Search results

Der Aufsatz stellt die Auswirkungen einer netzwerkförmig reorganisierten Wertschöpfung auf das System der Tarifpolitik zur theoretischen und empirischen Diskussion vor. Im Vordergrund steht die These, nach der eine solche (Re-)Organisation interorganisational segmentierte Belegschaften schafft, und zwar auch in den traditionellen Kernzonen industrieller Wertschöpfung. Von diesem Prozess werden verschiedene Dimensionen des etablierten Tarifsystems berührt: (1) Im Hinblick auf die Kollektivakteure entstehen neuartige Vertretungslücken und -konkurrenzen, (2) die Prozesse der Aushandlung sind aufgrund der Vervielfältigung der Verhandlungsbeziehungen von einem Auseinanderfallen von Regelfindung und - durchsetzung betroffen und (3) die Ergebnisse der Tarifpolitik verschieben sich neben der Absenkung von Vergütungen und der Entstehung tariflicher Parallelwelten in Richtung von Regelambiguität und Regelkonflikt. Fasst man diese Entwicklungen unter dem Oberbegriff tarifpolitischer Fragmentierung zusammen, wird deutlich, dass Tarifeinheit in ihren organisationsbezogenen Grundlagen herausgefordert wird, was netzwerkadäquate Handlungsoptionen der Sozialpartner jenseits etablierter Praktiken erforderlich werden lässt. ; This article puts the networked form of value creation and its impact on the German collective bargaining system centre stage. Here, we are primarily concerned with the hypothesis that a network-based reorganisation of value creation creates interorganisationally segmented workforces, even within the traditional core of manufacturing. This process affects various dimensions of the established collective bargaining system: (1) With respect to the collective actors, new representation gaps and representational competition emerge, (2) negotiation processes are marked by a gap between rule definition and rule enforcement because of the multiplication of relationships, and (3) apart from wage reduction and parallel wage standards, collective bargaining outcomes move in the direction of rule ambiguity and rule conflict. Summarising these developments in wage-setting arrangements under the term "fragmentation", it becomes obvious that the organisational foundations of "Tarifeinheit" are challenged. This triggers a need for social partners to develop network-adequate responses beyond traditional practices in collective bargaining.

In diesem Beitrag stellen wir die Frage ins Zentrum, wie Kollektivakteure arbeitsbezogene Ungleichheiten in einer sozialen Umwelt mit institutionalisierten Arbeitsbeziehungen sozial konstruieren. Empirisch untersuchen wir qualitativ-explorativ, wie sich die Kategorisierung von Leiharbeit durch Praktiken der Signifikation, Legitimation und Domination auf der Meso-Ebene der Regulation von Arbeit vollzieht. Ein Befund ist, dass die Signifikation der Leiharbeit als benachteiligte Form der Arbeitskraftnutzung weithin geteilt wird, die arbeitspolitischen Akteure jedoch erheblich in der Bewertung darüber abweichen, ob diese Benachteiligung gerechtfertigt ist. Aus dieser Diskrepanz resultieren unterschiedliche Strategien der Akteure: Während die Arbeitgeberseite eine symbolische Aufwertung der Leiharbeit als legitime Beschäftigungskategorie anstrebt, versuchen die Arbeitnehmervertreter eine Gleichbehandlung der Leiharbeiter in materieller Hinsicht zu erreichen. Im Ergebnis befördert dieser Konflikt um die Deutungshoheit paradoxerweise die Rekategorisierung der Leiharbeit als eine Beschäftigungsform mit höherer Legitimität, und zwar trotz fortbestehender Ungleichbehandlung der Leiharbeiter. ; In this article we examine how collective actors construct work-related inequalities in a social environment characterised by institutionalised labour-management-relations. Empirically, we select a qualitative-explorative approach for illuminating how the categorisation of temporary work is shaped through the practices of signification, legitimation and domination in regulating work at the meso-level. We find that collective actors share the signification of temporary work as a disadvantaged form of employment, whereas they diverge in their evaluation of the legitimacy of this disadvantage. Actors derive conflicting strategies from these divergent evaluations: the employer side aims at a symbolic upgrading of temporary agency work as a legitimate category of employment, whereas labour representatives try to establish equal treatment of agency workers on material grounds. The paradoxical result of this evaluation contest is that temporary agency work is re-categorised as a type of employment with higher legitimacy, despite continued unequal treatment of agency workers.

Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) are still a marginal topic in political and academic discourses over global governance and corporate responsibility. In functional terms, GFAs are a commitment to include global labor standards with respect to human resource management as part of this broader turn to CR. But to what extent are these intentions and goals actually realized? Are corporations able and willing to implement GFAs in a joint effort together with the unions across a vastly diverse range of institutional settings and national arrangements? And do GFAs have an influence on core elements of a company's business policy decisions? Drawing on the insights from an interdisciplinary and multinational project, this paper uses four case studies to explore the conditions and variations in GFA implementation in the USA. Although we observe, as have others before us, that key matters of business strategy such as investments, acquisitions, restructuring, or relocation are more centralized than corporate policies on labor relations, we provide some evidence that the implementation of GFAs can be moved forward by a confluence of external actor involvement and of corporate strategies motivated by a desire to streamline HRM practices (that include the goals covered by GFAs in their core business practices). This finding of the influence of external actor voice in implementation processes may also have broader explanatory power with respect to CR initiatives in general. And in theoretical terms it allows us to explore the interplay between macro structural explanations like the Varieties of Capitalism approach, and the strategic "micro-political" explanations. Our study, in fact, suggests a strong need to combine these in a more systematic fashion.

Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) are still a marginal topic in political and academic discourses over global governance and corporate responsibility. In functional terms, GFAs are a commitment to include global labor standards with respect to human resource management as part of this broader turn to CR. But to what extent are these intentions and goals actually realized? Are corporations able and willing to implement GFAs in a joint effort together with the unions across a vastly diverse range of institutional settings and national arrangements? And do GFAs have an influence on core elements of a company's business policy decisions? Drawing on the insights from an interdisciplinary and multinational project, this paper uses four case studies to explore the conditions and variations in GFA implementation in the USA. Although we observe, as have others before us, that key matters of business strategy such as investments, acquisitions, restructuring, or relocation are more centralized than corporate policies on labor relations, we provide some evidence that the implementation of GFAs can be moved forward by a confluence of external actor involvement and of corporate strategies motivated by a desire to streamline HRM practices (that include the goals covered by GFAs in their core business practices). This finding of the influence of external actor voice in implementation processes may also have broader explanatory power with respect to CR initiatives in general. And in theoretical terms it allows us to explore the interplay between macro structural explanations like the Varieties of Capitalism approach, and the strategic "micro-political" explanations. Our study, in fact, suggests a strong need to combine these in a more systematic fashion.

"Im Zentrum des Beitrages steht die paradoxe Beobachtung, dass Internationalisierungsphänomene bei arbeitsintensiven, unternehmensbezogenen Dienstleistungen häufig mit einem Verfall der arbeitspolitischen Institutionen in Verbindung gebracht werden, es aber gleichwohl Internationale Rahmenabkommen zwischen globalen Dienstleistungsunternehmen und dem zuständigen globalen Gewerkschaftsdachverband gibt. Anhand einer exemplarischen Fallstudie wird herausgearbeitet, dass vor allem ein Zusammenfallen von zwei Aspekten den paradoxen Abschluss von Internationalen Rahmenabkommen in arbeitsintensiven Dienstleistungssegmenten begünstigt: Erstens auf Seiten der globalen Gewerkschaft ein Verhandlungskonzept, das ausgehend von den niedrigen Organisationsgraden in den betroffenen Branchen 'Organizing' zum Gegenstand der Aushandlung macht und zweitens auf Seiten des zentralen Managements ein besonderer Legitimationsbedarf des Geschäftsmodells bei gleichzeitig erhöhter Sichtbarkeit des Unternehmens." (Autorenreferat)

