Advertisement

Workers’ Participation at Plant Level in a Comparative Perspective

  • Ludger PriesEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Ludger Pries provides an integrated analytical framework for comparing different forms of contemporary worker participation at the plant level. Even though the twentieth century witnessed a significant growth of social rights, he argues that we are still facing great challenges regarding the implementation and extension of participative democracy at the workplace, especially since the end of the Cold War. Pries demonstrates how globalizing economies have contributed to the need to reconceptualize labor relations and for new institutions beyond the national levels. He also shows how different modes of worker participation have developed across the world, for example, on the basis of a more direct involvement through teamwork or on indirect involvement through councils. This chapter introduces a number of crucial issues, including arenas of collective bargaining, dominant actor groups, labor regulation, sources of power, shared ideology, cognitive maps, and different types of conflict resolutions. In comparing the paradigmatic examples of China and Germany, Pries refers to the structural tensions amongst the key actors in labor relations. Moreover, he compares in some detail a number of European Union (EU) member states. In his conclusion, he summarizes the opportunities as well as challenges of workers’ participation. In terms of opportunities, worker participation could help, for instance, to channel inter- and intragroup conflicts in the working area, stabilize the development of companies, and increase motivation and commitment of workers. On the other side, worker participation often challenges unions and other external collective actors by raising an intra-labor conflict on the question of who controls what. Participation at plant level also could stabilize unbalanced distribution of resources (e.g., between insiders and outsiders). Pries proposes that new dynamics and social mechanisms might help to counterbalance such challenges. For instance, new social movements or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) could function as external monitors.

Bibliography

  1. Agarwala, T. (2010). Innovative Human Resource Practices and Organizational Commitment: An Empirical Investigation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2, 175–197.Google Scholar
  2. Arrigo, G., & Casale, G. (2010). A Comparative Overview of Terms and Notions on Employee Participation. Labour Administration and Inspection Programme. LAB/ADMIN, Working Document Number 8. Geneva: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  3. Bispinck, R. (2005). Betriebsräte, Arbeitsbedingungen und Tarifpolitik. WSI-Mitteilungen, 6, 301–307.Google Scholar
  4. Bolle de Bal, M. (1992). Participation. In G. Szell (Ed.), Concise Encyclopaedia of Participation and Co-management (pp. 603–610). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Camfield, D. (2012). What Is Trade Union Bureaucracy? A Theoretical Account. In C. Fanelli & B. Evans (Eds.), Great Recession-Proof? Shattering the Myth of Canadian Exceptionalism (pp. 133–155). Ottawa: Red Quill Books. Available from: http://www.alternateroutes.ca/index.php/ar/article/viewFile/19221/16548. Accessed 13 Sept 2016.
  6. Cicero, M. T. (44 BC). De officiis. Available from: http://www.constitution.org/rom/de_officiis.htm. Accessed 25 July 2013.
  7. Davignon Group (High Level Group of Experts on ‘European Systems of Worker’s Involvement’) (1997). Final Report 14.5.1997 (IP/97/396). Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-97-396_en.htm. Accessed 13 Sept 2016.
  8. Dehnen, V. (2014). Grenzüberschreitende Verhandlungen. Wie Akteursdynamiken und institutionelle Umwelten Internationale Rahmenvereinbarungen beeinflussen. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  9. Dombois, R., & Pries, L. (1999). Arbeitsbeziehungen zwischen Markt und Staat. Neue Arbeitsregimes im Transformationsprozeß Lateinamerikas. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot (in Spanish: Relaciones Laborales entre Mercado y Estado: Nuevos Regímenes de Trabajo en la Transformación Latinoamericana. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad 2000).Google Scholar
  10. ETUI. (2015). Benchmarking Working Europe. Brussels: ETUI.Google Scholar
  11. ETUI (European Trade Union Institute). (2014). Benchmarking Working Europe 2014. Brussels: ETUI.Google Scholar
  12. Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions). (2009). European Company Survey 2009: Overview. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion). (2008). Employee Representatives in an Enlarged Europe (Vols. 1 and 2). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion). (2011). Industrial Relations in Europe 2010. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  15. Felisini, D. (2014). The European Enterprise as a Key Player in the European Economic Model. A Historical Perspective. The EuroAtlantic Union Review, 1(0), 153–169.Google Scholar
  16. Fricke, W., & Schuchardt, W. (1984). Beteiligung als Element gewerkschaftlicher Arbeitspolitik: Erfahrungen aus Norwegen, Italien, Schweden und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn: Neue Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
  17. Fürstenberg, F. (1973). Mitbestimmung am Arbeitsplatz. Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte, 10, 604–613.Google Scholar
  18. Fürstenberg, F. (1993). Individual and Representative Participation, Dualism or Dilemma? Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 1, 53–66.Google Scholar
  19. Gardner, D. K. (2016). Confucianism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Geren, B. L. (2016). The Chinese Work Ethic: Significance of Confucianism. Available from: http://www.wbiconpro.com/436-Brenda.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2016.
