeitenden Klasse; die wechselnden Formen des staatlichen Eingriffs in die Beziehungen zwischen Arbeit und Kapital. Der Beitrag schließt mit einigen Schlußfolgerungen zu den Stichworten Marxismus, Gewerkschaftsbewegung. (RW

The Future of Unions

For some 20 years now, it has been common to refer to a crisis of trade unionism. What the future holds for labor movements-or indeed, whether they still have a future-seems increasingly uncertain. For many critics (academic observers as well as trade unionists themselves), unions in most countries appear as victims of external forces outside their control, and often also of their own conservative inertia. In this article, I explore, schematically and with incautious generalizations, the pathways from path to present to future. An important focus is the choices to be made in terms of who unions represent, what interests they emphasize, how they are constituted as organizations, and how they mobilize resources for action. Depuis environ 20 ans, il est courant de parler d'une crise du syndicalisme. Ce que l’avenir réserve aux mouvements syndicaux est de plus en plus incertain. Il est même de plus en plus incertain que ces mouvements ont encore un avenir. De nombreux observateurs universitaires et syndicalistes trouvent que, dans la plupart des pays, les syndicats semblent être des victimes de forces indépendantes de leur volonté, et souvent de leur propre inertie conservatrice également. Dans cet article, j’examine les cheminements passés, présents et futurs des syndicats, schématiquement et en me fondant sur des généralisations peu prudentes. Je mets un accent important sur les choix à effectuer au sujet des personnes que représentent les syndicats, des intérêts qu’ils défendent le plus, de leur constitution en organisations et de la façon dont ils canalisent les ressources dans l’action

Resisting labour market insecurity: old and new actors, rivals or allies?

In most of the world, work has usually been precarious. For several decades, however, greater employment security was achieved in the developed economies. These gains have been increasingly eroded by neoliberal globalisation. We focus on Western Europe to examine whether trade unions are merely protectors of the remaining labour market ‘insiders’, or whether they can also represent the interests of the growing numbers of ‘outsiders’. We also examine the role of ‘new’ social movements in mobilising against insecurity. Our reflections end by considering whether and how the two modes of response offered by trade unions and social movements may be integrated

Democracy in trade unions, democracy through trade unions?

Since the Webbs published Industrial Democracy at the end of the nineteenth century, the principle that workers have a legitimate voice in decision-making in the world of work – in some versions through trade unions, in others at least formally through separate representative structures – has become widely accepted in most west European countries. There is now a vast literature on the strengths and weaknesses of such mechanisms, and we review briefly some of the key interpretations of the rise (and fall) of policies and structures for workplace and board-level representation. We also discuss the mainly failed attempts to establish broader processes of economic democracy, which the eclipse of nationally specific mechanisms of class compromise makes again a salient demand. Economic globalization also highlights the need for transnational mechanisms to achieve worker voice (or more radically, control) in the dynamics of capital-labour relations. We therefore examine the role of trade unions in coordinating pressure for a countervailing force at European and global levels, and in the construction of (emergent?) supranational industrial relations. However, many would argue that unions cannot win legitimacy as democratizing force unless manifestly democratic internally. We therefore revisit debates on and dilemmas of democracy within trade unions, and examine recent initiatives to enhance democratization

Introducción.

Sin resume

(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?

International trade union organisations, like unions at national level, commonly affirm their commitment to internal democracy. But what does this mean? There exists a vast literature on union democracy, addressing the questions whether democracy in trade unions is desirable; whether it is possible; and if so, how it can be achieved. However, the focus of analysis is almost exclusively at the national (or sub-national) level, with the premise that union members are individual workers. But international unions (like many national confederations indeed) do not have individual workers as members: they are organisations of organisations. What does this imply for our understanding of union democracy? We begin our article by summarising the broader literature on union democracy, then develop an interpretation of international unions as ‘meta-organisations’. We next explore some of the implications for debates on democracy at international level, and end by asking whether theories of deliberative democracy can help in understanding the options for international union democracy