Power Dynamics in Work and Employment Relationships: the capacity for employee influence

Abstract

As the forms of work and employment relationships continue to change and develop, important questions arise not only about what we mean by good-quality work, but also what are the dimensions shaping work and employment relationships. There is an argument that the balance of power has been shifting towards employers and away from workers, posing important questions around the forces driving change and what channels employees have to influence their working lives
The report reviews academic and grey research evidence to establish an authoritative account of the shifting power dynamics within the employment relationship (ER); that is, the capacity for employees to leverage influence about the terms of their employment relationship. Our prime focus is on the channels, structures, systems and processes shaping employee influence. The key drivers are identified around seven dimensions and the review considers the implications for employee influence.

https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/job-quality-value-creation/power-employee-influence

Full text

Power dynamics in work
and employment
relationships: the capacity
for employee influence
Research report
Part 1 – Thematic literature review
November 2017

1 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
The CIPD is the professional body for HR and people
development. The not-for-profit organisation champions
better work and working lives and has been setting the
benchmark for excellence in people and organisation
development for more than 100 years. It has more than
145,000 members across the world, provides thought
leadership through independent research on the world of
work, and oers professional training and accreditation for
those working in HR and learning and development.

1 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Foreword 2
Introduction 3
Defining the basis and source of power 4
1 Historical background and context 5
2 Contextual forces 8
3 Analytical framework to unpack employee influence: form, scope, level, and depth 15
4 Influencing dimensions 18
5 (Re)framing the shifting dynamics of work and employment relationships 38
Conclusion 42
References 45
Appendices 56
Power dynamics in work and
employment relationships: the
capacity for employee influence
Research report
Part 1 – Thematic Literature Review
This report was written by Tony Dundon, Miguel Martinez Lucio, Debra Howcroft, Emma
Hughes, Arjan Keizer, and Roger Walden, from the Work & Equalities Institute, Alliance
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester.
Acknowledgements
Contents

2 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 3 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Workers’ capacity to influence
their jobs is one of the few truly
perpetual issues in employment. It
has received sustained and explicit
attention since the industrial
revolution and the formation of
the trade union movement. In
essence, its roots lie in the human
relationships that encapsulate any
kind of employment relationship.
Employee influence is important
for two reasons. Firstly, it has
instrumental value, as one of the
most significant ways that we can
ensure a good quality working
life. Historically, this may mainly
have been done through collective
representation, as a means of
wielding greater power, but we
also benefit from shaping our
working lives at an individual level.
This is especially so when one
considers that, in many aspects,
what constitutes a good quality
job can vary from person to
person, or for the same person at
different stages in their life (part-
time versus full-time work being a
classic example).
Secondly, if we fundamentally
believe in humanity at work, we
must recognise the importance
of self-determination in the
workplace, not in all matters, but
where practicable. Thus, separate
from any instrumental gain,
employee influence has intrinsic
value to us as humans.
The picture of employee
influence is a fragmented one.
The most current terminologies
have changed over the years,
for example from workplace
democracy, to employee
involvement and participation,
to employee voice. And more
importantly, the mechanisms and
capacity for employee influence
differ between countries and
sectors, and even between (and
within) organisations.
This research report unpacks
the complexities of power and
influence in the employment
relationship. In particular, it
explores seven dimensions,
highlighting inherent challenges
in each and gaps in current
knowledge, and proposes a new
dynamic framework to describe
shifting sands of employee
relations. In part two, the authors
review existing measures of
employee influence, highlighting
strengths and gaps.
Together the reports provide
a firm basis from which to
understand, assess and improve
how employees can best shape
their working lives. Getting this
right stands to benefit not only
workers themselves, but also
the organisations they work for,
the economies they contribute
towards and the societies they
make up.
Jonny Gifford
Senior Advisor, Organisational
Behaviour
CIPD
Foreword

3 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
As the forms of work and
employment relationships continue
to change and develop, important
questions arise not only about what
we mean by good-quality work, but
also what are the dimensions shaping
work and employment relationships.
There is an argument that the balance
of power has been shifting towards
employers and away from workers,
posing important questions around
the forces driving change and what
channels employees have to influence
their working lives.
This report reviews academic and
grey research evidence to establish
an authoritative account of the
shifting power dynamics within the
employment relationship (ER); that
is, the capacity for employees to
leverage influence about the terms
of their employment relationship.
Our prime focus is on the channels,
structures, systems and processes
shaping employee influence. The key
drivers are identified around seven
dimensions and the review considers
the implications for employee
influence. The focus is predominantly
on the UK, but other countries are
touched upon where appropriate.
Unpacking employee influence could
have involved other interesting
paths. For example, personal skill
sets of individuals offer valuable
insights about power relationships at
work (for example, being assertive,
exercising leadership, or playing
organisational politics). We focus on
the channels, structures, systems and
processes of employee influence and
future research could scrutinise other
psychological aspects of influence.
Following a brief review of the
meanings and definitions of power
in the remainder of this introduction,
the report proceeds as follows.
Sections 1 and 2 include a contextual
overview of the ER landscape,
sketching historical trajectories, the
role of market forces, employment
flexibility and fragmentation, the
character of the state (government),
and patterns of management choice.
Then in Section 3 an analytical
framework is explained as a way
to unpack the various channels,
structures, systems and processes
influencing and constraining
employee influence. Section 4
applies the analytical framework
to seven relationship dimensions
to uncover shifts in the balance
of power in terms of its ‘scope’,
‘form’, ‘depth’ and ‘level’. Section 5
concludes, suggesting that, overall,
employers and management are in
the ascendency with regard to the
balance of power and capacity to
influence employment relationships.
However, this is far from universal
or one-dimensional. There appear
pockets of resilience and adaptation
(for example some workers in
the gig economy are unionising,
some external agencies influencing
managers, complementarity
between union and non-union) that
show degrees of creative influence
for some employees, while in
other areas the core relationship
dimensions are disconnected and/
or isolated (for example non-union
voice or institutional governance
mechanisms can undermine union
legitimacy and contract status
can add to precariousness and
employment insecurity for other
workers), thereby leaving workers
less able to influence. Section 5 also
reflects on some implications for the
HR profession, pinpointing important
areas of focus for employers and
their educating bodies.
Introduction
‘As the forms of work
and employment
relationships
continue to change
and develop,
important questions
arise not only about
what we mean by
good-quality work,
but also what are
the dimensions
shaping work
and employment
relationships.’

4 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 5 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
‘Power’ and ‘influence’ are not simple
concepts to pin down, with various
interpretations dependent upon
context, level and resource allocation.
Weber (1947, p152) contextualised
power as the ‘probability that one
actor within a social relationship will
be in a position to carry out his will
despite resistance’.
In organisational behavioural terms,
Huczynski and Buchanan (2010,
p694) refer to the ‘capacity of
individuals to overcome resistance
on the part of others, to exert their
will and to produce results consistent
with their interest and objectives’.
In work and employment
relationships literature, power has
been defined as the ‘ability of an
individual or group to control their
physical and social environment; and
as part of this process, the ability to
influence the decisions which are
and are not taken by others’ (Hyman
1975, p26). To this end power may be
transmitted through individual and/
or collective forms; it may be about
protecting or advancing specific
interests and issues; and it directly
and indirectly shapes decision-
making outcomes of others.
Of importance are the factors that may
shape the uses (and abuses) of power
over others in work relationships. For
this reason, the contexts and political
systems affecting the basis of power
become crucial.
French and Raven (1959) first
distinguished five bases of power that
are applicable to social relationships,
adding a sixth (‘informational’) some
years later. Power can be manifest
as ‘coercion’, that is, the capacity to
influence others is leveraged by threat
or punishment. Power can also be
based on a mix of other sources: on
‘rewards’, ‘expertise’ or the ‘legitimacy’
of a presumed right to manage.
A ‘referent’ basis to power may
be derived from soliciting respect
from others. The ‘informational’
power base can be derived from
the capacity to influence others by
controlling information flows.
Lukes (1974, 2005) also viewed
power as having multiple forms;
what he called the ‘three faces’
of power. The ‘first face’ of power
is about observable domination
(similar to coercion under French
and Raven’s model). The ‘second
face’ has roots in Bachrach and
Baratz’s (1970) ‘non decision-
making’ power. With this certain
issues or interests may be withheld
from an agenda, or alternative
opinions closed off or not fully
discussed by all the parties.
Sisson (2012, p186) makes a
distinction between ‘decision-
based’ and ‘option-based’ forms
of consultation which illustrates a
second level of power. For example,
with ‘option-based’ consultation
a series of alternatives are
presented to employees (or their
representatives) and workforce
preferences filtered back to inform
management’s final decision,
say, about implementation plans
or restructuring logistics (but
not necessarily the restructuring
decision itself). In contrast,
decision-based consultation offers
less opportunity for employees to
influence management, as the final
decision is taken irrespective of any
employee suggestions.
Lukes’ (1974) ‘third face’ of power
is about hegemonic influences
and is typically unobservable
in any concrete form or level. It
concerns the capacity to shape and
manipulate people’s preferences,
often without their direct
knowledge, and can be part of an
ideological form of whose exertion
may enable individuals or groups to
achieve or maintain their position of
dominance.
Coercion
Referent
Rewards
ER
Power
Expertise
LegitimacyInformational
Figure 1: Bases of power
Defining the basis and source of power

5 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
The historical trajectory of
employment shows highly cyclical
patterns of influence, with a
waxing and waning of power: from
agricultural work dependency,
cottage industry expansion,
industrialisation and the rise of
bureaucracy, to contemporary
debates about union decline,
globalisation, financialisation
or the rise of the gig economy
(Grimshaw et al 2016, Rubery et al
2016, Thompson 2013, Wilkinson
et al 2014). In the UK the relative
balance of power has shifted
and employee voice has been
transformed. Points of debate
have been broad and expansive,
covering greater individualisation,
deregulated rights and employment
protections, employer assertiveness
and a preoccupation with market
agility and performance measures
(for example debates about high-
performance work systems).
Where employers endeavour
to diffuse ‘collectiveness’
amongst employees, the form of
collectiveness has increasingly
tended to be employer-dominated
rather than employee-led, often
featuring teamwork and, in some
cases, replacing unions with
newer and direct management-
led communication (McBride
and Martinez Lucio 2011: see
Garrahan and Stewart 1992,
Storey and Bacon 1993 for earlier
interventions).
The statistics in various European
countries, including the UK,
illustrate a decline in trade union
representation since the early
1980s (Koch 2006, Van Wanrooy
et al 2013). The percentage
of employees able to harness
collective agreements as a vehicle
to leverage influence has fallen
significantly, notably in the private
sector, although a substantial
minority of the workforce still
have the terms and conditions of
their employment determined by
collective bargaining. There is also
increased reliance on minimum
wage legislation and greater
orientation of low-paid work
towards that minimum (Rubery et
al 2016). The steep decrease in the
use of industrial action as a source
of worker power and collective
influence exemplifies shifting
capacities. However, declining
strike action may not in itself signal
an absence of conflict, and options
for employee influence may be
seen in extended absenteeism or
other forms of individual dissent
(Edwards 1995, van den Broek
and Dundon 2012). Alongside
diminished collective power and
worker mobilisation, in the UK
at least, the state increasingly
enforces significant restrictions on
strike action (for example the 2016
Trade Union Act). Literatures point
to other lines of division in terms
of age, race, sex or religion (Heery
2016), which constrain employee
power dynamics. Working
arrangements such as part-time,
casualisation, individual payment
systems, or different employment
contract status also impair
employee capacity to influence.
Current work-related studies
also emphasise the fundamental
shift towards a more flexible and
decentralised economy and labour
market (Kalleberg 2000, Carter et
al 2011). The global-level focus on
cost-efficiency, competition and
the customer paradigm constitutes
1 Historical background and context
‘Declining strike
action may not
in itself signal an
absence of conflict,
and options for
employee influence
may be seen in
extended absenteeism
or other forms of
individual dissent.’

6 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 7 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
prominent underlying catalysts
of change (Martinez Lucio 2016).
Heightening flexibilisation,
precarious work (including
agency, part-time, subcontracting,
temporary) and new forms of
technology and ICTs have created
greater spatial and labour market
dispersion of the workforce and
new forms of employers exploiting
this dispersion more directly (Weil
2014). Such developments raise
debates about the truncated
nature of employee influence.
Furthermore, a series of
social changes in terms of the
composition of the workforce tend
to create new challenges for the
traditional and more organised
forms of employee influence.
For example, a growing body of
literature exists on the extent of
social change, alienation and social
distance, within a range of groups
within the workforce, for example
post-industrial communities, or
newer migrant communities.
These changes have paralleled
the development of a political
environment since the 1980s, which
weakens the political and economic
influence of organised workers
(Howell 2005, Streeck 2011).
Martinez Lucio (2006, 2016) has
sought to capture the overarching
shifting influences in Table 1.
The weakening of union power
and influence sparked research
interests in non-union forms of
employment regulation (Guest
and Hoque 1994, Dundon and
Rollinson 2004, Gollan 2006, Gall
and Dundon 2013): for example
works councils and non-union
employee representative (NER)
committees (Dobbins and Dundon
2014). Other forms of capacity and
activist influence are also emerging
in social and political spaces
beyond the workplace. Researchers
have identified different forms of
civil society organisations (CSOs)
representing (albeit indirectly in
some cases) various groups with
potential capacity to influence
employment rights; for example,
women’s interest groups, LGBT
societies, the Citizens Advice
Bureau (CAB) and organisations
supporting ethnic minorities in
the workplace (Heery et al 2012a,
2012b, Pollert 2008, 2010, Holgate
et al 2012b, Perrett et al 2012,
Perrett and Martinez Lucio 2008).
1.1 Management choice and
frames of reference
The role of management choice
and its relationship to power can be
traced from some of the historical
trajectories noted above. Some
early industrialising employers,
such as Robert Owen or Quaker-
led enlightened corporations like
Cadbury or Unilever, saw value
from investing in human welfare,
including social benefits and
housing. Further, the values of
founding owners or charismatic
leaders are known to influence
the way people are treated and
organisations are managed: for
example, equity and paternalistic
forms of non-union voice in the
likes of Hewlett-Packard or Marks
& Spencer (see Kaufman and
Taras 2000, Dundon and Rollinson
2004). In the US, Kochan et al
(1986) posited that management
choice has become a key driver of
influence over industrial relations
strategy: ‘one of the strongest
factors impinging choice is
management values toward unions’
(Kochan et al 1986, pp13–14).
Of course management values
and philosophies concerning trade
unions and human talent have
not always been enlightened.
Management decision-making
may include rational, strategic
as well as ad hoc and even
irrational choices (Child 1997).
The employee involvement and
participation (EIP) literatures
suggest these strategic choices
have ranged from ‘garbage-can’
models, where decision-making is
random and chaotic, to episodes
Table 1: Shifting forces of influence
Dimensions of activism Crisis of organised workers
Workplace Decentralisation in the firm and the workplace through teams, cost centres and
outsourcing
Management and worker utilisation New forms of worker utilisation through the quality and consumer paradigm
Social context of work Fragmentation and individualisation of the workforce
Work–life balance approach Working time, including duration, scheduling, flexibility and intensity
State and regulation Changing state roles and its decentralisation, and the policy of de-regulation and
re-regulation
The global dimension Globalisation gaps and imbalances between employers and employees
The communication sphere New forms of communication and the decline of public space and collectivism
Source: Martinez Lucio (2016, p19)

7 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
of management ‘muddling
through’, with missed opportunities
to tap into employee ideas to
contribute to strategy (Sisson 1995,
Marchington et al 2001, Dundon
et al 2014a). More recent changes
to market capitalism introduce
various constraints upon the extent
of management choice, such as
pressures of financialisation and
flexibilisation (Rubery et al 2016),
with consequential implications
for employment security and/or
insecurity (see sections 2.1 and 2.2).
One of the more enduring
approaches to capture changing
dynamics of management choice
related to shifting power dynamics
is Fox’s (1966) seminal frames
of reference (see Budd and
Zagelmeyer 2010, Edwards 2014,
Dundon and Dobbins 2015, Heery
2016). First is Fox’s (1974) ‘unitarist’
typology, which would rationalise
management choice around a
presumed set of shared interests.
The assumption is that managers
have the ‘right to manage’ without
external third party (for example
union) intervention and where direct
communication between managers
and employees is seen as the best
way of creating a corporate culture
and achieving common goals.
Second, a ‘pluralist’ frame of
reference favours choices that
might favour joint agreement-
making, which dominated as
a post-Second World War
consensus in the UK until 1980.
Under this rationale, diminished
collective voice and a weakening
of employee power would be
unsettling for the balance between
‘voice, equity and performance’
(Kochan and Ostermann 1994,
Budd 2004). Pluralists infer that a
weakening of worker power may
in fact contribute to an economic
shift towards low added value and
low-quality employment (Nolan
and Marginson 1990). These types
of choices intersect with a thread
of economic literature canvasing
the relationship between declining
employment regulations and low-
quality jobs and limited economic
developments. In addition, a
‘neopluralist’ variant may suggest
that declining collective power
reflects other choices that
realistically position influence
not only at the workplace but
among community groups and
related organisational stakeholders
(Johnstone and Ackers 2015,
Ackers 2014).
The final frame of reference
is a ‘radical’ (or critical) frame
of reference, which places
less emphasis on shared goals
between the parties (unitarist)
or the institutional forms for
joint regulation (pluralist).
Instead, it stresses how the
shifts in capitalism along with
political values have hollowed
out worker and trade union
abilities to influence employment.
This is through specific forms
of negotiation as well as the
diminished capacity of workers
to threaten and invoke collective
action (Kelly 2011, Heery 2016) and
the political changes that restrict
management choices because of
external shareholder economic
interests and power resources over
management (Hamann et al 2013).
In summary, various perspectives
have been and continue to be used
to evaluate changes in employment
relationships over time and space.
The role of different actors and
labour market institutions –
including the state, unions, and
newer CSO agencies – can all
affect the capacity of employees to
influence their working conditions
as well as management’s ability to
make certain choices. Importantly,
to move the research agenda
forward, we must be particularly
attuned to historical context
affecting not only obvious change
but also patterns of continuity.
‘The role of different
actors and labour
market institutions
– including the
state, unions, and
newer CSO agencies
– can all affect the
capacity of employees
to influence their
working conditions as
well as management’s
ability to make
certain choices.’

8 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 9 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Issues about the balance of power
and the channels, structures
and processes of employment
relationship influence are subject
to multiple contextual conditions.
The literature points to three
broad contextual forces: first are
various market conditions and
factors; second are consequential
changes to the job market,
including debates around work
fragmentation and employment
flexibility; and finally, the impact
from the regulatory power of
the nation state and its changing
characteristics. These are briefly
reviewed.
2.1 Changing market factors
Market forces play a prominent role
in shaping the balance of power in
employment relationships. During
the 1990s and up until 2004,
UK unemployment decreased
significantly to less than 5% (ONS
2017). Neoclassical economic
wisdom would suggest that
higher demand for workers may
correspond to higher wages, and
thus increased employee power,
while periods of recession would
increase unemployment and worker
availability, thus curbing employee
power. The latter has been relevant
since the 2008 global recession,
when unemployment increased to
over 2 million (ONS 2017), and may
have been even worse had some
employers not taken a longer-term
view by seeking to minimise the
scale of redundancies.
Of course such trends can
be simplistic views of market
transactions, and social dynamics
often weave in and out of rational
economic choice. Other salient
factors affecting the balance of
power may be micro-oriented, say
in relation to specific employee
skills demanded by an employer
during a specific period, such
as so-called knowledge workers
or certain technological job
competencies. While there
are incidences of high-skilled
or particular talent demands
leveraging individual power
owing to rare expertise, such
generalities are not widespread in
the job market and a more realistic
evaluation is that most employers
can access a relatively large pool
of potential workers, including
access to foreign markets and
migrant workers (Lansley 2011,
Holmes and Mayhew 2012).
These market factors affecting
the availability of jobs, worker
mobility or skills and the leverage
of employers and employees are
situated within broader shifts
in contemporary capitalism,
specifically neoliberalism,
deregulation, financialisation and
growing shareholder influence,
which have shaped managerial
choice and hold major implications
for employment.
One important change affecting
workers and management
choice is the rise in shareholder
capitalism (Lazonick and
O’Sullivan 2000) and the
subsequent process of
financialisation, whereby profits
are increasingly created through
financial channels and investments
rather than productive value-added
services or production activities as
financial deregulation has enabled
more volatile investments. This
relates to another CIPD research
report by Findlay et al (2017), who
discuss how financial products
2 Contextual forces
‘Workers with
higher skill or
status may be in a
relatively stronger
position to influence
their employment
conditions, such a
group is likely to
be small. Instead,
there has often
been a substantial
rise in precarious
employment among
the higher-skilled.’

