Comparative Employment Relations: Challenges and Approaches

This article delves into the challenges and approaches to comparative employment relations, exploring issues such as employee voice and relationships, trade unions in France and UK, and the nature and behavior of dependent variables in the study. The article also discusses the different approaches to employees voice and the various models of strategic human resource management structures. Institutionalism is identified as the most common hypothetical wellspring of the EIR theories, and the article concludes by discussing the broad foundation of institutionalism dating back to many centuries.

Employment Relations 1
COMPARATIVE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
Student’s Name
Course Name
Professor
Institutional Affiliation
City/State
Date

Employment Relations 2
Introduction
Employment relations refer to the communication, behavior and or the engagements that exist
between employers and their employees, mostly regarding to the rights and freedoms of the
workers. Interactions are mostly aimed at improving the welfares of the employees, make them
happy and committed to their jobs. Bosmans, Hardonk, De Cuyper,and Vanroelen (2016) explain
that Such a program is aimed at equipping the managers and leaders in an organization with the
necessary knowledge and skills that enable them create and maintain good employment relations.
On the other hand, Comparative Employment Relations refer to the analysis of the employment
strategies and procedures that are adopted in different countries across the globe. The concept of
comparative employment relations tends to understand the type of Labor Laws used in various
nations and how the laws are applied in different circumstances (Fu 2013, p.8). The growth of
this idea is due to the increased globalization, which has seen improved interrelationship among
nations from different parts of the world.
Globalization has intensified as a product of industrialization, which led to countries
specialization in production hence surplus products. This process has seen countries producing
products in excess, therefore seeking markets for the surplus productions and searching for goods
and services that they do not produce s elaborated by Helfen, Nicklich, and Fortwengel (2017, p.
5). The back and forth movement of goods and services has also increased the movement of
employees from one country to another, a development that has led to the need for a uniform
treatment of employees across the globe. The effort to achieve this uniformity and
standardization has resulted into realization of the differences and similarities between nations
based on theories and generalizing (Alois 2018, p. 34). However, some methodological and
theoretical challenges have risen in the process.

Employment Relations 3
Bartsch, Riefler, and Diamantopoulos (2016) state that among the challenges in the difficulty in
finding a comparative strategy that does not cause a lot of uncertainties and the collision among
various strategies, and this challenge has forced many strategies to alter the basic variables such
as cultures, languages, employment institutions and the varying legal structure in different
countries. The variables keep changing from one nation o another thereby making it difficult to
come up with a standard, unifying and inclusive strategy.
Another challenge has been the difference in interpretations of various terms in the analysis of
comparative employment relations. For instance, a term like comparative may be the study of
similarities in one area, but may be the analysis of different models within an issue such as
industrial relation (Huang & Verma 2018, p. 12). These challenges researchers face when trying
to understand the study of Comparative Employment Relations have led to some issues to do
with the study.
Employees Voice and Employees Relationships
Employee voice is defined as the variety of processes and structures which enable, and at times
empower, employees directly and indirectly to contribute to decision-making in the firm. It is
approached in different ways in different countries in the ways that unions work and operate. The
first issue is the scope of the subject Comparative Employment Relations, the area it covers and
the extent that needs to be covered and explained in theory. Based on this unclear coverage, one
may consider the study either a narrow or a broad conception of subject’s territory (Hunter &
Katz 2012). The narrow perception concentrates on the collective aspects of relationships within
the employment structure and, more specifically on the variations in the density, structures, and

Employment Relations 4
the collective bargaining processes of unions in different countries as well as the prevailing
union and labor laws and institutions.
The wider conception of the study focuses on all types of the industrial relations and more
specifically in the different ways through which trade unions represents their workers among the
various countries in terms of employment institutions, distribution of workforce. According to
Bach and Bordogna (2011), this scope also covers the wage structures and variations, gender
equality, child labor, the extent of government’s control over the workers’ affaires and other
topics concerned with trade unions.
According to Kacowicz and Mitrani (2016), the second issue in the study of comparative
employment relations is the confusion surrounding the usage of the terms comparative and
international employment relations. Many user of the terms always use one for the other, but the
professionals in this field of study argue that the words are distinctive and are just overlapping. It
is explained that core of international employment relations is the study of employment
structures in different nations, with a focus on description and step by step analysis. On the other
hand, Comparative employment relations entail a distinctive comparison of various employment
relations structures between two or more nations (Bergh, Mirkina, & Nilsson 2016, p. 34). This
study is mostly done with the aim of identifying the common patterns and theoretical
generalizations that cut across.
The next issue is the nature and behavior of the dependent variable in the study of comparative
employment relations theorizing. Some literature reviews indicate that the studies have used
three different specifications (Kane 2012, p. 1010). The first dependent variable measures the
institutional architecture of the employment relations structures like the extent of centralization

Employment Relations 5
in wage determination. Another dependent variable is the employment relations result or
behavior, for example, the variations in union density and income inequality between countries.
The last independent variable measures the performance of employment relations, like the
country’s national gross domestic product and growth in employment.
Another issue concentrates on the level of analysis in Comparative Employment Relations
theorizing. Variations in employment relations basic structures, results, and performance can be
studied at the level of a firm, industry, national, regional, or internationally. the most commonly
used level in the Comparative Employment Relations studies in the national level hence consider
the variations in institutions of employment relations and the results throughout the nation
(Kirsch & Wailes 2012, p.89). However, it is worth noting that many nations have distinct
variation in employment relations among companies, industries, and regions. This variation
within-country is as interesting and revealing as the inter-nations variations. Methodologically,
researcher may argue that a macro theory of the variations in employment relations among
different countries should be based on a consistent micro version developed at the company
level.
Approaches to Employees Voice
Trade Unions in France and UK
The last issue concerns the geographical coverage of Comparative Employment Relations
theorizing, in terms of the number of countries included in the study. Conceptually, one would
think all countries are included (Frege, Kelly, & McGovern 2011). However, most researchers
limit the list or greatly minimize the number of countries considered under developed, micro
states, or socialist, for theoretical, practical and ethnocentric reasons. According to many

Employment Relations 6
researchers, the countries considered under developed have jobs mostly from agricultural and or
informal sectors, therefore lack labor movements nor do they have conventional employment
relationships that are the traditional basics of analysis in Comparative Employment Relations.
Additionally, the other reason would be that socialist countries have the Employment and
Industrial Relations structures that may be non-comparable with the systems in capitalist
countries (Tamminen, Gaudreau, McEwen, & Crocker 2016, p. 3). A practical argument would
be that employment structures data and outcomes are usually not easily available or the sample
size is too small in underdeveloped countries, micro states, and socialist countries. Another
emerging trend is ethnocentrism due to the fact that most writers come from a few developed
nations like the Britain, USA, and Germany, and therefore their attention focus on these
countries.
It had first been agreed that the development of a formal theory of Employment and industrial
relations has been a continuous process aimed at improving the existing, the concept of industrial
relations has existed for a long time. The first development of industrial relations general
theories was in 1958 done by John Dunlop self-claimed attempt to develop a “general theory” of
through the book cross-national variation in development level and, as illustrated by modern
treatises on this 12 subject (Kane 2012. His model merited on two comments, the first being the
idea’s contributions to the employments and industrial relations theories. The other merit has
been the fact that most people considered the model as useful in conceptual framework, even
though the model itself was not employment and industrial relations entirely; if it was to be
tested based on the desideratum of a theory hypothesis.
Another applicable issue about the theory of EIR is the fact that relevant point about EIR theory
is the fact that various researchers construct their models focusing on different basic elements of

Employment Relations 7
employment relations. The model theorizes Employment Relations as a model that focuses in the
job regulation model and it argues that conflicts at workplace is the friction between the drive by
the management for efficient production process and cost efficient workforce and the workers’
desire to be serviced with improved wages, better working environment and uncertainties
concerning their future in the company (Yucel-Aybat & Kramer 2018, p.6). The model selects
well placed aspects as the main variables to explain various Employment and Industrial
Relations. Its configurations obtain other options in alternative Employment Relations focusing
on different institutional frameworks, therefore exhibits ERSs as established based on different
structures of company control. The structures obtains other options of ERs as a result of EIR
events that constrain taking advantage and joy-riding by the workers as well as employers. Some
researchers make the main concentration of EIR the optimum achievement of efficiency,
workers’ voice and equity, while other professionals reason that the primary idea of EIR theory
is the nature of workforce available.
Most of the models resemble the Dunlop’s model for they mostly serve as the important
taxonomical framework that the labor market while others continue to produce the hypotheses
that can be tested (Wallace 2017, p. 67). Complementarity is one of the concerns of one of the
important hypotheses, mostly the concept of the systematic placement of the EIR components,
they are carefully picked to make them fit like an integrated system.
Thirdly, most of recent theorizing on Employment and Industrial Relations systems do not occur
in the actual EIR field but rather in other related areas like human resource management,
economics, philosophy, sociology, and political economy. It can be noted that North America
had been the epicenter of many EIR theorizing till late 1980s. Other areas of study embraced the
concept of EIR systems, they used different names and brandings and kept on perfecting it.

