Search

The chapter shows that the UK has the highest levels of PE, HF, and SWF activity in Europe. This is explained primarily by the permissive nature of UK financial and securities regulation and, to a lesser extent, of labour regulation. Fund activity grew significantly up to 2007 and then declined in the case of PE and HFs; since 2010, there has been a recovery in PE and HF activity. It is rare for NIFs to consult with labour before and during the acquisition process. NIF intervention and acquisition does create some turbulence in employment, with initial job loss, though also with later job creation. Evidence on the effect on industrial relations is limited, but suggests that in most cases NIFs do not make major changes. Since the recession there have been several high profile cases of PE having a negative effect on employment systems.

Due to the hybrid nature of the Dutch political economy, a ‘compartmentalized’ mode of financialization is hypothesized, characterized by an intermediate level of NIF penetration and low NIF impact on labour outcomes. These expectations are largely borne out by the evidence. The Netherlands is hospitable to foreign NIFs and is one of the larger European targets for Anglo-American PE funds and HFs. Buy-outs do not negatively affect industrial relations and work relations because labour market regulation and economic citizenship rights are determined at the national and sector level and are non-negotiable at the firm level. Before the 2007 crisis there was a mis-match between the absence of negative effects on labour and hostile public discourse over foreign PE and HFs. This discourse has quietened as large public-to-private buy-outs have disappeared and HF activism has become restricted to smaller firms and more defensive strategies. However, post-crisis, an unwilling government is increasingly forced to clamp down on banks and other financial actors.

One seemingly incontestable fact about British industrial relations over the last quarter century is the decentralisation of private sector collective bargaining from multi-employer level to the level of the enterprise, division, or plant. This article explores what is often seen to be a deviant case, namely the electrical contracting industry, where multi-employer national bargaining is claimed to have remained strong. This resilience would seem to be despite the fact that, on a priori grounds, given industrial structure and work organisation, multi-employer bargaining would seem unlikely in this industry. The first part of the paper briefly outlines the wider context of collective bargaining trends in British industry. In the second section, the development of collective bargaining arrangements in electrical contracting is outlined. The third section then investigates recent developments and the degree to which arrangements in the industry have deviated from the rest of the private sector. In the final section explanations are offered and implications are explored. The industry''s bargaining arrangements are seen as having some positive outcomes in terms of the regulation of self-employment, employee benefits, and training.

This article examines the attempt to revive apprenticeship training in Britain in the 1990s. Traditionally apprenticeship had been the main formal method of training for manual workers and the principal means whereby intermediate skills were formed. However, from the late 1960s, apprenticeship training had declined. During the 1980s employers did little to sustain apprenticeships, and the Conservative government was suspicious of a form of training which it associated with trade unions. From the early 1980s, there was a growing discussion as to how far Britain lagged behind major competitors in terms of skill formation, especially at the intermediate level. In a significant change in policy in autumn 1993 the then Conservative government announced the Modern Apprenticeship. The first section of the article provides some definitions and a framework of analysis. The second section puts apprenticeship training into an historical and comparative context. In the next two sections the design and operation of the Modern Apprenticeship are considered. Finally conclusions are drawn and policy implications are considered.