9 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
generate ‘value’, reflecting on
implications for the governance of
employment and other aspects.
These financialisation developments
have combined with attendant
implications for work and
employment relationship dynamics
(Thompson 2013). The demand for
short-term financial results expects
flexibility with the possibility that
workers are laid off (Lazonick and
O’Sullivan 2000). It also informs
a preference for individualistic
performance-related pay systems,
investments in general rather than
firm-specific skills, and hostility
towards union bargaining (Jacoby
2005). Various strategies to
maximise shareholder value, such
as private equity buyouts and stock
buybacks to manipulate stock
price, have further weakened the
position of employees (Appelbaum
et al 2012, Lazonick 2011). These
processes have particularly
affected so-called liberal market
economies such as the USA and
the UK, which are characterised
by stronger shareholder pressures.
It can be noted that some firms
continue to pursue a more long-
term perspective.
The impact on employment has
not been limited to less qualified
or unskilled employees. As we
see in section 2.2, shifts to global
capitalism have contributed to
the fragmentation of employment
as more workers no longer have
stable employment with a single
employer (Marchington et al
2005). A first manifestation of this
fragmentation has been the rise in
non-regular forms of employment
(Rubery 2005). While some of
the workers with higher skill
or status may be in a relatively
stronger position to influence their
employment conditions, such a
group is likely to be small. Instead,
there has often been a substantial
rise in precarious employment
among higher-skilled or
professional employees (Standing
2011). A second manifestation
concerns the strong rise in
outsourcing and subcontracting,
both nationally and internationally.
This can affect employee capacity
to influence working conditions
because of the short-term
nature of many outsourcing
contracts, limited investment in
training, and low levels of pay
where contracts prioritise cost
minimisation (Grimshaw et al
2016, pp214–15). The challenges
that this fragmentation poses in
terms of developing a motivated
and productive workforce are
obvious, and research shows that
employment flexibility negatively
interacts with innovation and
productivity (Rubery et al 2016).
The changing context of capitalism
also affects the balance of power
for those in regular employment.
Thompson (2003, 2013) introduced
the Disconnected Capitalism Thesis
to refer to the growing divergence
between requirements by firms in
terms of work and employment,
‘between what capital is seeking
from employees … and what it
finds necessary to enforce in the
realm of employment relations
[employment relationships]’
(Thompson 2003, p264). On
the one hand, the demands on
employees have increased in
terms of effort, commitment and
emotional engagement. Some
reviews point to high-performance
work systems (HPWS) that aim to
promote employee engagement
through progressive human resource
management practices. However,
other studies and debates point
to the aforementioned changes in
corporate governance and processes
of financialisation that have
informed strategies of delayering,
downsizing and divestment. Under
this view it means that firms have
retreated from investments in
human capital and reduced the
quality of employment in terms of
security, career development, and
pensions. It illustrates how issues of
job insecurity and precarious work
impact all groups of workers, albeit
in various different ways (Rubery et
al 2016).
Processes of financialisation are
uneven and some positive and
shared effects may be found
across different types of capitalist
regimes. Some countries regulate
firms and employment systems by
stakeholder systems of corporate
governance, whereby control is not
exclusive to shareholder power but
is shared with others such as banks
and workers (Hall and Soskice
2001). At the same time, and as
discussed in other parts of this
report, the protective capacity of
institutions such as unions is also
diminishing in such countries with
more ‘inclusive’ job markets in the
face of the current pressures. This
shows in particular through greater
segmentation in job markets and
the implications in terms of job
market fragmentation, polarisation
and flexibilisation, which will be
reviewed next.
2.2 Job market fragmentation
and flexibilisation
‘Flexibilisation’ concerns ‘how
we work, under what forms of
employment contract, for how
many hours, at what times of
day and with what degrees of
employment security’ (Rubery
2015, p634).
The concept gained momentum
globally in the 1980s, during
periods of severe unemployment
and intense competition. Today,
job market flexibility is an area
riven with debate (Grimshaw et
al 2016, Rubery et al 2016, Keune
and Serrano 2014, Benassi 2013).
Proponents of flexibilisation,
often influenced by neoclassical
economics, deem it crucial for
cost-efficiency and eliminating job
market blemishes.

10 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 11 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
However, desires for ‘flexible firms’
and flexible working practices have
informed strong concerns about
the growth in non-standard forms
of employment (NSFE), insecure
and precarious work, and potential
inefficiency as they hinder long-
term job market incentives for
innovation (Kalleberg 2011, Vosko
2010, Standing 2011).
Figures 2 and 3 show the share
of NSFE in a number of countries
since 2000, while Figure 4 shows
the different types of NSFE in the
UK. As indicated, NSFE includes
temporary employment (fixed-
term contracts, seasonal work,
casual work), part-time, agency and
self-employment. The data show
important inter-country differences
that illustrate how job markets may
have very specific dynamics based
on important differences in, for
example, regulation and industries.
Most countries have seen a rising
trend concerning these employment
types, although this has been
affected by economic fortunes, with
many temporary workers laid off
after the 2008 crisis.
Figures 2 and 3 also show how
the share of temporary and part-
time employment in the UK has
been fairly stable. This can be
partly explained by the relative
loose regulation for permanent
employment contracts. For
example, the right to claim unfair
dismissal requires a minimum of
two years’ continuous service and
this has reduced the perceived
need for fixed-term contracts.
Indications also show that the
data on temporary employment
underestimate the rise in NSFE.
For example, most jobs created
in the UK during the six-year
period after the 2008 crisis
involved part-time employment,
zero-hours contracts and self-
employment (Rubery et al 2016).
The adult social care sector in
the UK illustrates both the rise
in NSFE and its underestimation
in the statistics. The data for
2016 shows that 90% of workers
have a permanent contract,
confirming the relative low share
of temporary employment as
presented by the national data.
At the same time, however, 24%
of jobs constitute zero-hours
contracts, with 80% of these
workers on a permanent zero-
hours contract. If we consider
this as temporary employment,
something justified by the lack
of any guarantees for workers in
terms of employment continuity
and hours, the percentage
rises to 27.9% temporary
employment. Moreover, over 85%
of all employees are not directly
employed by local authorities or
the NHS and their employment
is thus conditional on a specific
contract (Skills for Care 2016).
All these aspects illustrate how
employment can be much more
precarious than the data on
temporary work arrangements may
otherwise suggest.
Flexible working practices are
increasingly utilised by employers
to meet changing market demands
(Grimshaw et al 2016). Research
also shows that such arrangements
can meet worker interests because
of specific individual situations
(Robinson 1999, CIPD 2013). For
example, students may seek a
part-time contract when studying,
or a casual contract without
commitments. Some casual jobs
may need highly skilled workers
from less accessible worker pools,
providing some individuals with
certain levels of influence.
However, there is also a large
body of significant research
emphasising how such contracts
function to undermine the capacity
of employees to influence matters
(Grimshaw et al 2016, Fitzgerald
et al 2012, Kalleberg 2011, Pollert
‘The data show
important inter-
country differences
that illustrate how
job markets may
have very specific
dynamics based
on important
differences in, for
example, regulation
and industries.’

11 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
and Charlwood 2009, Standing
2011). Casual workers (for example
crowdworkers, who are also
discussed in section 4.3) may fear
losing their job or having reduced
hours after voicing concerns.
Temporary workers may fear the
termination of their contract and
part-time workers may predict
that voicing grievances could
jeopardise opportunities for full-
time employment. Grimshaw et
al (2016) discuss how variations
in flexible and non-standard-
type employment conditions are
affected by the effectiveness of
four protective gaps: regulation
(for example minimum standards),
representation (for example
access to union membership), the
enforcement of existing regulation
(for example a lack of resources
for monitoring agencies or to
cover employment tribunal fees)
and social protection (for example
access to unemployment benefits
and pensions). The scale and
change to temporary and part-
time-type work are illustrated
graphically in Figures 2–4.
Figure 2: Temporary employees as a percentage of total employment (%)
Figure 3: Part-time employment as a share of total employment (%)
20
30
25
40
30
50
35
60
10
5
0
15
20
10
0
2000
1990
2001
2000
2002
2001
2003
2002
2004
2003
2005
2004
2006
2005
2007
2006
2008
2007
2009
2008
2010
2009
2011
2010
2012
2011
2013
2012
2014
2013
2015
2014
2016
2015 2016
Source: Eurostat lfsq_etpga (26 June 2017)
Source: Eurostat lfsq_etpga (26 June 2017)
EU-28
Spain
NetherlandsEU-15
France Portugal
Germany
Croatia
SwedenIreland
Italy United Kingdom
EU-28
Spain
NetherlandsEU-15
France Portugal
Germany
Croatia
SwedenIreland
Italy United Kingdom

12 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 13 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Figure 4: Non-standard work as a share of total employment (%)
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Temporary employees as a share of total employment
Part-time employees as a share of total employment
Zero-hours contracts as a share of total employment
Self-employed workers as a share of total employment
Source: adapted from Eurostat and UK Office for National Statistics (2017).
The shift towards NSFE shapes
the power balance between
worker and employer, in various
ways and at different levels.
Precarious employment often
signals a diminishing power
balance for many employees.
Standing (2011) coined the term
‘precariat’ to refer to a new and
diverse class of workers who
have non-standard, precarious
forms of employment and are
disadvantaged in key fields of
security: job market, employment,
job, work skill reproduction,
income and representation. In
this regard, the literature points
to issues of fragmented working
contracts and conditions that
exist across differentiated job
markets, between ‘good’ standard
employment (for example full-
time, indefinite work) and ‘bad’
jobs, characterised by employment
insecurity and limited voice and
influence (for example fixed-
term contracts, outsourced
employment) (ILO 2015, p1).
Crucially, ‘labour market
segmentation theory’ (Craig et al
1982, Rubery 1978) maps how such
wider socio-political and economic
forces divide the job market into
distinct sub-groups, not only
based on productivity and skills,
but also discriminatorily by sex,
race and age. In this regard the
‘insider–outsider’ theory (Lindbeck
and Snower 2002, Rueda 2005)
argues that established workers
(‘insiders’) have bargaining power
to protect their employment
because of worker replacement
costs and strong employment
protection legislation. Conversely,
‘outsiders’, such as young and
unemployed workers, lack
political influence to leverage
change, either at their immediate
workplace or beyond in terms
of social policy and legislation.
‘Insiders’ are assumed to defend
this status quo because they are
concerned more about their own
security than the unemployment of
‘outsiders’. Criticism against unions
is that they almost exclusively
represent permanent and full-
time workers (Standing 2011). The
insider–outsider argument and its
implications have been criticised,
though, especially when it has
informed a deregulatory agenda to
increase equality in the job market
and to further weaken collective
rights (for example Emmenegger
2009, Rubery et al 2016).
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

13 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Tsakalotos (2004) shows how
deregulation will change the
balance of power favouring
employers and strengthen
regulatory changes that weaken
all workers’ power bases. Insider–
outsider arguments also tend
to ignore how wider changes in
contemporary capitalism can put
workers on the defensive and how
segmentation is ‘not a first choice
but, at most, a second-best option
for unions that do not have the
strength … to protect all workers’
(Pulignano et al 2015, p821).
These socio-political forces can
be apparent in the changes and
shape of the power of the nation
state in regulating or deregulating
employment rights, which will be
discussed next.
2.3 Changing character of
the state and new forms of
regulatory power
The state is a highly complex and
unique employment relationship
actor. In addition to being a
legislator, the state fulfils several
roles affecting the balance of
power of the parties: as an
enforcer of worker rights, as an
economic manager, a social actor
directly and indirectly creating
jobs and social services, as an
employer in its own right, as the
actor who can coerce change
relating to work and employment
relationships policy (Hyman 2008,
Martinez Lucio and MacKenzie
forthcoming). These broad roles
shape employee capabilities
to influence their employment
experience. Furthermore, relations
between the state and employer
groups also influence the political
space employees have, or feel
they have, to shape the form
and content of their working
conditions. For example, the
steady decline of manufacturing
employers, who were previously
highly unionised historically,
means they have a less visible
presence in state policy-making
processes. Along with a decline
in the trade union involvement in
corporate state bodies (although
never fully developed in the
UK), the changing context and
political will of the state means
that previous pro-union traditions
may be undermined. However, that
does not mean that governments
and agencies of the state will
not intervene at key points or
in high-profile cases in relation
to manufacturing or key private
investment decisions, as seen with
the Tata Steel case (for example,
see Ruddick 2016).
The changing context, roles,
and functions of the state are
significantly important when
questioning employee influence.
First, in the UK the shifts in
state orientation away from
a collective worker rights-
based framework may alter the
nature of employee voice and
engagement (Williams and Scott
2016). Second, the decreasing
economic/social presence of the
state and its dwindling ability
to limit employer influence
through various corrective
mechanisms prompts a more
fragmented and individualised
workforce (Howell 2005). The
emergence of a greater politics
of deregulation has impacted on
certain categories of workers and
diminished the degree of their
influence – for example among
female workers (Karamessini and
Rubery 2013). Third, the extent to
which the state emphasises being
a ‘good’ or ‘model’ employer,
or using harder managerialist
approaches, also impacts the
scope for employees to influence
their employment condition (Bach
and Bordogna 2011).
Importantly, in addition to
structural constraints, managers
may make irrational decisions
because of a lack of knowledge
and understanding. Through forms
‘The emergence of
a greater politics of
deregulation has
impacted on certain
categories of workers
and diminished
the degree of their
influence – for
example among
female workers.’

14 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 15 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
of ‘consultative’ roles, the state (or
other external actors, such as the
CIPD) can attempt to ‘educate’
or orientate employers and other
actors such as trade unions into
adopting specific strategies: for
example, the development of
social dialogue, partnerships,
new forms of teamworking, or
flexible working (Martinez Lucio
and Stuart 2011). Finally, it has
been argued that greater reliance
on more direct forms of policing,
and ethically problematic forms
of control through blacklisting
and surveillance, can shift the
extent of employee influence
within the workplace (Smith
and Chamberlain 2015). Such
changes place greater emphasis
on deregulation at various levels,
which may undermine the extent
of employee influence.
Importantly, such shifting state
dynamics may not be uniform
or common across contexts, nor
within them. Ultimately, these
contextual features of the state
have varied and sometimes
contradictory outcomes for
employee influence, the relative
balance of power and, depending
on situational forces, interact
with other contextual forces
such as financialised capitalism,
neoliberal economic doctrines,
precarious work experiences
among professional as well as
non-managerial workers, and
outcomes such as flexibility and
marginalised voice.
In summary, the preceding two
sections have reviewed historical
developments in work and
organisational structure, pointed
to a series of multiple contextual
forces within capitalism that can
shape employment, followed
by diverse and complex roles
of the nation state in affecting
policy, actor relationships and
employment conditions. It is
against these broad historical and
contextual forces that the extent
of specific patterns of employee
influence is to be reviewed.
The next section outlines an
analytical framework, developed
from employee involvement and
participation theory, to unpack
different dimensions of influence.

15 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
The report reviews a number of
sources and literatures to identify
the channels, structures, systems
and processes of employee
influence pivoting around seven
core elements (or dimensions)
of work and employment
relationships. Conceptually, each
dimension can signal a shift in the
power balance between employee
and employer on different issues,
at specific or multiple levels,
and over time and context. As
noted, the bases to power shifts
are multifaceted (Bourdieu and
Thompson 1991, Erchul and
Raven 1997, Fleming and Spicer
2014, Lukes 2005, Raven 1992).
Importantly, the actualisation
(affect) of capacity to influence
(power) is contingent on a range
of contextual forces and historical
legacies and traditions.
The seven dimensions reviewed are:
• legal sources
• contract status
• technology and employment
• institutional governance
• union participation
• non-union voice
• external actors and networks.
Prior studies advocate a multi-
dimensional and multi-level
approach to capture diversity
and dynamics (Ramsay 1977,
Budd 2004, Wilkinson et al 2014,
Marchington 2015). The analytical
framework applied in this review
draws on established analytical
approaches previously utilised
in employee involvement and
collective bargaining literatures
(Marchington et al 1992, Brown et
al 2009, Marchington and Wilkinson
2012, Wilkinson et al 2014).
Our framework also presents a
fourfold schema to unpick changing
influences in terms of: ‘form’ (for
example, different forms of non-
union/union voice, technology, legal
sources, external actors); ‘scope’ –
the range of issues to be influenced
(for example, minor tea break issues,
or major strategic decisions); the
‘level’ at which influence occurs or is
constrained (for example, workplace,
division, organisational, national,
transnational); and finally, ‘depth’
– the degree or extent of actual or
real influence (for example, deep
influence by affecting workplace
decisions, or shallow influence by
being communicated to about a
decision management has already
taken). The following section defines
‘form’, ‘scope’, ‘level’ and ‘depth’,
within the context of the seven
dimensions. However, in some
dimensions, ‘form’ ‘scope’, ‘level’ and
‘depth’ are not all relevant, so we
focus on the most relevant elements.
3 Analytical framework to unpack
employee influence: form, scope,
level, and depth
Dimension 1: Legal sources
Legal mechanisms and rights are often considered the cornerstone of employment regulation. The ‘form’
is evidently legal but comes variously as acts, directives, or codes, and so on. Under ‘scope’, the types of
issues that legal sources cover are scrutinised (minor or substantive). The theme also analyses the ‘levels’ at
which legal sources and rights exist (workplace, company, industry, country, as well as transnational). ‘Depth’
concerns the degree of influence that legal mechanisms and rights exert on employment relationships, for
example are employee rights strictly adhered to, or loosely adhered to, or even undermined?
Dimension 2: Contract status
The second dimension plots different forms of employment contracts (fixed-term contracts, seasonal work,
casual work, part-time employment, temporary agency work and self-employment) and uncovers how they
mould the scope and depth of employee capacity or constraint to influence. This also involves questioning
how employment status shapes employee capacity to secure influence through non-linear paths (that is,
trade unions, regulation).

16 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 17 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Dimension 3: Technology and employment
This dimension maps how linear paths of influence between employers and employees are shaped by
technology. This involves studying particular forms of technology (for example, artificial intelligence and
online crowdwork platforms), the scope of elements technology shapes (minor or substantive) and the
degree of influence managers/employees wield over employment relationships through technology (depth).
Dimension 4: Institutional governance
The fourth dimension focuses on two forms of institutional governance mechanisms – mandatory
arrangements such as works councils (for example in Germany and France), or information and consultation
established due to transposition of European employee information and consultation directives (for example
the 2004 Information and Consultation of Employees (ICE) Regulations in the UK). We focus on the ‘scope’
of influence permitted by these institutional arrangements, at which levels and to what extent (depth). The
‘depth’ of institutional influence may be witnessed in particular through and the extent to which trade union
recognition and other arrangements are mandatory.
Dimension 5: Union participation
Conditioned by an awareness that power moves in different directions, this dimension focuses on non-
linear paths of employee influence involving trade unions. Union mechanisms exist in numerous forms,
including formal (documented agreements), informal (implicit agreements with managers), internal (dispute
resolution protocols), or external (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, employment tribunals,
Labour Court). Union figures may wield influence over substantive issues, for example organisation strategy
or policy details in members’ workplaces. Union influence can occur at different levels of an organisation
(department, company, industry, country) and involves various layers of union figures (activist, lay members,
representatives, full-time officers, executive members). The ‘depth’ of trade union influence reflects the extent
to which union participation steers organisational decision-making outcomes. Once again, the ways in which
managers promote or disrupt non-linear paths of influence between trade unions and employees are analysed.
Dimension 6: Non-union employee voice
When focusing on non-union voice, the ‘form’ of influence includes various direct management-led initiatives
and indirect forms such as non-union employee representation (NER) channels. Skills-based and interpersonal
aspects of employee influence (for example individuals exercising assertion or persuasion) are not within the
boundaries of this report. ‘Scope’ refers to the types of topic employees have ability to exert influence over.
‘Narrow’ scope indicates trivial issues and ‘broad’ scope implies substantive issues, such as the capacity to
preference working hours. Employee influence may occur at one or more levels (office, department, plant or
company). The final dimension, ‘depth’, concerns the degree to which employees have input into managerial
decision processes. ‘Deep’ indicates high levels of worker involvement and ‘shallow’ reflects no involvement –
workers are purely informed of decisions being made. The theme also examines the role of managers in the
operation of non-union employee voice mechanisms.
Dimension 7: External actors and networks
The final dimension unpacks the non-linear paths of employee influence offered by external networks among
the likes of civil society organisations (CSOs). Different forms of external actors are identified – external
support bodies, interest representation organisations and mobilising social organisations. The scope of
issues they cover are reviewed along with the degrees of influence scrutinised (depth). Importantly, we focus
specifically on the external actors that represent or support employees to shape their work and employment
relationships. Other external actors, including bodies such as the CIPD, which aim to directly influence
employer strategies and government policy, are touched on briefly.

17 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
The application of aforementioned
analytical schema can be seen in
Figure 5. On the vertical axis the
balance of power can vary (low or
high), while the scope and depth
of issues influenced by social
actors can be captured along the
horizontal axis. For example, no
influence and shallow depth may be
found in situations where employers
impose unilateral change and
dominate the agenda for change
(to the left in Figure 5). In contrast,
a deeper capacity for employees
to influence employment matters
may be more extensive where there
is joint regulation, either through
collective bargaining mechanisms
or via some other fora to promote
equality and voice, including worker
co-ops and other forms of shared
ownership with expansive forms of
industrial democracy (to the right
of Figure 5).
Using the fourfold schema in
Figure 5, the seven dimensions are
reviewed next in greater detail to
tease out how channels, structures,
systems and processes of work and
employment relationship influence
are constrained or capacitated.
‘The “depth”
of institutional
influence may
be witnessed in
particular through
and the extent to
which trade union
recognition and
other arrangements
are mandatory.’
Figure 5: Capacity to influence
Managers dominate capacity to influence
High
Low
Shallow Deep
Management
unilateralism
Fragmented
contract status
External agency
influences
Joint
regulation
Worker co-operation
control
Institutional
governance
arrangements
Managers share power over decisions
DEPTH/SCOPE
INFLUENCE

18 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 19 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
This section presents a literature
review of the seven employment
relationship dimensions to unpick
the form, scope, level and depth
of influence/power, and to identify
the channels, structures, systems
and processes of employment
relationship influence.
4.1 Legal sources
Key concepts and sources
explained
Employment law and regulation
may best be seen as a product
of the balance of power shaped
by the interplay between various
national (and international/
regional), institutional and social
actors in specific but constantly
changing historical, social, political,
legal, cultural and economic
contexts (Lewis 1976, Kahn-Freund
1977). In the UK, the relevant actors
and institutions currently include
the European Union (EU), the state,
employers, employers’ associations,
employees, trade unions and the
judiciary (with the latter having
a critical role in developing key
areas of the UK common [that
is, judge-made] law around,
for example, the contract of
employment and interpreting and
applying parliamentary legislation
and regulation). Legal sources can
exist in a variety of different forms,
including, acts, directives, or codes,
and so forth.
Historically, the development of
employment regulation has been
and remains ‘contested terrain’ in
public policy-making and political
debate (to take just a small number
of recent examples in the UK, the
Trade Union Act 2016, employment
tribunal (ET) fees, zero-hours
contracts and the position of
those in newly developing areas
of precarious and/or non-standard
forms of employment or work
organisation – on the latter see
section 4.2).
The scope, purpose and
perspectives of legal regulation
To understand these continuing
debates, it is necessary to consider
perspectives on the ‘essential’
nature of the employment
relationship and purposes of legal
regulation. A traditional perspective
posits that the individual worker
has little choice other than to
accept the conditions that the
employer offers and that:
‘the relationship between an
employer and an isolated employee
or worker is typically a selection
between a bearer of power and
one who is not a bearer of power.
In its inception it is an act of
submission, in its operation it is a
condition of subordination, however
much the submission and the
subordination may be concealed
by the indispensable figment of the
legal mind that is the contract of
employment’ (Kahn-Freund 1977).
Over the last few years there have
been echoes of this insight in an
increasing number of UK judicial
decisions – up to and including
the Supreme Court in Autoclenz
v Belcher (2011) – that have
recognised the same inherent
inequality in the relative balance
of power between employers
and an individual worker. In this
context (and perhaps because of
the absence of collective power
and effective collective bargaining
structures, see section 4.6), legal
4 Influencing dimensions
‘Historically, the
development
of employment
regulation has
been and remains
“contested terrain”
in public policy-
making and
political debate.’

19 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
intervention is seen as having a
‘regulatory’ or protective purpose
in countering this power imbalance
and restricting the exercise of
unfettered managerial prerogative
(as suggested originally by the
Donovan Commission 1968,
and again most recently by the
Institute of Employment Rights
(IER) (Ewing et al 2016).
An alternative perspective argues
that the dominant objective of
employment law is to ‘improve
the competitiveness of businesses
so that they may survive and
prosper in an increasingly global
economic system’ (Collins 2001,
p18). However, there are widely
divergent views in the literature
on the best way to achieve this
objective. The view that has largely
dominated employment law and
policy in the UK for almost four
decades is that flexibility and
‘competitiveness is best achieved
through deregulation of the job
market, leaving business free
to discover the most efficient
solutions to production problems’
(Collins 2001, p18) (see sections
2.1 and 2.2). However, it is equally
arguable that ‘social dialogue’
coupled with state intervention
could correct an imbalance of
power towards employers and, by
doing so, steer business ‘towards
the most efficient relations of
production’ (Collins 2001, p18) (see
also section 2.3 on the power of
the state).
Despite widespread agreement
and acceptance over time that the
UK job market remains ‘one of the
most lightly regulated’ amongst
leading economies (DTI 1998,
DBIS 2012), much policy-making
has been based on the alleged
‘reality’ that business perceives
employment laws to be ‘one-sided’,
favouring employees, and that ‘the
cost and complexity of employment
laws impact on their ability to take
on staff and grow’ (DBIS 2012).
However, there is good evidence
to suggest that these views have
often been misplaced and based
largely on employers’ anxiety
and fear, rather than ‘any actual
experience and perpetuated by
the pervasiveness of the “anti-
regulation” discourse occurring in
the wider society’ (Kitching 2006,
Peck et al 2012, Jordan et al 2013).
This chimes well with evidence
from the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills. The DBIS
(2013) surveyed employers on
employment regulation and found
a ‘perception–reality gap’. That
is to say, employer references to
‘burdensome’ regulation stemmed
more from employer anxiety and
perceptions around the complexity
of the law, rather than the
existence of legal obligations or
excessive constraints per se. This
raises significant questions around
the complexity of regulations:
could they be simplified? Are
there sufficient support structures
in place to enhance employer
understanding about their legal
obligations and eliminate feelings
of uncertainty?
Scope, depth and coverage of
legal regulation
There has been a trend towards
greater ‘juridification’ of and
legislative intervention in work and
employment relationships in terms
of scope, content and substance
(Clark 1985). In the UK, for example,
the scope and content of individual
employment protection legislation
has expanded over the last 50
years or so to many areas of the
employment relationship, including
unlawful deductions from pay, the
National Minimum Wage, working
time and paid holidays, fixed-
term employment and agency
work discrimination, redundancy
payments and unfair dismissal
(Deakin and Morris 2012). A number
of these developments have been
influenced by the UK’s membership
of the EU. In relation to the scope
of legal rights, however, there
remains continuing debate over
the categories of workers to which
legislation is applied.
The depth of legal content can be
observed in the context of what
Kahn-Freund (1977) described as
‘auxiliary’ legislation, governing
the regulation of collective
employment relationships more
broadly. While for a period up until
1979 in the UK such legislation
was broadly supportive and/or
permissive of the UK’s ‘voluntary’
system for collective bargaining
and employment regulation
(Flanders 1974, Dickens and Neal
2006), it has subsequently and
more recently been aimed at
restricting the capacity and ability
of trade unions to take industrial
action (Ford and Novitz 2016).
There is also a growing disconnect
between collective rights, which
are in decline, and an emphasis
on fragmented individual rights
(Howell 2005).
Supra-national factors and the
potential impact of ‘Brexit’
The depth of legal regulation
may also be influenced at the
level of the nation state by
various international/supra-
national factors. At the global
level, reference must be made
to international employment law
sources: conventions, standards
and principles developed since
1919 by the International Labour
Organization (ILO), within a
‘tripartite’ structure, involving
member states, employers and
worker representatives (see
generally Blanpain 2014). While
influential, this ‘law’ is entirely
something that countries
voluntarily choose to adopt or not,
and it may be viewed as lacking
any meaningful depth in terms
of formal process or institutional
structure for enforcement (Hepple
2005, Weiss 2013, Blanpain 2014),

20 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 21 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
even where a state is found to be
in consistent breach of ratified
conventions (in the UK context
see, for example, Ewing 1989). To
a large extent, therefore, it may be
argued that these global standards
have been ‘privatised’ (Royle
2010) and are mainly disseminated
with varying shallow forms of
essentially voluntary, informal
and ‘soft law’ mechanisms,
including multinational codes of
conduct (Alhambra et al 2011)
and international framework
(collective) agreements (Dehnen
and Pries 2014, Mustchin and
Martinez Lucio 2017).
In contrast, the body (‘acquis
communitaire’) of supra-national
EU social and employment
legislation (see Appendix 4) is part
of the fabric of the law of member
states (see generally Barnard
2012). Much of this legislation
(especially in areas such as
working time) has formed part of
the deregulatory debates already
discussed, but the critical issue at
present in the UK is the potential
or likely impact of leaving the EU
(for a detailed legal analysis of
the potential problems, see Ford
2016). The European Union Repeal
Bill 2017 (the EURB) provides
simultaneously for the repeal of
the 1972 European Communities
Act and the incorporation of the
full acquis communitaire of EU law
in UK domestic law, including the
decisions of the Court of Justice of
the European Union (CJEU), as at
the date of leaving. After this date,
clause 6(2) of the EURB provides:
A court or tribunal need not
have regard to anything done
on or after exit day by the CJEU,
another EU entity or the EU
but may do so if it considers it
appropriate to do so.
The final part of this provision
has been subject to considerable
criticism, particularly regarding
clarity and precision, not least
by the outgoing President of the
Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger
(Rawlinson 2017).
Legal sources: challenges and
gaps in knowledge
There remain fundamental
issues about the effectiveness of
employment law and access to
justice which affects employee
capacity to leverage change over
working conditions. As trade
union membership and collective
bargaining coverage (especially in
the private sector) has declined
in the UK (see section 4.5 for
density data), the trend towards
a more specified juridification of
employment relationships has led
to a greater ‘individualisation’ of
rights. Problematically, this means
that the burden of enforcement
has to a large extent been placed
on individual employees and
workers (Dickens 2012, Ewing
et at 2016). Unfortunately, this
problem will not be solved by
the recent and seminal decision
of the Supreme Court (2017
UKSC 51) that led to the abolition
(at least for the present) of the
‘controversial’ (Walden 2013)
ET fees regime. There remain
significant and growing problems
about the advice and support
available for the growing numbers
of workers and employees who
are not union members, given the
massive decline in voluntary or
third sector advice agencies such
as law centres and the Citizens
Advice Bureau (Legal Action Group
2016). Potential gaps are wide
and far-reaching in this area, and
possible avenues to be explored
could include:
• seeking employer views on the
advantages and disadvantages
of existing EU employment laws
and possible changes after Brexit
• research on trade union plans to
protect worker rights (individual
and collective) post-Brexit
‘There remain
fundamental
issues about the
effectiveness of
employment law
and access to
justice which affects
employee capacity
to leverage change
over working
conditions.’

21 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
• further research on employer
perceptions versus the reality
and experience of employment
regulation
• research on authoritative
sources of information,
knowledge and advice that is
made available to employees/
workers on their legal rights
• an assessment as to whether
employers and especially HR
professionals should have
greater responsibility for
apprising employees and
workers of their legal rights.
4.2 Contract status
Key concepts explained
Elsewhere, this report reviews
literatures addressing market
factors, the role of the state, issues
of non-standard and precarious
forms of employment, together
with the potential ‘protective
gaps’ to which this may lead (see
sections 2.1, 2.2 and 4.3). Our
concern here is to review how
the UK employment law system
recognises, understands and
adapts to these changes.
Conceptually, the ‘fundamental
institution’ in UK employment law
remains the individual ‘contract
of employment’ (Wedderburn
1986). But this is a creature of
the common law, with essential
and required characteristics
identified and developed over
time by the judiciary, including a
sufficient framework of control by
the employer, obligations on the
putative ‘employee’ to perform
work personally and an ongoing
‘irreducible minimum’ of mutuality
of obligation on the employer
to offer work and the employee
to accept it when it is offered.
Unfortunately, such characteristics
assume a degree of uniformity
and consistency that is likely to
be found in traditional standard
forms of direct and permanent
employment. It is also worth
noting that in common law there is
a ‘systematic dichotomy’ between
the contract of employment (or
service) and the similarly unitary
‘contract for services’ (that is, self-
employed independent contractors
– see Freedland 2003).
Scope and levels of protection
The contract of employment
remains the primary vehicle
for distributing and attributing
statutory employment protection
rights, with many core protections,
for example against unfair dismissal,
(still) limited only to employees.
In parallel, however, UK legislation
has in recent decades provided
additional definitions of
employment status to which a
more limited range of statutory
rights apply. Most particularly, those
defined as ‘workers’ attract the
protection of, principally, National
Minimum Wage legislation, the
Working Time Regulations 1998
(WTR) – including minimum paid
annual leave – and the provisions
on unlawful deductions from wages.
The scope of this contract status
extends beyond the core contract
of employment to cover any
contract under which an individual
‘undertakes to do or perform
personally any work or services for
another party’ (reg 2(1) of the WTR)
and is not carrying out a business
vis-à-vis a customer or client.
How far this definition extends the
coverage or scope of protection
is not always obvious. Literatures
informing such issues include
legal case law as well as academic
analyses. Case law, for example,
confirms the intention to create an
‘intermediate’ class of workers who
are substantively and economically
in a similar position of dependence
to that of employees (Byrne
Brothers v Baird 2002). One key
pointer is whether the purported
worker actively markets their
services as an independent person
to the world in general, or whether
they are recruited by the employer
to work as an integral part of the
employer’s operations (Cotswold
Developments v Williams 2006). In
addition, courts and tribunals have
tended to take a holistic approach
that understands that the degrees
of control and/or mutuality of
obligation are substantially less
for workers than those required
for employees (Adkins v Lex
Autolease 2017).
Attempts at evasion
Against this backdrop, there have
been well-documented attempts
by some less scrupulous employers
to deny statutory rights by seeking
to reframe the written terms of the
contract to preclude employee and/
or worker status. This has taken
various forms, including bogus self-
employment with written terms
purporting to negate the personal
service and/or mutuality of
obligation requirements (Autoclenz
v Belcher 2011) or, in the extreme,
representing pairs of employees
as being in an independent
‘partnership’ of which the employer
was the ‘client’ (Protectacoat v
Sylagyi 2009). Contract status is
not about individual employee
preferences for any type of work
but rather the scope of mutual and
reciprocal employment obligations
between two parties. To this end,
literature suggests that even
zero-hours contracts that do not
guarantee any minimum number of
hours may be seen in a similar light.
It is thus arguable that they cannot
amount to a continuing contract
of employment and, in one case, it
was suggested that ‘it was doubtful
whether [a zero-hours contract]
amounted to any contract at all’
(SW Global Resourcing v Docherty
2012). The most recent high-profile
examples of alleged evasion have
arisen in the gig economy, in
particular in relation to Uber drivers
and cycle couriers, among others
(see below).

22 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 23 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
‘Reality’ and ‘sham’ contracts –
the judicial response
In the face of very limited legislative
intervention to address such issues
(limited so far pretty much to the
prohibition of exclusivity clauses in
zero-hours contracts), the judiciary
has stepped into the breach as an
unexpected source of solace for
workers, with attendant implications
for the balance of power between
the parties. While courts and
tribunals have in theory always been
required or able to take account
of the ‘reality’ of employment
relationships and not just the written
terms of contracts (Woods v West
1980), the former element has
increasingly been given prominence
in recent years. For example in
Sylagyi, the Court of Appeal found
that the purported partnership
arrangement was a ‘sham’ and in
no way reflected the reality that
the individuals were in fact (and in
law) employees. This approach was
endorsed by the Supreme Court in
Autoclenz, based on a recognition of
the ‘imbalance in bargaining power
between employers and employees’
and the fact the latter often have
little or no choice other than to
accept the terms offered by the
employing organisation (see further
Bogg 2012).
The same principles have been
applied to judicial interpretation of
the statutory ‘worker’ definition.
In Aslam and others v Uber
BV and others (2016), the ET
roundly rejected the argument
that Uber was not providing a
transportation service and was
merely a platform for connecting
self-employed drivers to clients. It
found that drivers were workers
when the Uber app was switched
on in the territory in which
they were authorised to work
and when they were willing to
accept assignments. Referring
to Autoclenz, the employment
judge condemned Uber’s resort
to ‘fictions’, ‘twisted language’
and ‘brand new terminology’ in an
attempt to mask reality. Similarly,
in Dewhurst v Citysprint (2017),
the ET found that allegedly self-
employed cycle couriers were
workers and found that there was
‘a clear inequality of bargaining
power and the true situation is
very different from that portrayed
in the tender, starting with the
name of the document itself as
there was no tender “process”
at all’. The ET case of Lange
and others v Addison Lee (2017)
agreed that ‘the contractual
provisions, when analysed
objectively, do not properly reflect
the true agreement between the
parties’ (see also the Court of
Appeal in Pimlico Plumbers v
Smith 2017).
Contract status: challenges and
gaps in knowledge
It has been evidenced that some
workers may be satisfied and
actively choose various forms of
non-standard and flexible work
arrangements; for example, see
the CIPD’s (2015) research on zero-
hours contracts. However, policy
implications suggest that neither
employers nor workers benefit or
achieve certainty when the courts
determine employment status
ex post facto, and largely on a
case-by-case basis. Such policy
debates led to the key proposal
contained in the Taylor Review
(July 2017). In essence, it proposes
renaming ‘workers’ as ‘dependent
contractors’. Extensive analysis
or research arising post-Taylor is,
at the time of writing this review,
limited. Nonetheless, commentary
has argued that this seems like
‘reinventing the wheel’ given the
approach being taken by the
judiciary to the ‘worker’ definition,
with calls for greater legislative
clarity and other guidance having
been reported (Kirton 2017). In
other areas, Taylor proposes rights
for agency workers to request a
‘direct’ contract of employment,
‘The judiciary
has stepped into
the breach as
an unexpected
source of solace
for workers,
with attendant
implications for the
balance of power.’

23 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
where they have been placed with
the same hirer for 12 months, and
for those on zero-hours contracts
to request a contract that better
reflects the actual hours worked
where they have been in post for
the same period. The impact of
Taylor’s overall recommendations
on worker influence is yet to be
known. But it does not appear to
favour the capacity of these workers
to alter their employment status
in any substantial direction and
the UK Government is yet to make
a full response. Addressing these
uncertainties could include future
research in the following areas:
• asking employers and managers
whether any change may be
required, and if so, what, as a
result of a new definition of
‘dependent contractor’
• investigating whether firms
have any plans for the use of
zero-hours contract status to
be introduced, amended, or
changed in the future, and if so,
what motivates the use of zero-
hours contracts
• collecting data about the
way trade unions may
represent ‘workers’ as distinct
and different groups from
‘employees’.
4.3 Technology and
employment
Key concepts explained
Spanning 50 years or so, ICT
developments have enhanced
productivity, reduced costs,
and centralised and automated
processes. ICTs have enabled
the creation of new types of job
(for example, call centres) and
‘lifted and shifted’ IT-enabled
service work to lower-cost
geographies, expanding offshoring
and outsourcing (see contract
status dimension). More recent
developments suggest we are
entering a ‘fourth industrial
revolution’ (Rifkin 2014, Mason
2016, Schwab 2016) or ‘second
machine age’ (McAfee and
Brynjolfsson 2014), underpinned
by robotisation and crowdwork.
The former concerns worker
displacement, while the latter
alters job market functioning. Both
of these developments alter the
depth, scope and forms of worker
influence.
Robots and automation
The decline in the costs of
technology (and the related
issue of easier access to big data
supporting machine learning
and artificial intelligence) offer
economic incentives for employers
to substitute workers with robots
in the wider job market. The
substitution (job displacement)
effect diminishes worker power
in work and employment
relationships, and can generate
unemployment, with sector and
context variation. Automation
predominates in the strongly
unionised automotive industry,
for example, but is less prevalent
yet also growing in service work
(Willcocks and Lacity 2017).
At an aggregate level, literatures
have raised concerns about a
‘labour-light economy’ (McAfee and
Brynjolfsson 2014), whereby high-
skilled, highly educated workers
are ousted by smart machines and
robots (Ford 2015, McAfee and
Brynjolfsson 2014). Research on the
US economy argues that almost
half (47%) of total employment is at
high risk of automation within the
next 10–20 years (Frey and Osborne
2017). As history reveals, job
markets respond in different ways
to automation: some jobs may be
eliminated while others are created.
However, predictions of the end
of work are contested in extant
literature. For example, even
when return on capital is strong,
firms can be reluctant to invest
in technology when workers
are cheap and the payment of
dividends to shareholders takes
precedence. Moreover, companies
with investments in robotisation,
such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW
and Audi, are returning to worker-
intensive tasks and human skill
because robots cannot handle
the complexity of certain
customisation options driven by
customer preferences (Gibbs 2016).
Others studies suggest that
technology may also potentially
upskill work processes, replacing
the lower-skilled with ‘knowledge
workers’, thereby emphasising
the importance of education
and training (Willcocks and
Lacity 2017). However, research
shows that increasing education
and qualifications often lead
to mismatch: workers do not
find the most appropriate
jobs for their skills (Green and
McIntosh 2007). Indeed, some
commentators welcome full
automation to liberate people
from the drudgery of work and
call for the provision of universal
basic income given the prospect
of high unemployment and
job displacement from robotic
technologies (Srnicek and
Williams 2016).
In summary, robotics and
automation can be seen to shift
power away from employees to
employers, either through job
displacement or de-skilling. Yet
under other contexts, the extent
and scope of such reduced power
can be uncertain; for example
processes of customisation in
automotives may leverage some
employees a degree of relative
bargaining power and influence.
Crowdwork
The second key development has
an individual worker focus and
concerns the various forms of
crowdwork (or gig work), using
‘on-demand’ workforces and

24 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 25 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
digital platforms. Contemporary
sources tend to focus primarily
on effects on individual workers
in transportation (for example
Deliveroo, Parcelforce, Uber),
but this is only one aspect of gig
economy employment. Some
individuals rely on crowdwork
as their main source of income,
while others work ‘double shifts’
by combining crowdwork with
other jobs (Huws and Joyce
2016). Digital platforms are
intentionally positioned as neutral
intermediaries that facilitate
a digital matching service
between end users, eliminating
legal responsibilities and social
obligations. This tripartite
relationship – between platform,
worker and the requester of
work – raises debates about
control, power, legitimacy and
author in employment – especially
uncertainties as to who exactly
constitutes the employer (see
sections 4.1 and 4.2 on contract
status).
Crowdwork can lessen the demand
for continuous (or permanent)
workers, offering lower costs
and numerical flexibility to
employers, by classifying workers
as ‘independent contractors’ (Berg
2016). This classification shifts all
risks onto workers and diminishes
worker ability to utilise legislation
as a form of influence. Platform-
based working has outpaced
regulation, leading to numerous US
court cases and UK employment
tribunals contesting issues of
bogus employment classification.
Some platforms deliberately
adopt specific procedures to limit
employee influence and avoid
triggering statutory definitions
of employment, for example
preventing continuous work with
one client (Lehdonvitra 2016). The
recent Taylor Review of Modern
Working Practices, which has a
predominant focus on gig work,
recommends changing the legal
definition of workers to ‘dependent
contractors’ (see legal sources/
rights dimension).
Moreover, the depth of employee
power through crowdworking
platforms is weakened owing to
the software algorithmic processes
that govern the pace and nature of
gig economy task allocations (for
example directing, supervising) and
people management processes (for
example evaluating, disciplining,
appraising and rewarding workers)
(Gillespie 2014). The intensification
of monitoring and surveillance
significantly undermines worker
autonomy, transferring employee
discretion to the platform-owner.
Workers become functionaries in
an ‘algorithmically-mediated work
environment’ (Ipeirotis 2012) of
‘ruthless objectification’ (Ekbia
and Nardi 2014) and relentless
evaluation. Algorithms are
supplemented with the growth
of ‘prosumers’ (Toffler 1980):
end-service users who supply
management with user-generated
evaluations, beyond the influence
of workers (Zwick 2015).
Crowdworkers also encounter
limited opportunity to harness
trade union representation
(Brabham 2012). They are almost
invariably either excluded from
collective representation regulatory
frameworks or experience
difficulties accessing and using
them (De Stefano 2016). As
workers on digital platforms tend
to interact exclusively online, the
disparity of workers and absence
of organisational infrastructure
erodes feelings of institutional
connectedness (Fitzgerald et al
2012). Crowdworkers use social
media and forums to share
information and experience, but
evidence of sustained action and
critical mass is limited (Salehi et al
2015). The lack of legal protection
raises worker concerns about
the risks that agitation may pose
‘The lack of legal
protection raises
worker concerns
about the risks that
agitation may pose
to their reputation
and income.’

25 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
to their reputation and income.
New workers may join and leave
the platform daily, constraining
worker capacity to leverage
scarcity. Furthermore, when
working conditions are akin to a
‘spot auction market’ (Reich 2015)
and task completion is based on
individualised transactions (many
lasting only minutes), expressing
discontent is perceived as futile
and perilous (Smith 2006).
However, employee capacity
to influence work is not absent
in crowdsourcing. Attempts to
deepen and broaden worker
influence through collective
agency, representation and
bargaining have been reported,
albeit in their infancy in terms
of advanced counter-mobilising
strategies against gig economy
providers (Johnston and Land-
Kazlauskas 2017). Indeed, the first
ever new organic trade union to
be formed in over a century in the
UK is to represent gig economy
workers: the Independent Workers
Union of Great Britain (IWGB).
Crowdworkers are developing new
strategies to cope with changes
in employment patterns and
incidents of voice and bargaining
opportunities to engage are
beginning to surface (Salehi et al
2015). Examples include campaigns
to promote fair, inclusive and
secure job markets for the growing
ranks of gig workers.
Another potential dynamic (that
is more widely applicable) is
through ‘profiling’ platforms
that collect information about
current and prospective workers,
enabling employers to evaluate
their fitness for and in the job
(McDonald et al 2016). Additional
and other related online digital
platforms involve employees
commenting on their employment
experience and the quality of
management. These systems
function as a form of ‘TripAdvisor’
to rate the employment
relationship experience, many
for crowdworking jobs where
digital forums exist to evaluate
and compare employers (also
known as requesters). One
example is Turkopticon, which
is used by Amazon Mechanical
Turk workers to share and record
information on the employment
practices of ‘requesters of work’
(the end customers) (Irani and
Silberman 2013). A more recent
and expansive example beyond
crowdworking is run by the
Californian-based company
Glassdoor, founded in 2007,
providing employees with an
opportunity to damage or
strengthen a company’s reputation
by posting comments about
their employment conditions and
working experiences (Glassdoor
2017). As an online platform,
Glassdoor attracts contributions
from a global base of employees
working across various sectors,
job types, and geographies. It can
provide a more indirect way of
holding employers accountable,
potentially leveraging influence
using mischief and coercion
against a company, or praising
good practice. While Glassdoor
publishes ‘Best Places to Work’
or ‘Best Companies for Work–life
Balance’ as chosen by workers,
it should be noted its primary
service is as a recruiting site
for employers. It also offers
consultancy advice on corporate
branding – showcasing examples
of how Glassdoor can be a
significant asset for employers
(Unilever is cited as an example).
Moreover, literature and research
is scarce on any potential ER
influence as a result of initiatives
such as Glassdoor or Turkopticon.
Technology and employment:
challenges and gaps in knowledge
Robotisation is criticised by many
for eliminating jobs and worker
influence, but the actual effects
on jobs, worker power and skills
are not easily delineated. It is a
burgeoning area where further
empirical scrutiny is likely to be of
policy and practitioner importance.
Overall, crowdwork mostly
constrains employee capacity
to influence, particularly when
noting implications from the legal
contract status of such workers.
There appears minimal worker
control over task allocation and
people management (for example
directing, supervising, evaluating,
disciplining and rewarding
workers), which can minimise
opportunities for employee
autonomy. Yet at the same
time, the incidences of agency
revitalisation are not absent, as
attempts have been successful in
terms of collective mobilisation of
crowdworkers (for example, with
the creation of the IWGB). In other
areas future research could pivot
around how responsive employers
are to negative employee reviews
using online digital platforms such
as Glassdoor. In sum, potential
interesting research lacunas exist
pertaining to:
• worker experiences and
attitudes about the impact of
different forms of technology
(robots, automation, crowdwork
platforms and apps) on their job
performance and employment
security perceptions
• motivations and reasons for why
employees pursue ‘double shift’
work, including crowdworking
experiences
• employer/company practices
that switch employee-defined
jobs to gig economy work
platforms (for example related
to job displacement effects)
• managerial experiences of
online digital platforms such
as Glassdooor and their
experiences of reputational
and/or brand influence from
employee participation in such
platforms.

26 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 27 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
4.4 Institutional governance
mechanisms
Key concepts explained
This section charts the potential
scope, level and depth of influence
from job market institutional
arrangements which regulate
employment, such as mandatory
works councils (for example,
in Germany, France, Spain), or
voluntary consultative committees
in the UK. The latter may arise
from institutional arrangements
transposed from the European
Employee Information and
Consultation (I&C) Directive into
the UK’s 2004 Information and
Consultation of Employees (ICE)
Regulations. Other institutional
influences would include
statutory trade union recognition
or collective consultation
rights for employees and their
representatives with regard to
redundancy. Works councils
are institutionalised mandatory
bodies at the workplace level in
other European countries (Rogers
and Streeck 1995), while joint
consultative committees (JCCs)
in the UK are typically voluntary.
All represent the interests of all
employees, albeit at different levels
and over different ranges (scope)
of employment matters.
Mandatory works council
arrangements
The form of mandatory works
councils constitute various layers.
First, in some countries (for
example, France) works councils
are mandatory, independent of
both employer and employee
will. In others (for example,
Germany), works councils are
only mandatory when initiated
by employees (Nienhüser 2014).
Furthermore, to be eligible,
organisations must meet country
specifications regarding minimum
employee numbers. For example,
in Germany, the Czech Republic,
Austria and Latvia, five employees
is the minimum. The minimum in
Hungary, Poland and France is 50
employees and in Belgium it is 100
employees. However, no threshold
exists in Sweden (Bryson et al 2012,
pp71–2, Toth 1997, Nienhüser 2014).
Works councils are anchored by
single- or dual-channel structures.
Germany and Sweden fall into
the former group. In Germany,
works councils are the dominant
body of employee representation
at the workplace level, whereas
in Sweden unions are superior.
Conversely, France has a dual-
channel structure, whereby
works councils and unions have
equal dominance (Nienhüser
2014). Formally, the employee
representation bodies in Germany
and France are independent, but
this is context dependent. In some
companies, works councils and
unions work together and union
members are works councillors
(Gumbrell-McCormick and
Hyman 2010, Aumayr-Pintar et
al 2011). Moreover, institutional
arrangements are clearly related to
the regulatory power of the nation
state (see section 2.3) and statutory
instruments (see section 4.2).
The scope of issues permitted for
works council discussion varies
between countries as summarised
in Table 2.
Economic issues include investment
decisions. Social issues concern
matters relating to health and
safety, start/finish times, overtime
and general holiday/fringe benefits
(amongst others). Austria, Germany
and the Netherlands possess
co-determination rights (deep
influence), but usually only over the
social implications of decisions – for
example, the societal consequences
of closing a company, but not the
business rationale or managerial
decision to close the company
(Nienhüser 2014).
Table 2: Scope of works councils
Rights of works council Countries
Social rights only Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Poland
Economic and social rights – consultation (advice) only Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Luxembourg,
Norway, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia
Economic and social rights, including co-determination
rights on some issues Austria, Germany, Netherlands
Source: Nienhüser (2014, p249)

27 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Numerous studies discuss the
economic effects of work councils
at establishment level on firm
performance (Fitzroy and Kraft
1987, Fairris and Askenazy 2010),
value-creation (Frick and Möller
2003) and productivity (Looise et
al 2010). However, studies tracing
the relationship between works
councils and employee influence
are extremely thin on the ground,
often centring on Germany (Ferge
2002). The German Works Council
Survey (2008/09) found that
almost one third of works councils
have no involvement in planning
and implementing workplace
innovation: 9% were informed, but
the information was late and not
detailed enough for employees
to leverage change; 12% were
informed comprehensively, but
did not offer any feedback or
proposals; 17% offered proposals
which were dropped or ignored.
Finally, 33% were categorised as
more powerful works councils, with
the capacity and scope to influence
decision-making outcomes relating
to innovation (for example involved
in decisions on issues management
might otherwise deem to be their
prerogative).
UK (voluntary) joint consultative
committees (JCC)
In the UK, organisations may
establish similar arrangements to
works councils, typically known
as joint consultative committees,
staff/company councils or works/
office committees (see Table 3
for UK data on JCC changes).
The 2004 ICE Regulations,
transposed from the EU Directive,
facilitate the creation of such
institutions should employees
opt in to trigger their statutory
rights (and only in establishments
with 50 or more employees).
The Regulations (Directive)
stipulate that employers (member
states) must establish permanent
mechanisms for managers to: (1)
share information with employees/
their representatives relating
to the organisation’s economic
situation; (2) share information
and consult on issues pertaining to
organisational developments; and
(3) consult with a view to reaching
agreement on employment threats
and changes to work contracts
(Hall and Purcell 2012). However,
information and consultation
mechanisms must be initiated by
a written request from 10% of an
organisation’s workforce. Case
study research reports that such
an arrangement can disadvantage
worker capacity in contrast to
company management, by putting
undue stress on employees who
may be perceived as questioning
managerial legitimacy, especially
if the request has to be made
in a non-union setting without
the institutional structures of
an independent trade union for
support (Cullinane et al 2015).
According to WERS (2011), 7%
of UK organisations have a JCC
at the workplace level, while
18% have a JCC at a higher
organisational level, and in 28%
of those union representatives are
members of the JCC. Despite the
introduction in the UK of the 2004
ICE Regulations, the incidence
of consultation committees has
remained stable or declined:
the number of organisations
with a workplace-level JCC in
2011 remained the same as in
2004 (7%), and the number of
organisations with a higher-level
JCC in 2011 decreased by 8%. Table
3 shows variation in the existence
and level of JCCs across industries.
Table 3: UK joint consultative committees (%)
No JCC Workplace-level JCC Higher-level JCC
Private manufacturing 2004 87 11 2
2011 91 5 4
Private services 2004 69 5 25
2011 79 6 15
Public sector 2004 29 19 52
2011 36 15 48
All 2004 66 7 26
2011 75 7 18

28 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 29 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
The scope of issues subject to
JCC institutional mechanism
influence in the UK is summarised
in Table 4. The table shows a
decrease in the scope of influence
between 2004 and 2011, including
pay (by 7%), government
regulations (by 21%), training
(by 14%) and equal opportunities
and diversity (by 14%).
The literature review indicates that
more knowledge could be provided
about specific areas of influence
that may be yielded by employees
through different UK JCC or works
councils. In WERS (2011, p21), 44%
of managers said they use JCCs
to find solutions to problems, 36%
stated JCCs are utilised to receive
feedback on various options, and
20% claimed they are employed to
receive feedback on their preferred
option (12% in 2004). According to
28% of employee representatives
(including union/non-union), JCC
meeting agendas are typically
controlled by the manager and
their preferred options for what
issues to discuss, indicating a 20%
increase in managerial influence
since 2004. These findings relate
to the concept of ‘regulatory space
theory’, which depicts a range of
issues subject to public decision-
making or private control (Berg
et al 2005, p73, Hancher and
Moran 1989). Case study research
has reported the consequences
of political and tactical lobbying
by some employers who actively
campaigned and influenced
the content of national and
transnational regulations for
employee information and
consultation institutions (Dundon
et al 2014b).
In summary, analysis suggests
that the scope for employees
to voluntarily influence and
participate in I&C institutional
arrangements has narrowed
(Dundon et al 2014b, Hall et al
2011). At the same time, however,
regulatory space is a highly
contested arena and the potential
for influence is in part connected
to voice process (both union and
non-union) dimensions, including
the role of external bodies and
agencies assisting employee
capacity to leverage change (see
sections 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7).
Institutional governance
mechanisms: challenges and gaps
in knowledge
On the one hand, the likes of
the ICE Regulations (2004) in
the UK (transposed from the EU
I&C Directive) signal a degree of
employee power and potential
capacity to leverage change,
with access to opportunities for
new institutional arrangements
at workplace levels. On the other
hand, however, research is less
clear about impact and outcomes.
It has been shown employers can
control the agenda about the
scope of issues such institutional
mechanisms cover, while at higher
levels corporations actively lobby
governments and state agencies to
shape the content of regulations
(for example regulatory space).
Possible further areas of inquiry
may include the following:
• employee experiences about
the nature and type of decision-
making input and scope of
issues addressed by different
institutional mechanisms (for
example JCCs, works councils,
other company committees)
• the reasons why employees do
not trigger their rights for works
councils, or other information
and consultation arrangements
• management responses,
attitudes and behaviours when
employees do trigger their
rights for an institutional I&C
forum of some sort
• questions accessing information
about the range of resources
that different actors (employees,
trade unions, management,
employer associations) can use/
draw upon when considering
and/or implementing
institutional I&C arrangements.
Table 4: Scope of joint consultative committees (%)
Issue 2004 2011
Production 48 46
Employment 76 74
Financial 63 66
Future plans 75 77
Pay 62 55
Leave and flexible working arrangements 64 52
Welfare services and facilities 57 69
Government regulations 56 35
Work organisation 71 69
Health and safety 79 76
Equal opportunities and diversity 56 42
Training 68 54
Other 5 13
Source: Adam et al (2014, p34)

29 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
4.5 Union participation
Key concepts explained
Trade unions are independent
collective bodies representing the
interests of workers. The potential
influence of trade unions over work
and employment relationships has
occupied attention for some time
(for example Royal Commission
in 1867, Donovan Commission in
1968, Committee of Inquiry into
Industrial Democracy in 1977,
known as the Bullock Committee;
and as recently as 2015, a Royal
Commission on trade union
activities in Australia). The British
Government continues to legislate
to curb the capacity for trade
unions to engage in industrial
action (for example the Trade
Union Act 2016).
The literature on trade unions is
extensive. Contemporary debates
often look to the work of Freeman
and Medoff (1984), who argued
that independent trade unions
are the most effective vehicle
for employee voice, primarily
as a countervailing source of
influence to challenge the unilateral
power of management control.
In this context union voice helps
prevent or minimise employee
exit (Hirschman 1970). Union
participation is generally linked to
joint regulation through collective
bargaining, although multiple forms
exist at different levels: individual,
workplace, industry, national or
supra-national (Kaine 2014).
Union forms and levels
A global generalisation is the
decline in union membership
and collective bargaining (see
Appendix 1). The reasons for such
decline are varied and debatable.
Most authors draw attention
to a combination of factors
(see Section 2), including anti-
union laws, shifts in economic
demand, a rise in service sector
jobs with flexibilisation and job
market fragmentation, a global
neoliberal political ideology that
eschews the idea of collectivism,
with individual HRM policies
that seek to persuade workers
that unions are unnecessary
actors in the employment
relationship (Budd and Bhave
2008, Heery 2016). However,
the literature cautions against
viewing declining membership
as a signal of diminished utility
or union usefulness. It may be
that declining membership trends
may have coloured assumptions
about the relevance of unions
(Kaine 2014). It is true that trade
unions remain the single largest
civic society movement with
capacity to influence modern
employment conditions. Table
5 summarises the wide form of
union representations, the variable
levels at which influence may be
leveraged, and possible outcomes
from such influencing capacity.
Table 5: Union forms, levels and possible outcomes
Forms of union influence Levels Possible outcomes
Grievance advocacy Individual Resolution and potential adaptation of company policy
Industrial action Workplace/national Collective agreements
Moderate action/action short of a strike
(overtime bans) Workplace/national Collective agreements
Collective bargaining Workplace/industry Collective contracts/agreements
Leveraging of commercial pressure and
organisational reputation in supply chains Industry
• Industry-specific legislation (that is, the Australian
Road Safety Remuneration Act 2012)
• Joint employer–union enforcement mechanisms
Use of law other than employment law Industry Environmental regulation
Political lobbying about industry policy Industry
• Public investment in the industry, industry-specific
job market initiatives
• Industry-specific job market initiatives
Political aliations National Social pacts
Test cases National Changes to employment law
Living Wage campaigns National Changes to social wage
Global union federations Supra-national International framework agreements
Participation in multilateral forums such
as the ILO and EU committees Supra-national EU directives
ILO conventions
Source: Adapted from Kaine (2014, p176) and Heery (2009)

30 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 31 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Crucially, the levels and forms
in Table 5 are far from mutually
exclusive. Unions often mobilise
members to take collective action
over individual grievances (Kaine
2014). The transport industry (for
example, London Underground)
is an example of where such
mobilising occurs, extending
individual grievance into more
expansive collective action of the
sector or whole workforce.
What union stewards do to
influence work and employment
relationships is important.
According to WERS (2011, p16),
43% of union stewards spend the
majority of their time on collective
issues, rather than individual issues,
with 21% spending equal time on
both. But this varies between and
within countries. Comparing the UK
and France, Marsden (2013) affirms
that strong links between workplace
representatives and unions tend
to collectivise individual voice in
the UK. However, the duality or
co-existence of both individual and
collective union voice in France is
different in that it is anchored on
an institutional complementarity
between separate bodies: works
councils on the one hand, and trade
unions on the other.
Further and newer functional roles
of unions also show additional
influencing capacities. Newer
methods of union participation
are occurring among community
coalitions and CSOs (Wills 2012,
Holgate 2009). Some of these
actors function as advocacy
groups for non-traditional
workers (agency, casual and self-
employed) or under-researched
groups such as LGBT workers
(Heery 2009, 2010). Heery (2009)
argues that collective bargaining
may be limited or ill-equipped to
protect precarious workers and
it elucidates how difficult it is for
some unions to secure recognition
with employment agencies, gang-
masters or other marginalised
worker groups who do not have
standard or negotiable model
contracts.
Union scope and depth of coverage
The scope of issues and extent
of union penetration are further
indicators of changing capacities
to influence. Table 6 reports
that union stewards spend their
time dealing with a variety of
issues in addition to pay (61%),
including health and safety (69%),
pensions (55%), and discipline and
grievances (78%).
‘Newer methods of
union participation
are occurring
among community
coalitions ...
[including] advocacy
groups for non-
traditional workers
(agency, casual and
self-employed).’
Table 6: Issues union reps spend their time on (%)
(see also Table 10 on non-union reps)
Issue Union reps
Discipline or grievance 78
Health and safety 69
Rates of pay 61
Pension entitlements 55
Staffing levels 54
Hours of work 54
Holiday entitlements 47
Equal opportunities 44
Training 36
Performance appraisal 39
Recruitment or selection 31
Source: WERS (2011, p17)

31 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Examining the ‘depth’ of union
representation (that is, how much
influence trade unions have) may
require caution. First, relying
on quantitative metrics such as
membership density rates alone
can be at best problematic, or
at worst paint an incomplete
understanding of the wider
influences of change. For example,
although union density is less
than 8% of the workers in France,
the extent of union bargaining
agreements covers some 98%
of the population – one of the
highest of all OECD countries (see
Appendix 1). The high coverage
is attributed to regulatory
mechanisms enabling agreements
to cover industries and regions
(also in Denmark, Germany, and
Portugal) (Kaine 2014). As can
be seen in the table in Appendix
1, there is substantial variation
in union density levels and the
coverage of collective bargaining
between OECD countries.
The literatures cover a range of
concepts to explain the dichotomy
of union influence despite declining
membership figures (in some
countries). One of the more
prominent theories is the varieties
of capitalism (VoC) explanation,
which charts differences between
liberal market economies (LME)
on the one hand, and co-ordinated
market economies (CME) on the
other (Hall and Soskice 2001).
The issues relate to the contextual
forces and job market changes
reported in Section 2 of this
report. Since the 1990s, changes
such as flexibilisation and market
liberalisation have been prominent
in some leading countries (for
example the UK, US, Australia),
while in CME nations legislation
has to a greater extent protected
skills and representative bodies
such as works councils (for
example Germany, Sweden). That
is, in LMEs flexibilisation tends
to be coupled with managerial
freedom to achieve productivity
and efficiency goals despite union
opposition. Conversely, in CMEs,
unions are embedded in national
institutions which have the capacity
to moderate managerial freedom to
some extent (Thelen 2001).
However, despite the attractiveness
of VoC explanations (LME vs
CME typologies), it is very loose
and elides less salient contextual
differences at the workplace
level and tends to neglect
differences within each type of
regime (Crouch 2005). Indeed,
the initial VoC conceptualisation
was dominated by manufacturing
industry, often highly unionised,
with little consideration for
newer and expanding sections
of the workforce (Blyth 2003).
Furthermore, many countries
do not fall into the LME or CME
category – for example China, a
state-dominated country. Even
though some general collective
voice mechanisms are accessible
to Chinese unions, for example
collective bargaining, the depth
and scope of voice available
to workers through unions is
constrained by union obligations
to cater for state (aka Communist
Party) interests (Cheng et al
2012). The outcomes of union
influence in Chinese workplaces
are therefore more likely to rest
on the contextual setting and
the interplay between micro and
macro factors.
Appendix 2 charts trade union
influence as a function of statutory
supports and rights by country. In
some countries (that is, Finland,
Sweden) trade unions have access
to detailed corporate information
and rights to be consulted, more
so than in the UK. Works councils,
reviewed in section 4.4, appear to
symbolise the gold standard for
influencing capability (for example
are mandatory with wide scope of
issues covered). Strategically, in
some countries the works council
employee representative is a
union member and operates as
a de facto union steward within
the works council, potentially
increasing union influence.
It is possible that areas of future
enquiry can explore the social
relations between unions and other
bodies (that is, works councils)
in countries where unions do
not dominate, which may open
up new vistas. Unwrapping the
macro external and micro intra-
organisational forces shaping this
relationship could generate new
knowledge.
Union participation: challenges
and gaps in knowledge
Trade unions remain highly relevant
for millions of workers and have an
established longevity as legitimate
agents for employee representative
interests. To review the capacity of
union influence, reliance on crude
membership trends alone may not
fully capture the nuances about
how and over what issues managers
and union stewards influence
one another at a workplace. The
direction of union influence may
also be channelled in areas beyond
and outside the workplace – for
example, among CSOs. Potential
areas that may be worthy of future
investigation could include:
• the issues, types of worker, and
sectors of the economy that are
of interest/subject to union–CSO
collaboration
• the extent to which employees
(as union members) can
influence union governance and
policy objectives
• the reasons why some
employees may decide not to
utilise union representative
channels
• the opportunities for union
stewards to participate in and
shape the agenda of other
employee representative bodies

32 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 33 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
• the attitudes of managers
towards collective participation
and union bargaining (including
the potential value of union
participation to management
decision-making).
4.6 Non-union employee
voice
Key concepts explained
The decline in union density noted
in section 4.5 may imply that non-
union voice mechanisms offer
the potential to be distinct from
the institutional arrangements,
such as works councils or union
bargaining reviewed in sections 4.3
and 4.4. Here we focus on mostly
management-initiated forms of
voice, rather than interpersonal
skills utilised by employees. Such
non-union forms may include both
individual voice and collective non-
union employee representation
(NER) channels as mechanisms
with potential to affect the balance
of power between employer and
employee. The former may include
high-autonomy jobs or semi-
autonomous teams with individual
opportunities to leverage change
and influence employment decisions
(Harley 2014). NER includes staff
associations, works councils,
non-union partnership fora, joint
consultative and health and safety
committees, quality and productivity
groups, and possible employee
board representation (Gollan 2007,
Dobbins and Dundon 2014). NER
may further include external civil
society organisations (considered
separately under section 4.7).
Individualised non-union voice
Perspectives and sources on non-
union voice vary. Organisational
behaviour (OB) and human
resource management (HRM)
literatures tend to privilege
individualised dialogue, primarily
through direct communication
between employees and their
manager. These ideas on voice
generally link to high-performance
work systems (HPWS) and
employee engagement, by
augmenting employee commitment
and satisfaction (Wilkinson et
al 2014, Harley 2014). Evidence
suggests, however, that employee
influence is constrained or
fragmented. In some literatures
(especially managerial traditions
in OB and HRM), the prospect of
utilising voice to express grievances
that question or disagree with
management tend to be brushed
aside (Morrison 2011). Management
and employee interests are
somehow united by a common
goal exclusively geared to enhance
organisational performance (Heery
2016), reminiscent of the unitarist
frame of reference discussed in
Section 1. Other perspectives
advance more pluralist ideas that
employee and manager interests do
converge in some settings, but can
also be opposed on other matters
(Edwards 1990), and non-union
voice may offer opportunities to
leverage influence without making
direct comparisons with union
participation (Wilkinson et al 2014).
One difficulty is there are few
non-union voice studies that
specifically ask employees how
they value such arrangements in
terms of depth, level or scope of
influence (Dundon et al 2005).
Research tends to paint an either/
or picture in which non-union voice
can be seen as rosy and upbeat
with unitarist overtones, and
somehow inherently less extensive
than union voice because it lacks
independence from company
management. It is rare for non-
union voice to be examined
irrespective of a direct comparison
with union participation (Gollan
2007), although ironically there
is a rich tradition of studying
mechanisms such as teamworking
as a voice mechanism but in a
disconnected manner.
Some of the evidence that does
capture the scope of non-union
influence is presented in Table 7.
This reports a mixed array of
Table 7: Extent of non-union employee influence (% of employees)
Occupation Involved in
improving work Consulted before personal
objectives are set Ability to influence
important decisions
Manager 81 70 78
Professionals 59 58 57
Technicians 52 49 53
Clerks 43 43 36
Service and sales workers 45 41 41
Agricultural workers 66 51 70
Craft workers 46 44 48
Plant and machine operators 31 32 29
Elementary occupations 31 33 33
Source: Eurofound (2017, p83)

33 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
influences, although the general
trend (especially for the UK)
is one of shallow employee
influence. For example, at the
European level, 79% of managers
indicate they have influence on
important decisions, although
although less than a third (29%)
of machine operatives report the
same degree of influence.
Collective non-union employee
representation (NER)
Even though individualised forms
of non-union voice are more
prevalent in the UK (Hall et al
2011), WERS (2011) reports a slight
increase in company-specific non-
union employee representative
(NER) systems, from 6% in
2004 to 13% in 2011. Eurofound
interviewed one employee
representative from the main
body involved in decision-making
within each organisation surveyed.
Appendix 3 illustrates variation
between countries.
Table 8 indicates that NER
systems exist at different ‘levels’
with varying ‘scope’. For example,
committees at department level
may discuss health and safety
issues related to work practices,
but more substantive issues (pay)
may be dealt with at transnational
level by European works councils
(Dobbins and Dundon 2014).
Table 8: Non-union employee representation – forms, functions, levels and scope
Form Function Level Scope
Grievance panel or
committee
Rectify a problem Work group; team;
department; function
Working conditions;
employee–manager
relationships
Joint health, safety and
employee well-being
committee
Maintain and review
protocols for safe working
conditions and standards
Department; function;
division; plant
Health, safety, welfare, well-
being concerns
Profit-share/gain-share focus
group
Distribution of profit or
bonus plans/agreements
Cost-centre unit (function or
division)
Bonus payments; recognition
awards
Quality forum Employee input to improve
product design/service
delivery
Team; department Quality of products/service;
standards
Plant production committee Production scheduling; union
avoidance communications
Function; division; plant Targets; pace of work;
supervisor concerns
Equal opportunity dialogue
forum
Support and encourage
equality and diversity culture
Division; plant, including
senior management team
Employee rights; promotion;
work attendance issues for
women or older employees
Company-wide
communication forum/works
committee
Engender commitment from
employees by avoiding union
channels of voice
Plant; division, including HR
and/or senior management
team
Terms and conditions; pay,
potential for distributive
bargaining topics
European works council Legal compliance and/or
transnational consultation
Transnational division,
including senior managers
across countries (if relevant)
Information-sharing and
consultation; corporate
strategy topics
Employee reps on board of
directors
Union substitution Plant; company-wide; trans-
national
Information-sharing and con-
sultation; corporate strategy
topics
Source: Dobbins and Dundon (2014, p345)
‘Non-union voice
can be seen as rosy
and upbeat with
unitarist overtones
... because it lacks
independence
from company
management.’

34 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 35 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
The WERS 2011 survey found that
only 7% of UK organisations have
stand-alone NER reps. Table 9
shows that non-union reps cover a
relatively narrower scope of issues
than their union rep counterparts,
with 58% of NER reps spending
most of their time on training
issues. In contrast, 78% of union
reps deal with more substantive
(deeper) work and employment
relationship issues, such as
discipline and grievance.
In qualitative case study research,
Cullinane et al (2012) report how
the depth of influence covered
by NER channels can narrow
over time. After initial inclusion
of higher-order (deeper) issues
(redundancy consultation and
redundancy terms), minor
issues (narrow scope) tended to
dominate the NER agenda. Other
authors also suggest that shallow
NER voice can function as a
potential union avoidance strategy
engineered by some employers to
minimise employee influence (Gall
2004, Gunnigle et al 2009).
International data on this issue
paints a similar picture (van den
Broek 1997, D’Art and Turner 2005,
Logan 2006). However, others
point to multiple rationales for
NER (Dundon and Gollan 2007,
Butler 2009, Cullinane et al 2012,
Kaufman 2013), with evidence of
employee capacity to: influence the
agenda, widen employee skills and
job knowledge, and provide input
into managerial decision-making
(Gollan 2006).
From this standpoint, NER voice
systems may complement,
substitute or add value to union
structures of voice (Kaufman and
Taras 2010, Gollan 2007). A more
recent phenomenon in this regard
is that of ‘double-breasting’ voice,
whereby management choose to
develop non-union employment
relationships in one plant, while
simultaneously recognising and
bargaining with a trade union in
another plant (Cullinane et al 2012,
Dundon et al 2014a). Double-
breasting may represent a tactic
for management to play one group
of employees off against another,
particularly in organisations
depending on foreign direct
investment (Lavelle et al 2010).
A further issue is that an emphasis
on cost-cutting, common in liberal
market regimes, results in brittle
NER employee voice influence.
However, it is also evident that
NER voice arrangements have
multiple ‘faces’, which cannot be
shoehorned into any one single or
specific ‘rationale’, such as union
avoidance per se (Marchington et
al 2001, Kaufman and Taras 2010).
The extent of non-union employee
voice influence, particularly in
liberal market contexts, depends
on multiple factors, including
national business systems,
context, location, product
and job market, occupational
mix, and whether managerial
strategy or ideology is to avoid
or resist unionisation in hostile or
other ways (Marchington 2015,
Donaghey et al 2012).
Non-union voice: challenges and
gaps in knowledge
Identifying non-union voice
mechanisms and predicting their
effects on employee influence
is often presented in highly
unitarist terms in much HRM
and OB literatures. However,
other critical studies point out
that contextualising employee
experiences can be uneven
and signal weaker degrees of
influence, especially the tendency
to contextualise collective NER
against the counterpart of
unionised participation. Potential
future avenues of research include
unpicking non-union influences
and how they play out in practice
in different situations as non-
union organisations are not all the
same. Examples include:
• the extent to which different
non-union voice arrangements
permit employee involvement
in decision-making and over
what issues – for example,
differentiating the depth
of influence as a form of
communication (low),
consultation (medium) to
negotiating decision-making
outcomes (high influence)
Table 9: Issues non-union/union reps spend their time on (% of reps)
Issue Non-union reps Union reps
Discipline or grievance 44 78
Health and safety 50 69
Rates of pay 52 61
Pension entitlements 28 55
Staffing levels 46 54
Hours of work 40 54
Holiday entitlements 33 47
Equal opportunities 25 44
Training 58 36
Performance appraisal 49 39
Recruitment or selection 28 31
Source: WERS (2011, p17)

35 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
• how the scope of issues dealt
with by NER representatives is
determined
• the motives and reasons as to
why and how managers opt to
implement double-breasting
voice arrangements.
4.7 External actors and
networking
Key concepts explained
As already noted, civil society
organisations (CSOs) are newer
entities that operate beyond
the immediacy of the enterprise
location, yet function as an
agency with the potential to
influence work and employment
relationship issues. The focus
here is on those organisations
related to questions of employee
representation and worker rights,
rather than external actors seeking
to influence employers to adopt
progressive practices (for example,
the CIPD). External agencies are
not themselves a homogenous
group and the literature identifies
three types, each with a slightly
different scope: ‘external support’
bodies; ‘interest representation’
organisations; and finally,
‘mobilising social movements’
(Heery et al 2012a, 2012b). We add
a fourth from the literature review,
which we label ‘community network’
influences, explained below.
External support bodies
External advisory organisations
such as the Citizens Advice
Bureau provide information to
assist employees with workplace
relations issues, such as dismissal,
pay, discrimination and working
hours (Pollert 2008, 2010,
Holgate et al 2012b). Legal
advice centres provided by local
authorities or other CSOs offer
advice to employees and assist
with employment law matters.
Holgate et al’s (2012a) study
looked at advice from among
Kurdish advice centres with
local networks, showing that
community knowledge helps
build trust and share knowledge
within a demographic that might
not otherwise have access to
traditional or conventional forms of
worker representation.
However, many such local advisory
centres are under severe financial
pressures, limiting their capacity
to meet demand from the number
and volume of people they can
support at any one time (Tailby et
al 2011). For other similar agencies,
such as the Unemployed Workers’
Centres, their remit to support
workers has narrowed since the
1980s because of funding and
resource constraints. To this end
the capacity to influence wider
populations of workers may
be narrow or confined to small
pockets of specific advisory
influence. Yet at the same time, the
quality of support and influence
has been valued as impactful for
the groups involved. Studies have
uncovered their role in developing
basic skills and confidence-
building that support marginalised
groups of employees to contribute
effectively and positively in the
job market (Perrett et al 2012,
Perrett and Martinez Lucio 2008).
Independent and more progressive
employment agencies may also
develop such roles with greater
formal capacity in the future
(Forde and MacKenzie 2010).
Interest representation
organisations
An increasing number of national
organisations are becoming
involved in specific areas of work
and employment relationship
representation. These are normally
formal bureaucratic bodies that
interact with, but are independent
of, traditional employer and worker
organisations. They may lobby in
their own right or create alliances
with other groups over specific
issues and campaigns (Heery et al
2012a, 2012b). Such organisations
may also offer focused training
programmes for employers on
issues such as race awareness.
UK examples include: Age UK
(dealing with issues relating to
older workers); the Fawcett Society
(dealing with women’s rights,
that is, gender pay); Carers UK
(providing support and advice to
employed/unemployed carers);
and Stonewall (dealing with
the lobbying and consultation
of LGBT rights). There are also
many nationally co-ordinated
organisations involved with black
and minority ethnic issues, for
example Voice for Change England
(Perrett and Martinez Lucio 2009).
In other countries, for example
in Ireland, the community and
voluntary pillar (CVP) that was
part of the former corporatist
partnership model with the state
advocated the interests of similar
groups, providing support for older
and young people, women, disabled
workers, the unemployed, and
other civil society bodies with an
interest in employee and citizenship
advocacy (Carney et al 2012).
Mobilising oriented social
movements
Some organisations add an
agitation-based or mobilising
element to their lobbying and
support activities. London Citizens/
Citizens UK have adopted many
of the classic mobilising and
social features of the worker
movement, leading campaigns
around the dignity of work and
living wages, and working closely
with academics and various social
groups. These new forms of
community-based organisation link
traditional worker representation
with new forms of social action
that reach beyond the worker
movement, but may sometimes
be in alliance with it (Wills 2012,

36 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 37 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Holgate 2009). Indeed, new forms
of small-scale independent worker
representation – increasingly new
trade unions and not just loose
networks – have emerged from
some of these struggles.
Forms of external actor
engagement
There is some indication of
the way external actor groups
engage with companies and
how corporations respond may
leverage positive influence. For
example, Citizens UK launched the
Living Wage Campaign in 2001,
securing over £210 million in wage
increases thus far (Citizens UK
2017). Furthermore, a Just Equal
Treatment campaign in 2007 by
Age UK guaranteed that workers
over 65 cannot be forced out of
the job market (Age UK 2017).
Public Concern at Work (PCAW)
not only supports individuals, but
also provides frameworks that
enable employees and others to
influence employment relationship
issues and open debates within
companies and unions. PCAW
supports whistleblowers and
established the First 100 campaign
in 2014, encouraging companies
to sign up to a statutory code
of practice for whistleblowing
practices. This code can be utilised
by courts and tribunals; 40
organisations have signed up to
date (PCAW 2017).
Through other external agencies
the idea of rewarding employers
for their work is a growing source
of potential leverage. Stonewall,
for example, works with over 700
companies, classed as Diversity
Champions, to emphasise the value
that LGBT employees bring to
the workplace (Stonewall 2017a).
The potential impact of Diversity
Champions can be measured
by deploying a ‘workplace
equality index’. The equality
index benchmarks organisations
against others in their sector
and underpins an annual
report, showcasing the top 100
organisations (Stonewall 2017b).
Similarly, one needs to look at the
curious effects of management
learning or related bodies
as intermediary influences
(Marchington 2015). The CIPD
holds ‘People Management
Awards’, annually rewarding
organisations based on their
people management and learning
and development initiatives
(CIPD 2017). Awards are given for
multiple categories, including ‘best
employee engagement initiative’.
While primarily a management
body, they may on occasions
attempt to shape the debates
around representation in relation to
public policy. Other organisations,
such as the Involvement and
Participation Association (IPA),
can also shape thinking on
employee participation and act
as a consulting body leveraging
employee interests.
However, important knowledge
gaps exist around employer
responsiveness to external actor
campaigning and employer awards.
Further research may highlight
various forms of impact that
external actors exert on employee
power, or may tease out the
obstacles curbing external actor
influence.
Network influencing
The extent to which CSOs impact
the scope and depth of employee
influence depends also on the
level of networking and the
forms of new organising tactics.
Many CSOs are formalised, with
specific bureaucratic structures
and roles, often dependent on
various forms of funding from
members, employers or the state.
Yet networking helps create
informal advocacy and support
‘The extent to
which CSOs impact
the scope and
depth of employee
influence depends
also on the level of
networking and
the forms of new
organising tactics.’

37 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
structures to persuade opinion.
New organisational forms and
new spaces within work and
employment are now a growing
part of the policy-making process,
with many also evaluating
companies and public sector
employers. However, funding
for such bodies is uneven, and
the extent of their influence is a
subject for further research. There
is also the problem of possible
crowding out and competition
between such bodies.
The scope of networking opens
up new possibilities for sharing,
accessing information and
resources, and engaging with
universities and the learning sector
more widely. These organisations
and networks create a large
learning and research community,
as funders and research entities
in their own right, contributing
to knowledge transfer. However,
the lack of co-ordination and the
funding crisis in this fragmented
institutional framework of
representation may effectively
undermine this indirect influence
on – and support for – widening
employee influence.
Research on networking influences
has looked at how informal worker
networks within companies
exchange information, both within
and across borders (Whittall et al
2009); how they facilitate broader
social and political mobilising
strategies within and beyond
traditional institutions of job
regulation (Darlington 2002); how
they counter the marginalisation
of employee groups on the fringe
of the formal economy; and how
they provide new pathways to
help change organisational and job
market outcomes.
As a relatively new and
continuously developing form of
networking, social media provides
a major vehicle for representing
specific issues and needs (Hodder
2014), particularly in relation to
younger people. Studies pinpoint
how social media can facilitate
collective mobilisation (Greene
et al 2003), provide information
on workers’ rights and sources
of support to vulnerable migrant
workers (Fitzgerald et al 2012),
and even modernise and assist
responses to broader patterns of
organisational change (Martinez
Lucio et al 2009).
External actors and networking:
challenges and gaps in knowledge
The body of literature on newer
external actors is in its infancy
relative to other dimensions
reviewed in this report. In the
move towards more flexible
modes of representation within
and beyond the workplace,
various intermediary bodies and
networks supporting employee
interests and company awards
have emerged. Their scope and
depth of influence is variable.
To some extent these bodies
both complement and extend
traditional modes of employee
representation, such as trade
unions or other statutory
instruments. In other respects,
however, they can potentially
crowd out one another on certain
issues. To this end, valuable
further lines of research may
include:
• canvassing employee attitudes
and perceptions about the
purpose, role and impact of
CSOs over the issues that are of
concern to employees – these
may be mapped by sector,
occupation, region or other job
market segmented factor
• identifying specific wider
factors that promote and/or
hinder CSOs’ capabilities to
improve the scope and depth of
employee influence
• examining how CSOs
use networking, or new
organisational forms, to engage
in work and employment
relationship matters within and
beyond their constituency
• several questions could
be developed about how
employers engage with external
actor groups and how such
bodies shape employment
through, for example, employer
branding (for example working
with the likes of Stonewall, and
so on)
• understanding the links
between such CSOs and the
way they align their specific
interests and demands in
relation to other CSOs and
traditional organisations (for
example, how do age-related
organisations link to disability
groups?)
• ‘survey managers and trade
unionists about their awareness,
involvement, experience and
opinions concerning the role
and impact of CSOs’ roles over
employment and HR policy
issues.

38 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 39 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
This section is an analytical
discussion of the dimensions
reviewed above. It charts a
fragmented and disconnected set
of influences, while acknowledging
that such influencing factors
change over both time and
space. It starts with Figure 6,
which depicts a ‘static’ set of
relationships between the power
dimensions reviewed in this report.
The graphic presents an ‘idealised’
interpretation of the distributions
of power, where some or all such
dimensions may be of relevance
– a sort of theoretical equilibrium-
seeking model promoting a
balance of regulation, voice,
governance and performance as a
preferred outcome.
However, a more distinctive
contribution arising from this
review is a discernible pattern of
unevenness with regard to the
inter-relationship between the
seven dimensions, leading to the
fragmentation, or disconnection,
in the capacity of employees
to influence their work and
employment relationships.
Compared with Figure 6, Figures
7–9 capture more realistic and
uneven entropy of dimension
relationships, showing different
scenarios depicting marginalised,
disconnected and evasive forms of
fragmented power distributions.
Furthermore, while these are
illustrative, they are evidenced
across multiple sources reviewed in
this report to varying degrees.
5 (Re)framing the shifting dynamics of
work and employment relationships
Contract
status
Non-union
voice
Legal
rights
ER
Power
Dynamics
External
agencies
Unions
Technology
Institutional
governance
mechanisms
Figure 6: Theoretical power dynamics of employment relationships
History
Legacy effects
Management choice
Philosophy and ideology
Market factors
Financialisation
Flexibilisation
The state
Juridification
‘...contract status
and technology
have combined
to undermine
legal rights for
workers in the gig
economy...’

39 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Contract
status
Non-union
voice
Legal
rights
ER
Power
External
agencies
Unions Technology
Institutional
governance
mechanisms
Figure 7: Fragmented and combined inter-relationships
History
Legacy effects
Management choice
Philosophy and ideology
Market factors
Financialisation
Flexibilisation
The state
Juridification
In Figure 7, it can be observed how
‘unions’ and ‘external agencies’
may combine to shape employee
influence, yet at the same time are
somewhat fragmented from other
sources of influence (for example
depicted in the left top quadrant
of Figure 7). Such scenarios have
been evidenced when unions and
community campaign groups
supporting worker interests have
found synergies with newer actors
and external agencies, as in the
examples of Living Wage debates
and community coalitions.
In the right top quadrant of Figure 7,
‘contract status’, ‘legal rights’
and ‘technology’ also combine
as a set of distinct relationship
influences, although the effect
may be more undermining of
employee influence. For example,
contract status and technology
have combined to undermine
legal rights for workers in the gig
economy, to make work more
precarious, and to decrease
employee influence in non-
standard job market occupations.
Furthermore, challenges affecting
management choices over the uses
of new technologies can control
and commodify work tasks that
constrain employee power, with
wider political and public policy
considerations about equity and
justice. For many organisational
managers, the sheer dispersion
of the workforce and range of
technologies used to monitor work
schedules creates new challenges
regarding fragmentations between
employer and employee as well as
job market controls.
Combined and
fragmented influences
Combined and
undermining clusters

40 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 41 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Unions
The range of uneven relationship
influences is further illustrated in
Figure 8. In this scenario, non-
union voice may combine to offer
complementary synergies with
other institutional governance
mechanisms (for example EWCs
or JCCs) along with union
participation; the latter functioning
in terms of deeper power
distributions around collective
consultation and bargaining,
while non-union voice supports
integrative problem-solving
opportunities for employees to
offer suggestions (see the cluster
encircled towards the bottom of
Figure 8). Unaided, non-union
voice may be shallow or weak
relative to union bargaining, yet
when combined, under certain
conditions and supported by
collective voice and framed
by it, there may be an entirely
different and more integrated
complementarity that leverages
new degrees of employee
influence.
However, the review also showed
how the opposite has been
evidenced among less enlightened
‘There is an
evidential decline
in formal forms
of employee
representation
and the spaces for
influence and voice
remain contested.’
Contract
status
Non-union
voice
Legal
rights
ER
Power
External
agencies
Technology
Figure 8: Disconnected and complementary synergy influences
History
Legacy effects
Management choice
Philosophy and ideology
Market factors
Financialisation
Flexibilisation
The state
Juridification
Institutional
governance
mechanisms
Disconnected
complementary
power sources

41 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Unions
employers or among more hostile
work and employment regimes.
Thus Figure 9 illustrates evasive
and disconnected relationship
power dynamics, where non-
union voice is actively used as a
substitute to evade or undermine
trade union representation – such
as when management ideology
is hostile to unionisation or
the state actively undermines
collective forms of engagement
with redesigned legal rights (for
example, the Trade Union Act 2016
placing additional restrictions on
trade union behaviour).
Overall, the concept of
‘disconnected and fragmented
power imbalances’ raises debates
and questions about the clarity
of representation, the forms
of corporate governance and
HR system strength. It raises
questions about who is speaking
for whom. The challenges
from fragmentation also raise
questions about how managers
adapt and respond to changing
political, legal and operational
exigencies and uncertainties. In
measuring employee influence, it is
essential that a broader approach
across various dimensions of
representation and of social and
organisational spaces is adopted.
There is an evidential decline
in formal forms of employee
representation and the spaces
for influence and voice remain
contested.
Non-union
voice
Legal
rights
ER
Power
Dynamics
Figure 9: Evasive and disconnected power structures and processes
History
Legacy effects
Management choice
Philosophy and ideology
Market factors
Financialisation
Flexibilisation
The state
Juridification
Disconnected and
evasive influences
Disconnected/undermining influences

