International audience ; Despite economic globalization, the liberalization of European markets and rapid technological changes, membership density in the trade unions in the metal sector in the Nordic countries remains exceptionally high compared to any other European region. The coverage of collective agreements has also remained intact, and unemployment is low by European standards. Nevertheless, the Nordic metal unions face a number of dilemmas. They all recognize a need to engage more actively in international, and especially European-level, policy-making, including the coordination of bargaining processes. Yet they fear that European regulation may undermine their national bargaining autonomy. They also recognize the need for a common Nordic position with regard to European policies; but differences in industrial structures and traditions of labour market regulation, alongside different national relationships to the European Union and Economic and Monetary Union, represent obstacles to closer cooperation between the Nordic metal federations. Moreover, a lasting problem is the winning of the support of their members for European and global activities.
Despite economic globalization, the liberalization of European markets and rapid technological changes, membership density in the trade unions in the metal sector in the Nordic countries remains exceptionally high compared to any other European region. The coverage of collective agreements has also remained intact, and unemployment is low by European standards. Nevertheless, the Nordic metal unions face a number of dilemmas. They all recognize a need to engage more actively in international, and especially European-level, policy-making, including the coordination of bargaining processes. Yet they fear that European regulation may undermine their national bargaining autonomy. They also recognize the need for a common Nordic position with regard to European policies; but differences in industrial structures and traditions of labour market regulation, alongside different national relationships to the European Union and Economic and Monetary Union, represent obstacles to closer cooperation between the Nordic metal federations. Moreover, a lasting problem is the winning of the support of their members for European and global activities.
This article examines the implementation of the first autonomous framework agreement signed by European social partners in a number of member states. Although the telework agreement states that it is to be implemented in accordance with national procedures and practices specific to management and labour, practice is often different. The approach adopted reflects the specific policy character of the telework agreement and the ongoing power struggle between unions, employers and the state.
The article discusses a) restructuring trends in Europe's public sector (in an employment relations perspective), b) the response of the trade unions to this process, and c) the overall impact of these developments on employment relations in the sector. We present an analysis emphasising the differences in the regulatory systems applied to public-sector restructuring processes in the EU Member States, arguing that there are significant variations in the development dynamics in employment relations, and, further, that these dynamics can be traced to at least three different regulatory regimes. The first regime of the three posited regimes emerged from the unique pattern of development observed in the UK's public sector, featuring large-scale privatisation schemes, the introduction of elements of competition and new forms of management. The second type of regime is evident in the Nordic countries, in the Netherlands and - albeit in modified form - in Italy, characterised by a certain measure of restructuring of the public-sector labour market, and based largely on co-operation between public-sector employers and the trade unions. The third type of regime is represented by Germany and France, with their independent regulatory systems in which centralism and sets of rules are paramount, with very few changes in the general pattern of employment relations. While identifying the significant variations listed above, we also argue that a common trend is evident in the EU Member States: a trend towards centralised decentralisation of relations on the public-sector labour market. Our study suggests that, viewed in a broad West European perspective, decentralisation - despite the many attempts to achieve it and despite its adoption, in principle at least, by politicians and the social partners - has been on a modest scale. This is clearly evident if decentralisation is considered in relation to wage-development. The tight budgetary constraints felt by West European governments may well be the single deter mining factor in what can be regarded as rather rigid control, at centralised level, of the framework for wage development in Western Europe. Admittedly, collective agreements can be nego tiated and concluded at decentralised level - but preferably within the framework determined at centralised level.
The economic crisis weighed heavily on the 2010 collective bargaining rounds in the Danish and Swedish manufacturing sectors — the pattern-setting sectors in both countries. This article analyses and compares the bargaining rounds from agenda-setting to signing, pointing to the significant differences in bargaining structures, processes and output. On the whole, the crisis seems to have had little effect on the Danish bargaining system due to a strong centralization on the employer side through the Confederation of Danish Industries, union moderation and the coordination of bargaining areas by Denmark's mediation institution. Conversely, the bargaining round in Sweden puts a question-mark over the viability of the whole Swedish bargaining system. Union coordination was shattered when the white-collar unions broke ranks and concluded agreements before the LO unions. But more importantly, Teknikföretagen — the biggest employers' federation — quit the Industrial Agreement after the negotiations and, once again, Swedish social partners are being forced to readjust the procedural framework for collective bargaining.
