Abstract
This issue contains a strong set of comparative studies of European industrial relations. Bechter, Brandl and Meardi provide a systematic overview of changes in industrial relations in nine sectors across the 27 EU member states, on the basis of seven empirical indicators. They find that inter-sector variation is as great as cross-national difference, casting doubt on the ‘methodological nationalism’ which typically underlies comparative industrial relations research. The ‘converging divergences’ thesis proposed by Katz and Darbishire here receives detailed reinforcement.
Milner uses detailed qualitative research to contrast union responses to ‘flexicurity’ in France and Britain. In France, the EU flexicurity agenda has had a major impact on public policy debate, and unions have made important attempts to influence the evolution of policy (with positions differing according to the perspectives of the rival confederations). In Britain, the whole issue has received much less prominence (the British labour market is already notoriously flexible) and unions have in any case lost much of their former influence on public policy.
Vandaele reports a survey, undertaken for the European Trade Union Institute, on the views of trade union youth representatives towards the policies of their national confederations. In all countries, young workers are far less unionized than the older cohorts, a severe problem for the future of robust union organization. Though unions in most countries have attempted to address the problem, Vandaele depicts a sombre picture: youth representatives are extensively dissatisfied at the degree of commitment to the recruitment and representation of young workers, their structural role in union policy-making and the resources allocated to their work.
Finally we present an innovation. The article by Connolly and Darlington compares the main British rail union, the RMT, and SUD-Rail, a radical minority union in the French system. Both are prominent for their readiness to take militant industrial action, and for their commitment to a broader political agenda. Connolly and Darlington develop provocative conclusions which are debated in three subsequent commentaries (in two cases, by referees for the original version of the article). This constitutes a fascinating symposium on an important theme for the debate on the potential for trade union revitalization.