Abstract
European Journal of Industrial Relations 27(2) 149–165. DOI: 10.1177/0959680120971896
On pages 160 and 161, the Conclusion section should read as follows:
Trade unions in CEE countries have been reluctant to support an extension of flexible working practices for fear that this would be accompanied by a growth of informal and precarious work. There is also a pattern in other countries that suggests that an extension in statutory rights to request flexible working has been accompanied by an increase in individualized bargaining, particularly where union equality bargaining is absent (de Vroom, 2004: 674; Perlow and Kelly, 2014). Our research findings demonstrate why the availability of flexible forms of employment and job redesign are prerequisites for the effective utilization of diverse labour. Furthermore, they make a case for ‘the individual, specifically their characteristics and circumstances’ to become an integral part of collective bargaining. The potential benefits of job redesign for wider trade union members has been identified in this research, but for unions to become more engaged in this agenda at the level of the workplace, the integration of disabled and older workers into equality bargaining is needed. In a special issue on industrial relations in CEE countries, Soulsby et al. (2017: 6) highlight the more positive historical and sociological legacies of CEE countries, which unions could mobilize, including ‘powerful notions of social cohesion and inclusion’. The same authors conclude that unions need to engage in ‘“real politics,” by re-engineering their leadership hierarchies, structures and organizational mechanisms to appeal to a new breed of younger workers’ (Soulsby et al., 2017: 13). Our findings suggest appeal needs also to be extended to older and disabled people, but both within and outside the labour market.
Current bargaining concerns of many of the unions that participated in our project have focused on members’ economic ‘vested interests’ because there has been limited space available to develop a broader ‘sword of justice’ role (Flanders, 1970): except for defensive actions opposing state cuts. Commentators have also noted how the journey social partners undertook when CEE countries joined the EU provided limited opportunities for them to develop their own identities (Meardi, 2012; Ost, 2000). Workshops provided a rare opportunity for unions and social partners to engage in debates about social justice and understand the concerns of CSOs. While the weakness of the latter makes the advocacy of specific categories more difficult in these countries (European Alternatives, 2019), the participation of representatives from disabled people’s organizations was particularly important in facilitating social partner understanding of the problems associated with the medicalization of work accommodations. It should be noted that we continue to use the term ‘accommodated work’ reluctantly and do so only because this is how integrating non-standard disabled and older workers into standard job roles is commonly understood and described in law.
The potential role of CSOs in shaping the behaviour of employers and the state to become significant employment relations actors is far from being realized in these countries, as it has been elsewhere (Williams et al., 2017: 144). A feature of post-socialist neo-liberalization, as Mladenov (2017) has noted, is the weak organization and political representation of disabled people’s organizations. Transnational systems of labour governance and the regulatory environment of the EU and EU social policy initiatives have, as the example of active ageing showed, engaged social partners with some CSO concerns, but their involvement is largely reactive rather than proactive. Williams et al. (2017: 114) also note the limitation of CSOs to act as ‘critical voices’ in countries where they are often themselves direct recipients and highly dependent upon EU funds to deliver employment services. If sustainable working coalitions do develop in these countries, we believe their independence from the state and EU is essential, not only to address the ‘empty shell’ (Hoque and Noon, 2004) or ‘dead letter’ features that characterize many existing initiatives, but to ensure that a range of different voices and interests are fully included in employment policy.
Our workshops began important discussions between employers, trade unions and organizations representing disabled and older workers. How to sustain this type of productive dialogue and further future action was, however, identified as a long-term problem. The limited resources available to social partners are an obstacle that should not be under-estimated. As a piece of action research, this project was interested in promoting knowledge about disabled and older workers, as well as engaging social partners in future action. The limitation of the project was that it made more progress in addressing the former than the latter, because so little pre-existing knowledge exchange had taken place. Action research as a method can create ‘understanding [that] comes from insights into action and contributes to the action’ (Coghlan, 2019: 56). It was apparent, nonetheless, that social partners and CSOs required further support and opportunities to develop their identities and relationships. This raises important questions about the role of academic researchers and research institutes in providing this space. Disability research has increasingly moved towards co-production methodologies, which would also be relevant to the employment relations context (Bell and Pahl, 2018; Disability Research on Independent Living Learning, 2020; Huzzard and Björkman, 2012) and points towards further consideration of the democratization of research methods. At a conceptual level, as researchers we sought to bring together the experiences and knowledge accumulated by the participants of this project to explore synergies with sustainable working. As a focus for future action, sustainable working has the over-arching objectives of improving living and working conditions and quality of working life for all. It also has the potential to incorporate the diverse needs of different groups, which appeals to trade unions and is of mutual benefit to social partners, who need to improve the utilization of what is a limited pool of available labour in CEE countries.