Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research最新文献_第6页

Invisible but not unlimited – migrant workers and their working and living conditions 无形但并非无限——农民工及其工作和生活条件

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221089819

J. Cremers

the The

的

引用次数: 3

Job retention schemes in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic – different shapes and sizes and the role of collective bargaining 2019冠状病毒病大流行期间欧洲的就业保留计划——不同形式和规模以及集体谈判的作用

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221089808

Torsten Müller, T. Schulten, J. Drahokoupil

During the COVID-19 pandemic all the EU Member States established some kind of job retention scheme to cushion the employment effects of the economic crisis. While all job retention schemes share this general objective, they differ considerably as regards their institutional design and underlying functional logic. The aim of this article is to analyse the relevant institutional diversity across Europe, with a particular focus on the role of collective bargaining and employee representation structures in the design and implementation of job retention schemes. Based on an analysis of key institutional features of such schemes implemented during the pandemic, the second aim of the article is to identify a set of minimum standards for ‘good job retention schemes’ that ensure efficient and socially adequate use. These criteria include the following elements: ensuring inclusiveness; ensuring a minimum allowance to prevent workers from ending up below the subsistence level when on such a scheme; measures preventing misuse and deadweight losses; and making job retention schemes support conditional on the involvement of trade unions and employee representation structures.

在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间，所有欧盟成员国都制定了某种就业保留计划，以缓解经济危机对就业的影响。虽然所有工作保留办法都有这个总目标，但它们在体制设计和基本功能逻辑方面有很大不同。本文的目的是分析整个欧洲的相关制度多样性，特别关注集体谈判和员工代表结构在设计和实施工作保留计划中的作用。基于对大流行期间实施的这类计划的主要制度特征的分析，本文的第二个目标是确定一套“良好的工作保留计划”的最低标准，以确保有效和充分利用社会。这些标准包括以下要素:确保包容性;确保最低津贴，以防止工人在参加这种计划时最终低于维持生计的水平;防止误用和载重损失的措施;让工作保留计划的支持以工会和员工代表机构的参与为条件。

{"title":"Job retention schemes in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic – different shapes and sizes and the role of collective bargaining","authors":"Torsten Müller, T. Schulten, J. Drahokoupil","doi":"10.1177/10242589221089808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221089808","url":null,"abstract":"During the COVID-19 pandemic all the EU Member States established some kind of job retention scheme to cushion the employment effects of the economic crisis. While all job retention schemes share this general objective, they differ considerably as regards their institutional design and underlying functional logic. The aim of this article is to analyse the relevant institutional diversity across Europe, with a particular focus on the role of collective bargaining and employee representation structures in the design and implementation of job retention schemes. Based on an analysis of key institutional features of such schemes implemented during the pandemic, the second aim of the article is to identify a set of minimum standards for ‘good job retention schemes’ that ensure efficient and socially adequate use. These criteria include the following elements: ensuring inclusiveness; ensuring a minimum allowance to prevent workers from ending up below the subsistence level when on such a scheme; measures preventing misuse and deadweight losses; and making job retention schemes support conditional on the involvement of trade unions and employee representation structures.","PeriodicalId":23253,"journal":{"name":"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research","volume":"112 1","pages":"247 - 265"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80821616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

Editorial and Introduction 社论及引言

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221106007

T. Berglund, Torsten Müller

One of the greatest risks affecting workers on today’s labour markets is unemployment. Losing one’s job usually entails not only the loss of one’s main source of income, but also psychological consequences resulting, for example, from the loss of colleagues and satisfying work tasks (Jahoda, 1982). While a short time in unemployment, with a swift return to new employment, is less disruptive to a worker’s life situation, the longer the unemployment persists the stronger the pressure to find new employment. As a consequence, the likelihood increases that workers will accept jobs that are worse in terms of wages, skill level and work environment than their previous job. From a trade union perspective, unemployment constitutes a challenge in several respects. On the one hand, a worker’s reservation wage – the lowest acceptable wage in a job offer – tends to decline with longer spells of unemployment as financial hardship tightens. Consequently, rising unemployment in combination with insufficient mitigating mechanisms (such as unemployment insurance) puts downward pressure on wages and weakens unions’ general bargaining power (Rothstein, 1990). Moreover, strikes become less efficient as a tool of collective action in situations of high unemployment, as a ‘reserve army’ of workers is willing to accept wages below union demands, and public support for industrial conflict is more difficult to organise. From this perspective, it is easy to understand Shapiro and Stiglitz’s (1984) rather cynical description of unemployment as ‘a worker discipline device’. As unemployment has been a living experience and threat for workers since wage labour became the dominant form in industrial societies, however, unions and their members have tried – in an act of solidarity – to mitigate its perils. As early as the 19th century, unions started unemployment funds based on members’ contributions as a sort of self-help to mitigate unemployment (Alber, 1981). These benefits also became an important tool for recruiting new members. Union unemployment funds spread over large parts of Europe, thereby creating the prerequisite for more generous unemployment insurance to come. The employer side was sceptical of and even hostile to unemployment benefits for a long time. From the employers’ perspective, such benefits potentially decrease workers’ dependence on paid work, foster idleness and strengthen the unions’ capacity for collective action. Compared with other forms of insurance that were regarded as essential for the welfare state, such as pensions, sickness and work-injury insurance, unemployment insurance was a late comer in welfare development (Alber, 1981). The first more general schemes in Europe were introduced at the beginning of the 20th century, building on the infrastructure of the union unemployment funds. The best-known example, which gave its name to a whole genre of unemployment insurance, originated in the city of Ghent in Belgium, which started to subsidise the

