Implementing global framework agreements: the limits of social partnership

Abstract

Global Networks 15, supplemental issue (2015) S65-S85.Abstract Global framework agreements, negotiated between representatives of transnational corporations and trade unions, are a form of private regulation of labour relations on a global scale. Conceived and promoted by the global union federations, their numbers have increased considerably over the past two decades. However, as empirical research has shown, their record of implementation has been poor. We attribute this to them having been negotiated within the limits of a labour-management relationship based on 'social partnership'. This highly institutionalized setting of dialogue contrasts markedly with the widespread incidence of contested labour relations in subsidiaries of transnational corporations and in particular throughout their global production networks. Yet, workers and their unions at such sites, where global framework agreements are most needed, have mostly not been involved in their negotiation. Instead of relying on 'social partnership', we argue for unions to embrace a 'conflict partnership' approach, one that recognizes and addresses the tension between dialogue and conflict in labour relations. To highlight our arguments, we present two contrasting case studies from the service sector.

Constructing Transnational Solidarity: The Role of Campaign Governance

“…One question concerns local involvement in global campaigns to sign GFAs. Fichter and McCallum (: 67–69) pointed to ‘the inherent shortcomings of a negotiation process dominated by social partnership’ in the headquarters of MNCs generally based in Europe where institutional structures facilitate such agreements. They suggest that social dialogue at the European level ‘is less useful for implementing GFAs’, and, hence, GFAs arising from a social partnership approach tend to be ‘top‐down’ and remain ‘still‐born’, whereas GFAs arising out of a broader mobilization of workers will likely have a better record of implementation.…”

Transnational Collective Agreements and the Development of New Spaces for Union Action: The Formal and Informal Uses of International and European Framework Agreements in the UK

“…These debates on the limitations of EWCs draw parallels with those on TCAs, which are mostly underutilized and rarely used in a meaningful way (McCallum : 43). This poor record of implementation has been linked to their emphasis on corporate‐level social partnership with inadequate mobilization of more local unions (Fichter and McCallum : 80). IFAs may be weakly understood by national and local unions, who may not be affiliated to GUFs, and the non‐binding nature of IFAs and management hostility, indifference and reluctance to promote their content within their subsidiaries and supply chains are further limitations (Fichter and Helfen ; Niforou ; Stevis ).…”

Trade union pedagogy and cross‐border action

“…The first comprises studies of the role of different GUFs as global labour actors (Croucher and Cotton 2009), empirical work on conflicts and campaigns led either by GUFs or emerged from the bottom-up (Fairbrother et al 2013) and assessments of their involvement in transnational union and other activist networks, codes of conduct and framework agreements (Bartley and Egels-Zandén 2015;Fichter and McCallum 2015;Hale and Wills 2007;Niforou 2012). Whether in the form of transnational solidarity work, strategic research campaigns on organizing along global value chains, global framework agreements or global union networks, these strategies aim to establish GUFs as a legitimate and powerful counterweight to global capital.…”