Lifting wages and conditions of atypical employees in Denmark—the role of social partners and sectoral social dialogue
Author | Trine P. Larsen,Mikkel Mailand |
Date | 01 March 2018 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12205 |
Published date | 01 March 2018 |
Lifting wages and conditions of atypical
employees in Denmark—the role of social
partners and sectoral social dialogue
Trine P. Larsen and Mikkel Mailand
ABSTRACT
The article focuses on IR-institutions and atypical employment in three sectors
in Denmark. It demonstrates that industrial cleaning with precariousness being
widespread shows most social partner responses followed by construction and then
hospitals with fewest responses and problems. Despite these social dialogue initia-
tives, cross-sectoral variations of precariousness continue to exist.
1 INTRODUCTION
Ample research has explored and mapped atypical employees’wages, employment
conditions and working conditions (hereafter ‘wages and conditions’)—often drawing
on the broad headings of the precariat (Standing, 2011), atypical or non-standard
employment (Kalleberg, 2000) and job quality (Leschke, Watt, and Mairéad, 2012).
The role of collective bargaining and social partners (trade unions and employers’
associations) for atypical work has also received some attention. However, focus
has mainly been on trade unions’approach and responses (Grumbrell-McCormick,
2011; Simms, 2017).
This article offers new insights into social partners’joint actions on atypical work,
using Denmark as the empirical example due to its strong traditions for sectoral
collective bargaining, high union densities, extensive collective agreement coverage
and low incidence of atypical work. The aim is to describe variation in the scope
and depth of precariousness between sectors and to analyse the importance of Danish
social partners’joint initiatives developed through sectoral social dialogue (collective
bargaining as well as social partners’other joint initiatives). The main argument is
that the sectors examined constitute a pattern, where the hospital sector shows low
risk of precariousness, the construction sector has some problems and industrial
cleaning faces widespread problems. The sector variation in terms of wages and con-
ditions is argued to affect the way social partners deal with atypical employment
through sectoral social dialogue. Most initiatives are found in the sector with the
highest problem pressure from precariousness (industrial cleaning sector) and the
fewest in the sector with the lowest problem pressure (the hospital sector). However,
the social dialogue initiatives have reduced precariousness, but they have been unable
❒Trine P. Larsen and Mikkel Mailand, Associate Professors, FAOS, Department of Sociology,
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Correspondence to: Trine P. Larsen, Associate
Professor, FAOS, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
email: tpl@faos.dk
Industrial Relations Journal 49:2, 88–108
ISSN 0019-8692
© 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
to change the cross-sectoral pattern as precariousness continues to be most
widespread within industrial cleaning followed by construction and least in public
hospitals. The different strength of social partners across the three sectors in terms
of union densities and collective agreement coverage may contribute to the cross-
sectoral differences in the levels and scope of precarious employment.
In the following, we first briefly review literature on atypical and precarious
work with a focus on the literature emphasising the role of industrial relations for
atypical and precarious work. Thereafter, we present the recent development of
atypical employment in Denmark, the main characteristics of the Danish IR-model
and social partners’general approach to atypical work. In the third section, levels
of precarious employment and the recent social dialogue initiatives in the three
selected sectors in Denmark are examined. The final section discuss the findings and
conclusions are drawn.
2 ATYPICAL WORK AND SOCIAL PARTNERS’RESPONSES—A
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Distinct strands of literature have explored wages and conditions of fixed-term
workers, part-time workers, agency workers and self-employed. These studies often
argue that the share of employees that no longer hold a full-time open-ended contract
has increased in recent years (Keune, 2013). Ample research also stresses the positive
and negative aspects associated with atypical employment. The positive aspects
include that atypical employment can be a stepping stone to permanent positions
(Booth, Francesconi, and Frank, 2002), cost curbing for employers (Grimshaw,
Bosch, and Rubery, 2014) and entail increased flexibility for both employers and em-
ployees (Gash, 2008; Walsh, 1990). The negative aspects often concern risks of high
employee turnover, less committed employees and atypical employees’increased risks
of job/employment insecurity, low wages, poor job quality and restricted access to
social benefits and limited career prospects (Kalleberg, 2000; Walsh, 1990).
Precariousness is an ambiguous concept with no clear definition within the litera-
ture. In this article, we consider atypical employees to be at risk of precariousness if
their employment status: (i) is involuntary; (ii) involves low wages; (iii) entails low
levels of job security; (iv) includes work load challenges or (v) affects atypical
employees’eligibility for social benefits along with their ability to maintain a reason-
able living standard like involving low number of weekly hours.
The potential mechanisms behind the rising levels of atypical work and the associ-
ated risks of precariousness have attracted much attention within the literature.
Whilst we acknowledge that other factors such as employee’s skill levels, companies’
exposure to competition and labour sensitivity also contribute to the rising levels of
precarious employment, we concentrate—in this article—primarily on the role of
social partners’approaches to atypical work (Eichhorst and Marx, 2015; Atkinson,
1987; Walsh, 1990). In this context, focus in the literature has mainly been on trade
unions’approach and responses (Grumbrell-McCormick, 2011; Heery, 2004; Keune,
2013). Less researched is the perspective of employers and social partners’
joint initiatives to improve atypical employees’wages and conditions through
sector social dialogue (Crouch, 2015). With its focal point on social partner’s
joint initiatives, this article adds new insights into the role of sectoral social dialogue
for atypical work.
89Lifting wages and conditions of atypical employees
© 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial