Union Organising in the Netherlands — a Combination of Organising and Servicing Strategies

Abstract

Several authors have recently analysed the Anglo-Saxon post-Thatcherite legal and industrial arena vis-à-vis union organising, sometimes comparing it with organising in continental European industrial relations systems (cf. Gall 2003, 2006b; Frege and Kelly 2003, 2004). In the Anglo-Saxon industrial relations systems, union power and influence seem more directly linked with union density and lay activism than in countries like the Netherlands and Germany. Frege and Kelly (2003: 16, 19) suggested that, while US and British union leaders have long regarded membership loss as an indicator of union decline, notably German union leaders have been less concerned with membership decline because of the institutional union protection, like mandatory extension (ME) of collective agreements. This assessment may also be relevant for the Netherlands, with its industrial relations system resembling that of Germany and an even stronger legal base for ME. In the same vein, Heery (2003) asked why ‘union organising’ the unorganised is central to attempts at union revitalisation in Britain and the US but is less of a priority in continental Europe. These differences in priorities may seem outdated. Actually, arguments for emphasising union organising efforts in countries like Germany and the Netherlands look convincing, especially as institutional union protection seems to be weakening here.