当今劳动力市场上影响工人的最大风险之一是失业。失去工作通常不仅意味着失去一个人的主要收入来源，而且还会产生心理后果，例如，失去同事和令人满意的工作任务(Jahoda, 1982)。虽然短暂的失业对工人的生活造成的破坏较小，但失业持续的时间越长，寻找新工作的压力就越大。因此，工人们更有可能接受工资、技能水平和工作环境都比之前工作差的工作。从工会的角度来看，失业在几个方面构成挑战。一方面，工人的保留工资——一份工作中可接受的最低工资——随着经济困难加剧，失业时间越长，工资就越低。因此，不断上升的失业率加上不充分的缓解机制(如失业保险)，给工资带来了下行压力，削弱了工会的一般议价能力(Rothstein, 1990)。此外，在高失业率的情况下，罢工作为集体行动的工具变得效率低下，因为工人的“后备军”愿意接受低于工会要求的工资，而公众对工业冲突的支持更难组织起来。从这个角度来看，很容易理解夏皮罗和斯蒂格利茨(1984)将失业描述为“工人纪律装置”的相当愤世嫉俗的描述。然而，自从雇佣劳动成为工业社会的主要形式以来，失业对工人来说一直是一种活生生的经历和威胁，工会及其成员一直试图——以团结一致的方式——减轻失业的危险。早在19世纪，工会就开始根据会员的捐款设立失业基金，作为缓解失业的一种自助措施(Alber, 1981)。这些福利也成为招募新成员的重要工具。工会失业基金遍布欧洲大部分地区，从而为未来更慷慨的失业保险创造了先决条件。长期以来，雇主方面对失业救济金持怀疑态度，甚至怀有敌意。从雇主的角度来看，这些福利可能会降低工人对有偿工作的依赖，助长懒惰，并加强工会集体行动的能力。与养老金、疾病保险和工伤保险等福利国家必不可少的其他形式的保险相比，失业保险是福利发展的后来者(Alber, 1981)。20世纪初，在工会失业基金的基础上，欧洲推出了第一批更普遍的计划。最著名的例子，它的名字给了整个类型的失业保险，起源于比利时的根特市，它开始补贴工会基金，使他们更加慷慨和持久(Vandaele, 2006)。在20世纪的前几十年，所谓的“根特制度”成为现代失业保险制度的典范，几个国家建立了全国性的根特式制度，包括法国(1905年)和荷兰(1916年)(Rasmussen and Pontusson, 2018)。与其他福利制度相比，根特体系的一个特点是，保险计划的成员是自愿的，尽管有国家补贴，但该体系由私人组织——工会——管理。由于根特体系的设计，国家甚至用补贴来支持工会成员。TRS0010.1177/10242589221106007TransferBerglund and m ller research-article2022

