INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
| Date | 01 March 1981 |
| Author | Keith Bradley |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1981.tb01101.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1981 |
REVIEW ARTICLE
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
OF
INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS
KEITH
BRADLEY*
Multinational Collective Bargaining Attempts: The Record, the Cases and the Prospects,
by Herbert R. Northrup and Richard L. Rowan. University
of
Pennsylvania, 1979,
580 pp., $27.50.
Profit Sharing, Employee Stock Ownership, Savings and Asset Formation Plans in the
Western World
by Geoffrey W. Latta. University
of
Pennsylvania, 1979, 192 pp.,
$15.00.
The Political, Economic and Labor Climate in Venezuela
by Cecilia
M.
Valente.
University
of
Pennsylvania, 1978, 280 pp., $12.00.
WORLDWIDE
production and the interpenetration
of
markets make it increasingly de-
sirable when explaining industrial relations in any one country to do
so
within a wider
international perspective. For the past decade Wharton’s Industrial Research Unit has
provided such a perspective and its publications are a valuable platform for further
research. In 1972 the Unit began work on the international activities
of
trade unions and
multinational corporations. Since then it has established useful relationships with
management and unions throughout the world and amassed data which are impressive
with regard to their scope and depth.
The development
of
multinational corporations has led to large international work-
forces and produced situations in which workers in several countries share a common
employer. Perlmutter suggests that by 1985 the world’s economy will be ‘dominated’ by
two
to
three hundred multinational enterprises.’ Although his thesis has been chal-
lenged by evidence from the
U.S.
Department
of
Commerce,z it is influential among
many labour leaders who see multinationals as a threat to the material wellbeing
of
their
members.
Concern among trade union leaders in Western capitalist economies about the growth
and development
of
multinational corporations has centred on the
loss
of
jobs resulting
from capital migration to developing countries and the subsequent import of lower-
priced products. In the 1950s the American labour movement became aware
of
the
threat posed by the ‘runaway’ firm3 and it changed its opinion about the causes
of
unemployment.
No
longer was it convinced by structural arguments, instead it believed
much unemployment was the direct result
of
U.S. capital migration to South America,
the Caribbean and Canada. According to organised labour the American worker faced
redundancy from the competition
of
cheap products produced by U.S. subsidiary
companies abroad. In the early 197Os, as a result
of
A.F.L.-C.I.O. pressure, the
U.S.
government amended its tariff and trade laws ostensibly to promote
full
employment
and restore a diversity
of
production. It also amended its Inland Revenue Code 1954 in
an attempt to stem the outflow
of
U.S. capital,
jobs
and technology. Furthermore, in
1972 the Department
of
Commerce set up a working party to investigate problems
associated with the ‘runaway’ firm. Labour leaders, however, remained unconvinced.
Although International Trade Secretariats were established in the early twentieth
century4 they only began
to
take an active interest in the development
of
multinationals
during the 1950s. The response to the Secretariats has led to considerable research
*
Lecturer, Industrial Relations, London School
of
Economics.
106
To continue reading
Request your trial