42 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 43 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
The aim of the report was to
review academic and grey
literatures to evaluate the changing
dynamics of work and employment
relationship power – that is, the
capacity for employees to leverage
influence about the terms of
their employment relationship.
Although other approaches may
have also offered fruitful insights
(for example, a psychological
perspective focusing on workers’
interpersonal skills), the report
primarily applied a sociological
and economic perspective to
unpick the channels, structures,
processes and systems shaping
work and employment relationship
power dynamics.
The review opened by defining
power in the context of
employment, followed by a
discussion of key contextual
factors including historical legacies,
market factors, the changing
face of capitalism, the role of the
nation state, management choice,
and job market flexibilisation and
fragmentation. In terms of the
latter, we note how the job market
differentiates between insiders
(established workers with more
bargaining power) and outsiders
(young, unemployed or some
gig economy individuals with
less access to voice or the ability
to influence). Furthermore, we
reflected on how employer choice
can condition the way employers
react to the channels, structures,
systems and processes affecting
employee power and job quality
influences.
The review also aimed to capture
the shifting axis to employment
relationship power by reviewing
seven core dimensions (Table 10).
This is not intended to suggest that
these dimensions are exclusive or
all-encompassing. Nonetheless,
they capture a spread of literatures
and related issues and thereby
offer a comprehensive overview of
the multiple forms, scope, levels
and depth of potential influence
across the seven dimensions
reviewed.
In terms of legal sources, we find
that the form is indirect, and
while the scope in some emerging
areas such as the gig economy
may initially appear to favour
some employees (for example
worker status of previously
assumed self-employed), there is
limited systematic depth. A lack
of a collective legal framework
may lead to a greater degree of
fragmentation, with a concerted
Conclusion
Table 10: Coverage of ER dimensions in the literature (as per analytical schema)
ER dimensions
Form
(for example direct vs
indirect methods)
Scope
(the range of issues to
be influenced)
Level
(workplace, organisational,
national, transnational)
Depth
(the degree of real
influence)
Legal rights  
Contract status 
Technology and
employment
Institutional
governance 
Union participation   
Non-union voice  
External actors  
Legend:
= strong evidence of coverage of the dimension in the literatures reviewed
= partial coverage of the dimension in the literatures reviewed
= absence or no coverage of dimension in the literatures reviewed
~~~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~



~



43 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
push towards individual rights.
The manner in which employment
agencies and subcontracting
obscure the nature of the
employer means that there is a
level of uncertainty for employers
and employees.
Technology has the potential to
generate more fractured and distant
arm’s-length relationships. The use
of crowdwork, for example, creates
a blurring of boundaries between
employer and employee, replacing
human and social dialogue with an
algorithmic management platform.
The experience of work may be
more isolated given an increasing
dependency on technology: workers
are isolated from one another and
disconnected from their manager,
as social relationships are regulated
by the platform rather than by
the people interface. In terms of
workers affecting employer brand
through the likes of Glassdoor,
influence on the brand is more
perceptual than real.
Trade union forms of
representation and non-union
voice are both areas of potential
influence. Although trade union
power has diminished in terms
of scope and coverage of
membership, they can leverage
legitimate and substantive
influence to regulate at the
workplace level where they are
recognised. Compared with other
European regimes, union influence
at national and corporatist levels
appears shallow under the UK
voluntarist system. Non-union
voice has grown across many
organisational settings with wide
scope of issues covered. However,
relative to union bargaining, it
would appear shallow in terms
of depth and light on power.
Although most schemes are often
management-led, employees
without union channels may find
value when they can offer ideas
and suggestions for change.
We focused also on the external
actors that represent or support
employees to shape their work
and employment relationships
and show how they offer wide
and diverse forms of potential
influence. Some CSOs are actively
championing specific themes,
while others are broader and more
generalist. While the scope of
issues covered by such bodies is
wide, the extent of influence and
depth is more complex given the
political aspects of lobbying and
publicity generated from some
high-profile campaigns.
Table 10 summarises the coverage
of the seven dimensions in the
literature referencing the analytical
schema (form, scope, level, depth)
and highlights the evidence on
coverage.
Taken together the seven
dimensions help frame related
areas of potential influence
over the nature of employment
relationships. Aspects of the
schema denoted partial coverage
(for example ~ in Table 10), which
offers areas for future empirical
enquiry. Furthermore, elements
of the schema were absent (for
example ‘x’ in Table 10) across
other dimensions. This may
be because the aspect of the
analytical schema is not as relevant
to the dimension concerned. For
example, ‘level’ in the contract
status and technology and
employment dimensions are not
as relevant as other elements of
the schema. Moreover, across the
dimensions reviewed, there were
evidenced pockets of employee
influence, although there are also
notable areas of fragmentation and
disconnection.
So where we work, with whom,
under which market conditions
and against which options there
are for management choice are
all factors shaping the totality of
‘Although trade
union power has
diminished in terms
of scope and coverage
of membership,
they can leverage
legitimate and
substantive influence
to regulate at the
workplace level where
they are recognised.’

44 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 45 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
work and employment relationship
power. The way these factors
combine is important: when voice
mechanisms are narrow, legal
worker rights constrained, or where
the worker status is set as an
independent contractor, we may
reasonably anticipate a decline in
the capacity for these employees
to have a say on matters that
affect them at work. Despite
emancipatory opportunities
facilitated by technology (for
example homeworking, task or job
selection), major problems remain
due to the inability of workers to
construct stable voice mechanisms
and consistent communities of
work and social relations. The
uneven and at times contradictory
effects of these seven dimensions
and the range of mediating factors
suggest a new disconnection, if
not fragmentation, to employment
relationships.
Potential future work and
employment priorities
From the above several important
priority areas emerge for
employers, the HR profession and
multiple external bodies promoting
job quality issues to delve into.
How actors respond to, engage
with, and evaluate future work
and employment relationship
priorities will vary. The relevance
for some will differ from others,
conditioned by unique contextual
factors applicable to occupational
groups, management priorities and
firm-specific issues. Two broad
ER priority clusters are suggested
from our review that may benefit
organisations from a reappraisal
relevant to their specific context
and situation.
‘Governance and sustainable
work futures’
Turning to the first employment
relationship priority cluster, there
is evidential value from efficient
use of a range of institutional
governance mechanisms, extending
beyond national boundaries for
multinationals. These provide
conduits for workforce and line
management collaboration and
offer new fruitful opportunities
to be revised, re-evaluated and
enhanced in an uncertain post-
Brexit climate, where manager and
workforce roles require sustainable
productive collaboration. Further,
union and non-union voice can
be complementary across diverse
contexts (for example for large
and small firms and for workers
to access voice and managers to
engage employees).
However, voice is often shallow,
and HR professionals, with support
from educational bodies such as
the CIPD, or arbitration services
such as Acas, could enrich and
widen knowledge about the
implementation of deeper voice
mechanisms and their benefits
for employers, managers and
organisations. Such bodies may
also support new learning to
highlight the advantages of
positive union relations and help
mitigate hostile and anti-union
employer mindsets. How different
union and non-union voices sit
together, and underpin other
institutional arrangements for
social dialogue, continually change
and reshape the boundaries of
influence.
‘Rights, justice and
technology’
The second employment
relationship priority area
recognises the obstacles facing
HR professionals, employers and
external agencies when trying to
engage with systems supporting
equity, justice and engagement.
Important issues of suitability
and appropriateness of contract
variation across the life course
are of growing importance, with
people living longer and their
demands, needs and expectations
changing within and across
diverse populations. Crucially,
the challenges of contract status
extend beyond market value
extraction and employers may
strengthen brand and reputation
by humanising management
practices, across standard and non-
standard employment contracts,
and involving new technology
as a tool that is reconfiguring
traditional work and employment
relationships.
In this area future learning
opportunities emerge for HR
professionals to better understand
the ‘people–technology interface’
and how impersonal relationships
are reconfiguring working
experiences in different sectors,
industries and occupational roles
(including emerging gig economy
jobs). A further priority focus
could uncover how voice and
social dialogue among managers
and workers, but also workers
and customers, is developing
and changing through new
communication and information
technologies (including social
media and web-based platforms
for social dialogue).

45 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
ACAS. (2017) Available at: www.
acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid
=1461 [Accessed 5 July 2017].
ACKERS, P. (2014) Rethinking the
employment relationship: a neo-
pluralist critique of British industrial
relations orthodoxy. International
Journal of Human Resource
Management. Vol 25, No 18.
pp2608–25.
ADAM, D., PURCELL, J. and HALL,
M. (2014) Joint consultative
committees under the Information
and Consultation of Employees
Regulations: a WERS analysis. Acas
Research Paper. No 4. pp5–53.
AGE UK. (2017) Available at: www.
ageuk.org.uk/ [Accessed 28 June
2017].
ALHAMBRA, M.A., TER HAAR, B.
and KUN, A. (2011) Soft on the
inside, hard on the outside: an
analysis of new forms of
international labour law.
International Journal of Comparative
Labour Law and Industrial Relations.
Vol 27, No 4. pp337–63.
APPELBAUM, E., BATT, R. and
CLARK, I. (2012) Relations research:
evidence from breach of trust and
implicit contracts in private equity
buyouts. Washington, DC: Center
for Economic and Policy Research.
AUMAYR-PINTAR, C.,
DEMETRIADES, S., FODEN, D.,
SECPANOVICS, V. and WOLF, F.
(2011) Employee representation at
establishment level in Europe:
European company survey 2009.
Dublin: European Foundation for
the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions.
BACH, S. and 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. Vol 22,
No 11. pp2281–94.
BACHRACH, P. and BARATZ, M.S.
(1970) Power and poverty: theory
and practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
BARNARD, C. (2012) EU
employment law. 4th ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
BENASSI, C. (2013) Political
economy of labour market
segmentation: agency work in the
automotive industry. ETUI Working
Paper.
BERG, J. (2016) Income security in
theon-demandeconomy: findings
and policy lessons from a survey of
crowdworkers. Comparative Labor
Law and Policy Journal. Vol 37,
No 3. pp1–33.
BERG, S., GASMI, F. and TAVARA,
J.I. (2005) Glossary for the body of
knowledge on the regulation of
utility infrastructure and services.
World Bank. pp2–96. Available at:
www.regulationbodyofknowledge.
org/documents/bok/glossary.pdf
[Accessed 20 June 2017].
BLANPAIN, R. (ed.) (2014)
Comparative labour law and
industrial relations in industrialised
market economies. 11th and revised
ed. Netherlands: Kluwer Law
International.
BLYTH, M. (2003) Same as it never
was: temporality and typology in
the varieties of capitalism.
Comparative European Politics.
Vol 1, No 2. pp215–25.
BOGG, A. (2012) Sham self-
employment in the Supreme Court.
Industrial Law Journal. Vol 41, No 3.
pp328–45.
BOURDIEU, P. and THOMPSON, J.B.
(1991) Language and symbolic power.
London: Harvard University Press.
BRABHAM, D. (2012) The myth of
amateur crowds: a critical discourse
analysis of crowdsourcing
coverage. Information,
Communication and Society. Vol 15,
No 3. pp394–410.
BROWN, W., BRYSON, A., FORTH,
J. and WHITFIELD, K. (eds) (2009)
The evolution of the modern
workplace. London: Cambridge
University Press.
BRYSON, A., FORTH, J., GEORGE,
A. and EUROPEAN FOUNDATION
FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
LIVING AND WORKING
CONDITIONS. (2012) Workplace
employee representation in Europe.
Dublin: Eurofound.
BUDD, J.W. (2004) Employment
with a human face: balancing
efficiency, equity, and voice.
London: Cornell University Press.
BUDD, J.W. and BHAVE, D. (2008)
Values, ideologies, and frames of
reference in industrial relations. In:
BLYTON, P., BACON, N., FIORITO, J.
and HEERY, E. (eds) Sage
handbook of industrial relations.
London: Sage, pp92–112.
References

46 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 47 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
BUDD, J.W. and ZAGELMEYER, S.
(2010) Public policy and employee
participation. In: WILKINSON, A.,
GOLLAN, P.J., MARCHINGTON, M.
and LEWIN, D. (eds) The Oxford
handbook of participation in
organisations. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp476–503.
BUTLER, P. (2009) Non-union
employee representation: exploring
the riddle of management strat egy.
Industrial Relations Journal. Vol 40,
No 3. pp198–214.
CARNEY, G.M., DUNDON, T. and
LÉIME, Á.N. (2012) Protecting the
most vulnerable in an economic
crisis: a participatory study of civil
society organisations in Ireland.
Voluntary Sector Review. Vol 3,
No 3. pp329–46.
CARTER, R., DANFORD, A.,
HOWCROFT, D., RICHARDSON, H.,
SMITH, A. and TAYLOR, P. (2011) All
they lack is a chain: lean and the
new performance management in
the British civil service. New
Technology, Work and Employment.
Vol 26, No 2. pp83–97.
CHENG, J.Y.S., NGOK, K.L. and
HUANG, Y. (2012) Multinational
corporations, global civil society
and Chinese labour: workers’
solidarity in China in the era of
globalization. Economic and
Industrial Democracy. Vol 33, No 3.
pp379–401.
CHILD, J. (1997) Strategic choice in
the analysis of action, structure,
organizations and environment:
retrospect and prospect.
Organization Studies. Vol 18, No 1.
pp43–76.
CITIZENS UK. (2017) Available at:
www.citizensuk.org/ [Accessed 21
June 2017].
CIPD. (2013) Zero-hours contracts:
myth and reality [online]. London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development. Available at:
www.cipd.co.uk/Images/zero-
hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality_
tcm18-10710.pdf [Accessed 13 June
2017].
CIPD. (2015) Zero-hours and short-
term contracts in the UK: employer
and employee perspectives. Policy
Report. London: Chartered Institute
of Personnel and Development.
CIPD. (2017) CIPD people
management awards. Available at:
www.cipdpmas.co.uk/ [Accessed 6
June 2017].
CLARK, J. (1985) The juridification
of industrial relations: a review
article. Industrial Law Journal.
Vol 14, No 1. pp69–90.
COLLINS, H. (2001) Regulating the
employment relation for
competitiveness. Industrial Law
Journal. Vol 30, No 1. pp17–48.
CRAIG, C., RUBERY, J., TARLING, R.
and WILKINSON, F. (1982) Labour
market structure, industrial
organisation and low pay.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
CROUCH, C. (2005) Models of
capitalism. New Political Economy.
Vol 10, No 4. pp439–56.
CULLINANE, N., DONAGHEY, J.,
DUNDON, T. and DOBBINS, T.
(2012) Different voices, different
rooms: double-breasting and the
managerial agenda. International
Journal of Human Resource
Management. Vol 23, No 2. pp368–
84.
CULLINANE, N., HICKLAND, E.,
DUNDON, T., DOBBINS, T. and
DONAGHEY, J. (2015) Triggering
employee voice under the
European Information and
Consultation Directive: a non-union
case study. Economic and Industrial
Democracy. p.0143831X15584085.
DARLINGTON, R. (2002) Shop
stewards’ leadership, left-wing
activism and collective workplace
union organisation. Capital and
Class. Vol 26, No 1. pp95–126.
D’ART, D. and TURNER, T. (2005)
Union recognition and partnership
at work. Industrial Relations
Journal. Vol 36, No 2. pp121–39.
DBIS. (2012) Employment law
review: annual update 2012.
London: Department of Business,
Innovation and Skills.
DBIS. (2013) Employer perceptions
and the impact of employment
regulation. March. London:
Department of Business, Innovation
and Skills.
DEAKIN, S. and MORRIS, G.S.
(2012) Labour law. 6th ed. Oxford
and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
DEHNEN, V. and PRIES, L. (2014)
International framework
agreements: a thread in the web of
transnational labour regulation.
European Journal of Industrial
Relations. Vol 20, No 4. pp335–50.
DE STEFANO, V. (2016) The rise of
the ‘just in time workforce’: on
demand work, crowd work and
labour protection in the ‘gig
economy’ [online]. Available at:
https://ecampus.itcilo.org/pluginfile.
php/25267/mod_page/content/35/
Conditions%20of%20Work%20
and%20Employment%20Series%20
No.%2071.pdf [Accessed 5 July
2017].

47 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
DICKENS, L. (ed.) (2012) Making
employment rights effective: issues
of enforcement and compliance.
Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart
Publishing.
DICKENS, L. and NEAL, A.C. (eds)
(2006) The changing institutional
face of British employment
relations. Alphen aan den Rijn,
Netherlands: Kluwer Law
International.
DOBBINS, T. and DUNDON, T.
(2014) Non union employee
representation. In: WILKINSON, A.,
DONAGHEY, J., DUNDON, T. and
FREEMAN, R.B. (eds) Handbook of
research on employee voice.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp342–60.
DONAGHEY, J., CULLINANE, N.,
DUNDON, T. and DOBBINS, T.
(2012) Non-union representation,
union avoidance and the
managerial agenda: a case study.
Economic and Industrial
Democracy. Vol 33, No 2. pp163–83.
DUNDON, T. and DOBBINS, T.
(2015) Militant partnership: a
radical pluralist analysis of
workforce dialectics. Work,
Employment and Society. Vol 29,
No 6. pp1–20.
DUNDON, T. and GOLLAN, P
(2007) Re-conceptualising voice in
the non-union workplace.
International Journal of Human
Resource Management. Vol 18, No 7.
pp1182–98.
DUNDON, T. and ROLLINSON, D.
(2004). Non-union employment
relations. London: Routledge.
DUNDON, T., WILKINSON, A.,
MARCHINGTON, M. and ACKERS, P.
(2005) The management of voice
in non-union organisations:
managers’ perspectives. Employee
Relations. Vol 27, No 3. pp307–19.
DUNDON, T., CULLINANE, N.,
DONAGHEY, J., DOBBINS, T.,
WILKINSON, A. and HICKLAND, E.
(2014a) Double breasting employee
voice: an assessment of motives,
arrangements and durability.
Human Relations. Vol 68, No 3.
pp489–513.
DUNDON, T., DOBBINS, T.,
CULLINANE, N., HICKLAND, E. and
DONAGHEY, J. (2014b) Employer
occupation of regulatory space of
the Employee Information and
Consultation (I&C) Directive in
liberal market economies. Work,
Employment and Society. Vol 28,
No 1. pp21–39.
DTI. (1998) Fairness at Work. CM
3968. Department for Trade and
Industry. London: The Stationery
Office.
EDWARDS, P.K. (1990)
Understanding conflict in the
labour process: the logic and
autonomy of struggle. In:
EDWARDS, P.K. ed.) Labour
process theory. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp125–52.
EDWARDS, P.K. (ed.). (1995)
Industrial relations: theory and
practice in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell.
EDWARDS, P.K. (2014) Were the
40 years of ‘radical pluralism’ a
waste of time? Warwick Papers in
Industrial Relations. No 99, June.
Coventry: Warwick University.
EKBIA, H. and NARDI, B. (2014)
Heteromation and its (dis)
contents: the invisible division of
labor between humans and
machines. First Monday. Vol 19,
No 6. pp1–15.
EMMENEGGER, P. (2009) Barriers
to entry: insider/outsider politics
and the political determinants of
job security regulations. Journal of
European Social Policy. Vol 19, No 2.
pp131–46.
ERCHUL, W.P. and RAVEN, B.H.
(1997) Social power in school
consultation: a contemporary view
of French and Raven’s bases of
power model. Journal of School
Psychology. Vol 35, No 2. pp137–71.
EUROFOUND. (2015) European
company survey – direct and
indirect employee participation
[online]. Available at: www.
eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/
european-company-surveys/
european-company-survey-2013
[Accessed 8 July 2017].
EUROFOUND (2017) European
working conditions survey (updated
2017) [online]. Available at: https://
www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/ef_publication/field_
ef_document/ef1634en.pdf
[Accessed 24 November 2017
EWING, K.D. (1989) Britain and the
ILO. Liverpool: Institute of
Employment Rights.
EWING, K.D., HENDY, J. and JONES,
C. (eds) (2016) A manifesto for
labour law: towards a comprehensive
revision of workers’ rights. Liverpool:
Institute of Employment Rights.
FAIRRIS, D. and ASKENAZY, P.
(2010) Works councils and firm
productivity in France. Journal of
Labor Research. Vol 31, No 3.
pp209–29.
FERGE, C.M. (2002) A critical
assessment of the theoretical and
empirical research on German
works councils. British Journal of
Industrial Relations. Vol 40, No 2.
pp221–48.

48 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 49 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
FINDLAY, P., THOMPSON, P.,
COOPER, C. and PASCOE-
DESLAURIERS, R. (2017) Creating
and capturing value at work: who
benefits? London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and
Development.
FITZGERALD, I., HARDY, J. and
MARTINEZ LUCIO, M. (2012) The
Internet, employment and Polish
migrant workers: communication,
activism and competition in the
new organisational spaces.New
Technology, Work and Employment.
Vol 27, No 2. pp93–105.
FITZROY, F. and KRAFT, K. (1987).
Efficiency and internal organization:
works councils in West German
firms. Economica. Vol 54, No 216.
pp493–504.
FLANDERS, A. (1974) The tradition
of voluntarism. British Journal of
Industrial Relations. Vol 12, No 3.
pp352–70.
FLEMING, P. and SPICER, A. (2014)
Power in management and
organization science. Academy of
Management Annals. Vol 8, No 1.
pp237–98.
FORD, M. (2015) The rise of the
robots. New York: Basic Books.
FORD, M. (2016) Workers’ rights
from Europe: the impact of Brexit.
Legal Opinion prepared for the
TUC. 10 March.
FORD, M. and NOVITZ, T. (2016)
Legislating for control: the Trade
Union Act 2016. Industrial Law
Journal. Vol 45, No 3. pp277–98.
FORDE, C. and MACKENZIE, R.
(2010) The ethical agendas of
employment agencies towards
migrant workers in the UK:
deciphering the codes.Journal of
Business Ethics.Vol 97, No 1. pp31–41.
FOX, A. (1966) Industrial sociology
and industrial relations. Research
Paper 3. Royal Commission on
Trade Unions and Employer
Association. London: Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office.
FOX, A. (1974) Beyond contract:
work, power and trust relations.
London: Faber and Faber.
FREEDLAND, M. (2003) The
personal employment contract.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FREEMAN, R.B. and MEDOFF, J.
(1984) What do unions do? New
York: Basic Books.
FRENCH, J.R. and RAVEN, B. (1959)
The bases of social power. In:
SHAFRITZ, J., OTT, J.S. and SUK
JANG, Y. (eds) Classics of
organization theory. Boston:
Cengage Learning, pp251–60.
FREY, C. and OSBORNE, A. (2017)
The future of employment: how
susceptible are jobs to
computerisation? Technological
Forecasting and Social Change.
Vol 114, No 1. pp254–80.
FRICK, B. and MÖLLER, I. (2003)
Mandated works councils and firm
performance: labor productivity
and personnel turnover in German
establishments. Schmollers
Jahrbuch. Vol 123, No 3. pp423–54.
GALL, G. (2004) British employer
resistance to trade union
recognition. Human Resource
Management Journal. Vol 14, No 2.
pp36–53.
GALL, G. and DUNDON, T. (eds)
(2013) Global anti-unionism: nature,
dynamics, trajectories and outcomes.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
GARRAHAN, P. and STEWART, P.
(1992) The Nissan enigma: flexibility
at work in a local economy. London:
Mansell.
GIBBS, S. (2016) Mercedes-Benz
swaps robots for people on its
assembly lines [online]. Guardian.
Available at: www.theguardian.
com/technology/2016/feb/26/
mercedes-benz-robots-people-
assembly-lines [Accessed 4 August
2017].
GILLESPIE, T. (2014) The relevance
of algorithms. In: GILLESPIE, T.,
BOCZHOWSKI, P. and FOOT, K.
(eds) Media technologies.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
GLASSDOOR. (2017) Available at:
www.glassdoor.co.uk/index.htm
[Accessed 29 July 2017].
GOLLAN, P. (2006) Twin tracks:
employee representation at
Eurotunnel revisited. Industrial
Relations. Vol 46, No 4. pp606–49.
GOLLAN, P. (2007) Employee
representation in non-union firms.
London: Sage.
GREEN, F. and MCINTOSH, S.
(2007) Is there a genuine
underutilisation of skills amongst
the over-qualified? Applied
Economics. Vol39, No 4. pp427–39.
GREENE, A.M., HOGAN, J. and
GRIECO, M. (2003) Commentary: e‐
collectivism and distributed
discourse: new opportunities for
trade union democracy.Industrial
Relations Journal. Vol34, No 4.
pp282–9.
GRIMSHAW, D., JOHNSON, M.,
RUBERY, J. and KEIZER, A. (2016)
Reducing precarious work in Europe
through social dialogue: protective
gaps and the role of social dialogue
in Europe. Report for the European
Commission, Institute of Work,
Skills and Training. University of
Duisburg-Essen.

49 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
GUEST, D. and HOQUE, K. (1994)
The good, the bad and the ugly:
employment relations in new non‐
union workplaces. Human Resource
Management Journal. Vol 5, No 1.
pp1–14.
GUMBRELL-MCCORMICK, R. and
HYMAN, R. (2010). Works councils:
the European model of industrial
democracy? Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp286–314.
GUNNIGLE, P., LAVELLE, J. and
MCDONNEL, A. (2009) Subtle but
deadly? Union avoidance through
‘double breasting’ among
multinational companies. Advances
in Industrial and Labor Relations.
No 16. pp51–73.
HALL, M. and PURCELL, J. (2012)
Consultation at work: Regulation
and practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
HALL, M., HUTCHINSON, S.,
PURCELL, J., TERRY, M. and
PARKER, J. (2011) Promoting
effective consultation? Assessing
the impact of the ICE Regulations.
British Journal of Industrial
Relations. Vol 51, No 2. pp355–81.
HALL, P.A. and SOSKICE, D. (eds)
(2001) Varieties of capitalism: the
institutional foundations of
comparative advantage. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp71–103.
HALL, P.A. and SOSKICE, D. (2003)
Varieties of capitalism and
institutional change: a response to
three critics. Comparative European
Politics. Vol 1, No 2. pp241–50.
HAMANN, K., JOHNSTON, A. and
KELLY, J. (2013) Unions against
governments: explaining general
strikes in Western Europe, 1980–
2006. Comparative Political
Studies. Vol 46, No 9. pp1030–57.
HANCHER, L. and MORAN, M.
(1989) Organizing regulatory space.
In: HANCHER, L. and MORAN, M.
(eds) Capitalism, culture and
economic regulation. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, pp271–99.
HARLEY, B. (2014) High
performance work systems and
employee voice. In: WILKINSON, A.,
DONAGHEY, J., DUNDON, T. and
FREEMAN, R.B. (eds) Handbook of
research on employee voice.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp82–96.
HEERY, E. (2009) Trade unions and
contingent labour: scale and
method. Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society.
Vol 2, No 3. pp429–42.
HEERY, E. (2010) Worker
representation in a multiform
system: a framework for evaluation.
Journal of Industrial Relations.
Vol 52, No 5. pp543–59.
HEERY, E. (2016) Framing work.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HEERY, E., ABBOTT, B. and
WILLIAM, S. (2012a) The
involvement of civil society
organizations in British industrial
relations: extent, origins and
significance. British Journal of
Industrial Relations. Vol 50, No 1.
pp47–72.
HEERY, E., WILLIAMS, S. and
ABBOTT, B. (2012b) Civil society
organizations and trade unions:
cooperation, conflict, indifference.
Work, Employment and Society. Vol
26, No 1. pp145–60.
HEPPLE, B. (2005) Labour laws and
global trade. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
HIRSCHMAN, A.O. (1970) Exit,
voice, and loyalty: Responses to
decline in firms, organizations, and
states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
HODDER, A. (2014) Organising
young workers in the Public and
Commercial Services
Union.Industrial Relations Journal.
Vol45, No 2. pp153–68.
HOLGATE, J. (2009) Contested
terrain: London’s living wage
campaign and the tensions
between community and union
organising. In: MCBRIDE, J. and
GREENWWOD, I. (eds) Community
unionism. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp49–74.
HOLGATE, J., KELES, J., POLLERT,
A. and KUMARAPPEN, L. (2012a)
Workplace problems among
Kurdish workers in London:
experiences of an ‘invisible’
community and the role of
community organisations as
support networks.Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies. Vol38 No 4.
pp595–612.
HOLGATE, J., POLLERT, A., KELES, J.
and KUMARAPPAN, L. (2012b).
De-collectivization and employment
problems: the experiences of
minority ethnic workers seeking
help through Citizens Advice.Work,
Employment and Society. Vol 26, No
5. pp772–88.
HOLMES, C. and MAYHEW, K.
(2012) The changing shape of the
UK job market and its implications
for the bottom half of earners.
London: Resolution Foundation.
HOWELL, C. (2005) Trade unions
and the state: the construction of
industrial relations institutions in
Britain, 1890–2000. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
HUCZYNSKI, A. and BUCHANAN, D.
(2010) Organizational behaviour.
7th ed. Essex: Pearson Education
Limited.

50 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 51 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
HUWS, U. and JOYCE, S. (2016)
Crowd working survey: size of the
UK’s ‘gig economy’ revealed for the
first time [online]. FEPS. Available at:
www.feps-europe.eu/assets/
a82bcd12-fb97-43a6-9346-
24242695a183/crowd-working-
surveypdf.pdf [Accessed 4 July 2017].
HYMAN, R. (1975) Industrial
relations: a Marxist introduction.
London: Macmillan.
HYMAN, R. (2008) The state in
industrial relations. In: BLYTON, P.,
BACON, N, FIORITO, J. and HEERY,
E. (eds) The Sage handbook in
industrial relations. London: Sage
Publications.
ILO. (2015) Non-standard forms of
employment. Report for discussion
at the Meeting of Experts on Non-
Standard Forms of Employment
(Geneva, 16–19 February).
IPEIROTIS, P. (2012) How big is
Mechanical Turk? A computer
scientist in a business school blog
[online]. 18 November. Available at:
www.behind-the-enemy-lines.
com/2012/11/is-mechanical-turk-10-
billion-dollar.html [Accessed 7 June
2017].
IRANI, L. and SILBERMAN, S. (2013)
Turkopticon: interrupting worker
invisibility in Amazon Mechanical
Turk. CHI 2013. (Paris, 27 April – 2
May).
JACOBY, S. (2005). The embedded
corporation: corporate governance
and employment relations in japan
and the United States. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
JOHNSTON, J. and LAND-
KAZLAUSKAS, C. (2017) On
demand and organized: developing
collective agency, representation
