Partnering against Insecurity? A Comparison of Markets, Institutions and Worker Risk in Canadian and Swedish Retail
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12484 |
| Author | Sean O'Brady |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12484
58:1 March 2020 0007–1080 pp. 142–167
Partnering against Insecurity? A
Comparison of Markets, Institutions
and Worker Risk in Canadian and
Swedish Retail
Sean O’Brady
Abstract
This article provides insights on how union power influences the outcomes of
labour-management partnerships, with a focus on insecurity. It examines
matched pairs of food retailers in Canada and Sweden. Trends in wages,
scheduling and union coverage from 1980 to 2016 are compared. Actors in both
contexts adopted partnering strategies in response to intensified price competi-
tion. However, the Swedish partnerships produced stable work arrangements,
while working conditions eroded considerably in Canada. Bargainingstructures,
union security and identity are examined to explain the variations. As market
competition intensified, the Swedish union gained leverage by using partnerships
to fight unfair competition and promote sectoral well-being in the process.
Meanwhile, the Canadian union lost leverage, instead using partnerships to align
employment practices with those of low-cost market entrants and enhancing
store-level performance at all costs. The argument is that markets can be a
resource for unions, even in low-skilled service sectors, but only under inclusive
institutions.
1. Introduction
Partnership has been presented as one strategy forrevitalizing union influence
in collective bargaining, yet its relationship with worker insecurity remains
underexplored (Lucio and Stuart 2005). Insecurity hereby refers to how cuts
in resources, shifts away from collective risk pooling, and the creation of
atypical work arrangements makes the material welfare of workers more
uncertain (O’Brady 2018; Kalleberg 2009). Research on partnership in
Sean O’Brady is at Cornell University.
C
2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Partnering against Insecurity? 143
dierent countries shows that intensified market competition is threatening
the capacity for unions and managers to engage in meaningful collaboration
with positive outcomes for workers. Deregulation, technological change
and the internationalization of product markets have been associated with
immense cost pressures on firms seeking to maintain their competitiveness.In
Anglo-Saxon countries, unions are facing trade-os over whether to accept
concessions in exchange for access to management decision-making or to
fight for higher investments in workers by engaging in strikes and public
campaigns (Heery 2002; Kochan et al. 2009). In Europe, unions are either
heeding employers’ flexibility demands or fighting to maintain institutions
that make high-road employment practices possible (Greer et al. 2013).
Regardless of the institutional context, research highlights that strong
unions are needed to enforce eective gainsharing through collaboration.
While the ‘mutual gains’ literature has historically been less focused on
power, recent studies are becoming more explicit on the role of union
solidarity in pressuring employers to make greater commitments to workers
and even consumers (Kochan et al. 2009). European researchers associate
meaningful partnership with struggle, showing how union mobilization is
needed to enforce institutional ‘constraints’ thatmake high-road management
practices possible (M¨
uller-Jentsch 1991; Sorge and Streeck 2018). Unions and
employers are thereby in continuous struggle over the destiny of firms and
industries. However, the literature seems to be converging on the point that
market competition is fundamentally a source of union weakness, causing
employers to be less invested in bargaining institutions or traditional forms
of production (Greer and Doellgast 2017). This being so, are unions doomed
to fight against market pressures and the instabilities that flow from them? Or
are there circumstances in which marketcompetition can be a source of power
for unions, and even an explanation for worker successes in collaboration?
This study contributes to our understanding of howunion power aects the
outcomes of labour-management partnerships. It investigates howbargaining
contexts, relating to institutions and market dynamics, aect union leverage
in setting the agenda for collaboration. In doing so, it compares how
partnerships impact insecurity in two national settings. I compare the
experiences of Canadian and Swedish food retailers from 1980 to 2016.
Unions in both countries sought partnership as a solution to cost pressures
facing their companies during the last few decades. However, whileCanadian
workershave since been subjected to more volatileincomes, unpredictability in
scheduling and declining union coverage, Swedish workers have experienced a
growth in real wages, strong and stablescheduling protections and no changes
to union coverage. In the context of partnerships,the dierence is explained by
union capacities for buildingpower under heightened market competition. As
market competition intensified, the Swedish union gained leverage by using
partnerships to fight unfair competition and promoting sectoral well-being
in the process. Based on sectoral bargaining, it played a role in encouraging
competition, transitioning new market entrants to the industry, and even
punished recalcitrant employers with strikes to diminish market share.
C
2019 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial