|
|
|
V. LABOR/EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOR UNIONS/LABOR STUDIES, AND INTERNATIONAL/COMPARATIVE
REFEREED PAPERS
Low Road Convergence: Diversity or the Beginning of the
End for National Industrial Relations Systems?
Tony Royle
Nottingham Trent University
Abstract This paper examines the labor relations practices of American,
British, and German companies in the German quick food service sectors.
This includes multinational corporations (MNCs) such as Burger King and
McDonald's, Whitbread subsidiaries Maredo and Churrasco, and German competitors
such as Nordsee, Dinea, and Blockhaus. Focusing on unionization and employee
representation, the findings suggest that MNCs in this sector are increasingly
promoting anti-union employment practices across national borders and
that national competitors are increasingly emulating this approach. This
trend is arguably leading to a convergence of employment practices around
a "five lane low road" of increased standardization, union exclusion,
low trust, low skills, and low pay. While some might argue this "low road"
signals the beginning of the end for national industrial relations systems,
we argue that it merely confirms the continuing variation within national
industrial relations systems and highlights the importance of sectoral
characteristics and organizational contingencies in understanding cross-border
MNC behavior.
The quick food service sector is frequently overlooked
in terms of serious industrial relations research, yet it is a vast and
expanding industry in which multinational corporations (MNCs) are highly
active and influential. Indeed, a large proportion of new jobs created
in the United States and in other industrialized countries are to be found
in this sector. In terms of job creation in the United States in 2000
for example, the top five occupations for those aged eighteen to twenty-four
were, in descending order: cashier, waiter, cook, sales worker and stock
handler (Schmitt 2001). There seems little doubt that U.S. chains are
still the main drivers in this sector; internationally, in 2001, the top
ten U.S. chains1 alone had a combined turnover of almost $100 billion
and operated over 107,000 units worldwide, employing around five million
workers (Foodservice 2002b). This paper therefore tries to address
this situation by examining the activities of American, British, and German
companies in the German quick food service sector. The study therefore
includes companies such as the American-owned Burger King,2 McDonald's,
KFC, and Pizza Hut; the German subsidiaries of the British Whitbread company,
Churrasco and Maredo; and the German companies Nordsee, Blockhaus, and
Dinea.
Convergence, Divergence, and National Industrial Relations
Systems The early convergence thesis suggested that industrial societies
would become increasingly similar to one another (Kerr et al. 1973). The
logical outcome of this argument was that this increasing similarity would
eventually erode the distinct nature of national industrial relations
systems. Although this early thesis became discredited in the late 1970s,
it did not stop later research, which claimed to find a more subtle form
of market-driven convergence offering a "one best way" model for work
practices often associated with "japanization." One well-known example
of this type was that of lean production (Womack et al. 1990); however,
this argument also faced criticism for its methodological and conceptual
weakness (Williams et al. 1992; Elger and Smith 1994). Nevertheless, more
recent studies, which focus on sector and company-specific factors, still
claim to have found evidence of convergence around such issues as functional
flexibility (Mueller 1992) and "JIT" (Frenkel 1994).
There are of course a number of long standing arguments that take the
opposing view and assume that employment relations practices are shaped
by locally isomorphic factors (Rosenzweig and Nohria 1994). These arguments
emphasize the continuing divergence of national systems--the continuing
importance of the national web of institutions within which all firms
are said to be embedded. These arguments include the work on societal
effects (Maurice et al. 1986), and more recently on business systems (Whitley
1999) and "varieties of capitalism" (Hall and Soskice 2001).
On paper at least, the German industrial relations systems provides employees
considerable rights to independent representation through industry-level
collective bargaining arrangements, works councils or workers committees,
and trade union representation rights (Jacobi et al. 1998; Martinez Lucio
1998). In theory at least, these institutions could place considerable
constraints on management in terms of how they can manage their employees
(Marginson and Sisson 1994; Ferner and Edwards 1995). However, the main
weakness of these divergence theories is that they tend to neglect variation
within national systems and particularly sectoral and company-specific
characteristics, as recent studies acknowledge (see for example Ortiz
2002). In addition, Marginson and Sisson (1994) also suggest that MNCs
may increasingly question their involvement in national systems of industrial
relations and develop their own organization-based employment systems.
