← 12. The classification of countries in these categories of collective bargaining systems necessarily implies a certain simplification. The detailed discussion in Chapter 2 should therefore be taken into account when comparing and assessing the functioning of the different tariff systems in each country. Wage coordination correlates with other characteristics of collective bargaining, such as coverage rates and the degree of centralization. Centralization can be important for the equalization of wages and productivity, as workers in sectors where unions are stronger can acquire a larger share of the surplus output. Coverage can be important because wage coordination and centralization play no role without coverage. Moreover, in countries without explicit wage coordination, but with high coverage and centralized collective bargaining, bargaining in one sector can still serve as an implicit reference for other sectors. Therefore, some intersectoral coordination can take place even if coordination is not institutionalized. 12. In general, a national agreement is a single collective agreement between a national employer composed of several bodies (e.B. General Motors) and the trade union representing the employer`s employees. The agreement is binding on all institutions in which the union represents workers. Employees may also try to negotiate nationally on a multi-employer basis, but employer involvement is voluntary.
A model agreement is a master agreement with an employer that sets wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment that the union then makes to other employers of workers represented by the union in an attempt to convince the other employer(s) to follow the model. There is no legal obligation for an employer to accept a standard agreement, but only to negotiate in good faith. A framework agreement is a negotiated agreement between a union and an employer or group of employers that sets the wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment of all employees covered by the agreement – workers who may work in many institutions for many different employers (e.g.B construction workers). A multi-employer agreement, as the name suggests, is an agreement between a union that represents employees of different employers and employers who agree to bargain together and be bound by the same agreement. These different categories of negotiations may overlap; For example, a framework agreement can also be an agreement with several employers or a national agreement. Analyses of wage developments and collective bargaining focus almost exclusively on real wages. However, collective agreements generally define contractual wages, which in most countries apply only to a subset of workers. Real wages also reflect changes among uninsured employees as well as surcharges at the enterprise, enterprise or individual level (e.g. B bonus or overtime pay). The difference between the actual wage outcome and the negotiated wage is commonly referred to as “wage drift,” i.e., the movement of wages beyond the negotiated lower limit. Collective bargaining also tends to have an impact on wage dispersion, with greater differences in systems without collective bargaining or in systems where firms set wages independently.
In contrast, wage dispersion is lowest on average for workers affected by sectoral collective bargaining. The lower wage dispersion associated with sectoral collective bargaining partly reflects lower returns in terms of education, seniority and potential experience for workers covered by collective agreements. This section uses data at the employee and sector level to better inform the relationship between collective bargaining institutions, equal pay, productivity growth, and how wages are adjusted for productivity in firms and sectors. In this way, the analysis provides useful information on the mechanisms that can determine some of the macroeconomic relationships documented in Section 3.2. So far, this section has focused on the dispersion of wages within the different types of collective agreements, i.e. the dispersion of wages among workers not covered by collective agreements and the dispersion of wages among workers covered by collective bargaining. The results can be interpreted to illustrate what would happen to wage inequality if collective bargaining in a country moved from non-existent coverage to full coverage or from full coverage to zero coverage. Of course, this seems to be extreme. When considering less extreme scenarios, account should also be taken of the wage differences that may exist between workers covered by collective agreements and those who are not collective agreements. These wage differences are sometimes referred to as collective wage premiums. Discussions on collective bargaining have largely focused on the state of negotiations.
The introduction of flexibility in sector-dominated systems has therefore often been seen as a shift from sectoral collective bargaining to enterprise-wide collective bargaining. While such a change would indeed provide more flexibility for firms, it could also lead to a decrease in coverage, which would compromise the inclusiveness of the system.26 However, the experience of a number of countries shows that less radical options, generally referred to as “organized decentralization” (Traxler, 1995[69]), are available. These have the advantage of maintaining sectoral collective bargaining while allowing a closer link between productivity and working conditions at company level. ← 18. For European countries, the trading variable indicated in the data is a characteristic attributed to the company and not to the individual. Therefore, all employees of a company are classified in the same way, whether or not this type of negotiation applies to each employee of the company. The data will only indicate the most relevant agreement, even if there is both a sectoral agreement and an agreement at company level. For some other countries, even if the variable is not missing, there are no differences in the data within the country, and therefore the data are not used. One of the best-known examples of national multi-employer negotiations that set standards for an entire industry is the Teamsters Freight Framework Agreement, negotiated by Jimmy Hoffa in the 1960s.20 When it was first adopted, the Freight Framework Agreement included more than 450,000 drivers, had literally hundreds of undersigned employers, and set standards for the entire freight transportation industry.
However, the deal has been undermined by deregulation and consolidation in the industry. Yet the Teamsters are still able to negotiate national agreements that raise standards for tens of thousands of workers in the freight industry. The freight framework agreement includes YRC Freight, Holland and New Penn, which together employ approximately 24,000 truck drivers, dockers and office workers at more than 200 locations across the United States. In addition, the Teamsters have national agreements with ABF Freight, which covers more than 8,000 workers in more than 150 locations, and UPS Freight, which covers 12,000 freight drivers and dockers. The Teamsters also represent nearly 300,000 UPS parcel, airplane and food truck drivers, as well as loaders, sorters and clerks at 400 UPS locations, making this contract the largest private sector collective agreement in the United States for these workers. In the freight logistics industry, the Teamsters have national agreements with DHL that cover nearly 5,000 workers in more than 50 locations.21 Teachers` working conditions are students` learning conditions. By dealing with problems at school and in the classroom, everyone benefits. In negotiations, educators and their employers work together on student-centered issues. B such as setting class size limits, setting time for teachers and para-educators to share effective teaching practices, addressing health and safety issues at school, and contributing teachers to their own professional learning – which help all students succeed.
A fourth group includes countries with collective bargaining systems where collective bargaining at the enterprise level predominates, but where sectoral collective bargaining also plays a role, or where there are some forms of regulatory mechanisms or some degree of wage coordination by umbrella organizations. Extensions are very rare. Australia with its “Modern Awards” (see Box 3.5 of the chapter), Ireland with the “Sectoral Employment Orders” or Japan with its unique form of coordination (Shunto) were included in this group in 2015, as were Greece, Luxembourg and Slovakia. Overall, characterizing and estimating the economic impact of collective bargaining systems has proven to be a major challenge, leading to a variety of centralization and coordination indicators, as well as econometric specifications. Norway: 2001 was the first year without a central agreement; In this chapter, new evidence was presented based on a number of data sources (data at the country, sector, company and employee levels) suggesting that collective bargaining in the past has meant a trade-off between inclusiveness and flexibility to some extent. In countries and periods when collective bargaining was not limited (or simply did not exist) to collective bargaining at the enterprise level, wage inequality was lower and employment, including among vulnerable groups, was higher. Wage coordination can also have the advantage of strengthening the resilience of the economy to cyclical downturns (OECD, 2017[2]). However, this chapter and the literature have also shown that more centralised bargaining at sectoral or national level can be at the expense of less flexibility in adjusting wages and working conditions to the commercial conditions of each sector or enterprise, which can have a detrimental effect on productivity. Note: ***, **, *: statistically significant at levels 1, 5 and 10%, respectively. In order to assess the statistical significance of tariff institutes as a whole, the focus should be on the F test, which tests the common meaning of all coefficients on interactions with hourly labour productivity. .