Collective bargaining, atypical employment and ...

2 downloads 0 Views 1019KB Size Report
to a shift from public to private mechanisms of regulation in many areas of policy. ... rera 2007; Gilbert 2004; Hemerijck 2008; Palier 2010; Pierson 2001). Among these ... welfare state provision, the Temporary Agency Work (TAW)3. Analys-.
LUIGI BURRONI E MARCELLO PEDACI

Collective bargaining, atypical employment and welfare provisions: The case of temporary agency work in Italy

1. Introduction1 During the last two decades scholars of comparative political economy have underlined the emergence of a process of change in the institutional architecture of contemporary capitalism that has led to a shift from public to private mechanisms of regulation in many areas of policy. Many scholars feel this trend developed as a consequence of the rising role played by neoliberalism and the consequent strengthening of market regulation and decline of the State. Others have emphasised that these processes are consistent with the rise of non-market governance forms, such as the corporate hierarchy – namely the role played by large firms and oligopolies – or by partnerships with different mix of public and private participa- tion. All scholars, though, have emphasised the rising importance of private forms of governance in issues that were previously handled by the State (Crouch 2011; Harvey 2005; Schmidt and Thatcher 2013; Thelen 2014). A notable contribution to this debate has been given by studies focusing on the reorganization of welfare systems, a topic that has

1 This paper is based on the results of the pluri-annual research program «Bargaining for Social Rights (Barsori)» and «Bargaining for Social rights at sectorial level» both funded by the European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs. We acknowledge for their support and help all the people interviewed and the other members of the research group and in particular Maarten Keune who coordinated the project. The authors thank Mimmo Carrieri – who coordinated with Luigi Burroni the first stage of the project – Franca Maino, Emmanuele Pavolini, Roberto Pedersini and the referees of the journal for their comments. All errors are ours. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-economics (SASE) in Milan.

STATO E MERCATO / n. 101, agosto 2014

170

Luigi Burroni e Marcello Pedaci

become one of the main issues of the socio-political and academic debate on the reorganization of the State, notwithstanding the diversity of conceptual and theoretical claims. A relevant part of the literature on this topic focuses on «retrenchment» policies, on cuts in public programmes, conceptualizing welfare state restructuring as a move towards more privately organized welfare provisions, in which the market gains greater importance with a consequent decline of solidarity and social cohesion. Another strand of literature underlines the emerging of a «recalibration» process, emphasising that welfare state retrenchment is overestimated and that public programmes have been functionally recalibrated to ensure protection from new social risks, with the effect that welfare state provisions have not radically decreased (Ascoli 2011; Bonoli 2007; Ferrera and Rhodes 2000; Ferrera 2007; Gilbert 2004; Hemerijck 2008; Palier 2010; Pierson 2001). Among these diverse views there is agreement on the importance of private and/or collective mechanisms of regulation in influenc- ing welfare state changes, and in particular on the role played by industrial relations actors and practices (Burroni and Keune 2011; Ebbinghaus and Hassel 2000; Molina and Rhodes 2002; Mares 2003; Brandl and Traxler 2005; Baccaro and Simoni 2008). The large majority of studies on this topic emphasize the way in which unions and employers’ associations have participated, especially during the 1990s, to the set-up of welfare state reforms through tripartite social dialogue at national level. But at the same time, a rising strand of research underlines that unions and employers’ associations play an important role in welfare reorganization through collective bargaining: many collective agreements cover welfare issues, specifically in the domains of pensions, early retirement, training, parental and maternity leave, unemployment benefits, childcare, healthcare and sickness, work-life balance (Hyde et al. 2003; Trampusch 2006; 2007a; 2007b; 2009; Ebbinghaus 2006; Yerkes and Tijdens 2010; Järvi and Kuivalainen 2012). Thus, collective bargaining on welfare issues could be an interesting development in a period of strong difficulties and decline for industrial relations and of welfare reorganization (Baccaro and Howell 2011; Crouch 2013; Cella 2012; Bordogna 2012; Ferrera and Maino 2011; 2013). Therefore, when focusing on welfare state changes, there is a need to systematically study the impact of industrial relations and collective bargaining and to consider structure and outcomes of collectively-negotiated benefits made available through collective agreements at industry-wide or company level (Trampusch 2007b; Greve 2007; Pavolini et al. 2013). A positive evaluation of these forms of