Similarly, Coller and Marginson (1998) argue that a greater range of management
decisions affecting the interests of non-managerial employees are being
taken beyond the scope of national jurisdictions, achieved through "channels
of influence" in MNCs. What evidence of convergence or divergence can
there be found in studies already undertaken in this sector?
The Case of the Quick Food Service Sector Although some U.S. companies have promoted welfare capitalism
and most have promoted some variant of human resource management techniques,
many U.S. companies remain avowedly non-union (Kochan and Weinstein 1994;
Towers 1997; Human Rights Watch 2000), and in many cases promote a "three-lane
low road" of low trust, low skills, and low wages (Milkman 1998). In the
U.S., Canadian, and British quick food industries, U.S. multinational
chains still dominate. Furthermore, in all these countries, even amongst
Canadian and British competitors, the sector is predominantly nonunion
and anti-union activity is rife. In most cases trade unions have been
unable to gain recognition at all and, in the remainder, unions have only
been able to establish collective agreements that cover one restaurant
at a time and which invariably last for just a few months (Leidner 2002;
Reiter 2002; Royle 2002). In terms of unionization, levels of pay, trust,
skills, and the standardization of work organization, these studies suggest
a considerable degree of convergence in employment practices across national
borders in this sector. However, the German system of industrial relations
would appear to present MNCs and national competitors with a much more
formidable challenge in terms of well-organized trade unions and a highly
juridified system of labor relations compared to that found in the United
States, Canada, or the United Kingdom (Jacobi et al. 1998). Similar outcomes
among the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada may therefore reflect
a lack of cultural distance (Ferner 1997); a more convincing argument
for `convergence' would therefore have to include countries with very
different systems of industrial relations such as Germany.
This study therefore raises a number of questions. Firstly, what kinds
of employment practices will U.S. and non-U.S. quick food service companies
adopt in the more regulated German market? How effectively can unions
and employees mobilize their power resources, which are rooted in statutory
mechanisms of employee representation (for example German works councils),
when faced with MNCs that tend to adopt nonunion employment practices
in their home and similarly less-regulated countries? What similarities
and differences are evident in the activities of MNCs and their large
national competitors? What implications do the findings have for the divergence
versus convergence debate and our understanding of the home country, host
country, and sectoral influences on MNC employment practices? Finally,
what are the implications for the future of national industrial relations
systems?
Low Road Convergence
As we have already suggested, much of the more recent evidence
for convergence across borders is often focused around "one best way"
employment practices (Mueller 1992; Frenkel 1994), and is often seen as
driven by employers' use of "coercive comparisons," where MNCs can enforce
their employment practices by threatening to withdraw or divert investment
from one country to another (Ferner and Edwards 1995; Coller and Marginson
1998). However, such coercive comparisons are of little relevance in the
quick food sector or other low wage service sectors (Erickson et al. 2002),
because labor cannot be outsourced abroad or outsourced to other wage
areas as it may in manufacturing.
Nevertheless, the findings from this study do suggest a convergence of
employment practices within one sector around a five lane low road of
increasing rationalization and standardization, union exclusion, low wages,
low trust, and low skills, creating formidable obstacles for independent
employee representation. It appears that an increasing number of companies
in the fast food service sector are changing their forms of work organization
to become more like the "traditional" fast-food operators. In other words,
offering more standardized and restricted menus; tighter portion controls
and controls of ingredients; employing a larger proportion of unskilled,
young, and "acquiescent" workers; and adopting increasingly anti-union
employment practices.
While it may be tempting to claim therefore that this is the beginning
of the end for national industrial relations systems, we argue that in
fact this low road convergence merely restates the continuing variation
within national industrial relations systems (Locke 1995) and emphasizes
the importance of sectoral characteristics in understanding MNC behavior,
a point which recent studies are either implicitly (Barton and Turnbull
2002) or explicitly (Ortiz 2002; Colling and Clark 2002) beginning to
address. As Ferner (1997) also argues, the salience of country of origin
features is likely to be influenced by sectoral factors, with globalized
industries likely to be more subject to pressures to converge around the
practices of dominant firms. In this sector American MNCs appear to have
a strong influence in determining the "one best way" model of conducting
business in this sector. It is then this sectoral logic which appears
to be dominating the agenda of both MNCs and their large national competitors.
