Debates on flexicurity have largely focused on national policies and legislative frameworks, overlooking the role of sub-national regulation including collective bargaining at sector and company levels. Drawing on findings from a cross-national study of collective bargaining in metalworking since the late 1990s, the article demonstrates its distinctive contribution. Agreements mainly support internal forms of flexibility and promote employment, income and combination security. Collective bargaining’s capacity to address flexibility and security differs according to the institutional arrangements governing bargaining. Important differences are identified between multi- and single-employer arrangements and, under multi-employer arrangements, according to the presence and nature of effective mechanisms articulating the sector and company levels.

Reforms inspired by the 'new public management' approach have changed the provision of hospital healthcare and challenged established arrangements for governing the workforce. We identify four main reform processes in three countries, and examine their impact on collective bargaining and administrative and statutory mechanisms of workforce governance. Although the extent and nature of reforms play a role in the changes to workforce governance, political choices and the interests and responses of organized employers and trade unions intervene to shape outcomes. KeywordsCollective bargaining, comparative industrial relations, France, Italy, new public management, public hospital sector, social partners, United Kingdom Growing budgetary pressures and changing demand for both the volume and quality of healthcare, have led public authorities across Europe to reform the organization and governance of hospitals. Strongly influenced by the 'new public management' (NPM)

This article highlights the importance of organizational resources and individual capabilities for interactions and relationships among social partners in European sectoral social dialogue committees (SSDCs). We use an actor-centred approach to investigate work programme setting in the hospital and metalworking SSDCs. Our research reveals differences in how European social partner organizations coordinate and integrate members in SSDCs. In hospital, European Union (EU)-social partners build bridges that span otherwise separate actors or groups. The findings suggest that the absence of bridging efforts can lead to the dominance of a few actors. In metalworking, small cohesive groups are more effective in forming close networks and determining work programmes. While work programmes in hospital represent issues which are on national agendas, in metalworking, they focus mainly on EU policy areas.

Although employment relations in Europe have long been seen as a factor of rigidity, limiting managerial discretion and adaptability, in the last 30 years, they have witnessed a trend towards decentralisation of collective bargaining and negotiations increasingly centred on flexibility–security trade‐offs between employers and employees. Research on the contribution of collective bargaining to the so‐called flexicurity has mostly focused on national‐level institutional arrangements. In this article, we contend that meso‐level differences need to feature more prominently in the debate. Our comparison of two sectors in the same country (chemicals and metalworking in Italy) shows that decentralisation has divergent effects on flexicurity issues depending in particular on differences in market structures and on depth of bargaining. The interplay between these two factors affects what we refer to as procedural security, which we view as important in ensuring sustainable trade‐offs between flexibility and security.

This collectively written article aims to offer a bird's eye view of the Italian debates about precarity in employment and life, as captured in discussions among participants in a focus group held in Milan in 2006. The chief topics that emerged from this discussion include the feminization of labour, feminist practices and methodologies, representation/participation, and guaranteed income. Here, we give as much space as possible to the diverse voices of participants and their strategies for transformation.

Drawing on pragmatism and systems theory, this article analyses how participants in the European Sectoral Social Dialogue in the metal and hospital committees understand its effectiveness. We find that the participants have a broad understanding of effectiveness compared with the European Commission and existing research. Participants do not dismiss the importance of direct effects on working conditions in member states but downplay it in comparison with indirect effects from, and effectiveness in, European Sectoral Social Dialogue. That is, horizontal learning, knowledge sharing and pragmatic bottom‐up work to reach consensus are emphasised as more prominent than top‐down regulatory effectiveness.

After some promise in the 1990s, European unions have grown increasingly disillusioned with regard to the results of EU social policy and EU social dialogue. The paper analyses the extent and reasons of this disillusion by looking at the impact on social dialogue of the Active Inclusion Recommendation launched by the European Commission at the outset of the economic crisis in 2008. The Recommendation led to a tripartite framework agreement at the EU level in 2010 (the only such agreement in a decade), which was then to be implemented at national and regional levels. With a multilevel governance approach, the paper looks at the extent to which social dialogue on Active Inclusion at the EU level, in six EU countries (France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) and six regions (Rhône-Alpes, Lombardy, Lower Silesia, Catalonia, West Sweden and Greater Manchester) within those countries was somehow revitalised. The analysis, looking at both top-down and bottom-up processes and based on documentary analysis and interviews, shows that the initiative displays ambiguities similar to those of typical composite EU principles, such as famously the case of ‘flexicurity’. The multilevel governance of the EU, including the interaction between ‘soft’ employment policies and evolving ‘hard’ Eurogovernance tools, and with poor horizontal and vertical coordination, resulted in multiple distortions of the principle and, over time, to frustration. Unions’ engagement varies by level, country and region, reflecting both traditional national approaches and the local perception of ‘active inclusion’ as an opportunity. Although trade unions were more welcoming of ‘active inclusion’ than they had been for flexicurity, similar related threats and opportunities led to modest achievements and a gradual fading of the idea at the European and national levels, with some more opportunities however at the regional level. The paper concludes that, if trade unions want to engage with the idea of a European Social Model and with Eurogovernance, they could develop stronger networks among regional organisations.

This article looks at the hospital European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee (SSDC) through a Community of Practice (CoP) theoretical lens. Based on a 2-year project, qualitative in-depth interviews at the European level and in five Member states, and participant observation of the hospital SSDC, we propose a shift from traditional institutional and resource-based accounts and provide a learning and knowledge-focused understanding of this specific area of European industrial relations. Interpreting the SSDCs as a CoP sheds new light on the role of power relations, participation and informal activities among members and on how they work together; this, we find, can alert those interested in more effective functioning of the European Sectoral Social Dialogue on how to strengthen this supra-national level of industrial relations.