Collective bargaining, atypical employment and welfare provisions

171

welfare provision is given by Johnston et al., who argue that unions and employers’ associations may fill gaps created by welfare state retrenchment, negligence or inactivity by shifting this policy area (and its financing) into the sphere of collective bargaining; and this may (re)«collectivize» risks and provisions marginalized by the State (Johnston et al. 2011; 2012). These authors consider negotiated welfare provisions as an alternative path to welfare reform, besides privatization. Using evidence from Dutch, Italian and Greek cases, they stress how social partners have successfully became «pivotal political substitutes» of the State in the realm of «old» and «new» social risks protection (in particular training, insurance, pensions). Finally, they claim that, by assuming such a role and responsibil- ity, unions may reach the new constituencies, such as unemployed or workers with non-standard contracts, increasing their chance of membership revitalization; in this way, State retrenchment can provide a «silver lining» for workers’ organizations2. With a more critical approach, Trampusch (2006; 2007a; 2009) shows that social partners in The Netherlands, Denmark, France and, to a lesser extent, Germany have used collective agreements to regulate and finance welfare provisions. But, she also argues that, even if collective negotiated benefits ensure more solidarity than a full market-oriented system, this is always «limited compared with solidarity provided by nationwide, state-controlled, compulsory institutions of social security» (Trampusch 2007a, p. 201). Other studies concur on this critical view highlighting the risk of a more pronounced process of dualization on the possibility to benefit from social protections and more generally of a stratifying rather than redistributive effect, with a growth of socio-economic inequalities among different occupational groups depending on sector, com- pany size, standard or non-standard forms of employment and the strength of unions and collective bargaining (Cox 2004; De Deken 2007; Yerkes and Tijdens 2010; Seeleib-Kaise et al. 2011; Järvi and Kuivalainen 2012; Pavolini et al. 2013). In this article we investigate these topics focusing on the relationship between collective bargaining and social security provisions in a sector of employment that in Italy is characterised by a low level of

2 It is important to note that, according to some scholars, the hypothesis of membership revitalization through targeting the interests of workers with non-standard contracts overlooks the progressive exit from unions of other kinds of workers, in particular the most qualified and those with higher contractual power (Regini 2012).

172

Luigi Burroni e Marcello Pedaci

welfare state provision, the Temporary Agency Work (TAW)3. Analysing contents and impact of collective bargaining in this sector, we will emphasise that both positive and critical evaluations highlight important issues. We will show that collectively negotiated welfare provisions in the Italian TAW sector have introduced relevant social security provisions such as maternity leave, unemployment benefits, opportunities for the stabilisation of the employment relationship, «availability allowance» for periods in which agency workers are not working in user firms, supplementary pension schemes, etc. This confirms the important role played by collective bargaining in providing measures to support workers even in the non-standard employment field. But where there are lights there are also shadows. In particular our case study underlines four main areas of concern. First, specific institutional conditions favored the rise of contractual welfare in the TAW sector and this «institutional embeddedness» means that it is very difficult to «export» such a system of social security provision to other segments of non-standard employment, such as, for example, dependent self-employed. Second, the difficulty in extending this form of welfare provision to other types of flexible jobs may introduce – in the absence of State intervention – a stable segmentation and disparity in terms of protection among non-standard workers. Third, the main features of the TAW sector together with the specific working conditions of agency workers – may have hindered a widespread use of such welfare provisions. Finally, the kind of benefits supported by collective bargaining are «integrative» and not substitutive of traditional welfare; in other words, collective bargaining in the TAW sector introduced additional welfare benefits, but it cannot solve problems related to the absence of a coherent national reform of social security provisions for non-standard workers. As Thelen emphasised, private sector voluntarism is not enough because it is complementary but not substitutive to the role of the State: there are policy areas where the State simply has to intervene, also because other forms of private mechanisms of regulation would not be able to sustain their development (Thelen 2014).

3 This article is based on a case study carried out under the framework of a research coordinated by the AIAS-University of Amsterdam. We adopted different methods and techniques of analysis, including 10 interviews with qualified actors, unions’ members and employers representatives, and officers of bilateral bodies; analy- sis of collective agreements, official documents and reports of unions and employers associations; analysis of quantitative data of different sources; discussion meeting with workers and employers representatives.