Research Issues
The findings in this paper are drawn from a larger study covering
a large number of Eastern and Western European countries, including the
United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Czech
Republic, Poland, and Russia, funded by the Nottingham Trent University's
Research Enhancement Fund. The study now spans a period of eight years
and has utilized a variety of research methods including, for example,
a period of participant observation, the distribution of questionnaires,
a large number of qualitative interviews, and documentary analysis. The
bulk of the data for this paper draws on around thirty face to face interviews
in Germany together with a number of telephone interviews, e-mail exchanges,
and an analysis of documentary materials. The interviews have included
trade unions, trade union federations, international trade union organizations,
senior management in German companies, restaurant management, franchise
operators, and a large number of employees, including works councilors
and trade union representatives in workplaces.
Defining the Sector The companies selected for this study are both MNCs and their
large national competitors, particularly those that appear to be competing
with each other for market share in the "quick" end of the food service
sector. However, there may be some problem in trying to determine which
companies should be included in a sector and which should not. The term
"quick food service" encapsulates a wide variety of different operations.
The evidence from this study suggests that many of the product offerings,
service, and mode of operation of fast food, travel catering, retail catering,
leisure catering, and in some cases even full-service restaurants are
becoming increasingly standardized or perhaps "McDonaldized" (Ritzer 1993)
in the search for greater efficiencies and better profitability. These
labels may not therefore be all that helpful in practice. Although some
of the operators under consideration in this paper would often be referred
to as fast food restaurants, some may focus less on takeaway, e.g., Pizza
Hut, and some may be strongly rooted in another sector, for example Dinea
(department store catering). In addition there has been huge growth in
coffee and sandwich chains in recent years, all of which are competing
with fast food products. This means that not only is it becoming more
difficult to distinguish between differing operations, but in some cases,
it may be more difficult to decide in which sector a company should be
located. We have therefore taken a fairly broad-brush approach. Following
the definition put forward by Hollingsworth et al. (1994), we would include
any companies that have products which actually and potentially compete
with one another.
The German Food Service Sector The one hundred largest companies in the broader German food
service sector spent approximately £4800 million in 1999 on turnover.
Companies described as purely fast food (that is excluding airport catering,
trains, motorways, retail catering, full service restaurants, and leisure
catering) accounted for almost half of this turnover, with the largest
twenty-seven fast food companies accounting for £2,200 million (Foodservice
2000). The seven largest quick service food employers in Germany in order
of sales are McDonald's, Burger King, Nordsee, Tricon (Pizza Hut and KFC),
Esso, Kamps, and Kochlöffel. McDonald's took the lion's share of
turnover of all these companies in 1999 with just over £1400 million.
Table 1 provides details of the main operators in the German markets in
order of turnover. The U.S. market for quick food is considerably more
saturated than the European market, and there is therefore still considerable
potential for expansion in Europe. International operators have also increasingly
adopted local snacks as part of their product offerings and changes in
employment patterns have reduced the length of traditional lunch breaks,
further enhancing the demand for quick food service.
The German Sector: Employer Associations and Employee Representation Employer organization in the broader German quick food service
sector is dynamic, with some employers moving from a refusal to negotiate
with unions at all, to membership in different employers' associations
at different times, and, in some cases, adopting company-level agreements.
Most of the American MNCs including McDonald's, Burger King, and PepsiCo/Tricon
are members of the German fast-food employers federation Bundesverband
der Systemgastronomie (BdS). McDonald's, like the other U.S. quick-food
companies, had originally tried to operate without unions and collective
agreements. However, after eighteen years of increasing bad publicity,
McDonald's established the BdS in the late 1980s. The BdS also includes
Häagen-Dazs and Train-Catering (a subsidiary of Mitropa). Indeed
Mitropa (railway catering) is a good example of changing employer affiliations--it
was sold off by German railways (Deutche Bahn), then became a member of
the BdS. However, when Mitropa was taken back into Deutche Bahn ownership,
it then left the BdS in 1997 and now has a company-level agreement with
the NGG (the hotel, food, and restaurant workers' union). The large national
food retailer Dinea was a member of the Hauptverband des Deutschen Einzelhandels
(HDE), but in 2000 Dinea became part of another employers' association
recently established by its parent company Metro. Some others like Churrasco,
Maredo (Whitbread), Wienerwald, and Blockhaus have signed national agreements
with the German Hotel, Guest House, and Restaurant Federation (DEHOGA)
since 1997. The remainder either sign regional collective agreements with
DEHOGA or are not members of any employer federation and sign company-level
agreements, like Mitropa and Nordsee. Most employees in the fast food
sector are represented by the NGG, but Nordsee workers are represented
both by what used to be DAG (salaried and white collar workers' union)
but is now part of the much larger VER.DI (united service workers' union,
formed in 2002), and the NGG.