{"title":"Editorial and Introduction","authors":"T. Berglund, Torsten Müller","doi":"10.1177/10242589221106007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221106007","url":null,"abstract":"One of the greatest risks affecting workers on today’s labour markets is unemployment. Losing one’s job usually entails not only the loss of one’s main source of income, but also psychological consequences resulting, for example, from the loss of colleagues and satisfying work tasks (Jahoda, 1982). While a short time in unemployment, with a swift return to new employment, is less disruptive to a worker’s life situation, the longer the unemployment persists the stronger the pressure to find new employment. As a consequence, the likelihood increases that workers will accept jobs that are worse in terms of wages, skill level and work environment than their previous job. From a trade union perspective, unemployment constitutes a challenge in several respects. On the one hand, a worker’s reservation wage – the lowest acceptable wage in a job offer – tends to decline with longer spells of unemployment as financial hardship tightens. Consequently, rising unemployment in combination with insufficient mitigating mechanisms (such as unemployment insurance) puts downward pressure on wages and weakens unions’ general bargaining power (Rothstein, 1990). Moreover, strikes become less efficient as a tool of collective action in situations of high unemployment, as a ‘reserve army’ of workers is willing to accept wages below union demands, and public support for industrial conflict is more difficult to organise. From this perspective, it is easy to understand Shapiro and Stiglitz’s (1984) rather cynical description of unemployment as ‘a worker discipline device’. As unemployment has been a living experience and threat for workers since wage labour became the dominant form in industrial societies, however, unions and their members have tried – in an act of solidarity – to mitigate its perils. As early as the 19th century, unions started unemployment funds based on members’ contributions as a sort of self-help to mitigate unemployment (Alber, 1981). These benefits also became an important tool for recruiting new members. Union unemployment funds spread over large parts of Europe, thereby creating the prerequisite for more generous unemployment insurance to come. The employer side was sceptical of and even hostile to unemployment benefits for a long time. From the employers’ perspective, such benefits potentially decrease workers’ dependence on paid work, foster idleness and strengthen the unions’ capacity for collective action. Compared with other forms of insurance that were regarded as essential for the welfare state, such as pensions, sickness and work-injury insurance, unemployment insurance was a late comer in welfare development (Alber, 1981). The first more general schemes in Europe were introduced at the beginning of the 20th century, building on the infrastructure of the union unemployment funds. The best-known example, which gave its name to a whole genre of unemployment insurance, originated in the city of Ghent in Belgium, which started to subsidise the","PeriodicalId":23253,"journal":{"name":"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"157 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83535713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Readjusting unemployment protection in Europe: how crises reshape varieties of labour market regimes 重新调整欧洲的失业保护:危机如何重塑各种劳动力市场制度

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221086172

B. Ebbinghaus, J. Weishaupt

The labour movement has long fought for the social protection of unemployed workers as a major social right in capitalist economies across Europe. Employers, on the other hand, have often been reluctant to accept such intervention in the labour market. Hence, scholars explaining differences in the evolution of unemployment benefit systems need to consider the power distribution of labour relations, the context of the welfare state and the variety of capitalism in which they are embedded. This article makes three contributions. First, it offers a heuristic that systematically identifies the analytical affinities between unemployment protection and its institutional context. Second, it offers a succinct overview with a focus on major crises and subsequent adaptations in labour market regimes, ranging from the oil shocks in the 1970s to the Great Recession and the current COVID-19 pandemic. And third, it discusses whether European economies have adjusted their unemployment protection to recent crises and assesses the effects on labour market regimes.

长期以来，工人运动一直在为失业工人的社会保护而斗争，这是整个欧洲资本主义经济体的一项主要社会权利。另一方面，雇主往往不愿接受这种对劳动力市场的干预。因此，学者们在解释失业福利制度演变的差异时，需要考虑劳动关系的权力分配、福利国家的背景以及它们所嵌入的资本主义的多样性。这篇文章有三个贡献。首先，它提供了一种启发式方法，系统地识别失业保护与其制度背景之间的分析亲和力。其次，它提供了一个简洁的概述，重点是劳动力市场制度的重大危机和随后的调整，从20世纪70年代的石油危机到大衰退和当前的COVID-19大流行。第三，它讨论了欧洲经济体是否针对最近的危机调整了失业保护措施，并评估了对劳动力市场制度的影响。

引用次数: 3

European unemployment insurance. From undercurrent to paradigm shift 欧洲失业保险。从暗流到范式转换

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221099810

L. Andor

The need for the European Union to get involved in unemployment insurance has frequently been debated in the past decade, starting from exploratory discussions and eventually becoming a political commitment by the European Commission President. This article looks back at the origins of the idea of an EU-level unemployment benefit scheme and explains the political dynamics of the concept’s evolution. Following the 2009 Great Recession and the subsequent eurozone debt crisis, a new movement for a reinforced social dimension has been pushing the EU beyond its previous red lines. The case for counter-cyclical social stabilisation at EU level is now a touchstone for a materially meaningful EU social dimension. The COVID-19 crisis triggered a giant leap to a greater EU budgetary capacity, including financial support for job-saving schemes. This article argues that these new instruments will not suffice without also creating an EU safety net for those whose jobs cannot be saved in a period of economic downturn.

