Conditions for and obstacles to trade union cooperation in Europe. A comparative study of countries and sectors – Final report


1. AIM, DEVELOPMENT AND REALIZATION OF THE PROJECT

This project aimed to study transnational trade union cooperation and networking at industry/sector level in Europe, in order to explain which factors help to promote or limit this cooperation. The project had a comparative ambition both empirically and theoretically: Empirically we focused on comparisons across countries and across industries/sectors with respect to the conditions for and the obstacles to transnational union cooperation in Europe. Theoretically, we scrutinized the explanatory power of two theories: that of country regimes and that of transnational industry/sector regimes. In addition, we utilized mixed methods network approach to acquire a deeper understanding of cooperation structures and networks across Europe.

Empirically the project focused on six industries/sectors in Europe: (1) mining; (2) metal; (3) construction; (4) transport; (5) banking and financial services; and (6) health care. The empirical material gathered were from interviews with 29 centrally placed trade union representatives from a selected number of countries in these sectors, and from a survey sent to trade unions in these sectors in 34 European countries. Both the interviews and the survey focused on themes such as: which organizations the trade union cooperate with; which forms of cooperation they utilize, and which issues they cooperate on; which arenas of forums they use for cooperation; what difficulties and challenges to transnational European cooperation that they face, and what resources that are needed for cooperation.


2. MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS AND NEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS

A first strand of important empirical results from the project concern the explanatory power of two theories in explaining structures of trade union cooperation: that of country regimes and that of transnational industry/sector regimes (cf. Larsson and Lovén Seldén 2014; Larsson 2015; Bengtsson, Larsson and Lovén Seldén 2017). These results are mainly based on quantitative survey analyses. Our analyses of different forms and issues on which trade unions cooperate show that the theories of national and sectoral regimes have supplementary explanatory power (Vulkan and Larsson forthcoming). As regards the degree to which trade unions cooperate in different forms transnationally (e.g. writing joint statements; exchange of information; collaboration on training programs; exchange of observers or coordination of collective bargaining; participation in demonstrations or strikes), we find that there are greater differences between sectors than between regimes of national industrial relations. However, another factor explaining variation in degrees of cooperation is organizational resources, which to some degree co-variate with industrial relations regimes.

As regards what issues trade unions cooperate on there are some significant industrial relations regime effects, but even here, the sectoral effects are generally stronger. There are, however, certain issues in which national industrial relations regimes explain more of the difference than sectors do. One of these is the issue of minimum wages, in which there is a strong (however varying) skepticism among trade unions in the Nordic countries (cf. Furåker 2017). Another is which channels trade unions cooperate through in order to influence EU-policies (Larsson 2015). Also when looking at the possible futures of transnational cooperation, national industrial relations regimes have stronger effects than sectoral regimes, in that particularly trade unions in the CEE-countries on the one hand acknowledge nationally protectionist tendencies among trade unions, and on the other hand see a strong need for deepened transnational cooperation (cf. Bengtsson and Vulkan forthcoming). We thus conclude that the “new” theoretical approach of focusing on transnational sectoral regimes is stronger than the “older” national industrial relations regimes, but also that they are complementary in explaining forms and issues focused in transnational trade union cooperation.

A second strand of important empirical results from the project concern which factors that explain the differences related to industrial relations and sectoral regimes. These results are mainly based on interview data, but to some extent also on the survey data and the mixed method network analysis. From both quantitative and qualitative studies, we find that financial and organizational resources are very important for the quality and density of trade union cooperation. Large organizations cooperate to a higher degree than small (Larsson 2015; Vulkan and Larsson Forthcoming), but as both parties in a collaboration need resources, we find that some cooperative links in the network get weakened because of lack of resources from one part, even though the other has resources to cooperate. Overall, there are strong tendencies of regional clustering of the sectoral cooperation networks in Europe, however often with the continental regional and particularly German trade unions functioning as regionally bridging nodes. In addition, we find that not only factors relating to structural differences between sectors and national contexts matter in cooperation, but also cultural factors such as language, ideology and cultural practices and traditions (Larsson, Lovén Seldén and Bengtsson 2016; Larsson 2017).

As regards new research questions, the project has led to two spin-offs for the project leader – both of which take departure from the sectoral approach of this project, but expands it to encompass both trade unions and employer organizations, and how they interact in social dialogue on the European level. Firstly, Larsson has participated as a partner in an international project funded by DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 2016-2018. The project is called SPEEED (Social Partner Engagement and Effectiveness in European Dialogue) and is led by Dr. Barbara Bechter, Durham University. Secondly, Larsson is partner 2018-2020 in another project funded by DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. The project is called EESDA (Enhancing the Effectiveness of Social Dialogue Articulation in Europe) and is led by Dr. Miroslav Beblavý, CEPS, Brussels.


3. INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS AND DISPERSION OF RESULTS

The international dimension of the projects has been strong. The project group has organized and co-funded one international conference, the Industrial Relations in Europe Conference (IREC 2015) in Gothenburg in September 2015, with participants from a number of European countries. The conference was organized in cooperation with Professor Richard Hyman, London School of Economics. We also co-hosted and co-funded a public research workshop in connection to the European Social Summit for Fair Jobs and Growth in Gothenburg: Welfare, Inequality and the Social Dimension in Europe. This workshop gathered Swedish researchers as well as two international guests, Dr. Barbara Bechter, Durham University Business School and Professor John D. Stephens, Centre for European Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Finally, as can be seen from the list of Conference and Seminar presentations below, the project members have presented results from the project at a number of international conferences. In addition, a majority of the publications has been in English and thus have targeted an international audience.

As regards cooperation and dispersion of results to stakeholders and the general public, the list of conference/seminar presentations below shows that the project group has held presentations for trade unions, employer organisations, as well as the labour movement at large and the general public. We have also distributed short summaries of a general report via email to approximately 600 trade unions across Europe (i.e. all invited to take part in the survey). In addition, the IREC-2015 conference we hosted included a panel with representatives for trade unions as well as employer organisations.