The establishment of the BdS did not herald a more pro-union or cooperative
stance amongst its U.S. members. This fact probably reflects the influence
of the McDonald's Corporation, which, according to NGG officials, continues
to have a major influence on BdS policy. The BdS has had an increasing
influence over the way in which bargaining relationships have developed
across a large part of this sector. Indeed there have been a number of
instances where companies have threatened to pull out of DEHOGA or company-level
agreements to join the BdS if they did not get what they wanted in bargaining
rounds.
Works councils have traditionally been seen as a way for German unions
to enter workplaces and increase union membership (Sadowski et al. 1995).
Since its creation in 1989, the BdS has frequently been involved in both
the promotion and execution of many of the works council avoidance strategies
at McDonald's (Royle 2000), and this union avoidance approach appears
to be escalating. In 1999, the BdS threatened to "de-recognize" the NGG
as a bargaining partner if the NGG did not accept a pay offer of 1.5 percent
per year (for three years) and would instead negotiate solely with a small
trade union called Ganymed. This union falls under the umbrella of a union
with a Nazi history, the German Association of Commercial and Industrial
Employees (DHV). The DHV is affiliated to the Christian Federation of
Trade Unions (CGB), which in 1998 had just over three hundred thousand
members (Waddington and Hoffman 2000). NGG officials state that Ganymed
is a yellow union, simply established to make deals with employers at
the expense of workers. It only has around fifteen hundred members and
is administered by a staff of five in an office in Bonn. The NGG organized
workers to demonstrate outside BdS restaurants and the BdS dropped its
threat. However, during the 2002 bargaining rounds, the BdS once again
refused to negotiate with the NGG. Following the German government's pension
reforms of 2001 (EIRR 2001a), the NGG had proposed that in addition
to a 5 percent pay raise to correct the continuing low level of pay in
this sector,3 the BdS should establish an occupational pension to try
to make up for the eventual shortfall in the value of the state retirement
pension. Although similar arrangements already exist with DEHOGA and other
companies in the food service sector, and the NGG was offering a reduction
in holiday pay entitlements to help pay for the scheme and to only cover
workers employed for 12 months or more with the plan, the BdS refused
to negotiate. In April 2002, the BdS announced that it was de-recognizing
the NGG and would establish an agreement with Ganymed. This story may
not be an example of the increasing decentralization of collective bargaining
typifying the German system at present (EIRR 2002), but it does
suggest an increasingly non-union approach in this German sector. As we
suggest above, there appears to be a trend of increasing anti-unionism
at McDonald's and in the BdS employers' association, but what about the
other U.S. companies under the BdS umbrella and some of their British
and German competitors?
Burger King Burger King did, until recently, have a Stadtbetriebsrat
representing a number of company-owned restaurants in Berlin, plus about
six works councils in the rest of Germany, representing individual restaurants.
The Berlin Stadtbetriebsrat had nine members with one employee
paid to work full-time on works council business. However, Burger King
franchise restaurants are not covered by this works council and, according
to works councillors, the Stadtbetriebsrat had been under constant
threat from Burger King management. Indeed Berlin works councillors suggest
that the only reason that they had this works council is because when
it was established in the 1980s, management were not well versed in German
labor law and employees were able to take management by surprise. After
the retirement of one long serving works councillor, the company took
the opportunity to try to remove the works council. An election was held
and the restaurant manager was quickly voted in as chairman; he was also
a DAG union member. The works council term of office later came to an
end and a new works council election had to be held. The new chairman
tried to influence the vote by falsifying election papers and producing
more votes than there were employees in the store. The NGG appealed against
the result to the labor court and the election was declared invalid. The
results of the new election are not known, but in the period from 1999
to 2002 all the remaining Burger King works councils outside Berlin have
been closed.
Whitbread
Industrial relations in most German-owned firms appear
to be somewhat less antagonistic; in most cases the large national players
have by and large accepted both the role of trade unions and works councils.