Collective bargaining, atypical employment and welfare provisions

173

We will go through these issues showing how collective bargaining and bilateral bodies contributed to a wide range of welfare provisions for the TAW sector (section 2). Then we will show how widely these provisions have been adopted by agency workers (section 3). Finally, we will examine the institutional embeddedness of collectively negotiated benefits (section 4). 2. Collective bargaining and the reinforcement of welfare provisions In Italy the incidence of workers with non-standard forms of employment is slightly higher than the European average. The difference is mainly due to the more relevant spread of the so-called dependent self-employed, or bogus self-employed. According to data gathered by the National Institute for Statistics (ISTAT), in 2012 workers with atypical contracts were 12.3% of the entire workforce. This incidence has sharply grown during the 2000s. After the outbreak of the economic crisis it has decreased, but in more recent years it has begun to grow again (ISTAT 2013); in a context of persisting difficulties and/or uncertain perspectives, in the few cases of new recruitment, companies preferred hiring workers with atypical contracts (Reyneri and Pintaldi 2013). Introduced in 1997, temporary agency work has progressively increased its incidence on non-standard forms of employment and on the entire workforce, even if with a decline after the 2008 economic crisis. Anyway, it still remains an «occupational niche». According to CIETT (International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies), in 2012 its penetration rate (i.e. the amount of agency workers as a share of the total working population) in the Italian labour mar- ket was 0.9 percent, below the European average of 1.6 (CIETT 2014). Anyway, it is worth noting that Italian penetration rate rose from 0.30 percent in 2000 to 1.25 percent in 2007. The number of agency workers with at least one hour-assignment increased from 106, 700 in 2000 (corresponding to 63,500 full time equivalents) to 582,200 in 2007 (218,500 full time equivalents); in 2011 they were 514, 545 (225,561 full time equivalents), and in 2012 about 470,000. In 2011 the whole number of assignment was 1,191,554, equal to 2.3 per worker. The assignment average duration significantly varies from one sector to other: in 2011 it was of 29.6 days in commerce sector, 54.5 days in manufacturing and 78.6 in public services. Even if it has an important – and recognized – bridging function from

Per il contenuto completo dell’articolo si veda: https://www.rivisteweb.it/issn/03929701/issue/6437

https://www.rivisteweb.it/

Collective bargaining, atypical employment and welfare provisions

187

and criticalities, etc.11 This point is confirmed by the fact that when they succeed in entering in an agency, national collective negotiated provisions, ranging from stabilization to unemployment benefits, had a much more widespread utilization, creating a more effective bal- ance between flexibility and social security measures. Summing up, the TAW sector has some peculiarities in comparison with other non-standard forms of employment. Some of them – the structure of interests’ representation, the proactive role of the State, intraorganizational dynamics and actors strategies – stimulated the development of collectively negotiated welfare, according to a model similar to what Scharpf defined as actor-centered institutionalism (Scharpf 1997). At the same time, the analysis of some of these features may also contribute to a possible explanation for the still limited use of some of the innovative collectively negotiated benefits.

5. Conclusions The article has offered an analysis of the role that trade unions and employers’ associations may play in a context of welfare state reorganization through collective bargaining. We have emphasized that both positive and critical evaluations of these processes stress important issues (Johnston et al. 2011; 2012; Trampusch 2006; 2007a; 2009). On the one hand, collectively negotiated welfare may contribute to reinforce welfare provisions and to increase protection towards risks even for non-standard employment. The case study shows that collective bargaining in TAW sector has pro- moted measures aimed at favoring the transitions from temporary contract to more stable arrangement. It has set up provisions to support the income and, more generally, the economic condition of agency workers: an allowance for the periods during which the 11 On this issue, it has to be considered that the agency workers’ representation system set up by the national sector agreements, in particular by the 2008 agreement rarely has been translated into practice or it has got limited impacts. It included: 1) agency workers’ delegates at user company level (only in firms employing simultaneously at least 20 leased workers for not less than three months); 2) agency workers’ representation at agency level, i.e. at national level, with a variable number of members ranging from 3 (in agencies accounting from 2,000 to 6,999 full time equivalent temporary workers) to 9 (in agencies with more than 28,000); 3) territorial representatives, at regional or provincial level, directly appointed by unions that signed the national agreement. The 2014 agreement has partly revisited this system: it has lowered the requisites for delegates at user companies level and, about delegates at agency level, has replaced the national representation with a regional one.

