Although France and Germany are commonly classified as Bismarckian welfare regimes, they differ significantly in terms of family policy. For a long time, social and family policy in (West) Germany was focused on the male-breadwinner model of married couples. This was based on the expectation that women, in particular married women with children, would withdraw from the labour market permanently, or at least temporarily. Whereas care by mothers was massively subsidized by state family policy, the expansion of the childcare infrastructure was neglected and progressed only very slowly compared to the situation in many other countries of Europe. France, on the contrary, is one of the European countries where childcare services are particularly widespread, giving mothers the option to combine paid work and motherhood. Nevertheless, significant changes are happening in both countries. Concern over the demographic trends and low birth rates (in particular in Germany) have refocused attention on family policy in recent years. In Germany, it has now become a key field of debate and policy, and new actors have appeared on the scene. This article proposes to compare the latest developments in both countries, highlighting the contribution of enterprises and social partners to work-life balance, re-analysing the different types of familialism characterizing both countries.

This article explores the challenges faced by union involvement in work–family life balance. It draws on the French case, where the state’s explicit call for firms to address the work–family life balance issue, notably through mandatory collective bargaining, has provided opportunities for union mobilization. Findings from qualitative research conducted at branch and company levels show that this public strategy has failed to stimulate innovation in related union policy and practices, even within a relatively feminized and partnership-oriented confederation. The reasons for this failure are discussed using a theoretical framework combining opportunity structure, and voice and choice issues. The article concludes that union underinvestment in work–family life balance results from a lack of effectiveness of the opportunity structure, but also, more specifically, from voice and choice factors which lead union representatives to downplay the issues at stake in this new bargaining agenda.

No abstract

No abstract