Convergence and Diversity in International and Comparative Industrial Relations

[Excerpt] In this essay, we reexamine a critical paradox in international and comparative industrial relations, a paradox that already decades ago demonstrated its ability to intrigue scholarly curiosity (Galenson, 1952,1963; Kerr et al, 1960). As we see it, convergence along a number of important dimensions, such as labor law and organizational and bargaining structure, is occurring simultaneously with widespread cross-national and local divergence, or diversity, in industrial relations practices and outcomes. Along with economic and political interdependence and with intensifications of market competition, convergence and diversity both appear to be product of an increasing spread of markets and ideas sometimes referred to as globalization. In employing this term, we intend to make the point that the conduct of global business is no longer confined to the sort of international trading and related activities that have been carried on for centuries already. In the modern era, the production and exchange of both goods and services occur increasingly on a global scale (Reich, 1991). At this level, as capital mobility expands and trade agreements proliferate (NAFTA, CATT, the single European market), national governments find it increasingly difficult to regulate markets. This globalization of markets, we suggest, is the dominant force driving change (whether toward convergence or diversity) in the contemporary period. Our observations are especially applicable to the advanced industrial countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the primary focus of this paper, although the trends identified here probably also hold to some extent for newly industrialized countries and less developed societies as well

Employers and Employers Associations in the Netherlands Industrial Relations Systems

Dans les Pays-Bas, la sauvegarde des intérêts des employeurs concerne surtout les associations d'employeurs. L'importance de ces associations découle de plusieurs raisons ; les unes sont historiques, les autres sont contemporaines.Durant les deux premières décades du XXe siècle, années qui correspondent à la période de formation de la plupart des associations d'employeurs, les entreprises industrielles étaient généralement trop petites pour faire face aux pouvoirs grandissants des unions.N'étant pas suffisamment équipées en personnel professionnel, pour faire face au problème, ces entreprises utilisèrent de plus en plus les services d'associations d'employeurs pour les orienter dans leurs rapports avec les unions et pour les aviser sur les politiques à établir en matière de personnel. L'influence des associations d'employeurs s'accentua davantage avec l'imposition de centrales économiques après la deuxième guerre mondiale et par suite de la centralisation de la négociation collective.D'une façon générale ce sont maintenant les associations d'employeurs qui prennent charge de la négociation alors que les entreprises se préoccupent surtout de l'établissement de leurs politiques dans le domaine du personnel.Des fédérations centrales d'employeurs existent pour chacun des trois secteurs économiques : l'agriculture, la petite entreprise (surtout le commerce de détail) et l'industrie (la grande entreprise).La structure administrative interne des fédérations centrales d'employeurs se subdivise comme suit : un conseil des membres qui est virtuellement sans pouvoir, un comité général qui établit les politiques générales, un bureau exécutif qui est le centre du pouvoir et un secrétariat très influent.Dans chacun des trois secteurs économiques, les fédérations centrales ont créé des organismes qui ont pour but de coordonner les différents points de vue et les intérêts divergents. Il existe en plus un « Governing Board for Labor Affairs » auquel toutes les fédérations centrales sont affiliées.La centralisation des décisions a considérablement accru le pouvoir des organisations centrales, tant du côté des employeurs que de celui des unions. Il est difficile d'aller plus loin dans une société démocratique. On peut prévoir que dans un avenir rapproché la tendance ira vers une décentralisation et une diffusion des responsabilités.This article analyzes the organization of employers in the Netheriands for their industrial relations tasks. After first describing the role of individual employers and explaining why that role is a relatively small one, the article emphasizes the structure and functioning of employers associations in industrial relations. Special attention is given to the existence of pluralistic associations in a country where by tradition most if not all social organizations are pluralistically organized. The postwar wage and economic policies of the Dutch government have encouraged a high degree of centralized decision-making among employers as well as among labor organizations. The article concludes with some observations about the likely consequences of a current trend toward greater decentralization

4. The School Develops

Between 1947 and 1953, when M.P. Catherwood left the deanship to become New York’s industrial commissioner, the ILR School developed into a full fledged enterprise. These pages attempt to capture some of the excitement of this period of the school’s history, which was characterized by vigor, growth, and innovation. Includes: Alumni Recall Their Lives as Students; The Faculty Were Giants; Alice Cook: Lifelong Scholar, Consummate Teacher; Frances Perkins; Visits and Visitors; Tenth Anniversary: Reflection and Change; The Emergence of Departments at ILR; Development of International Programs and Outreach

Convergence and Diversity in International and Comparative Industrial Relations

[Excerpt] In this essay, we reexamine a critical paradox in international and comparative industrial relations, a paradox that already decades ago demonstrated its ability to intrigue scholarly curiosity (Galenson, 1952,1963; Kerr et al, 1960). As we see it, convergence along a number of important dimensions, such as labor law and organizational and bargaining structure, is occurring simultaneously with widespread cross-national and local divergence, or diversity, in industrial relations practices and outcomes. Along with economic and political interdependence and with intensifications of market competition, convergence and diversity both appear to be product of an increasing spread of markets and ideas sometimes referred to as "globalization." In employing this term, we intend to make the point that the conduct of global business is no longer confined to the sort of international trading and related activities that have been carried on for centuries already. In the modern era, the production and exchange of both goods and services occur increasingly on a global scale (Reich, 1991). At this level, as capital mobility expands and trade agreements proliferate (NAFTA, CATT, the single European market), national governments find it increasingly difficult to regulate markets. This globalization of markets, we suggest, is the dominant force driving change (whether toward convergence or diversity) in the contemporary period. Our observations are especially applicable to the advanced industrial countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the primary focus of this paper, although the trends identified here probably also hold to some extent for newly industrialized countries and less developed societies as well.Chapter_13_Turner_Windmuller007.pdf: 6082 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020