  21. Gill, L. (2016). A Century of Violence in a Red City. Popular Struggle, Counterinsurgency and Human Rights in Colombia. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauser-Ditz, A., Hertwig, M., & Pries, L. (2008). Betriebliche Interessenregulierung in Deutschland. In Arbeitnehmervertretung zwischen demokratischer Teilhabe und ökonomischer Effizienz. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  23. Hauser-Ditz, A., Hertwig, M., & Pries, L. (2013). Between Instrumentalization and Co-determination. Patterns of Collective Employee Representation at the Plant Level in Germany. Employee Relations, 5, 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauser-Ditz, A., Mählmeyer, V., & Pries, L. (2015). Überfordert im Managen von Vielfalt? Euro-Betriebsräte im Strukturwandel der Automobilzulieferindustrie. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  25. Hauser-Ditz, A., Hertwig, M., Pries, L., & Rampeltshammer, L. (2016). A Transnational Solution for Transnational Labour Regulation? Company Internationalization and European Works Councils in the Automotive Sector. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. HBS/ETUI (Hans Böckler Foundation/European Trade Union Institute) (Ed.). (2004). Workers’ Participation at Board Level in the EU-15 Countries. Reports on the National Systems and practices. Brussels: HBS/ETUI.Google Scholar
  27. Hertwig, M., Pries, L., & Rampeltshammer, L. (Eds.). (2010). European Works Councils in Complementary Perspectives. Brussels: ETUI.Google Scholar
  28. Hertwig, M., Pries, L., & Rampeltshammer, L. (2011). Stabilizing Effects of Cross-Border Institutions. The Case of the European Works Councils. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 17(3), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hohn, H.-W. (1988). Von der Einheitsgewerkschaft zum Betriebssyndikalismus: Soziale Schließung im dualen System der Interessenvertretung. Berlin: Sigma.Google Scholar
  30. IDE (International Research Group Industrial Democracy in Europe). (1981). Industrial Democracy in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. IDE (International Research Group Industrial Democracy in Europe). (1993). Industrial Democracy in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. International Trade Union Congress (ITUC). (2006). Staff and Workers Representatives Congress Under Chinese Labour Law. Available from: http://www.ihlo.org/LRC/ACFTU/000804.html. Accessed 25 July 2013.
  33. Kaufman, B. E. (2004). The Global Evolution if Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas and the IIRA. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  34. Kost, A. (2013). Direkte Demokratie. Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurki, L., & Manoliu, M. (2011). Innovative Workplaces as a Source of Productivity and Quality Jobs (Own-Initiative Opinion). Brussels: European Economic and Social Committee. Available from: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.soc-opinions.14984. Accessed 16 May 2015.
  36. Mandel, E. (1975). Self-Management: Dangers and Possibilities. International 4, Winter/Spring. Available from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1975/xx/selfman.htm. Accessed 13 Sept 2016.