在过去的十年里，欧盟是否需要参与失业保险一直是人们经常讨论的话题，从探索性的讨论开始，最终成为欧盟委员会主席的一项政治承诺。本文回顾了欧盟层面失业福利计划这一想法的起源，并解释了这一概念演变的政治动态。在2009年大衰退(Great Recession)和随后的欧元区债务危机之后，一场强化社会维度的新运动一直在推动欧盟超越之前的红线。在欧盟层面实现反周期社会稳定的理由，如今已成为检验欧盟社会维度是否具有实质性意义的试金石。新冠肺炎危机引发了欧盟预算能力的巨大飞跃，包括为挽救就业计划提供财政支持。本文认为，如果不为那些在经济低迷时期无法保住工作的人创建一个欧盟安全网，这些新工具是不够的。

引用次数: 3

Book Review: Who Cares? Attracting and Retaining Care Workers for the Elderly 书评:谁在乎?吸引及留住长者护理员

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221099980

S. Bach

This study was prepared and published at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its themes have become all too familiar over the past 18 months. Elderly care and its workforce have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. Workers in the sector have faced terrible circumstances and many elderly people and their carers have lost their lives prematurely. The pandemic has confirmed the fragility and structural problems in the provision of long-term care around the world and exacerbated the recruitment and retention challenges that are the focus of this study. At the same time, the pandemic has focused more public attention on those who provide care, bringing a previously invisible low status workforce into the limelight. This has generated an EU commitment to a new European Care Strategy and prompted many reports looking at the employment and working conditions in long-term care. Nevertheless, the challenges facing the sector remain acute (European Commission, 2021; Kessler et al., 2020). The study looks at the evidence base and considers best practices for stemming the crisis in long-term care. It draws on survey responses and interviews with country delegates, supplemented by national data, EU Labour Force Survey data and additional literature. It considers the situation of long-term carers for the elderly who provide their services to recipients at home or in institutions. These carers comprise two main occupations, nurses and personal care workers. In OECD countries over 70 per cent of long-term care workers are personal carers. In a context of rising demand for care and the shift of care from hospital to community settings, care demand is outstripping the supply of long-term care workers, and workforce shortages will worsen without urgent action. In the aggregate, OECD countries need to more than double the current number of longterm care workers to maintain existing ratios of caregivers to the elderly. These structural challenges stem from insufficient recruitment and retention, connected to low status, poor pay and working conditions, inadequate training and limited attention to skill acquisition and deployment. Staff shortages have a severe impact on quality of care, including unmet care needs and unnecessary hospital admissions. The study details the main characteristics of the workforce, which comprises predominantly middle-aged women, with a high share of foreign-born workers. Foreign-born workers make a vital contribution and represent over 20 per cent of the OECD countries’ long-term care workforce. They are overrepresented in the care sector and are susceptible to exploitation, for many reasons. These include their employment and immigration status, for example, as undeclared workers hired privately by households and because compliance with employment regulations, such as minimum wage provisions, is uneven. Part-time working, often on an involuntary basis, is also significant. 109998010999801099980 TRS0010.1177/1024258922109998

这项研究是在COVID-19大流行开始时编写和发表的，其主题在过去18个月里变得再熟悉不过了。老年人护理及其工作人员受到大流行的影响尤为严重。该部门的工人面临着可怕的环境，许多老年人和他们的照顾者过早地失去了生命。大流行证实了世界各地长期护理服务的脆弱性和结构性问题，并加剧了作为本研究重点的招聘和留住挑战。与此同时，大流行使公众更加关注提供护理的人员，使以前不可见的低地位劳动力成为人们关注的焦点。这促成了欧盟对一项新的欧洲护理战略的承诺，并促使许多报告着眼于长期护理的就业和工作条件。然而，该行业面临的挑战仍然严峻(欧盟委员会，2021年;Kessler et al.， 2020)。这项研究着眼于证据基础，并考虑了遏制长期护理危机的最佳做法。它借鉴了调查答复和对国家代表的访谈，并辅以国家数据、欧盟劳动力调查数据和其他文献。它考虑到在家中或机构为接受服务的老人提供服务的长期照顾者的情况。这些护理人员包括两个主要职业，护士和个人护理工作者。在经合发组织国家，70%以上的长期护理工作者是个人护理人员。在护理需求不断增加和护理从医院向社区转移的背景下，护理需求超过了长期护理工作者的供应，如果不采取紧急行动，劳动力短缺将会恶化。总的来说，经合组织国家需要将目前的长期护理人员数量增加一倍以上，以维持护理人员与老年人的现有比例。这些结构性挑战源于招聘和保留不足，与低地位、低薪酬和工作条件、培训不足以及对技能获取和部署的关注有限有关。工作人员短缺严重影响到护理质量，包括未满足的护理需求和不必要的住院。该研究详细介绍了劳动力的主要特征，其中主要由中年妇女组成，外国出生的工人占很大比例。外国出生的工人做出了至关重要的贡献，占经合组织国家长期护理劳动力的20%以上。由于许多原因，她们在护理部门的人数过多，容易受到剥削。这些问题包括他们的就业和移民身份，例如，作为家庭私人雇用的未申报工人，以及因为遵守就业条例，如最低工资规定，是不平衡的。非自愿的兼职工作也很重要。trs0010.1177 / 10242589221099980transferbookreviews bookreview2022

{"title":"Book Review: Who Cares? Attracting and Retaining Care Workers for the Elderly","authors":"S. Bach","doi":"10.1177/10242589221099980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221099980","url":null,"abstract":"This study was prepared and published at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its themes have become all too familiar over the past 18 months. Elderly care and its workforce have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. Workers in the sector have faced terrible circumstances and many elderly people and their carers have lost their lives prematurely. The pandemic has confirmed the fragility and structural problems in the provision of long-term care around the world and exacerbated the recruitment and retention challenges that are the focus of this study. At the same time, the pandemic has focused more public attention on those who provide care, bringing a previously invisible low status workforce into the limelight. This has generated an EU commitment to a new European Care Strategy and prompted many reports looking at the employment and working conditions in long-term care. Nevertheless, the challenges facing the sector remain acute (European Commission, 2021; Kessler et al., 2020). The study looks at the evidence base and considers best practices for stemming the crisis in long-term care. It draws on survey responses and interviews with country delegates, supplemented by national data, EU Labour Force Survey data and additional literature. It considers the situation of long-term carers for the elderly who provide their services to recipients at home or in institutions. These carers comprise two main occupations, nurses and personal care workers. In OECD countries over 70 per cent of long-term care workers are personal carers. In a context of rising demand for care and the shift of care from hospital to community settings, care demand is outstripping the supply of long-term care workers, and workforce shortages will worsen without urgent action. In the aggregate, OECD countries need to more than double the current number of longterm care workers to maintain existing ratios of caregivers to the elderly. These structural challenges stem from insufficient recruitment and retention, connected to low status, poor pay and working conditions, inadequate training and limited attention to skill acquisition and deployment. Staff shortages have a severe impact on quality of care, including unmet care needs and unnecessary hospital admissions. The study details the main characteristics of the workforce, which comprises predominantly middle-aged women, with a high share of foreign-born workers. Foreign-born workers make a vital contribution and represent over 20 per cent of the OECD countries’ long-term care workforce. They are overrepresented in the care sector and are susceptible to exploitation, for many reasons. These include their employment and immigration status, for example, as undeclared workers hired privately by households and because compliance with employment regulations, such as minimum wage provisions, is uneven. Part-time working, often on an involuntary basis, is also significant. 109998010999801099980 TRS0010.1177/1024258922109998","PeriodicalId":23253,"journal":{"name":"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research","volume":"20 1","pages":"147 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83148657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

COVID-19: a prelude to a revaluation of the public sector? 2019冠状病毒病:公共部门重估的前奏?

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221078710

Paul T. de Beer, M. Keune

One of the striking features of the COVID crisis is the enormous expenditure that various EU governments have been pumping into their economies to keep troubled companies and the selfemployed afloat, to safeguard jobs and to invest in recovery programmes. This massive public spending stands in stark contrast to the years of austerity preceding the pandemic. There are some parallels with the previous economic crisis – the financial crisis – which started in 2008. At that time, governments saved the financial sector with unprecedented monetary injections, contradicting the austerity approach prevailing in the years running up to the crisis. There were widespread expectations that the financial crisis would lead to the demise of the neoliberal-monetarist paradigm in which austerity played a core part. But these expectations were not realised. The financial crisis was soon redefined as a ‘public debt crisis’ and to a considerable extent the public sector was called upon to foot the bill, in the form of further rounds of severe austerity. Will this time be different? Will the public sector pay the price again in the coming years for the debts governments are currently incurring? It is generally acknowledged that the public sector plays an essential role in combating and getting us through the COVID crisis, although assessments of the extent to which public sectors have managed this vary across countries. This applies first of all to public health care, but other public services, too – ranging from education to rubbish collection – that are considered vital or essential for getting through or overcoming the COVID crisis. Will this crisis usher in a new era in which the public sector will be valued just as much as the private sector or even assume priority? Or will the old mantra that the public sector is a ‘burden’ on the economy take precedence again when the health crisis is over, ushering in a new period of harsh austerity measures aimed at the public sector and its workers? In this contribution we first briefly look back at the consequences of the previous crisis for the public sector and then we put forward three arguments why this time it might – or should – indeed be different.

新冠肺炎危机的一个显著特征是，欧盟各国政府一直在向本国经济投入巨额支出，以维持陷入困境的公司和个体经营者的生存，保障就业机会，并投资于复苏计划。这种大规模的公共支出与大流行前的紧缩岁月形成鲜明对比。这与2008年开始的上一次经济危机——金融危机——有一些相似之处。当时，各国政府以前所未有的货币注入拯救了金融部门，这与危机爆发前几年盛行的紧缩措施相矛盾。人们普遍预期，金融危机将导致以紧缩政策为核心的新自由主义-货币主义范式的消亡。但这些期望并没有实现。金融危机很快被重新定义为“公共债务危机”，在很大程度上，公共部门被要求以进一步严厉紧缩的形式买单。这一次会有所不同吗?公共部门是否会在未来几年再次为政府目前的债务付出代价?人们普遍认为，公共部门在抗击和度过COVID危机方面发挥着至关重要的作用，尽管各国对公共部门应对危机的程度的评估不尽相同。这首先适用于公共卫生保健，也适用于其他公共服务，从教育到垃圾收集，这些服务被认为是度过或克服COVID危机的至关重要或必不可少的。这场危机是否会开启一个新时代，让公共部门得到与私营部门同样的重视，甚至获得优先地位?或者，当健康危机结束时，公共部门是经济“负担”的老咒语会再次占据优先地位，迎来针对公共部门及其工人的严厉紧缩措施的新时期吗?在这篇文章中，我们首先简要回顾了上一次危机对公共部门的影响，然后提出了三个论点，说明为什么这次的情况可能(或应该)确实有所不同。

{"title":"COVID-19: a prelude to a revaluation of the public sector?","authors":"Paul T. de Beer, M. Keune","doi":"10.1177/10242589221078710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221078710","url":null,"abstract":"One of the striking features of the COVID crisis is the enormous expenditure that various EU governments have been pumping into their economies to keep troubled companies and the selfemployed afloat, to safeguard jobs and to invest in recovery programmes. This massive public spending stands in stark contrast to the years of austerity preceding the pandemic. There are some parallels with the previous economic crisis – the financial crisis – which started in 2008. At that time, governments saved the financial sector with unprecedented monetary injections, contradicting the austerity approach prevailing in the years running up to the crisis. There were widespread expectations that the financial crisis would lead to the demise of the neoliberal-monetarist paradigm in which austerity played a core part. But these expectations were not realised. The financial crisis was soon redefined as a ‘public debt crisis’ and to a considerable extent the public sector was called upon to foot the bill, in the form of further rounds of severe austerity. Will this time be different? Will the public sector pay the price again in the coming years for the debts governments are currently incurring? It is generally acknowledged that the public sector plays an essential role in combating and getting us through the COVID crisis, although assessments of the extent to which public sectors have managed this vary across countries. This applies first of all to public health care, but other public services, too – ranging from education to rubbish collection – that are considered vital or essential for getting through or overcoming the COVID crisis. Will this crisis usher in a new era in which the public sector will be valued just as much as the private sector or even assume priority? Or will the old mantra that the public sector is a ‘burden’ on the economy take precedence again when the health crisis is over, ushering in a new period of harsh austerity measures aimed at the public sector and its workers? In this contribution we first briefly look back at the consequences of the previous crisis for the public sector and then we put forward three arguments why this time it might – or should – indeed be different.","PeriodicalId":23253,"journal":{"name":"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research","volume":"13 1","pages":"135 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80933420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Book review: The Politics of Social Inclusion and Labor Representation: Immigrants and Trade Unions in the European Context 书评:《社会包容和劳工代表的政治:欧洲背景下的移民和工会》

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221099980a

D. Adam

tightening. The example is cited of a pay equity claim in New Zealand that resulted in a new pay structure, raising hourly wages by 15–50 per cent. The state’s failure to fund implementation, however, led to reduced hours, increased workloads and jeopardised care quality. The study also has little to say about the restructuring of care and concentration of ownership in the industry, with the rise of large private-equity for-profit operators. These structural changes not only point to the need for transnational action and campaigns to improve working conditions, but also signal that different strategies may be required to improve pay and working conditions: the balance between political lobbying, legislation and achieving collective agreements should be varied in accordance with the ownership and regulatory structures of elder care. This report provides a very welcome and wide-ranging systematic review of the deep-seated challenges facing long-term care. The urgent task facing policy-makers and providers is to move from analysis to policy implementation, framing solutions that will reboot elder care to provide dignity for ageing populations and fair care work for those providing this essential public service.

紧缩政策。举个例子，新西兰的一项薪酬平等诉求导致了一种新的薪酬结构，将时薪提高了15%至50%。然而，国家未能为实施提供资金，导致工作时间减少，工作量增加，护理质量受到影响。随着大型营利性私募股权运营商的兴起，该研究也几乎没有提到医疗行业的重组和所有权集中。这些结构变化不仅表明需要采取跨国行动和运动来改善工作条件，而且还表明可能需要采取不同的战略来改善薪酬和工作条件:政治游说、立法和达成集体协议之间的平衡应根据照顾老年人的所有权和管理结构而有所不同。这份报告对长期护理面临的深层次挑战进行了非常受欢迎的广泛系统审查。政策制定者和提供者面临的紧迫任务是从分析转向政策实施，制定解决方案，重新启动老年人护理，为老年人提供尊严，并为提供这一基本公共服务的人提供公平的护理工作。

{"title":"Book review: The Politics of Social Inclusion and Labor Representation: Immigrants and Trade Unions in the European Context","authors":"D. Adam","doi":"10.1177/10242589221099980a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221099980a","url":null,"abstract":"tightening. The example is cited of a pay equity claim in New Zealand that resulted in a new pay structure, raising hourly wages by 15–50 per cent. The state’s failure to fund implementation, however, led to reduced hours, increased workloads and jeopardised care quality. The study also has little to say about the restructuring of care and concentration of ownership in the industry, with the rise of large private-equity for-profit operators. These structural changes not only point to the need for transnational action and campaigns to improve working conditions, but also signal that different strategies may be required to improve pay and working conditions: the balance between political lobbying, legislation and achieving collective agreements should be varied in accordance with the ownership and regulatory structures of elder care. This report provides a very welcome and wide-ranging systematic review of the deep-seated challenges facing long-term care. The urgent task facing policy-makers and providers is to move from analysis to policy implementation, framing solutions that will reboot elder care to provide dignity for ageing populations and fair care work for those providing this essential public service.","PeriodicalId":23253,"journal":{"name":"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"149 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78528147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

From one crisis to another: changes in the governance of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) 从一个危机到另一个危机:经济与货币联盟(EMU)治理的变化

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221084582

P. Pochet

The article examines the evolution of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in the aftermath of COVID-19 and compares the current crisis with the previous one (the financial crisis of 2008–2013). It does so by looking at the way interests, ideas and institutions have evolved over the last decade. It looks at the possible changes in European economic governance in the light of three different models of European integration. The goal is not only to describe the differences between the two periods of crisis but also to understand the amplitude of those changes. In the actor-centred ‘institutionalism’ approach of this article, particular attention is paid to conflicts and tensions including inside the EU institutions. This allow for the elements of continuity and rupture to be highlighted and for speculation on the possibility of a new paradigm emerging.

本文考察了新冠肺炎疫情后经济与货币联盟(EMU)的演变，并将当前危机与上一次危机(2008-2013年金融危机)进行了比较。它通过观察过去十年中利益、思想和制度的演变方式来做到这一点。它着眼于三种不同的欧洲一体化模式下欧洲经济治理可能发生的变化。我们的目标不仅是描述两个危机时期之间的差异，还要了解这些变化的幅度。在本文以行动者为中心的“制度主义”方法中，特别关注包括欧盟机构内部在内的冲突和紧张局势。这使连续性和断裂的因素得以突出，并使人们推测出现新范式的可能性。

引用次数: 5

The wages of reconstruction – the EU’s new budget and the public service staff shortage crisis on the EU’s eastern periphery 重建的工资——欧盟的新预算和欧盟东部边缘的公共服务人员短缺危机

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR

Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1177/10242589221094237

I. Szabó

Over the next seven years, €724bn are being made available to Member States from the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) as part of the Next Generation EU budget instrument. Despite being touted as a revolutionary shift in EU economic policies, the RRF in many respects builds on the logic of previous EU budget rounds. Most importantly, it follows a developmental logic aiming to facilitate territorial cohesion by allocating more funds to less developed EU countries and regions. One of the main purposes of EU budgets has long been to strengthen EU cohesion by reducing territorial inequalities. At the time of their accession in 2004 and 2007, the relative underdevelopment of Central and Eastern European (CEE) Member States qualified them for a larger share of the cohesion and regional funds. Over time, the importance of EU funds in these economies has further increased, in parallel with the shrinking of their fiscal space, in itself partly due to enhanced budgetary surveillance by the EU’s New Economic Governance regime (Bohle and Greskovits, 2019; Erne, 2018). The RRF has brought a slight readjustment to the distribution of funds across EU peripheries, with southern Member States gaining greater funding as they now have higher unemployment than eastern Member States and were more severely hit by the economic fallout of the pandemic. Even so, Central and Eastern Europe will receive large amounts of EU RRF funds. Given the continued importance of EU funds for the CEE region and the fact that it has been the main net recipient of past EU budgets, this article explores the impact of previous EU budgets on the region and whether the Recovery and Resilience Facility represents a break with earlier spending priorities. In particular, it focuses on the question of whether the balance of EU funding remains tilted towards infrastructure spending rather than spending on people (human resources). To start with, CEE countries have been successful in absorbing EU funds, meaning they have the capacity to spend a very high share of the available funds. Despite worries before their accession, the absorption capacity of the eastern EU newcomers ramped up very quickly (Medve-Bálint, 2018). This was partly a result of their upgraded bureaucratic apparatus during the accession process and of a re-orientation of their domestic budgetary priorities, as most EU projects require co-financing. While they were successful in spending this money, which areas were targeted? What did these countries spend the money on? One thing is almost certain: the influx of EU money since 1094237 TRS0010.1177/10242589221094237TransferSzabó research-article2022

在接下来的七年里，作为下一代欧盟预算工具的一部分，欧盟的复苏和弹性基金(RRF)将向成员国提供7240亿欧元。尽管被吹捧为欧盟经济政策的革命性转变，但RRF在许多方面都是建立在前几轮欧盟预算的逻辑之上的。最重要的是，它遵循一种发展逻辑，旨在通过向欠发达的欧盟国家和地区分配更多资金来促进领土凝聚力。长期以来，欧盟预算的主要目的之一就是通过减少领土不平等来加强欧盟的凝聚力。在2004年和2007年加入欧盟时，中欧和东欧(CEE)成员国的相对欠发达使它们有资格获得更大份额的凝聚力和区域基金。随着时间的推移，欧盟资金在这些经济体中的重要性进一步增加，同时它们的财政空间也在缩小，这在一定程度上是由于欧盟新经济治理机制加强了预算监督(Bohle和Greskovits, 2019;白尾海雕,2018)。该方案略微调整了欧盟外围国家的资金分配，南部成员国获得了更多的资金，因为它们现在的失业率高于东部成员国，而且受到大流行病经济影响的打击更为严重。即便如此，中欧和东欧仍将获得大量的欧盟应急基金。鉴于欧盟资金对中东欧地区的持续重要性，以及它一直是过去欧盟预算的主要净接受国这一事实，本文探讨了以前欧盟预算对该地区的影响，以及复苏和弹性基金是否代表了与早期支出优先事项的突破。它特别关注的问题是，欧盟资金的平衡是否仍然倾向于基础设施支出，而不是人力资源支出。首先，中东欧国家已经成功地吸收了欧盟的资金，这意味着它们有能力花费非常高的可用资金份额。尽管在加入欧盟之前存在担忧，但东欧新来者的吸收能力迅速上升(Medve-Bálint, 2018)。这在一定程度上是由于它们在加入过程中官僚机构的升级，以及它们对国内预算优先事项的重新定位，因为大多数欧盟项目需要共同融资。虽然他们成功地花了这笔钱，但目标是哪些领域?这些国家把钱花在了什么地方?有一件事几乎可以肯定:自1094237 TRS0010.1177/10242589221094237TransferSzabó研究文章2022年以来，欧盟资金的涌入

{"title":"The wages of reconstruction – the EU’s new budget and the public service staff shortage crisis on the EU’s eastern periphery","authors":"I. Szabó","doi":"10.1177/10242589221094237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221094237","url":null,"abstract":"Over the next seven years, €724bn are being made available to Member States from the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) as part of the Next Generation EU budget instrument. Despite being touted as a revolutionary shift in EU economic policies, the RRF in many respects builds on the logic of previous EU budget rounds. Most importantly, it follows a developmental logic aiming to facilitate territorial cohesion by allocating more funds to less developed EU countries and regions. One of the main purposes of EU budgets has long been to strengthen EU cohesion by reducing territorial inequalities. At the time of their accession in 2004 and 2007, the relative underdevelopment of Central and Eastern European (CEE) Member States qualified them for a larger share of the cohesion and regional funds. Over time, the importance of EU funds in these economies has further increased, in parallel with the shrinking of their fiscal space, in itself partly due to enhanced budgetary surveillance by the EU’s New Economic Governance regime (Bohle and Greskovits, 2019; Erne, 2018). The RRF has brought a slight readjustment to the distribution of funds across EU peripheries, with southern Member States gaining greater funding as they now have higher unemployment than eastern Member States and were more severely hit by the economic fallout of the pandemic. Even so, Central and Eastern Europe will receive large amounts of EU RRF funds. Given the continued importance of EU funds for the CEE region and the fact that it has been the main net recipient of past EU budgets, this article explores the impact of previous EU budgets on the region and whether the Recovery and Resilience Facility represents a break with earlier spending priorities. In particular, it focuses on the question of whether the balance of EU funding remains tilted towards infrastructure spending rather than spending on people (human resources). To start with, CEE countries have been successful in absorbing EU funds, meaning they have the capacity to spend a very high share of the available funds. Despite worries before their accession, the absorption capacity of the eastern EU newcomers ramped up very quickly (Medve-Bálint, 2018). This was partly a result of their upgraded bureaucratic apparatus during the accession process and of a re-orientation of their domestic budgetary priorities, as most EU projects require co-financing. While they were successful in spending this money, which areas were targeted? What did these countries spend the money on? One thing is almost certain: the influx of EU money since 1094237 TRS0010.1177/10242589221094237TransferSzabó research-article2022","PeriodicalId":23253,"journal":{"name":"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research","volume":"36 1","pages":"141 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83465358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0