To Extend or Not to Extend: Explaining the Divergent Use of Statutory Bargaining Extensions in the Netherlands and Germany

Abstract Employee coverage by multi‐employer bargaining declined since the 1980s in many countries, but countries differ in the extent of that decline. These differences are due, in part, to statutory coverage extension. We analyse the use of statutory coverage extension in two countries, Germany and the Netherlands. Agreements are extended frequently in the Netherlands, where coverage remained stable as a result, but sparingly in Germany, where coverage eroded. The article shows that different employer attitudes are the main cause of this difference. These differences in employer attitudes re... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Paster, Thomas
Oude Nijhuis, Dennie
Kiecker, Maximilian
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2019
Reihe/Periodikum: British Journal of Industrial Relations ; volume 58, issue 3, page 532-557 ; ISSN 0007-1080 1467-8543
Verlag/Hrsg.: Wiley
Schlagwörter: Management of Technology and Innovation / Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management / General Business / Management and Accounting
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-26851363
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12514

Abstract Employee coverage by multi‐employer bargaining declined since the 1980s in many countries, but countries differ in the extent of that decline. These differences are due, in part, to statutory coverage extension. We analyse the use of statutory coverage extension in two countries, Germany and the Netherlands. Agreements are extended frequently in the Netherlands, where coverage remained stable as a result, but sparingly in Germany, where coverage eroded. The article shows that different employer attitudes are the main cause of this difference. These differences in employer attitudes result from (a) different perceptions of the effects of wage competition by non‐organized firms on organized firms and (b) differences in employer views on the appropriateness of state compulsion.