  37. Mandel, E. (1992). Power and Money: A Marxist Theory of Bureaucracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  38. Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Marx, R. (2008). Das Kapital. Ein Plädoyer für den Menschen. München: Pattloch.Google Scholar
  40. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Müller, T., Platzer, H.-W., & Rüb, S. (2008). International Framework Agreements – Opportunities and Limitations of a New Tool of Global Trade Union Policy. Briefing Papers No. 8. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  42. Müller-Jentsch, W. (1999). Konfliktpartnerschaft. Akteure und Institutionen industrieller Beziehungen. München: Hampp.Google Scholar
  43. Müller-Jentsch, W. (2007). Industrial Democracy: Historical Development and Current Challenges. Management Revue, 4, 260–273.Google Scholar
  44. Niedenhoff, H.-U. (2005). Mitbestimmung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Köln: Deutscher Instituts-Verlag.Google Scholar
  45. Ortiz, L. (2002). The Resilience of a Company-Level System of Industrial Relations: Union Responses to Teamwork in Renault’s Spanish Subsidiary. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 3, 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pauls, R., & Pries, L. (2012). Changing Labour Relations in China’s Automotive Industry. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 4, 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piehl, E. (1973). Multinationale Konzerne und internationale Gewerkschaftsbewegung. Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
  48. Poole, M. (1982). Theories of Industrial Democracy: The Emerging Synthesis. The Sociological Review, 2, 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poole, M. (2008). Industrial Relations: Origins and Patterns of National Diversity (1st ed., 1986). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Powell, W. P., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  51. Pries, L. (1993). Volkswagen: ¿Un Nudo Gordiano Resuelto? [Volkswagen: Ist der Gordische Knoten gelöst?]. Trabajo, 9, 7–23 (UAM, Mexico).Google Scholar
  52. Pries, L. (2004a). Renaissance of the German Carmakers During the 1990s: Successful Japanization or the Development of a Genuine Business Model? In M. Faust, U. Voskamp, & V. Wittke (Eds.), European Industrial Re-structuring in a Global Economy: Fragmentation and Relocation of the Value Chains (pp. 131–155). Göttingen: SOFI.Google Scholar
  53. Pries, L. (2004b). New Production Systems and Workers’ Participation – A Contradiction? Some Lessons from German Automobile Companies. In E. Charron & P. Stewart (Eds.), Work and Employment Relations in the Automobile Industry (pp. 76–102). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Pries, L. (2005). Configurations of Geographic and Societal Spaces: A Sociological Proposal Between ‘Methodological Nationalism’ and the ‘Spaces of Flows’. Global Networks, 2, 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pries, L. (2008). European Works Councils as Transnational Interest Organisations? In L. Pries (Ed.), Rethinking Transnationalism. The Mesolink of Organisations (pp. 155–173). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pries, L. (2013). Transformations in Work Organisation and Labour Regulation. In V. Pulignano, J. Arrowsmith, & G. D. Rocca (Eds.), The Transformation of Employment Relations: Institutions and Outcomes in the Age of Globalization, Routledge Research in Employment Relations (pp. 133–148). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Pries, L. (2016). Erwerbsregulierung in einer globalisierten Welt. (2nd ed., 1st ed., 2010). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  58. Pries, L., & Seeliger, M. (2012). Transnational Social Spaces Between Methodological Nationalism and “Cosmo-Globalism”. In A. Amelina, N. Devrimsel, T. Faist, & N. G. Schiller (Eds.), Beyond Methodological Nationalism: Social Science Research Methodologies in Transition (pp. 219–238). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Rosenbohm, S. (2015). Verhandelte Mitbestimmung. Die Arbeitnehmerbeteiligung in der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  60. Schmoller, G. (1892). Ueber die Entwicklung des Großbetriebes und die sociale Klassenbildung. Preußische Jahrbücher, 69(4), 457–480.Google Scholar
  61. Scott, R. W. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Serra, N., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2008). The Washington Consensus Reconsidered. Towards a New Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stollt, M., & Meinert, S. (Eds.). (2010). Worker Participation 2030. Four Scenarios. Brussels: ETUI.Google Scholar
  64. Szell, G. (Ed.). (1992). Concise Encyclopaedia of Participation and Co-management. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  65. Tudyka, K. P. (Ed.). (1974). Multinationale Konzerne und Gewerkschaftsstrategie. Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe.Google Scholar
  66. Waddington, J. (2011). European Works Councils and Industrial Relations: A Transnational Institution in the Making. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A Behaviorial Theory of Labor Negotiations. An Analysis of a Social Interaction System. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  68. Whyte, W. F., & Whyte, K. K. (1991). Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex, Cornell International Industrial and Labor Relations Reports. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  69. Wilke, M. & Müller, H.-P. (1991). Zwischen Solidarität und Eigennutz. Die Gewerkschaften des DGB im deutschen Vereinigungsprozeß. Melle: Ernst Knoth.Google Scholar
  70. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences. Global Networks, 2, 301–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wissel, R. (1971, 1974, 1981). Des alten Handwerks Recht und Gewohnheit (= Einzelveröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission zu Berlin, Bd. 7) (Vols. 1–3). Berlin: Colloquium.Google Scholar
  72. Xiaoyang, Z., & Chan, A. (2005). ‘Staff and Workers’ Representative Congress. An Institutionalized Channel for Expression of Employees’ Interests? Chinese Sociology and Anthropology, 4, 6–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesRuhr University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations