Collectivism and employment relations in Denmark: underpinning economic and social success

ABSTRACT

In recent decades, there have been many positive evaluations of Denmark. This article will focus on the role that employment relations and in particular collective bargaining has played in the economic and social success of Denmark. The so-called Danish Model of employment relations with its emphasis on voluntary collective bargaining and supported by ‘flexicurity’ (flexibility for employers and security for employees) has influenced international debates on economic, social and employment relations policies. Although ‘flexicurity’, comprehensive collective bargaining arrangements and high union density are often mentioned in research on the Danish Model, this article will argue that two other important factors have played a crucial role in underpinning the longevity and success of the Danish Model. First, employer collaboration with unions and their supporting collective bargaining at both central and local level is vital. Danish employer organisations have been active in adjusting the collective bargaining system but they have also been supportive of voluntary collective bargaining as a cornerstone of the Danish Model. Second, strong employer support is further underpinned by institutionalised workplace collaboration and the article argues that this aligns national and industry collective bargaining with employee involvement in workplace working arrangements and changes.

KEYWORDS:

• Employment relations
• Danish model
• collective bargaining

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Fagbevægelsens Hovedorganisation (FH) – the Danish Trade Union Confederation – became the peak union organisation in 2019 when the three main union confederations – LO, FF and AC – merged. Previously, LO had been the main blue-collar confederation, FTF had been the peak organisation for salaried, white-collar unions, and AC was the peak organisation for unions organising tertiary-educated employees.

2. The concept of ‘flexicurity’ has also featured in Australian and New Zealand debates (see, for example, Auer 2010; Belchamber 2010; Knudsen and Lind 2018).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Erling Rasmussen

Erling Rasmussen (PhD) is the Professor of Work and Employment at Auckland University of Technology (New Zealand). He has worked in employment relations in academia, the public and private sectors in several countries since the 1970s. He has undertaken research for government, businesses and unions. He is the Editor of New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations https:/tuwhera.aut.ac.nz/publications/peer-reviewed-journals) and has authored and edited many books as well as published numerous journal articles. He has twice been the President of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics in Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ).

Laust Høgedahl

Laust Høgedahl is Associate Professor of Industrial Relations at the Department of Politics & Society at Aalborg University, Denmark. He holds a PhD in Political Science and has published books and journal articles on research concerning collective bargaining, unionisation, collective actions, organising strategies, unemployment insurance funds and institutional theory. He is currently doing research on digital organising of young workers.