188

Luigi Burroni e Marcello Pedaci

worker has no assignment opportunities; a form of unemployment benefit, even if as one-off payment; the possibility to incur personal loans at competitive interest rate. It has also introduced financial contributions for maternity and childcare, refunding for health- care expenses, also for agency workers’ fiscally dependent family members, and additional benefits in the case of accident at work. Finally, collective bargaining, through bilateral bodies, has promoted further training opportunities and complementary pension schemes. This confirms the hypothesis that collective bargaining may be a way to re-collectivize risks and a strategy for unions to cover the interests of non-standard workers in a period of generalized decline of membership. At the same time, this case study shows that strong collective labour relations may lead to a more balanced relationship between flexibility and security. On the other hand, even considering the interesting potentialities of the provisions set up by collective bargaining, it needs to take into account some limits that our study highlighted. First, collec- tively negotiated welfare offers inevitably narrow entity of supports, contributions, benefits for agency workers and it usually lays down strict criteria to qualify for/obtain them. Such a limit is linked to the nature, structure, funding and operating modalities of this kind of welfare itself and to the amount of financial resources available to collective bargaining and to bilateralism. In other words, as other empirical studies have emphasized (Trampusch 2007a), collective nego- tiated benefits are very important but obviously limited in comparison to those provided by public, compulsory, nation-wide institutions of social security. Second, very specific institutional conditions favoured the emerging of collectively negotiated welfare in the TAW sector and these peculiarities make this experience very difficult to be exported to other segments of non-standard employment. These evidences confirm the necessity, when focusing on welfare state restructuring and social protection mechanisms, to consider industrial relations practices and trade unions initiatives through collective bargaining. Collective negotiations on welfare issue at sector or company level could be a path that offers a contribution for the definition of «assertive» strategies of unions aimed at mitigating some of the difficulties that emerged during recent years that led to the decline of collective bargaining and trade union membership (Baccaro and Howell 2011; Crouch 2013; Glassner et al. 2011). But additional investigation in different segments of the labour market is required for a better understanding of these dynamics, which should focus on constraints and opportunities for collectively negotiated welfare

Collective bargaining, atypical employment and welfare provisions

189

and better specify the interaction between negotiated benefits and those provided by the State, the outcomes of the former and their compensating effects for gaps of welfare state provisions. RIfERIMENTI BIBLIOGRAfICI Altieri, G., Dota, F., Piersanti, M. (2009), Percorsi nel lavoro atipico: il caso dei lavoratori interinali, Milano: FrancoAngeli. Ascoli, U. (a cura di) (2011), Il welfare in Italia, Bologna: Il Mulino. Ascoli, U., Pavolini, E. (2012), Ombre rosse. Il sistema di welfare italiano dopo venti anni di riforme, in Stato e Mercato, 96, pp. 521-542. Baccaro, L., Simoni, M. (2008), Policy Concertation in Europe: Understanding Government Choice, in Comparative Political Studies, 41, 10, pp. 1323-1348. Baccaro, L., Howell, C. (2011), A Common Neoliberal Trajectory: The Transformation of Industrial Relations in Advanced Capitalism, in Politics & Society, 39, 4, pp. 521-563. Ballarino, G., Pedersini, R. (2005), La rappresentanza degli outsiders in Italia, in Europa, in Quaderni di Rassegna Sindacale, 1, pp. 161-180. Bispinck, R., Schulten, T. (2011), Trade Union Responses to Precarious Employment in Germany, Düsseldorf: BARSORI project, German Report. Bonoli, G. (2007), Time Matters: Postindustrialization, New Social Risks, and Welfare State Adaptation in Advanced Industrial Democracies, in Comparative Political Studies, 40, 5, pp. 495-520. Bordogna, L. (2012), La regolazione del lavoro nel capitalismo che cambia: fosche prospettive?, in Stato e Mercato, 1, pp. 15-28. Brandl, B., Traxler, F. (2005), Industrial Relations, Social Pacts and Welfare Expenditures: A Cross-National Comparison, in British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43, 4, pp. 635-658. Burroni, L., Keune, M. (2011), Flexicurity: A Conceptual Critique, in Eu- ropean Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 1, pp. 75-91. Carrieri, M. (2011), La regolazione del lavoro. Dopo l’era dell’instabilità, Roma: Ediesse. Casano, L. (2012), Modelli ed esperienze di formazione continua per i lavoratori interinali: una comparazione tra Italia e Francia, in Sociologia del lavoro, 126, pp. 182-194. Cella, G.P. (2012), Difficoltà crescenti per le relazioni industriali europee e italiane, in Stato e Mercato, 1, pp. 29-54. CIETT (2014), Economic Report, Brussels: CIETT Report. Coletto, D., Pedersini, R. (2009), Self-employed Workers: Industrial Relations and Working Conditions, Dublin: European Foundation for the Improve- ment of Living and Working Conditions. Consiglio, S., Moschera, L. (2010), Le agenzie per il lavoro e le risposte strategiche e organizzative alla crisi economica, Milano: FrancoAngeli. Consiglio, S., Moschera, L. (2012), IV Rapporto sull’evoluzione del settore delle agenzie per il lavoro in Italia, Roma, Rapporto per Osservatorio Centro Studi – EBITEMP.