Employment Relations 8
Researchers have come up with various models of strategic human resource management
structures using the frameworks in the model (Kane 2012). The same way, professionals who
developed Marxist/radical oriented labor process came up with other versions of EIR structures
developed around the idea of “regimes of control”.
The application of EIR systems in sociology and economics in the European countries has been
one of the main important aspects of the concept (Locke, Rissing, & Pal 2013). Commonly
known under the brand name of “varieties of capitalism”, this literature seeks to theorize the
basic factors of the economic systems, organizations and the structures of the economy within
and beyond the borders of various countries. Theory EIR system is the focus of the studies even
though the theories entail almost all parts of the economy.
Finally, institutionalism is the most common hypothetical wellspring of the EIR theories and
was initially started formally in the 1920s in the US. Institutionalism was treated as the branch of
the institutional approach to economics, and it was headed by John Commons and other
professionals at the Wisconsin School who were the main characters in the institutional
approach. Institutionalism had strong connections with the faculty of sociology as well as the
European-style social economics (Klotz & Bolino 2013, p. 45). The subsequent industrial
relations generations in America followed the institutional and neo-institutional culture,
perfected by Dunlop, Kochan, and Budd. The field of EIR experienced slow development in the
European countries and still undergoes development, even though it has been perfected there.
As explained by Tamminen et al. (2016), one of the founders of the area of sociology, came up
with the subject matter of and named it the “study of institutions”, against the popular
institutionalism. The concept of institutionalism is mostly strong in capitalist areas and among

Employment Relations 9
works related to EIR among the sociologists, sociologists, political scientists, and business
theorists in European countries.
Coronations in France and UK
Hauptmeier (2012) institutionalism has broad foundation dating back to many century, with the
origin being German historical/social economics (HSE) in the nineteenth century, which was as a
result of some other two ideologies. One of the ideologies was the classical and neoclassical
economics in England which majorly viewed economies as the mechanical framework exchange
of goods and services traders in markets with high level of competition with little or no influence
of the social groups, government, and culture, as explained by Klotz and Bolino (2013, p. 3).
Leon Walras was the main contributor in this “non-institutional” economics and his method of
coming to equilibrium formed the basis of most of the current studies in the area.
The other economic doctrine that initiated the establishment of HSE was Marxist economics and,
specifically the Marx’s brand of economic determinism that foresees that we do away with the
capitalism and instead have a government that represents the interests of all citizens. From a
neoclassical point of view, the interference of market forces and the government were
responsible for the variations in employment relations among the different countries. Hey argued
that institutions were just established by economic agents who wanted them to server their
interests therefore, the institutions only existed when they served and achieved their purposes.
This reason therefore meant that the institutions only existed and did not have any functional
independence (Locke, Rissing, & Pal, 2013). Popular school of thought among the neoclassical
economists, as well as some “universalistic” theorists states that the non-competitive institutions
would be eliminated by the globalization, market forces and economic agents. It was therefore

Employment Relations 10
appropriate for the convergence of competitive market system along neo-liberal lines with a
universalistic set of practices that were of mutual benefits.
Anglo-American INI Theories
The study of the literature in The CER theory can categorized into two groups. The first comes
mostly from the authors in the Anglo-American countries and is properly in the employment and
industrial relations (ZUSHO & CLAYTON, 2011). Another category is the one that gives more
emphasis to the theories like varieties of capitalism and mostly based on the European sociology.
Micro Theories of Employment Systems
As stated earlier, the EIR system is the central focus of the CER concept. On the view point of
methodology, it can be argued that “macro” theories of multinational variation in CERs should
be developed on consistent “micro” theories e way they are developed for the individual
company, industries, and nations (KLOTZ & BOLINO, 2013). To explain this in details, a brief
overview of some micro theories of employment relations systems and macro theories are put as
bellow.
ERS Models.
ERS Models were developed by John Commons who was also the originator of the IR faculty
and American subdivision of institutional economics (Locke, Rissing, & Pal, 2013). Commons
came up with the five options to theories of labor, which included commodity, machinery, good
will, public utility, and citizenship. He again explained how each theory would result in to
different groups of people management and associated happenings. Commons’ discussions on
these structures are broad but one could pinpoint the determinative points within as stated by

Employment Relations 11
KLOTZ and BOLINO (2013). For instance, it is easily applicable where there are low skills
required and the workforce are easily monitored.
Conclusion
Comparative employment relations have been a center stage of active studies for many decades
now. The convergence of nations into a common EIR system is still unclear as it is still under
contested debate., even though it can be said now that at least some convergence have happened
to theorize the source of the variations we experience among EIR systems in different countries.
Most of e stakeholders come in agreement that the explanations regarding the variations among
EIR systems can lead to a possible CER theory, and the general agreement on the variable that
are determinant in EIR institutions. From the models developed by Max, much focus should be
put mostly on the production process. Based on neoclassical models the characteristics of
national market structures and the level of economic development are the point of focus. But
from HRM, variations in EIR strategies should be considered the most. On the other hand
sociology and anthropology the much focus should be on cultural and social traditions variations
among different. EIR theory also exhibits some unique characteristics, but has some
contributions towards CER theorizing. EIR theory achieves this through the melding of other
concepts into an integrated model.

