Abstract
The articles in the second issue of Economic and Industrial Democracy in 2016 discuss the importance of co-determination, the role of the unions, various phases of industrial development and the role of job insecurity.
In the first article, by Collette Oseen, Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada, ‘“It’s not only what we say but what we do”: Pay inequalities and gendered workplace democracy in Argentinian worker coops’, the author follows up the results from an earlier study on five mixed-sex, worker-led cooperatives in Buenos Aires. The results from the follow-up point to a rise of pay inequities, less workplace democracy and gendered patterns at the workplace. The author concludes that gendered power relations must be included in the analysis of coops and workplace democracy.
The second article, ‘The process of wage adjustment: An analysis using establishment-level data’, by Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Jose Enrique Galdon-Sanchez and Sara Martinez-de-Morentin, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Spain, analyses various factors determining wage adjustments. The authors use data from Spanish manufacturing plants in order to further explain a number of factors that play a role in wage adjustments. The results from the plants studied suggest that a number of factors were important, e.g. structural factors, human resource factors and unions, but particularly important was workplace characteristics.
The third article, by Emmett Caraker, Henning Jørgensen, Mogens O Madsen and Kelvin Baadsgaard, CARMA, Aalborg University, Denmark, titled ‘Representation without co-determination? Participation and co-determination for semi-professional shop stewards in the collective participation system in Denmark’, suggests that the Danish system of co-determination in the collective participation system is under pressure. The various factors behind this development, e.g. new employer strategies, and the outcomes, e.g. the need to implement pro-active strategies in order to strengthen co-determination, are discussed in the concluding part of the article.
The fourth article also looks at Denmark: ‘Importing low-density ideas to high-density revitalisation: The “organising model” in Denmark’, by Jens Arnholtz, FAOS, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Christian Lyhne Ibsen, FAOS, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and Flemming Ibsen, University of Aalborg, Denmark. In it the authors examine how the Danish unions chose to import a strategy to respond to the tendency of union membership decline. This strategy of importing ‘the organizing model’ from countries with low union density is analysed in the article. The authors conclude that first, the model was imported by a small group of central union actors as a strategic tool in order to promote a higher union density. Thereafter, the Danish unions came to implement parts of the model in Denmark. The overall results question if the positive effects were hampered by the implementation strategy of the unions.
The article ‘The evolving model of capitalism in Ireland: An insight into enterprise development and policy’, by Bernadette Andreosso-O’Callaghan, University of Limerick, Ireland, and Ruhr Universität Bochum, Germany, Helena Lenihan, University of Limerick, Ireland, and Terrence McDonough, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland, discusses Irish economic development with the help of the varieties of capitalism literature (VoC). Since the 1950s the industrial development model ‘industrialization by invitation’ has been central for Irish economic development. The authors discuss the major change introduced by the crisis in 2008 and the Irish banking crisis. One of the conclusions in the article suggests that the VoC-literature might be complemented with a stage theory of capitalism in order to better understand the dynamics of the model.
Authors Ilias Livanos, Cedefop, Greece, and Imanol Nuñez, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Spain, suggest in the article ‘Better safe than sorry? The role of stratification and quality of higher education in the labour market outcomes of graduates across Europe’, that higher education might provide employment, but less probability to get a permanent contract. Significant differences between various countries and academic fields were found in this study covering over a million European individuals. Professional degrees were found to have better employment opportunities, compared to more general academic fields.
The article ‘Challenging new governance: Evaluating new approaches to employment standards enforcement in common law jurisdictions’, by Leah F Vosko, York University, Canada, John Grundy, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada, and Mark P Thomas, York University, Canada, discusses common law and employment standards. Especially, the authors suggest that the increasing influence of regulatory new governance regarding employment standards enforcement should be looked at with caution. The authors conclude that participatory arrangements that involve workers in the enforcement processes might be effective, thus arguing for a more active involvement of workers. They also discuss four normative principles in this respect.
The final article in this issue, ‘The relationship between contract type and job satisfaction in a mediated moderation model: The role of job insecurity and psychological contract violation’, by Antonino Callea, LUMSA University, Italy, Flavio Urbini, LUMSA University, Italy, Emanuela Ingusci, University of Salento, Italy, and Antonio Chirumbolo, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, discusses how job insecurity moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and contract type. They analyse two facets: intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction in relation to different job contracts. The results suggest that ‘psychological contract violation negatively mediated the interaction effects’. A high degree of job insecurity was associated with the two facets of job satisfaction for both temporary and permanent workers.