The collective bargaining of flexicurity: A case for sector‐level analysis? The Italian chemical and metalworking sectors compared

Abstract

Although employment relations in Europe have long been seen as a factor of rigidity, limiting managerial discretion and adaptability, in the last 30 years, they have witnessed a trend towards decentralisation of collective bargaining and negotiations increasingly centred on flexibility–security trade‐offs between employers and employees. Research on the contribution of collective bargaining to the so‐called flexicurity has mostly focused on national‐level institutional arrangements. In this article, we contend that meso‐level differences need to feature more prominently in the debate. Our comparison of two sectors in the same country (chemicals and metalworking in Italy) shows that decentralisation has divergent effects on flexicurity issues depending in particular on differences in market structures and on depth of bargaining. The interplay between these two factors affects what we refer to as procedural security, which we view as important in ensuring sustainable trade‐offs between flexibility and security.

Barriers and drivers for the adoption of industrial sustainability measures in European SMEs: Empirical evidence from chemical and metalworking sectors

“…Third, an overview of the influence on contextual factors is largely lacking (Sharma and Narula, 2020), with scattered examples of studies addressing differences between two countries (Mittal et al, 2013), small vs large enterprises (Russo and Tencati, 2009) or two sectors within the same country (Paolucci and Galetto, 2020). Most of the authors, nonetheless, offered analyses focused exclusively on a single sector or country.…”

Collective bargaining towards mutual flexibility and security goals in large internationalised companies—why do institutions (still) matter?

“…At the national level, variations in the capacity of TUs to enter into negotiations with employers have been often attributed to economic factors (Iversen, 1996). Recent research points to sectoral structures in order to explain the varying scope of the bargaining agenda on flexibility and security within countries (Paolucci and Galetto, 2020). In comparing large companies with similar structural characteristics, Paolucci, 2017 brings to the fore the enabling or constraining role of CB institutions in addressing flexibility and security.…”

Forces of reproduction and change in collective bargaining: A social field perspective

“…This resonates with our own findings on the limited capacity of small enterprises to invest in machines, production systems, and management processes, and employer associations’ intention to overcome fragmentation and dualization processes within both, economic and collective bargaining fields. Paolucci and Galetto (2020), meanwhile observe that ‘continuous pressures to decentralize contribute to widen within-countries differences’ (Paolucci and Galetto, 2020: 177), a finding that can be interpreted as increasing differentiation and social closure of collective bargaining fields against the background of transnationalized economic fields of the sectors compared in their article, that is, chemical and metalworking sectors. Yet, all three trade unions (FIOM/FIM/UILM) and the employers’ association (Federmeccanica) were interested in re-establishing representativeness in their field albeit this common interest was linked to different positions within the field.…”