Employment Relations 12
List of References
Alois, P 2018, 'Lessons for Effective Governance: An Examination of the Better Work
Program', Global Governance, 24, 1, pp. 139-157.
Bach, S, & Bordogna, L 2011, 'Varieties of new public management or alternative models? The
reform of public service employment relations in industrialized democracies', International
Journal Of Human Resource Management, 22, 11, pp. 2281-2294.
Bartsch, F, Riefler, P, & Diamantopoulos, A 2016, 'A Taxonomy and Review of Positive
Consumer Dispositions Toward Foreign Countries and Globalization', Journal Of International
Marketing, 24, 1, pp. 82-110.
Bergh, A, Mirkina, I, & Nilsson, T 2016, 'Do the poor benefit from globalization regardless of
institutional quality?', Applied Economics Letters, 23, 10, pp. 708-712.
Bosmans, K, Hardonk, S, De Cuyper, N, & Vanroelen, C 2016, 'Explaining the relation between
precarious employment and mental well-being. A qualitative study among temporary agency
workers', Work, 53, 2, pp. 249-264.
Frege, C, Kelly, J, & McGovern, P 2011, 'Richard Hyman: Marxism, Trade Unionism and
Comparative Employment Relations', British Journal Of Industrial Relations, 49, 2, pp. 209-230.
Fu, H 2013, 'Flexibility or inequality: the political debate on dispatched workers', Critical
Discourse Studies, 10, 3, pp. 312-326.
Hauptmeier, M 2012, 'Institutions Are What Actors Make of Them - The Changing Construction
of Firm-Level Employment Relations in Spain', British Journal Of Industrial Relations, 50, 4,
pp. 737-759.

Employment Relations 13
Helfen, M, Nicklich, M, & Fortwengel, J 2017, 'Enacting global competition in local supply
chain environments: German “Chemieparks” and the micro-politics of employment relations in a
CME', International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 28, 18, pp. 2656-2683.
Huang, X, & Verma, A 2018, 'Industry- and firm-level determinants of employment relations in
China: a two-level analysis', International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 29, 2, pp.
399-419.
Hunter, L, & Katz, H 2012, 'The impact of globalization on human resource management and
employment relations in the US automobile and banking industries', International Journal Of
Human Resource Management, 23, 10, pp. 1983-1998.
Kacowicz, A, & Mitrani, M 2016, 'Why Don't We Have Coherent Theories of International
Relations About Globalization?', Global Governance, 22, 2, pp. 189-208.
Kane, J 2012, 'Democracy and world peace: the Kantian dilemma of United States foreign
policy', Australian Journal Of International Affairs, 66, 3, pp. 292-312.
Kaufman, BE 2014, 'History of the British Industrial Relations Field Reconsidered: Getting from
the Webbs to the New Employment Relations Paradigm', British Journal Of Industrial Relations,
52, 1, pp. 1-31.
Kirsch, A, & Wailes, N 2012, 'Varieties of employment relations: continuity and change in the
global auto and banking industries', International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 23,
10, pp. 1967-1982.
Klotz, A, & Bolino, M 2013, 'Citizenship And Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Moral
Licensing View', Academy Of Management Review, 38, 2, pp. 292-306.

Employment Relations 14
Locke, R, Rissing, B, & Pal, T 2013, 'Complements or Substitutes? Private Codes, State
Regulation and the Enforcement of Labour Standards in Global Supply Chains', British Journal
Of Industrial Relations, 51, 3, pp. 519-552.
Tamminen, K, Gaudreau, P, McEwen, C, & Crocker, P 2016, 'Interpersonal Emotion Regulation
Among Adolescent Athletes: A Bayesian Multilevel Model Predicting Sport Enjoyment and
Commitment', Journal Of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 6, pp. 541-555.
Wallace, D 2017, 'What the Convention requires: Intertextual conduct in nation states' non-
binding agreements with the UN', Journal Of Language & Politics, 16, 6, pp. 809-829.
Yucel-Aybat, O, & Kramer, T 2018, 'The Impact of Competitiveness on Consumer Responses to
Comparative Advertisements', Journal Of Advertising, 47, 2, pp. 198-212.
Zusho, A, & Clayton, K 2011, 'Culturalizing Achievement Goal Theory and
Research', Educational Psychologist, 46, 4, pp. 239-260.