1
|
|
2
|
|
3
|
- Importance of collective bargaining in most countries
- Growing importance of legal enactment
- Worker Participation ‑ Germany ‑ co‑exists with
collective bargaining
- Growing Competitiveness of World Economy and Implications for US Economy
and US Industrial Relations
|
4
|
- Growth of Multi-National Corporations
- The Challenge of Multinationals to IRHRM Arrangements
|
5
|
- What is a Multi-National Corporation?
- Operates production or service facilities in more than one country
- Why? What is the alternative?
- Internal Dynamics of companies
- Nature of overseas markets - growth of trading blocks
- Restraints and Incentives
|
6
|
- Dramatic growth since WWII
- 1975 world-wide foreign direct investment was $23 billion
- 2000 world-wide foreign direct investment was $1.3 trillion
- Largest recipients in 2000
|
7
|
- Manufacturing was 42% total world foreign direct investment 1999
- Services were 50%
- Largest employers as MNCs
- Growth of stateless corporations
|
8
|
- ORIGINALLY ALMOST ALL MNCS WERE US‑BASED BUT EUROPEAN AND JAPANESE
HAVE GROWN
- GROWTH OF FOREIGN COMPANIES INVESTING IN THE US
- JAPANESE CAR EXPORTS BANNED BY TAIWAN AND KOREA FOLLOWING ARAB BOYCOTT
OF ISRAEL
|
9
|
- Nature of IRHR Issues
- Multinational enterprise presents many of same challenges as multi-plant
enterprise of earlier era
- Principal difference is that the growth in the earlier period of
national markets occurred in regions that had substantial political
unity
|
10
|
- 1990s some attempts to establish internationally recognized labor
standards
- ILO has succeeded at this
- No child labor
- No discrimination
- Freedom to join unions
- Right to bargain and to strike
|
11
|
- Thus governments and unions both national institutions facing growing
international challenge
- One result is that countries compete for foreign investment with no one
to regulate the competition
- Non‑labor bases of competition
- Labor bases of competition
|
12
|
- Two sides of workers’ problem
- Complaints from workers in the investing countries
- Complaints from workers in the host countries
- Some are complaints by both
|
13
|
- Multinational Corporations could increase union bargaining power
- Interdependence of operations in different countries can spread costs of
strikes
- Foreign ownership may be less willing to make waves by taking strikes or
locking out
|
14
|
- Weakens Union power‑ in host countries and investing countries
- Ability to operate in one country when struck in another
- Production switching in dispute situations
- Ability to use lower level of restrictions in one country to argue for
lower levels in others
|
15
|
- Complaints about Multinationals in their labor relations
- Weakens Union power‑ in host countries and investing countries
- Threat to leave host country
- In the investing countries there are further issues
- Complaints that most modern technology being exported so foreign
workers have technological advantage
|
16
|
- Complaints about Multinationals in their labor relations - Weakens Union
Power Generally
- Limited information
- Only management knows full details of worldwide operations
- Even getting information about the company's labor and personnel
practices overseas can be very difficult
- Overall, there is evidence that multinationals do weaken union
bargaining power at least in investing and perhaps in host countries as
well
|
17
|
- Charge that multinationals show contempt for local industrial relations
customs and values
- Seems most use locals as IR managers and frequently join employers'
associations
- Corporate IR managers largely coordinate information or act as
consultants
|
18
|
- BASED ON HOME PRACTICES, SOME JAPANESE FIRMS IN BRITAIN HAVE INSISTED ON
ONLY ONE UNION IN THE PLANT
- MacDonald’s has largely been able to impose its normal mode of operation
across the EU despite difference in IRHRM systems and laws
- STILL, MANY FOREIGN FIRMS IN BRITAIN HAVE BEEN LEADERS IN INNOVATIVE AND
SUCCESSFUL IRHRM PRACTICES
|
19
|
- Overall, the charge of multinational indifference to local attitudes and
practices does not seem to be supported
- Some MNC changes are successful and called innovations while others are
perceived as ignorance
- MNCs often see themselves as damned if they do or if they don't,
especially in LDCs
|
20
|
- The Union Response
- Employer Reactions
- Government Responses
- Conclusions
|
21
|
|
22
|
- Presentation Reminder
- Collect Papers
|
23
|
- Growth of MNCs
- Challenge of MNCs to IRHRM Arrangements
|
24
|
- The Union Response
- Employer Reactions
- Government Responses
- Conclusions
|
25
|
- Amount of authority a national union can give up depends on how much
control it has over work group behavior
- Where national confederations exert strong control over affiliates, the
nationals may not be able to cede authority to multinational union
organizations
- Some problems also arise from inter‑union conflicts
|
26
|
- Other problems involve differences in wage structures
- Another problem is the concern of governments with economic issues such
as the rise in the relative international pay standard of a group of its
workers
- Cross‑national comparisons of working conditions don't seem very
salient to workers
- Difficulties posed by varying laws and practices
- Management Opposition
|
27
|
- General nature of attempted activities
- Simultaneous strikes throughout the domain of a multinational
- Refusal to work overtime at non‑struck plants
- Pressuring employers to recognize unions at newly acquired facilities
|
28
|
- Attempts to organize consumer boycotts
- Inter-union exchange of information on the global financial and
industrial‑relations positions of the company
- Providing information on world‑wide operations has been the most
important tactic
|
29
|
- IMF has encouraged cooperative efforts and coordinated bargaining
- Including creation of company councils
- Including refusals to do transferred work
- ICEM‑ Chemical Federation‑ has been active
- Refusals to do struck work
- Organization of boycotts
- Coordinated bargaining
|
30
|
- 1997 International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) hosted meeting of
UPS unions from around world
- To create permanent body to negotiate with UPS and to establish
international standards company wide
- A primary goal is to get the company to recognize local customs and
practices
|
31
|
- Only ITS engaged in genuine multinational collective bargaining is the
ITF
- In 2000 US workers at Imerys (French based multinational ceramics and
construction materials co) joined with Belgian unions and ICEM to launch
an international organizing campaign
- All ITS have hope and long‑range plan to establish transnational
bargaining
|
32
|
- Union Network International (UNI) federation of 900 unions from 150
countries
- 2000 IG Metall signed agreement with Faber-Castell (one of world’s
leading producers of writing and drawing instruments) to respect minimum
social standards in all its operations in Germany and overseas
- October 2004 British Union (GMB) and American Union (UNITE-HERE) signed
agreement to organize workers in the casino and gaming industry
|
33
|
- Most won't talk to unions, even about general issues, on an
international basis
- Exceptions
- Recession of early 1980s seemed to induce more companies to try
multinational consultations
|
34
|
- 1982 European Parliament adopted Vredeling Directive
- 1994 European Works Council Directive
- 1998 EU adopted policy for all large employers, not just
multi-nationals, to inform employees of their financial status and of
employment developments
- June 2001 European union issued guidelines strengthening the obligation
of European companies to “inform and consult” worker representatives
about company strategy
|
35
|
- Attempts to provide information to worker representatives
- Limited opposition by European companies
- Unions have tried to increase the legitimacy of the proposals by having
them adopted as an ILO convention
|
36
|
- Not much multinational bargaining going on.
- Process still in its infancy
- National public policies and issues of sovereignty will be a major
obstacle
|
37
|
- Summary and Conclusions
- Course Evaluation
|