Documents Schüssler, Elke 4 results

"Extensive research has shown that European multinational enterprises (MNEs) have a propensity to avoid collective employee representation when going abroad. This study investigates whether Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) can reverse this pattern by comparing how four European MNEs—two from Germany and two from Sweden—implement GFAs in the United States, a country with weak collective representation rights. The authors find that an MNE's home country labor relations (LR) system mediates whether GFAs support collective representation in the United States. Sweden's monistic LR system, in which unions are the dominant organizations legally representing workers, gives unions the power to directly influence the negotiation and implementation of GFAs. By contrast, Germany's dualistic LR system, in which unions and works councils share worker representation, weakens the influence of unions on implementing the GFA. MNEs' home country LR systems thus influence how transnational instruments are used to improve collective representation in host countries."

"Global supply chains in the garment industry are marked by labour standard violations in factories as well as retail stores. Against this background it is important to strengthen the bargaining power of workers along the supply chain. Establishing direct relationships among workers along the supply chain could be one way to achieve this aim. This paper builds on extant literature on transnational solidarity and highlights the specific challenges of understanding solidarity in a transnational social space by looking at the empirical context of global garment supply chains. It hereby seeks to go beyond treating “solidarity” as a mere metaphor for any form of transnational union or worker cooperation, and instead engages with the cultural-normative dimensions of the concept as referring to mutual bonds among groups of workers. By looking at the case of the ExChains network, this paper examines some of the opportunities and challenges involved in establishing and maintaining transnational worker solidarity. The paper concludes by discussing the transformative potential, but also the limits of transnational labour solidarity regarding substandard working conditions in global supply chains."

"This Special Issue advances a new understanding of digital platforms as dynamic and relational. An archetypal transaction platform, we argue, is comprised of three canonical social relationships which exist in tension with each other. The first is mutuality—the practices of sharing and reciprocity which animated the early days of the ‘sharing economy'. The second is autonomy—representing the desire for freedom and independence attracting many earners to platforms. The third is domination—the exercise of power and control which drives many platform owners and managers. As we argue below, these three social relationships are present in varying degrees on all platforms. By conceptualizing platforms as contested relational structures, we aim to bridge prior attempts to classify ‘what platforms are' with diverse empirical studies of ‘what platforms do' in different contexts. In our view, platforms can do different things at the same time because they are different things at the same time."

"Digital work platforms are often said to view crowdworkers as replaceable cogs in the machine, favouring exit rather than voice as a means of resolving concerns. Based on a qualitative study of six German medium-sized platforms offering a range of standardized and creative tasks, we show that platforms provide voice mechanisms, albeit in varying degrees and levels. We find that all platforms in our sample enabled crowdworkers to communicate task-related issues to ensure crowdworker availability and quality output. Five platforms proactively consulted crowdworkers on task-related issues, and two on platform-wide organisation. Differences in the ways in which voice was implemented were driven by considerations about costs, control and a crowd's social structure, as well as by platforms' varying interest in fair work standards. We conclude that the platforms in our sample equip crowdworkers with ‘microphones' by letting them have a say on workflow improvements in a highly controlled and easily mutable setting, but do not provide ‘megaphones' for co-determining or even controlling platform decisions. By connecting the literature on employee voice with platform research, our study provides a nuanced picture of how voice is technologically and organisationally enabled and constrained in non-standard, digital work contexts."