Organizzare la solidarietŕ a livello internazionale è il tallone d'Achille del sindacato, particolarmente nell'attuale contesto di competizione e produzione globale. In primo luogo, l'articolo mostrerŕ il dispiegarsi di relazioni di potere asimmetriche fra le parti sociali nelle aziende multinazionali e nelle loro reti produttive globali e in che modo gli International Framework Agreements (Ifas) - con i limiti di un approccio focalizzato sull'impresa - possano contribuire a rafforzare la posizione contrattuale del lavoro. I sindacati possono utilizzare questo strumento per creare nuovi spazi di organizzazione, ottenere riconoscimento e promuovere la contrattazione collettiva. Nella seconda parte, il focus si sposterŕ sulle federazioni sindacali globali (Guf) e sui diversi approcci da esse adottati con l'obiettivo di fare degli Ifa un mezzo per costruire forme di solidarietŕ internazionale. Evidenzieremo la loro importanza nel garantire alle federazioni sindacali globali ri-conoscimento come attori della contrattazione - sia rispetto agli affiliati sia nei confronti del management - e un'agenda contrattuale. L'articolo si concluderŕ con una valutazione di quanto è stato raggiunto attraverso questa strategia e delle sfide che ancora restano da affrontare.

International Framework Agreements (IFAs) represent a still small but growing and particularly interesting contribution to the global regulation of employment relations. IFAs enable global union federations (GUFs) to become actively involved in co-designing employment relations within transnational corporations (TNCs) and their global production networks. Based upon theoretical insights into the challenges of transferring practices in and across organizations, we present and discuss a model of practice transfer for global production networks based on empirical data from a content analysis of IFAs and from interviews with representatives of TNCs, GUFs, and other experts. Our study contributes to an organizational theory of practice transfer. But more importantly, it aims at a better integration of IHRM and international industrial relations by looking more closely at the particular role of GUFs as external actors.

Presenting cutting-edge ethnographic research on contemporary worlds of work and the experiences of workers from a range of contexts, this volume offers fine-grained, exploratory ethnographic data to provide insights unmatched by other research methods.

Die Verletzung internationaler Arbeits- und Sozialstandards entlang der Lieferkette ist bei global agierenden Unternehmen eher die Regel als die Ausnahme. Mittlerweile sind solche Firmen allerdings durch die Gesetzgebung gefordert, nach der Idee der Corporate Social Responsibility Verantwortung für die Beschäftigten ihrer Zulieferer zu übernehmen. Die Beiträger*innen zeigen Hintergründe dieser Verpflichtung auf und stellen Instrumente zur Durchsetzung sozialer Standards vor. Zu diesen Instrumenten zählen globale Rahmenabkommen und Lieferkettengesetze ebenso wie CSR-Richtlinien und digitale Tools. Es zeigt sich, dass bei der Durchsetzung sozialer Standards vor allem Workers' Voice und Mitbestimmung zählen: Abhilfe ist nur möglich, wenn Missstände auch benannt werden.

Die Verletzung internationaler Arbeits- und Sozialstandards entlang der Lieferkette ist bei global agierenden Unternehmen eher die Regel als die Ausnahme. Mittlerweile sind solche Firmen allerdings durch die Gesetzgebung gefordert, nach der Idee der Corporate Social Responsibility Verantwortung für die Beschäftigten ihrer Zulieferer zu übernehmen. Die Beiträger*innen zeigen Hintergründe dieser Verpflichtung auf und stellen Instrumente zur Durchsetzung sozialer Standards vor. Zu diesen Instrumenten zählen globale Rahmenabkommen und Lieferkettengesetze ebenso wie CSR-Richtlinien und digitale Tools. Es zeigt sich, dass bei der Durchsetzung sozialer Standards vor allem Workers' Voice und Mitbestimmung zählen: Abhilfe ist nur möglich, wenn Missstände auch benannt werden.

Considering the persistent violation of labour rights, questions arise as to the effectiveness of policy instruments regarding the governance of global labour standards. We adopt an industrial relations perspective to compare three broad categories of policy instruments: state-centred regulation, employer-centred regulation, and transnational industrial relations agreements. To structure our comparison, we adapt Budd and Colvin's (2014) "Efficiency, Equity and Voice (EEV)" framework for conflict handling to the field of global labour governance. We operationalize the efficiency, equity and voice criteria to examine the outcome of policy instruments and process orientation, their scope and coverage, and the opportunities they provide for worker participation and union building. Our comparison shows that each category of instruments has characteristic strengths and weaknesses, and does not suffice on its own to protect global labour standards adequately. This accounts for why, paradoxically, we observe both a proliferation of policy instruments and the persistent violation of labour rights. More research is required to improve our understanding of how different political instruments could be combined, and we conclude by proposing elementary building blocks that improve the governance of global labour standards along global value chains.