and bargaining in the gig economy.
5th Conference of the Regulating
for Decent Work Network.
International Labour Office,
Geneva, Switzerland, 3–5 July.
JOHNSTONE, S. and ACKERS, P.
(eds) (2015) Finding a voice at
work? New perspectives on
employment relations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
JORDAN, E., THOMAS, A.P.,
KITCHING, J.W. and BLACKBURN,
R.A. (2013) Employment regulation
part A: employer perceptions and
the impact of employment
regulation. DBIS Employment
Relations Research Series.
KAHN-FREUND, O. (1977) Labour
and the law. 3rd ed. London:
Stevens and Sons.
KAINE, S. (2014) Union voice. In:
WILKINSON, A., DONAGHEY, J.,
DUNDON, T. and FREEMAN, R.B.
(eds) Handbook of research on
employee voice. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing, pp170–87.
KALLEBERG, A.L. (2000)
Nonstandard employment relations:
part-time, temporary and contract
work.Annual Review of Sociology.
Vol26, No 1. pp341–65.
KALLEBERG, A. (2011) Good jobs,
bad jobs: the rise of polarized and
precarious employment systems in
the United States, 1970s to 2000s.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
KARAMESSINI, M. and RUBERY, J.
(eds) (2013) Women and austerity:
the economic crisis and the future
for gender equality. Oxford:
Routledge.
KAUFMAN, B.E. (2013) Keeping the
commitment model in the air
during turbulent times: employee
involvement at Delta Airlines.
Industrial Relations. Vol 52, No 1.
pp343–77.
KAUFMAN, B.E. and TARAS, D.G.
(eds) (2000) Non-union employee
representation: history,
contemporary practice and policy.
New York: M.E. Sharpe.
KAUFMAN, B. and TARAS, D.G.
(2010) Employee participation
through non-union forms of
employee representation. In:
WILKINSON, A., GOLLAN, P.,
MARCHINGTON, M. and LEWIN, D.
(eds) The Oxford handbook of
participation in organizations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp258–85.
KELLY, J. (2011) Theories of
collective action and union power.
In: GALL, G., WILKINSON, A. and
HURD, R. (eds) International
handbook on labour unions:
responses to neo-liberalism.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp13–
29.
KEUNE, M. and SERRANO, A. (eds)
(2014) Deconstructing flexicurity
and developing alternative
approaches: towards new concepts
and approaches for employment
and social policy. Abingdon:
Routledge.
KIRTON, H. (2017) Taylor Review
will ‘further complicate’
employment law. People
Management [online]. Available at:
www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/
peoplemanagement [Accessed 20
July 2017].
KITCHING, J. (2006) A burden on
business? Reviewing the evidence
base on regulation and small
business performance. Environment
and Planning C: Government and
Policy. Vol 24, No 6. p799.
KOCH, M. (2006) Roads to post-
Fordism: labour markets and social
structures in Europe. London:
Routledge.
KOCHAN, T. and OSTERMANN, P.
(1994) The mutual gains enterprise:
forging a winning partnership
among labour, management and
government. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.

51 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
KOCHAN, T.A., KATZ, H.C. and
MCKERSIE, R.B. (1986) The
transformation of American
industrial relations. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
LANSLEY, S. (2011) Britain’s
livelihood crisis. London: TUC.
LAVELLE, J., GUNNIGLE, P and
MCDONNELL, A. (2010) Patterning
employee voice in multinational
companies. Human Relations. Vol
63, No 1. pp395–418.
LAZONICK, W. (2011) From
innovation to financialization: how
shareholder value ideology is
destroying the US economy. In:
EPSTEIN, G. and WOLFSON, M.H.
(eds) The political economy of
financial crises. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp491–511.
LAZONICK, W. and O’SULLIVAN, M.
(2000) Maximising shareholder
value: a new ideology for corporate
governance. Economy and Society.
Vol 29, No 1. pp13–35.
LEGAL ACTION GROUP. (2016)
Justice in free fall: a report on the
decline of civil legal aid in England
and Wales [online]. Available at:
www.lag.org.uk [Accessed 6 July
2017].
LEHDONVITRA, V. (2016)
Algorithms that divide and unite:
delocalisation, identity and
collective action in microwork. In:
FLECKER, J. (ed.) Space, place and
global digital work. London:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp53–80.
LEWIS, R. (1976) The historical
development of labour law. British
Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol
14, No 1. pp1–17.
LINDBECK, A. and SNOWER, D.
(2002) The insider–outsider theory:
a survey. IZA Discussion Paper, No
534. Bonn: IZA.
LOGAN, J. (2006) The union
avoidance industry in the United
States. British Journal of Industrial
Relations. Vol 44, No 4. pp651–75.
LOOISE, J.K., TORKA, N. and
WIGBOLDUS, J.E. (2010).
Participation and organizational
performance. In GARIBALDO, F.
and TELLJOHANN, V. (eds) The
ambivalent character of
participation. Frankfurt/Main et al:
Peter Lang, pp327–39.
LUKES, S. (1974) Power: a radical
view. London: Macmillan.
LUKES, S. (2005) Power: a radical
view. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
MARCHINGTON, M. (2015)
Analysing the forces shaping
employee involvement and
participation (EIP) at organisation
level in liberal market economies
(LMEs). Human Resource
Management Journal. Vol 25, No 1.
pp1–18.
MARCHINGTON, M. and
WILKINSON, A. (2012) Human
resource management at work. 5th
ed. London: Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development.
MARCHINGTON, M., GOODMAN, J.,
WILKINSON, A. and ACKERS, P.
(1992) New developments in
employee involvement. Research
Paper No.2. London: Employment
Department.
MARCHINGTON, M., GRIMSHAW, D.,
RUBERY, J. and WILLMOTT, H.
(eds) (2005) Fragmenting work
blurring organizational boundaries
and disordering hierarchies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
MARCHINGTON, M., WILKINSON, A.
and DUNDON, T. (2001)
Management choice and employee
voice. London: Chartered Institute
of Personnel and Development.
MARSDEN, D. (2013) Individual
voice in employment relationships:
a comparison under different forms
of workplace representation.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of
Economy and Society. Vol 52, No 1.
pp221–58.
MARTINEZ LUCIO, M. (2006) Trade
unionism and the realities of
change. In: ALONSO, L.E. and
MARTINEZ LUCIO, M. (eds)
Employment relations in a changing
society. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
MARTINEZ LUCIO, M. (2016) Myths
and fantasies in discussing the end
of organised labour: what do we
mean when we say there is a crisis
of labour relations? In: ELGOIBAR,
P., EUWEMA, M., MANDUATE, L.
(eds) Building trust and
constructive conflict management
in organizations. Switzerland:
Springer International, pp15–28.
MARTINEZ LUCIO, M. and
MACKENZIE, R. (forthcoming) The
state and the regulation of work
and employment: theoretical
contributions, forgotten lessons
and new ways to engage with the
complexities of the state.
International Journal of Human
Resource Management.
MARTINEZ LUCIO, M. and STUART,
M. (2011) The state, public policy
and the renewal of HRM.
International Journal of Human
Resource Management. Vol 22,
No 18. pp3661–71.
MARTINEZ LUCIO, M., WALKER, S.
and TREVORROW, P. (2009)
Making networks and (re)making
trade union bureaucracy: a
European‐wide case study of trade
union engagement with the
Internet and networking.New
Technology, Work and
Employment.Vol 24, No 2. pp115–
30.

52 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 53 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
MASON, P. (2016) Post-capitalism: a
guide to our future. London: Allen
Lane.
MCAFEE, A. and BRYNJOLFSSON,
E. (2014) The second machine age.
New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
MCBRIDE, J. and MARTINEZ LUCIO,
M. (2011) Dimensions of
collectivism: occupation,
community and the increasing role
of memory and personal dynamics
in the debate. Work, Employment
and Society. Vol 25, No 4. pp794–
805.
MCDONALD, P., THOMPSON, P. and
O’CONNOR, P. (2016) Profiling
employees online: shifting public–
private boundaries in organisational
life. Human Resource Management
Journal. Vol 26, No 4. pp541–56.
MORRISON, E. (2011) Employee
voice behaviour: integration and
directions for future research.
Academy of Management Annals.
Vol 5, No 1. pp373–412.
MUSTCHIN, S. and MARTINEZ
LUCIO, M. (2017) Transnational
collective agreements and the
development of new spaces for
union action: the formal and
informal uses of international and
European framework agreements in
the UK. British Journal of Industrial
Relations. Vol 55, No 3. pp577–601.
NIENHÜSER, W. (2014) Works
councils. In: WILKINSON, A.,
DONAGHEY, J., DUNDON, T. and
FREEMAN, R.B. (eds) Handbook of
research on employee voice.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp247–63.
NOLAN, P. and MARGINSON, P.
(1990) Skating on thin ice? David
Metcalf on trade unions and
productivity. British Journal of
Industrial Relations. Vol 28, No 2.
pp227–47.
OECD (2017) Coverage rates of
collective bargaining agreements
and trade union density rates:
Percentage in Economic Policy
Reforms 2017, OECD Publishing,
Paris.
ONS. (2017) Office for National
Statistics [online]. Available at:
www.ons.gov.uk/ [Accessed 20
July 2017].
PCAW. (2017) Public Concern at
Work. Available at: www.pcaw.org.
uk/ [Accessed 10 July 2017].
PECK, F., MULVEY, G., JACKSON, K.
and JACKSON, J. (2012) Business
perceptions of regulatory burden
[online]. Available at: www.bis.gov.
uk/assets/biscore/better-
regulation/
docs/b/12-913-business-
perceptions-of-regulatory-burden.
pdf [Accessed 7 July 2017].
PERRETT, R. and MARTINEZ LUCIO,
M. (2008) The challenge of
connecting and co-ordinating the
learning agenda: a case study of a
trade union learning centre in the
UK.Employee Relations. Vol 30,
No 6. pp623–39.
PERRETT, R. and MARTINEZ LUCIO,
M. (2009) Trade unions and
relations with black and minority-
ethnic community groups in the
United Kingdom: the development
of new alliances? Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies. Vol 35, No 8.
pp1295–1314.
PERRETT, R., MARTINEZ LUCIO, M.,
MCBRIDE, J. and CRAIG, S. (2012)
Trade union learning strategies and
migrant workers: policies and
practice in a new-liberal
environment.Urban Studies. Vol 49,
No 3. pp649–67.
POLLERT, A. (2008) Injustice at
work: how Britain’s low-paid non-
unionised employees experience
workplace problems.Journal of
Workplace Rights. Vol13, No 3.
pp233–44.
POLLERT, A. (2010). The lived
experience of isolation for
vulnerable workers facing
workplace grievances in
21st-century Britain.Economic and
Industrial Democracy. Vol 31, No 1.
pp62–92.
POLLERT, A. and CHARLWOOD, A.
(2009) The vulnerable worker in
Britain and problems at
work.Work, Employment and
Society.Vol 23, No 2. pp343–62.
PULIGNANO, V., MEARDI, G. and
DOERFLINGER, N. (2015) Trade
unions and labour market
dualisation: a comparison of
policies and attitudes towards
agency and migrant workers in
Germany and Belgium. Work,
Employment and Society. Vol 29,
No 5. pp808–25.
RAMSAY, H. (1977) Cycles of
control: worker participation in
sociological and historical
perspective. Sociology. Vol 11, No 3.
pp481–506.
RAVEN, B.H. (1992) A power/
interaction model of interpersonal
influence: French and Raven thirty
years later. Journal of Social
Behaviour and Personality. Vol 7,
No 2. pp217–44.
RAWLINSON, K. (2017) Judge calls
for clarity on status of ECJ rulings
in UK after Brexit [online].
Guardian. Available at: www.
theguardian.com/politics/2017/
aug/08/judge-calls-for-clarity-on-
status-of-ecj-rulings-in-uk-after-
brexit [Accessed 20 July 2017].

53 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
REICH, R. (2015) The upsurge in
uncertain work [online]. Available
at: http://robertreich.org/
post/127426324745 [Accessed 6
July 2017].
RIFKIN, J. (2014) The zero marginal
cost society. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
ROBINSON, P. (1999) Exploring the
relationship between flexible
employment and labour market
regulation. In: FELSTEAD, A. and
JEWSON, N. (eds) Global trends in
flexible labour. Basingstoke:
Macmillan, pp84–9.
ROGERS, J. and STREECK, W.
(1995) The study of works councils:
concepts and problems. In:
ROGERS, J. and STREECK, W. (eds)
Works councils: consultation,
representation, and cooperation in
industrial relations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, pp3–26.
ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRADE
UNIONS and EMPLOYERS’
ASSOCIATION. (1968) Cmnd. 3623.
London: HMSO.
ROYLE, T. (2010) The ILO’s shift to
promotional principles and the
‘privatisation’ of labour rights: an
analysis of labour standards,
voluntary self-regulation and social
clauses. International Journal of
Comparative Labour Law and
Industrial Relations. Vol 26, No 3.
pp249–71.
RUBERY, J. (1978) Structured
labour markets, worker
organisation and low pay.
Cambridge Journal of Economics.
Vol 2, No 1. pp17–36.
RUBERY, J. (2005) Labour markets.
In: ACKROYD, A., BATT, R.,
THOMPSON, P. and TOLBERT, P.
(eds) A handbook of work and
organization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp31–51.
RUBERY, J. (2015) Change at work:
feminisation, flexibilisation,
fragmentation and financialisation.
Employee Relations. Vol 37, No 6.
pp633–44.
RUBERY, J., KEIZER, A. and
GRIMSHAW, D. (2016) Flexibility
bites back: the multiple and hidden
costs of flexible employment
policies. Human Resource
Management Journal. Vol 26, No 3.
pp235–51.
RUDDICK, G. (2016) Tata Steel
close to deal with government to
keep UK business. Guardian, 2
June. Available at: www.
theguardian.com/business/2016/
jun/02/tata-steel-close-to-deal-
with-government-to-keep-uk-
business
RUEDA, D. (2005) Insider–outsider
politics in industrialized
democracies: the challenge to
social democratic parties. American
Political Science Review. Vol 99, No
1. pp61–74.
SALEHI, N., IRANI, L., BERNSTEIN,
M.S., ALKHATIB, A., OGBE, E.,
MILAND, K. and CLICKHAPPIER.
(2015) We are Dynamo:
overcoming stalling and friction in
collective action for crowdworkers.
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
ACM Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. pp1621–30.
SCHNABEL, C. (2013) Union
membership and density: Some
(not so) stylized facts and
challenges.European Journal of
Industrial Relations. Vol, 19, No 3.
pp255–72.
SCHWAB, K. (2016) The fourth
industrial revolution. Switzerland:
World Economic Forum.
SISSON, K. (1995) Change and
continuity in British industrial
relations: strategic choice or
muddling through? In: LOCKE, R.,
KOCHAN, T.A. and PIORE, M. (eds)
Employment relations in a changing
world economy. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, pp33–58.
SISSON, K. (2012) Employment
relations matters. Warwick:
Warwick Business School, Industrial
Relations Research Unit.
SKILLS FOR CARE. (2016) The state
of the adult social care sector and
workforce in England [online].
Leeds: Skills for Care. Available at:
www.skillsforcare.org.uk/
stateof2016 [Accessed 20
September 2017].
SMITH, C. (2006) The double
indeterminacy of labour power:
labour effort and labour mobility.
Work, Employment and Society. Vol
20, No 2. pp389–402.
SMITH, D. and CHAMBERLAIN, P.
(2015) Blacklisted: the secret war
between big business and union
activists. Oxford: New
Internationalist Publications
Limited.
SRNICEK, N. and WILLIAMS, A.
(2016) Reinventing the future:
postcapitalism and a world without
work. New York: Verso.
STANDING, G. (2011) The precariat:
the new dangerous class. London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
STONEWALL. (2017a) Available at:
www.stonewall.org.uk/ [Accessed
15 June 2017].
STONEWALL. (2017b) Stonewall
top 100 employers [online].
Available at: www.stonewall.org.uk/
sites/default/files/top_100_
employers_2017-web.pdf [Accessed
22 June 2017].

54 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 55 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
STOREY, J. and BACON, N. (1993)
Individualism and collectivism: into
the 1990s.International Journal of
Human Resource Management.
Vol 4, No 3. pp665–84.
STREECK, W. (2011) The crises of
democratic capitalism.New Left
Review. Vol 71. pp5–29.
TAILBY, S., POLLERT, A., WARREN,
S., DANFORD, A. and WILTON, N.
(2011) Under‐funded and
overwhelmed: the voluntary sector
as worker representation in
Britain’s individualised industrial
relations system.Industrial
Relations Journal. Vol42, No 3.
pp273–92.
TAYLOR, M. (2017) Good work: the
Taylor review of modern working
practices [online]. Available at:
www.gov.uk/government/groups/
employment-practices-in-the-
modern-economy [Accessed 28
July 2017].
THE FAWCETT SOCIETY. (2017)
Available at: www.fawcettsociety.
org.uk/ [Accessed 6 July 2017].
THELEN, K. (2001) Varieties of
labor politics in the developed
democracies. In: HALL, P.A. and
SOSKICE, D. (eds) Varieties of
capitalism: the institutional
foundations of comparative
advantage. Oxford: Oxford
Scholarship Online. DOI:
10.1093/0199247757.001.0001.
THOMPSON, P. (2003)
Disconnected capitalism: or why
employers can’t keep their side of
the bar gain. Work, Employment
and Society. Vol 17, No 2. pp359–78.
THOMPSON, P. (2013)
Financialization and the workplace:
extending and applying the
disconnected capitalism thesis.
Work, Employment and Society.
Vol 27, No 3. pp472–88.
TOFFLER, A. (1980) The third
wave.New York: Bantam Books.
TOTH, A. (1997) The invention of
works councils in Hungary.
European Journal of Industrial
Relations. Vol 3, No 2. pp161–81.
TRAVAIL. (2012) Available at: www.
ilo.org/dyn/travail/travmain.home
[Accessed 1 June 2017].
TSAKALOTOS, E. (2004) Market
constraints, economic
performances and political power:
modernizers versus leftists. Socio-
Economic Review. Vol 2, No 3.
pp415–24.
VAN DEN BROEK, D. (1997) Human
resource management, cultural
control and union avoidance: an
Australian case study. Journal of
Industrial Relations. Vol 3, No 3.
pp332–48.
VAN DEN BROEK, D. and DUNDON,
T. (2012) (Still) up to no good:
reconfiguring the boundaries of
worker resistance and misbehaviour
in an increasingly unorganised
world. Relations Industrielles/
Industrial Relations. Vol 67, No 1.
pp97–121.
VAN WANROOY, B., BEWLEY, H.,
BRYSON, A., FORTH, J., FREETH, S.,
STOKES, L. and WOOD, S. (2013)
Employment relations in the
shadow of recession: findings from
the 2011 workplace employment
relations study. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
VOSKO, L.F. (2010) Managing the
margins. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
WALDEN, R.M. (2013) Controversial
new fees, revised tribunal rules and
lower cap for most on unfair
dismissal compensation. Business
Law Review. Vol 34, No 5. pp195–7.
WEBER, M. (1947) The theory of
economic and social organization.
(Trans. AM Henderson and Talcott
Parsons). New York: Oxford
University Press.
WEDDERBURN, LORD. (1986) The
worker and the law. 3rd ed.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
WEIL, D. (2014) Fissured
employment: implications for
achieving decent work. In:
MCCANN, D., SANGHEON, L.,
BELSER, P., FENWICK, C., HOWE, J.
and LUEBKER, M. (eds) Creative
labour regulation. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp35–62.
WEISS, M. (2013) International
labour standards: a complex
public–private policy mix.
International Journal of
Comparative Labour Law and
Industrial Relations. Vol 29, No 1.
pp7–20.
WERS. (2011) Workplace
employment relations study
[online]. Available at: www.gov.uk/
government/publications/the-2011-
workplace-employment-relations-
study-wers [Accessed 28 May
2017].
WHITTALL, M., KNUSDEN, H. and
HUIJEN, F. (2009) European works
councils: identity and the role of
information and communication
technology.European Journal of
Industrial Relations.Vol 15, No 2.
pp167–85.
WILKINSON, A., DONAGHEY, J.,
DUNDON, T. and FREEMAN, R.B.
(eds) (2014) Handbook of research
on employee voice. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
WILLCOCKS, L. and LACITY, M.
(2016) Service automation: robots
and the future of work. London:
Steve Brooks Publishing.

55 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
WILLIAMS, S. and SCOTT, P. (2016)
The UK coalition government 2010–
2015: an overview. In: WILLIAMS, S.
and SCOTT, P. (eds) Employment
relations under coalition
government: the UK experience,
2010–2015. London: Routledge,
pp3–24.
WILLS, J. (2012) The geography of
community and political
organisation in London today.
Political Geography. Vol 31, No 2.
pp114–26.
ZWICK, D. (2015) Defending the
right lines of division: Ritzer’s
prosumer capitalism in the age of
commercial customer surveillance
and big data. Sociological
Quarterly. Vol 56, No 3. pp484–98.

56 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 57 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Appendices
Appendix 1: Trade union density and collective bargaining coverage, by country
Country Trade union density (%) Collective bargaining coverage (%)
2008 2013 2008 2013
Australia 18.9 17 53.3 60
Austria 29.1 27.4 98 98
Belgium 54.4 55.1 96 96
Brazil 19.3 17.7 58.77 65.03
Canada 27 26.5 29 29
Chile 14 14.4 16.7 18.1
Czech Republic 17. 4 12.7 49.8 47.3
Denmark 66.3 66.8 82 84
Estonia 6.9 5.7 24 23
Finland 67.7 64.5 89.5 93
France 10.7 11.4 98 98
Germany 19.1 17.7 61.4 57.6
UK 27.5 24.7 33.6 29.5
Greece 23.5 21.5 83 42
Hungary 14.6 10.7 28.7 23
Iceland 84.7 91.8 88 89
Indonesia 8.7 7 10 14
Ireland 31.8 26.5 40.5 40.5
Israel 30.5 22.8 56.1 26.1
Italy 33.9 37.3 80 80
Japan 18 17. 4 17.6 17.1
Latvia 15.1 13.1 20.7 15
Luxemburg 36.5 32.8 59 59
Mexico 15.7 13.1 13.7 12.2
Netherlands 18.8 17.6 78.6 84.8
New Zealand 21.4 18.5 17.8 15.3
Norway 52.6 52.1 68 67
Poland 15.1 12.7 15.7 14.7
Portugal 20.5 18.5 84.6 67
Russian Federation 31.9 27.8 26.4 22.8
Slovak Republic 1 7. 2 13.3 40 24.9
Slovenia 26.6 21.2 92 65
South Africa 28.9 27.2 42.5 32.6
Korea 10.3 10.2 12 11.7
Spain 17. 2 16.9 79.3 7 7. 6
Sweden 68.3 67. 3 91 89
Switzerland 17.5 16.2 45.1 48.6
Turkey 10.7 6.3 7. 2 6.5
USA 11.9 10.6 13.1 11.9
Source: OECD (2017)

57 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Appendix 2: Trade union involvement
Country Body with information
and consultation rights Rights of the information
and consultation body Trade union involvement in
information and consultation
Austria Works councils
Information consultation
co-determination
Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Belgium Works councils Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Bulgaria Elected representatives or trade
unions Information consultation Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Croatia Works councils Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Cyprus Employee (in practice trade
union) representatives
Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Information and consultation
(mainly) via union
Czech Republic Trade unions or, where no unions
present, employee councils
Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Information and consultation
(mainly) via union
Denmark (Union-based) co-operation
committees Information and consultation Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Estonia Employee trustees Information consultation Unions involved in information
and consultation where they exist
Finland Trade union representatives
(shop steward)
Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Information and consultation
(mainly) through union
France Works councils Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Union allowed seat on works
council. Through union
membership among councillors
Germany Works councils Information consultation
co-determination
Unions establish works councils.
High union membership among
works councillors
Greece Trade unions or, where no unions
present, employee councils
Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Information and consultation
(mainly) through union
Hungary Works councils Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Ireland
Company-specific information
and consultation arrangements
or statutory information and
consultation forums
Information consultation Varies according to organisation-
specific arrangements
Italy
Representative trade union
bodies at the workplace. Separate
information and consultation
bodies possible
Information consultation Information and consultation
(mainly) via union
Latvia Trade union representatives
(predominant) Information consultation Information and consultation
(mainly) via union
Lithuania Trade unions or works councils Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Information and consultation
(mainly) through union
Luxembourg Sta delegations or joint
committees
Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Through union membership
among works councillors
Malta Trade union/employee
representatives Information consultation Information and consultation
(mainly) via union
Netherlands Works councils Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Through union membership
among works councillors
Poland Works councils Information consultation Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Portugal Workers’ commissions Information consultation Through (high) union membership
among works councillors

58 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 59 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Appendix 2: Trade union involvement (continued)
Country Body with information
and consultation rights Rights of the information
and consultation body Trade union involvement in
information and consultation
Romania
Trade union representatives
or, where no union is present,
elected employee representative
Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Information and consultation
(mainly) through union
Slovakia Trade unions or works councils Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Information and consultation
(mainly) through union
Slovenia Works councils Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Unions establish works councils,
nominate candidates
Spain Workers’ committees (workers’
delegates when <50 employees)
Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Sweden Trade union representatives Information consultation
co-determination (specific issues)
Information and consultation
(mainly) through union
United Kingdom
Company-specific information
and consultation arrangements
or statutory information and
consultation forums
Information consultation Through (high) union membership
among works councillors
Source: Eurofound Company Survey (2015, p10)

59 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Appendix 3: Main representation bodies, by country
Country (% of employee representatives from each country)
Austria Works council (98%)
Belgium Works council (46%)
Health and safety committee (43%)
Bulgaria Employee representatives (38%)
Employee representatives for information and consultation (34%)
Croatia Trade union (87%)
Works council (13%)
Cyprus Trade union (100%)
Czech Republic Trade union (93%)
Works council (7%)
Denmark Works council (60%)
Shop steward (29%)
Estonia Employee trustee (76%)
Finland Workers’ delegate (50%)
Works council (33%)
France Workers’ delegate (51%)
Trade union delegate (34%)
Germany Works council (82%)
Employees’ delegate (12%)
Greece Local trade union (64%)
Union of persons (20%)
Hungary Works council (69%)
Local trade union (18%)
Ireland Trade union representative (51%)
Statutory employee representation forum (26%)
Italy Unitary workplace union structure (66%)
Plant-level union representation (24%)
Latvia Authorised employee representatives (46%)
Trade union (45%)
Lithuania Health and safety committee (58%)
Trade union (21%)
Luxembourg Sta delegation (51%)
Joint works committee (40%)
Malta Shop steward (93%)
Netherlands Works council (74%)
Personnel delegation (26%)
Poland Local trade union (72%)
Works council (28%)
Portugal Shop steward (47%)
Workplace union committee (30%)
Romania Employee representative (95%)
Slovakia Works council (39%)
Trade union (36%)
Slovenia Works council (44%)
Trade union (32%)
Spain Local trade union (62%)
Works council (11%)
Sweden Trade union (100%)
United Kingdom Trade union (81%)
Joint consultative committee (19%)
Source: Eurofound Company Survey (2015, p10)

60 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence 61 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Appendix 4: Key EC/EU employment directives
The main directives that have been adopted so far in the employment field (excluding a large number of those
on mutual recognition of qualifications and health and safety) are as follows:
No. 75/117/EEC
On the approximation of the law of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal
pay for men and women.
No. 76/207/EEC (now No.2006/54/EC)
On the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
No. 79/7/EEC
On the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of
social security.
No. 80/987/EEC (now No. 2008/94/EC)
On the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event
of the insolvency of their employer.
No. 86/378/EEC
On the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social
security schemes (as amended by No. 96/97EC).
No. 86/613/EEC
On the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity,
including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during
pregnancy and motherhood.
No. 89/391/EEC
On introduction of measures to encourage improvements in health and safety.
No. 91/533/EEC
On an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or
employment relationship.
No. 92/85/EEC
On the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant
workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding.
No. 93/104/EC (now No.2003/88/EC)
Concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time.
No. 94/33/EC
On the protection of young people at work.
No. 97/71/EC (and see No. 104/67/EU on enforcement of main directive)
On the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services.
No. 94/45/EC (now No.2009/38/EC)
On the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (extended
to the UK via Directive 97/74/EC).
No. 96/34/EC
On the framework agreement on parental leave (extended to the UK via Directive 97/75/EC).
No. 97/81/EC
Concerning the framework agreement on part-time work.
No. 97/80/EC
On the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (extended to the UK via Directive 98/52/EC).

61 Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence
Appendix 5: Employment law cases
Adkins and Others v Lex Autolease Limited. (2017) Employment Tribunal. 1 March 2017.
Aslam and Ors v Uber BV and Ors. (2016) Employment Tribunal. 28 October 2016.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others. (2011) IRLR. 820.
Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd v Baird. (2002) IRLR. 96.
Cotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams. (2006). IRLR. 181.
Dewhurst v Citysprint UK Ltd. (2017) Employment Tribunal. 1 May 2017.
Lange and Others v Addison Lee Limited. (2017) Employment Tribunal.
Pimlico Plumbers Limited and Another v Smith. (2017) EWCA. 51.
Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi. (2009) IRLR. 365.
R (on the Application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor. (2017) UKSC. 51.
SW Global Resourcing Ltd v Docherty and Another. (2012) IRLR. 727. EAT and (2013) CSIH 72 (Inner House of
Court of Session in Scotland).
Young and Woods Ltd v West. (1980) IRLR. 201.
No. 98/59/EC
On the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (consolidating
earlier Directives of 1975 and 1992).
No. 99/70/EC
Concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work.
No. 2000/43/EC
On implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
No. 2000/78/EC
Establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
No. 2000/79/EC
Concerning the European Agreement on the organisation of working time of mobile staff in civil aviation.
No. 2001/23/EC
On the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in
the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses. (This now incorporates the original
directive on this subject – No.77/187/EEC as amended by No.98/50/EC.)
No. 2001/86/EC
Supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees.
No. 2002/14/EC
Establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community.
No. 2002/15/EC
On the organisation of working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities.
No. 2008/104/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 on
temporary agency work.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ United Kingdom
T +44 (0)20 8612 6200 F +44 (0)20 8612 6201
E cipd@cipd.co.uk W cipd.co.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter
Registered as a charity in England and Wales (1079797) and Scotland (SC045154)
Issued: November 2017 Reference: 7621
© CIPD 2017