For example, the NGG enjoyed good relations with Maredo while it was under
German ownership and before it was taken over by the (British) Whitbread
group. Since the takeover, relations with management at both Maredo and
Whitbread's other subsidiary, Churrasco, have been difficult. For example,
despite having a very active company-level works council at Churrasco,
union officials suggest that they have had to fight over every point of
law to achieve anything for their members since the takeover. In addition,
workers report that management are increasingly trying to remove experienced,
usually unionized, (and more expensive) employees as part of an attempt
to standardize work organization and product offerings.
Nordsee The British/Dutch MNC Unilever-owned Nordsee has been well
known in Germany for its quick food seafood products for thirty years.
However, in 1995 it was taken over by the German APAX group (who also
own a third of Tank and Raststatten). Works councillors state that Nordsee's
long relationship with the food processing giant Unilever meant that it
enjoyed a high level of union organization, good relations with management,
and good collective agreements. APAX began restructuring Nordsee to bring
it more into line with other fast food operations. First, it was announced
that the workforce would now have new titles (more or less the same as
at McDonald's: store manager, assistant managers, the equivalent of floor
managers, and lower orders similar to McDonald's crew who make up the
majority of the workforce). Second, that there would need to be a new
collective agreement with new pay groupings and that performance-related
pay would be introduced. Initially APAX threatened to join the BdS which
management suggested would "strengthen their hand at the bargaining table."
However, in the end this was not necessary; the works councillors, now
separated from their source of organizational strength as part of the
larger Unilever group, could do little to stop the changes, though they
did manage to negotiate some seniority for older workers (some of whom
had been employed there for fifteen or twenty years), the basic pay for
new employees fell to just a few pence more per hour than they would get
at McDonald's. By 2000, many of the old Unilever restaurant management
had left, performance appraisal was introduced, and pressure was put on
older (usually unionized and more expensive) workers to leave, with the
result that many long-term workers have now left the company. In the last
few years Nordsee has dabbled with McDonald's style drive-ins and opened
a large number of smaller outlets; many of them are small snack shops
selling Nordsee sandwiches and salads in train stations and airports.
APAX is operating these new formats of Nordsee outlets under a separate
limited company and this company has joined the fast food employers section
of DEHOGA and negotiated a separate collective agreement for these workers,
with pay on a par with that at McDonald's.
There are approximately twelve large works councils representing all Nordsee
workers in the 350 or so restaurants, these are organized on the basis
of twelve districts in three regions--north, middle, and south Germany.
The original Unilever management at Nordsee appear to have decided early
on to take a strategic and pragmatic approach to works councils. Rather
than waiting for workers and unions to request their own structure they
proposed the current structure in which they voluntarily allowed some
works council members to be paid to work full-time (freigestellt)
on works council business. This structure has not yet been altered under
the new APAX management. In theory, the unions and workers could argue
for another structure based around the regional areas and not the smaller
districts, which could provide them with a larger number of freigestellt
workers, but have not done so. It seems likely that APAX management are
well aware of this and have perhaps decided not to propose any changes,
in case a more onerous works council structure is imposed upon them through
a labor court decision. At the same time, works councillors report that
although the company has not directly tried to obstruct works council
business, it has recently been showing signs of impatience with works
councillors, and relations are not as cooperative as they used to be under
Unilever. Of more concern is the fact that union numbers are dwindling
as more long term employees leave the company. In the new-format outlets,
workers are all fresh recruits with no Nordsee tradition; furthermore,
the small numbers employed in the snack shops make it very difficult to
establish works councils. The NGG and councillors at the old Nordsee outlets
have tried three or four times to establish works councils at the new
outlets, but have not had any success.
Dinea and Blockhaus Dinea, a large retail company, has a number of in-store fast
food catering operations. According to NGG officials, there is a strong
system of over one hundred works councils and a very effective company-level
works council. However, the management at Dinea may have more in common
with those at Nordsee and do not have the same kind of fast food heritage
as management at McDonald's or Burger King. However, German companies,
such as the steakhouse chain Blockhaus, have adopted anti-union strategies
and have actively avoided and undermined works councils since they set
up in business in the 1990s.
Discussion and Conclusions
Fast food employers in the American, British, and Canadian
fast food sectors have had little difficulty in operating without trade
unions (Leidner 2002; Reiter 2002; Royle 2002) and, in Germany, U.S. quick
food service companies are also pursuing aggressive non-union policies.
McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, and Pizza Hut had eventually given in to
public pressure to accept collective bargaining in the late 1980s, but
in 2002 under the auspices of their employers' federation the BdS, they
have withdrawn from collective bargaining with the NGG and gone with a
yellow union. This suggests that the conflicts of the early and mid-1980s
which resulted in the establishment of the BdS and the first collective
agreements (Royle 2000) were purely a result of concerns about the public
image of these companies and had little to do with any real desire to
adapt to the German system, or to accept unions as a pluralist principle.
These companies continue to avoid or undermine statutory works councils,
and frequently violate existing collective agreements in a number of areas
such as: appropriate wage grouping; miscalculation of pay; entitlements
to holiday pay and sick pay; and inadequate notice of shift changes. With
just a small number of works councils in these companies, there is no
way to stop such violations or to assert the information, consultation,
or co-determination rights for the majority of employees. Employees in
this sector are often unaware of their rights to various allowance or
pay structures unless they are brought to their attention and are otherwise
dependent on the goodwill of management. Although the German government
strengthened some aspects of the works council legislation in 2001 (EIRR
2001b), works councillors and NGG officials state that the new legislation
has not effected the overall situation in this sector, despite reducing
works council election periods. While trying to support the small number
of works councils that do exist, the NGG is currently targeting BdS employers
with pamphlets addressed to their customers and employees, and trying
to organize worker protests in order to bring the BdS back to the table.
In the case of German companies like Dinea, things have remained positive
as far as unions and workers' representation rights are concerned. Although
competing in the quick food service sector, Dinea is still operated by
a company in the retail sector and this appears to explain their employment
practices. However, the influence of sectoral factors may be beginning
to change the situation at Nordsee. Nordsee was sold by the British/Dutch
ownership (Unilever) to the German APAX group in 1995 and by 1997 was
beginning to adopt a more standardized system of work organization, introduce
performance related pay, and remove experienced (and often unionized)
workers. In addition, management appears to be becoming less cooperative
with works councils; works councillors describe management as increasingly
impatient when it comes to works council business. Perhaps of even greater
concern for unions is that in addition to some new German companies in
this sector (e.g., Blockhaus) adopting a nonunion approach from the outset,
other German companies like Churrasco and Maredo, which had operated more
as traditional full service restaurants with a union-inclusive approach
under German ownership, were restructured to operate more as fast food
chains with a union-exclusive approach under British Whitbread ownership.
The findings suggest that in this sector MNCs can transfer their management
practices across borders, imposing their "employer-based employment systems"
(Marginson and Sisson 1994) with little regard for national institutional
arrangements. Indeed, it appears that MNCs are doing so with such success
in this sector that national competitors are beginning to emulate them.
In the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Germany, American, British,
and German enterprises are increasingly adopting anti-union policies.
International comparisons of this kind could be accused of being misleading
in that they may not adequately contextualize the differences in national
systems. In other words, in other sectors where employers have more scope
to search for flexibilities within differing national industrial relations
systems, they could negotiate variations in the organization of work;
the introduction of new compensation schemes; changes shifts in skill
patterns, training, and careers; and changes in job mobility and employment
security (Locke and Thelen 1995). However, we argue that in this sector,
the highly standardized system of work organization, low skill requirements,
and an acquiescent workforce (Royle 2000) leaves few outlets for variation
in national regulatory regimes.
While other studies emphasize the continuing divergence of employment
practices, in other (often higher-skilled) sectors like auto manufacture
(Ortiz 2002), engineering (Colling and Clark 2002), and dock workers (Barton
and Turnbull 2002), this study suggests a convergence of employment practices
across countries in the quick food service sector. The low level of skill
requirement and high level of acquiescence to managerial prerogative among
the workforce combined with little or no tradition of unionism or representation
provide the way for a "five lane low road": standardization of work organization,
union exclusion, low skills, low trust, and low pay. However, we do not
interpret these findings as signaling the end of national industrial relations
systems, but as re-emphasizing the continuing diversity within national
systems (Locke 1995). Other commentators monitoring the state of the German
industrial relations system for example, argue that despite some changes
within the system, German firms in other sectors are still strongly embedded
in the German system and that the system remains intact (Kurdelbusch 2002;
Lane 2000). In a similar vein, Roche (2000) also argues that national
systems are likely to become increasingly attenuated by sectoral characteristics
and organizational contingencies. In other words, it is a range of sector
specific factors--the nature of sectoral product markets, the composition
of capital within sectors, pre-existing levels of unionization, and the
traditions of representation--that are likely to shape social regimes
along either union-inclusive or union-exclusive lines (Roche 2000). This
study does not therefore necessarily mean the end of the national industrial
relations systems.
