Local flexicurity: resolving the conflict between direct and representative participation

Abstract

Norway is often praised for its flexible workforce and flexible workers, which contribute to the adaptive capacity and competitiveness of the economy. At national level, the interplay between strong welfare arrangements, active labour market policies and generous protection in the event of lay-offs also contributes to labour mobility: being laid off does not entail personal catastrophe, as unemployment benefits are universal and generous, and access to new employment is likely to come quickly, due to an active employment and labour market policy. At company level, flexible employees are characterised by their ability and willingness to combine different tasks, take on new responsibilities and use their skills in the best interests of the company. At the same time, laws and agreements secure employees against arbitrary and unfair treatment from management and colleagues. What sort of mechanisms provide for this combination of security and flexibility at company level? We argue that this security and flexibility can be attributed to the manner in which representative and individual participation interact at company level in Norway. We call it 'local flexicurity'. ❖❖❖ SommaireLa Norvège est souvent saluée pour sa main-d'oeuvre flexible et ses travailleurs flexibles, qui contribuent à la capacité d'adaptation et à la compétitivité de l'économie. Au niveau national, l'interaction entre un système fort de protection sociale, des politiques actives du marché du travail et une protection généreuse en cas de licenciement contribue également à la mobilité de la main-d'oeuvre : le licenciement n'est pas une catastrophe personnelle, puisque les prestations de chômage sont universelles et généreuses et que l'accès à un nouvel emploi a de fortes chances d'intervenir rapidement grâce une politique active de l'emploi et du marché du travail. Au niveau de l'entreprise, les salariés flexibles se caractérisent par leur capacité et leur volonté d'exécuter plusieurs tâches, d'accepter de nouvelles responsabilités et d'utiliser leurs compétences dans l'intérêt de l'entreprise. Dans le même temps, les lois et les accords protègent les salariés contre tout traitement arbitraire et injuste de la part de leur direction et de leurs collègues. Quel type de mécanismes permet une telle combinaison de sécurité et de flexibilité au niveau de l'entreprise ? Nous pensons que cette sécurité et cette flexibilité peuvent être imputées à la manière dont la participation représentative et la participation individuelle interagissent au niveau de l'entreprise en Norvège. C'est ce que nous appelons la "flexicurité locale". ❖❖❖ Zusammenfassung Norwegen wird oftmals für seine flexible Arbeitnehmerschaft und seine flexiblen Arbeitnehmer und ihren Beitrag zur Anpassungs-und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Wirtschaft gelobt. Auf nationaler Ebene trägt auch das Zusammenwirken eines gut entwickelten Wohlfahrtswesens, einer aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik und eines großzügigen Schutzes bei Entlassungen zur Mobilität der Arbeitnehmer bei: eine Entlassung ist für die Betroff...

Global standardization or national differentiation of HRM practices in multinational companies? A comparison of multinationals in five countries

“…In particular, some argue that labour markets are structured such that employees enjoy a high degree of security concerning their employment and income prospects whilst firms have considerable scope for flexibility and experimentation, known as 'flexicurity' (Amable, 2003;Hagen and Trygstad, 2009;Kristensen and Morgan, 2012). The greater use of forced distributions in Nordic MNCs when compared with MNCs from the other countries may be due to 'flexicurity'.…”

Reducing carbon emissions through employee participation: evidence from Australia

“…For example, team building seems to be most effective in a context of strong representative participation, union and non‐union. Similarly, JCCs, works councils and workplace health and safety committees are more likely to be effective where there is strong union presence (Hagen and Trygstad, ; Markey and Knudsen, ; Pyman et al ., ; Walters and Frick, ).…”

“…For example, team building seems to be most effective in a context of strong representative participation, union and non-union. Similarly, JCCs, works councils and workplace health and safety committees are more likely to be effective where there is strong union presence (Hagen and Trygstad, 2009;Markey and Knudsen, 2014;Pyman et al, 2006;Walters and Frick, 2000). Cox et al (2006) also argue that employee participation overall is more effective for employees when multiple voice mechanisms-direct and union and non-union representative-interact and contribute to its organisational embeddedness.…”

Public sector unions’ ideas about employee-driven development: Restricted conceptualization of representative participation in workplaces

“…Direct participation refers to individual employees' ability to influence their own work situation, such as task performance at the operational level. Representative participation is exercised indirectly through elected representatives and is intended to give employees influence at a tactical or strategic level in relation to goals, organization, and long-term development (Hagen and Trygstad, 2009;Knudsen, 1995). Traditionally, representative participation has been linked to democratic values and distribution of power, whereas direct participation has been linked to instrumental, management-driven logics of increased productivity and innovation.…”