Collective Bargaining Coverage and the Status Divide: Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom Compared

Abstract

Which occupational groups are covered by collective bargaining agreements today and which are not? To what extent do differences between occupational groups have an impact on the differences in collective bargaining coverage in different countries? This article addresses these questions using data from three countries with `voluntary' industrial relations systems (without legal extension clauses). Cross-national differences in coverage vary considerably according to occupational status and sector. It appears that salaried employees - constituting a growing proportion of the workforce - may become an Achilles' heel of voluntary collective bargaining systems, since their coverage in the private sector (especially in the Danish case) is much lower than that of manual workers. Collectivist traditions and the status of collective bargaining as a dominant means for the regulation of pay and conditions may become increasingly marginalized if unions and employers' associations are not able to find ways to expand collective bargaining beyond the scope of those employees traditionally covered.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.