Building Transnational Union Networks across Global Production Networks: Conceptualising a New Arena of Labour–Management Relations
| Published date | 01 September 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12016 |
| Date | 01 September 2013 |
| Author | Markus Helfen,Michael Fichter |
Building Transnational Union Networks
across Global Production Networks:
Conceptualising a New Arena of
Labour–Management Relations
Markus Helfen and Michael Fichter
Abstract
Academic interest in Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) has grown con-
siderably over the past several years, but the focus has largely been limited to
comparing their various clauses and provisions. More recent research has
centred on case studies of their implementation. In this article, we move beyond
an exclusive analysis of GFAs to a broader conceptualization of steps towards
globalizing labour relations, in which GFAs are fundamental. In our heuristic
model, a GFA is the negotiated result of interest representation. A GFA creates
an arena for the pursuit of global labour relations by defining the content,
selecting the actors, delineating the processes and setting the boundaries of
labour–management interaction. As a political space undergoing institutional-
ization, all of these dimensions of arenas are still contested. Although the
structural boundaries are fuzzy at the periphery, such arenas reach beyond the
organizational entities of the signatory transnational corporation (TNC) to
encompass the global production network (GPN). Furthermore, we show
how Global Union Federations (GUFs) and their member unions operating in
regard to particular GPNs have begun building Transnational Union Networks
(TUNs). Using two very different case studies, we argue that structural con-
tingencies and strategic choices intertwine to bring about divergent TUN tra-
jectories: one favouring a limited company-specific internal approach, the other
a broader, GUF-led union-building approach. As exemplified by these findings,
TUNs in our construction of an arena linking key elements of transnational
labour relations are still ‘work in progress’. Our concluding hypotheses reflect
this contingency and the need for further research.
Markus Helfen is at the Management Department, Freie Universität Berlin. Michael Fichter is
recently retired from the Institute of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin.
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12016
51:3 September 2013 0007–1080 pp. 553–576
© John Wiley & Sons Ltd/London School of Economics 2013. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
1. Introduction
Since the early 1990s, after the end of the Cold War, international unions
have been under considerable pressure to develop new responses to the
realities of global capitalism, especially the growth of transnational corpora-
tions (TNCs) and the spread of global production networks (GPNs) across
national borders and industry demarcations (Fairbrother and Hammer 2005;
Hyman 2005). Political lobbying at international institutions to redress the
global imbalance of power between labour and capital, such as the bid to
anchor a ‘social clause’ in the WTO in the 1990s, has been unsuccessful
(Anner 2001; Gumbrell-McCormick 2004: 44 ff.). Instead, a new mid-range
policy of Global Framework Agreements (GFAs1) was crafted as a labour
relations-based alternative to corporate unilateral and voluntary codes of
conduct. Through GFAs, Global Union Federations (GUFs), the sectoral
organizations of international unionism, seek to gain recognition from
TNCs as legitimate negotiating counterparts, initiate social dialogue and
successively, by strengthening unionization, influence HR practices of
TNCs throughout their global production networks (Cotton and Gumbrell-
McCormick 2012; Croucher and Cotton 2009; Fichter et al. 2011; Platzer and
Müller 2011; Routledge and Cumbers 2009).
As their numbers have grown, there has been a broadening debate among
practitioners and academics over GFAs. Much of that debate has focused on
the question of whether GFAs have resulted in tangible gains for labour, that
is, increased union recognition and collective bargaining. A further insight to
emerge from such debates is the importance of networks for unions, both as
a policy tool and as an organizational response (e.g. Croucher and Cotton
2009; Davies et al. 2011; Evans 2010; Kidder 2002; Levesque and Murray
2010). Labour has become acutely aware that without its multi-level orga-
nized intervention, successful implementation of GFAs is unlikely. We agree
with that assessment, but take it a step further by advocating a heuristic
model for conceptualizing the interplay of actors and structures in emerging
arenas of transnational labour relations. In this model, the outcome of
labour–management negotiations, a GFA, creates a transnational arena of
labour relations by defining the content, selecting the actors, delineating the
processes and setting the scope of labour–management interaction. In our
model, the scope of such arenas reaches beyond the organizational entities of
the signatory Transnational Corporation (TNC) to encompass the global
production network (GPN). Furthermore, we show how Global Union Fed-
erations (GUFs) and their member unions operating in regard to particular
GPNs have begun building Transnational Union Networks (TUNs).
For us, the organization and governance of GFA-related TUNs has a
decisive impact on the development of transnational arenas of labour rela-
tions. By GFA-related, we are referring to networks that may be created as a
means of achieving a GFA or for ensuring its implementation after such an
agreement has been negotiated and signed. We define TUNs as a network
consisting of at least three collective actors from a larger set of actors
554 British Journal of Industrial Relations
© John Wiley & Sons Ltd/London School of Economics 2013.
To continue reading
Request your trial