Finally, the findings also suggest that the national regulatory regimes
of mainland Europe, largely established in the post-war period up until
the mid-1970s, and largely with traditional manufacturing jobs in mind,
seem ill-equipped to deal with the employment regimes in this kind of
sector, where work is being increasingly standardized and rationalized
and, low-skilled, temporary and part time work, and acquiescent workers
are the norm.
Notes
1. In order of turnover: McDonald's,
Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut, Wendy's, Subway, Taco Bell, Domino's Pizza,
Applebee's, Dairy Queen.
2. The Burger King brand became
American owned once again when it was sold to a U.S. investment group led
by Texas Pacific in the Autumn of 2002 (Foodservice 2002a).
3. In comparison with similar
skills and jobs with similar work intensity in other sectors, pay for the
majority of fast food employees is low. Indeed, according to the NGG's calculations
80 percent of workers in the BdS companies would be better off living on
social security benefits. NGG officials argue that the German taxpayer is
effectively subsidizing these employees, because they earn so little that
they are entitled to social security payments (see also Royle [2000] for
a comparison of McDonald's pay rates across Europe).
References
Barton, H., and P. Turnbull. 2002. "Labor Regulation
and Competitive Performance in the Port Transport Industry: The Changing
Fortunes of Three Major European Seaports." European Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 133-56.
Coller, X., and P. Marginson. 1998. "Transnational Management Influence
over Changing Employment Practice: Surveying a Case from the Food Industry."
Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 4-17.
Colling, T., and I. Clark. 2002. "Looking for `Americanness': Home-country,
Sector and Firm Effects on Employment Systems in an Engineering Service
Company." European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 8, no. 3,
pp. 301-24.
Elger, T., and C. Smith. 1994. "Global Japanization? Convergence and Competition
in the Organization of the Labor Process." In Global Japanization? The
Transnational Transformation of the Labor Process, ed. T. Elger and
C. Smith. London: Routledge.
Erickson, C. L., L. Fisk, R. Milkman, D. J. B. Mitchell, and K. Wong. 2002.
"Justice for Janitors in Los Angeles: Lessons from Three Rounds of Negotiations."
British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 543-67.
European Industrial Relations Review (EIRR). 2001a. "Reform of Pensions
Provision Gains Parliamentary Approval." No. 330 (July), pp. 27-29.
— — —. 2001b. "Germany: New Works Constitution Act Enters
into Force." No. 333 (October), pp. 27-28.
European Industrial Relations Review (EIRR). 2002. "Germany: Further
Decline of Sectoral Bargaining Coverage." No. 337 (February), pp. 20-23.
Ferner, A. 1997. "Country of Origin Effects and Human Resource Management
in Multinational Companies." Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 19-37.
Ferner, A., and P. Edwards. 1995. "Power and the Diffusion of Organisational
Change within Multinationals." European Journal of Industrial Relations,
Vol. 1, no. 2 (July), pp. 1-35.
Foodservice. 2000. "Marken machen Märkte." April, pp. 18-50.
Foodservice. 2002a. "Burger King: Verkauf and Texas Pacific." September,
p. 16.
Foodservice. 2002b. "United States: Top 50 Restaurant-Marken 2001."
October, p. 14.
Frenkel, S. 1994. "Patterns of Workplace Relations in the Global Corporation:
Toward Connvergence." In Workplace Industrial Relations and the Global
Challenge, ed. J. Belanger, P. K. Edwards, and L. Haiven. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press.
Hollingsworth, J. R., P. C. Schmitter, and W. Streeck. 1994. "Capitalism,
Sectors, Institutions, and Performance." In Governing Capitalist Economies:
Performance and Control of Economic Sectors, ed. J. R. Hollingsworth,
P. C. Schmitter, and W. Streeck. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 3-17.
Human Rights Watch. 2000. Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association
in the United States under International Human Rights Standards. London:
Human Rights Watch.
Jacobi, O., B. Keller, W. Muller-Jentsch. 1998. "Germany: Facing New Challenges."
