Political Entrepreneurs and Co‐Managers: Labour Transnationalism at Four Multinational Auto Companies
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2007.00667.x |
| Author | Ian Greer,Marco Hauptmeier |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
Political Entrepreneurs and Co-Managers:
Labour Transnationalism at Four
Multinational Auto Companies
Ian Greer and Marco Hauptmeier
Abstract
This article examines labour transnationalism within four multinational auto-
makers. In our sample, we find different forms of labour transnationalism,
including transnational collective bargaining, mobilization, information
exchange and social codes of conduct. We explain the differences through the
interaction between management and labour in the context of the company
structure; of particular importance are transnational coercive comparisons by
management and the orientations of worker representatives as political entre-
preneurs or co-managers. We conclude that, although intensified worker-side
cross-border co-operation has not prevented wage-based competition in general
(due to the lack of between-firm co-ordination), it has reshaped employment
relations within these multinational corporations.
1. Introduction
Labour transnationalism is by now a well-researched subject, especially in
multinational corporations (MNCs) in Europe. Much literature has analysed
the emergence of labour transnationalism and its structural forms (Anner
et al. 2006; Müller et al. 2004), its embeddedness in national and local indus-
trial relations arrangements (Hancké 2000; Lillie and Martínez Lucio 2004),
and the role of the sector and European integration (Marginson 2000), but it
remains unclear how it becomes strategic for worker representatives facing
threats of disinvestment. Do trade unionists view it as a tool for in-plant,
national or transnational action? Could it limit the intense competition
behind concession bargaining?
We examine labour transnationalism at the automotive firms Daimler-
Chrysler, General Motors (GM), Ford/Visteon and Volkswagen (VW).
Common to these four firms is strong collective labour representation, as
Ian Greer is at Leeds University and Marco Hauptmeier is at Cardiff University.
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2007.00667.x
46:1 March 2008 0007–1080 pp. 76–97
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2008. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
indicated by high union density and broad, overlapping representation
bodies such as labour unions, works councils, supervisory boards, European
Works Councils (EWCs) and, in two firms, World Works Councils (WWCs).
These companies all began a restructuring process in the 1990s, including the
building of new production capacity, the closure and downsizing of older
plants, the outsourcing and spinning off of parts production, and the pur-
chase or construction of new plants. During this period, managers set up
transnational in-firm competition in various ways, from blatant whipsawing
— in which management plays plants off against each other in order to
extract concessions from labour — to more subtle comparisons and bench-
marking, and union-side international co-operation intensified in response.
Labour transnationalism, however, plays out differently at each firm. At
DaimlerChrysler and Volkswagen, we see global-level information sharing,
and, to some extent, global standard setting over labour rights. Here, labour
transnationalism is a matter of providing a minimal level of information and
collective rights for foreign colleagues. These works councils, however, have
done little to prevent competition between locations. At two other firms, Ford
and GM, we see European-level co-ordination and bargaining. While union-
ists at GM and Ford have coordinated to influence restructuring in Europe,
their colleagues at VW and DaimlerChrysler have extended transnationalism
beyond Europe. At GM, European worker representatives have organized
transnational mobilizations to resist plant closures and dismissals.
We base these case studies on 197 semi-structured interviews between 2003
and 2007,1as well as archival sources and press reports. Although most
transnational activity is confined to Europe, we examine its global extension,
where applicable. Our narratives begin in the 1990s with labour-side
responses to international competition.
Examining labour transnationalism is becoming more important as MNCs
grow in importance. The ratio of outward Foreign Direct Investments from
MNCs to total global Gross Domestic Product more than doubled between
1996 and 2004, from 11 per cent to 24 per cent (UNCTAD 2005). If trade
unionism extended itself to the national level in the late nineteenth to mid-
twentieth century, as nation-wide firms, states and markets became more
important, it is worth asking whether an analogous process is underway in the
twenty-first century. We define labour transnationalism as the spatial exten-
sion of trade unionism through the intensification of co-operation between
trade unionists across countries using transnational tools and structures.
This article begins with a review of the literature on labour transnational-
ism, followed by a preview of our evidence. Then we offer an explanation for
the different patterns of labour transnationalism, emphasizing the interaction
between management and labour in the context of the company structure. Of
particular importance are management’s ability and willingness to whipsaw
and the orientations of worker representatives. The latter, we suggest, can be
classified as political entrepreneurship and co-management. The following
empirical section consists of four case studies on labour transnationalism in
multinational automotive companies. Finally, we provide a comparative
Political Entrepreneurs and Co-Managers 77
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2008.
To continue reading
Request your trial