2009
DOI: 10.1007/bf03546482
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Company-provided further training in Germany and the Netherlands

Abstract: This study investigates the impact of determining factors of firms' further training activities from a crosscountry perspective. Since the differences in the institutional background of training are of special interest we choose the Netherlands and Germany. Using the IAB (German) and OSA (Dutch) establishment panels we are able to control for additional differences in country-specific labour market institutions, the personnel structure, the firm structure and technology. Holding everything else constant the fi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For a large number of enterprises without employee representation and formalized HR policies substitute regulations and initiatives at the collective bargaining and state level are needed (‘collective voice’). Germany, indeed, represents a prominent case of a coordinated market economy with a strong dual apprenticeship system, centralized collective bargaining and strong regulation of continuing training activities at the company level (Allaart et al ., 2009, p. 105; Rahner, 2014). Since the 1990s, coverage in collective bargaining has been shrinking, however, due to increasing dropouts of firms (particularly smaller ones) and an increasing number of precarious workers (particularly in the service sectors) (Sengenberger, 1987; Thelen, 2009, p. 482).…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For a large number of enterprises without employee representation and formalized HR policies substitute regulations and initiatives at the collective bargaining and state level are needed (‘collective voice’). Germany, indeed, represents a prominent case of a coordinated market economy with a strong dual apprenticeship system, centralized collective bargaining and strong regulation of continuing training activities at the company level (Allaart et al ., 2009, p. 105; Rahner, 2014). Since the 1990s, coverage in collective bargaining has been shrinking, however, due to increasing dropouts of firms (particularly smaller ones) and an increasing number of precarious workers (particularly in the service sectors) (Sengenberger, 1987; Thelen, 2009, p. 482).…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the context of the effect of works councils on training, the empirical results are ambiguous: while Stegmaier (2012), Allaart et al (2009) and Bellmann et al (2011) find evidence that firms with works councils provide more training to their employees compared to firms without works councils, Görlitz and Stiebale (2011) cannot find a higher degree of participation in training of employees in firms with works councils. Moreover, Niederalt (2004) and Backes-Gellner et al (1997) show that the training rate (i.e.…”
Section: Empirical Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, most of the papers on the effects of workplace unions on training refer to the experiences of the German works councils. The reported effects are generally positive on training incidence and intensity (Stegmaier, 2012), on financing (Kriechel et al, 2014) and on participation (Allaart et al, 2009;Bellmann et al, 2018). There are also a few papers 4 In addition, the presence of a firm-level agreement implies responsibilities also on the employer's side, and not only from workers' representatives.…”
Section: Conceptual Framework and Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%