In Changing Industrial Relations in Europe, ed. A. Ferner and R.
Hyman. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 191-238.
Kerr, C., J. T. Dunlop, F. Harbison, and C. Myers. 1973. Industrialism
and Industrial Man. London: Penguin.
Kochan, T. A., and M. Weinstein. 1994. "Recent Developments in U.S. Industrial
Relations." British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 32, pp.
483-504.
Kurdelbusch, A. 2002. "Multinationals and the Rise of Variable Pay in Germany."
European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 325-49.
Lane, C. 2000. "Globalization and the German Model of Capitalism--Erosion
or Survival?" British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 207-34.
Leidner, R. 2002. "Fast-Food Work in the United States." In Labor Relations
in the Global Fast-Food Industry, ed. T. Royle and B. Towers. London:
Routledge, pp. 8-29.
Locke, R. 1995. "The Transformation of Industrial Relations? A Cross-National
Review." In The Comparative Political Economy of Industrial Relations,
ed. K. S. Wever and L. Turner. Madison: Industrial Relations Research Association,
pp. 9-31.
Locke, R. M., and K. Thelen. 1995. "Apples and Oranges Revisited: Contextualized
Comparisons and the Study of Comparative Labor Politics." Politics and
Society, Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 337-67.
Marginson, P., and K. Sisson. 1994. "The Structure of Transnational Capital
in Europe: The Emerging Euro-Company and Its Implications for Industrial
Relations." In New Frontiers in European Industrial Relations, ed.
R. Hyman and A. Ferner. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 15-51.
Maurice, M., F. Sellier, J. J. Silvestre. 1986. The Social Foundations
of Industrial Power. Cambidge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Milkman, R. 1998. "The New American Workplace High Road or Low Road?" In
Workplaces of the Future, ed. P. Thompson and C. Warhurst. London:
McMillan, pp. 22-34.
Mueller, F. 1992. "Flexible Working Practices in Engine Plants: Evidence
from the European Automobile Industry." Industrial Relations Journal,
Vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 191-204.
Ortiz, L. 2002. "The Resilience of a Company-Level System of Industrial
Relations: Union Responses to Teamwork in Renault's Spanish Subsidiary."
European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 277-99.
Reiter, E. 2002. "Fast-Food Work in Canada: Working Conditions, Labor Law,
and Unionization." In Labor Relations in the Global Fast-Food Industry,
ed. T. Royle and B. Towers. London: Routledge.
Ritzer, G. 1993. The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Pine Forge Press.
Roche, W. K. 2000. "The End of New Industrial Relations?" European Journal
of Industrial Relations, Vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 261-82.
Rosenzweig, P., and N. Nohria. 1994. "Influences of Human Resource Management
Practices in Multinational Corporations." Journal of International Business,
Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 229-51.
Royle, T. 2000. Working for McDonald's in Europe: The Unequal Struggle?
London: Routledge.
Royle, T. 2002. "The 51st U.S. State? Labor Relations in the UK Fast-Food
Industry." In Labor Relations in the Global Fast-Food Industry, ed.
T. Royle and B. Towers. London: Routledge.
Sadowski, D., M. Schneider, and K. Wagner. 1995. "Works Councils, Barriers
or Boosts to the Competitiveness of German Firms?" British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 33, no. 3 (September), pp. 493-513.
Schmitt, J. 2001. "Low Tech Proves Its Worth in Jobs Creation Race." The
Guardian, September 24.
Sparrow, P., R. Schuler, S. Jackson. 1994. "Convergence or Divergence: Human
Resource Practices and Policies for Competitive Advantage Worldwide." International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5, May, pp. 268-99.
Towers, B. 1997. The Representation Gap: Change and Reform in the British
and American Workplace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waddington, J., and J. Hoffman. 2000. "The German Union Movement in Structural
Transition: Defensive Adjustment or Setting a New Agenda?" In Transnational
Industrial Relations in Europe, ed. R. Hoffman, O. Jacobi, B. Keller,
and M. Weiss. Düsseldorf: Hans Böckler-Stiftung.
Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change
of Business Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, K., C. Haslam, J. Williams, and J. Cutler. 1992. "Against Lean
Production." Economy and Society, Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 321-54.
Womack, J., D. Jones, D. Roos. 1990. The Machine that Changed the World.
New York: Rawson Associates.
|
