Trade Union Research and Cross-National Comparison

Abstract

This article is concerned with problems of comparative research and analysis in industrial relations, and in particular with cross-national comparison of trade unions. Comparison is of both practical and theoretical importance, but is fraught with difficulties, in part because of the paradox involved in attempting to generalize concerning national instances which are in so many respects unique. The author considers three different approaches to analysis, in terms respectively of institutions, functions and issues. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the iterative nature of research and analysis and insists that even if the goal of satisfactory cross-national comparison may be unattainable, its pursuit is both necessary and valuable.

Labour standards and capacity in global subcontracting chains: evidence from a construction MNC

“…This was designed to secure an awareness of the societal and local practices of work and employment, political discourse and strategies in the case studies—an awareness, however, that was cross‐analysed with documentary evidence from national trade unions, as well as the academic literature. Thus, the focus was on local labour practices rather than a ‘catalogue of diversity’ (Hyman, 2001: 205) dealing with IFAs as a function of MNC or Global Union strategies (see Hale and Wills 2005 for a research design with similar intentions). We focus on the actual use of a particular agreement, mediated by national institutions and trade union strategies, and analyse the potential of IFAs to establish management–labour relations and thereby open a space for trade union organisation at the local level.…”

A ‘Problem of Fairness’ in the Making: The Transformation of Public Services from the Perspective of Postal Workers

“…As far as the internationally comparative approach is concerned we mainly aimed at generalizing in the sense of looking for ‘similarities‐in‐difference’ (Hyman ). In fact, variations at institutional level made rather little difference when it came to the workers’ perceptions and reactions.…”

“…Rather, we oscillated between generalizing and individualizing, or nomothetic and idiographic, comparisons (Hintze ; Sztompka ). The main aim of the comparative approach was to better understand the consequences of liberalization and privatization and workers’ perceptions and reactions in general by taking account of different institutional settings, thus looking for ‘similarity‐in‐difference’ (Hyman ). In the research process we also used individualizing comparisons leading to a better understanding of particular developments and their consequences in one of the countries through confronting them with those in others (‘difference‐in‐similarity’).…”

Across Boundaries: The Global Challenges Facing Workers and Employment Research

“…In the 55 years since Dunlop (1958) published the international relations (IR) system and 25 years since Kochan et al (1986) wrote their 'transformation book', many ER theories remain bounded and embedded in the national historical context (Hyman 2001), even if ER scholarship grew more comparative in its focus. For example, comparative ER scholars have highlighted how globalization has affected different sectors and groups of workers, resulting in a growing diversity in patterns of industrial relations within nations, as well as a growing convergence of such patterns across nations (Katz and Darbishire 2000;Locke et al 1995).…”