190

Luigi Burroni e Marcello Pedaci

Cox, R.H. (2004), The Path-Dependency of an Idea: Why Scandinavian Welfare States Remain Distinct, in Social Policy and Administration, 38, 2, pp. 204-219. Crouch, C. (2005), Capitalist Diversity and Change. Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crouch, C. (2011), The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism, Cambridge: Polity Press. Crouch, C. (2013), Making Capitalism Fit for Society, Cambridge: Polity Press. Cutler, T., Waine, B. (2001), Social Insecurity and the Retreat from Social Democracy: Occupational Welfare in the Long Boom and Fi- nancialization, in Review of International Political Economy, 8, 1, pp. 96-118. De Deken, J. (2007), The Rise of Occupational and Voluntary Welfare and its Consequences for Solidarity and the Cost of Social Security. The Effect of the Embeddedness of Industrial Relations, Paper presented at the 5th Annual ESPANET Conference, Vienna. Ebbinghaus, B. (2006), Reforming Early Retirement in Europe, Japan, and the USA, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ebbinghaus, B., Hassel, A. (2000), Striking Deals: Concertation in the Reform of Continental European Welfare States, in Journal of European Public Policy, 7, 1, pp. 44-63. EBITEMP (2011), Le prestazioni di EBITEMP per i lavoratori in somministrazione nel 2010, Roma: Rapporto dell’Osservatorio Centro Studi – EBITEMP. EBITEMP (2013), Note sulle prestazioni di welfare 2013, Roma: Rapporto dell’Osservatorio Centro Studi – EBITEMP. EBITEMP/FORMATEMP (2011), Rapporto di attività Forma.Temp, Roma: Rapporto dell’Osservatorio Centro Studi – EBITEMP. Esping-Andersen, G. (1996), Conclusion: Occupational Welfare in the So- cial Policy Nexus, in M. Shalev (ed.), The Privatization of Social Policy? Occupational Welfare and the Welfare State in America, Scandinavia and Japan, Houndsmill: Macmillan Press, pp. 327-338. EUROCIETT/UNI Europa (2013), Temporary Agency Work and Transitions in the Labour Market. Institutional Frameworks, Empirical Evidence, Good Practice and the Impact of Social Dialogue, Hamburg: Final Report for the EUROCIETT/UNI Europa Project «Temporary Agency Work and Transitions in the Labour Market». European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Condi- tions (EUROFOUND) (2008), Temporary Agency Work and Collective Bargaining in the Eu, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Farnsworth, K. (2004), Welfare through Work: An Audit of Occupational Social Provision at the Turn of the New Century, in Social Policy & Administration, 38, 5, pp. 437-455. Ferrera, M. (2007), Trent’anni dopo. Il welfare state europeo tra crisi e trasformazione, in Stato e Mercato, 41, pp. 341-376. Ferrera, M., Maino, F. (2011), Primo rapporto sul secondo welfare in Italia, Centro di Ricerca e Documentazione Luigi Einaudi.

Collective bargaining, atypical employment and welfare provisions

191

Ferrera, M., Maino, F. (2013), Il secondo welfare in Italia: sfide e prospet- tive, in Italianeuropei, 3. Ferrera, M., Rhodes, M. (2000), Building a Sustainable Welfare State, in West European Politics, 23, 2, pp. 257-282. FORMATEMP (2008), Vademecum. Note operative per la gestione delle attività formative finanziate dal fondo, Roma: Documenti Formatemp. Gilbert, N. (2004), Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Glassner, V., Keune, M., Marginson, P. (2011), Collective Bargaining in a Time of Crisis: Developments in the Private Sector in Europe, in Transfer – European Review of Labour and Research, 17, 3, pp. 303-322. Greve, B. (2007), Occupational Welfare, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gumbrell-McCombrick, R. (2010), European Trade Unions and «Atypical» Workers, in Industrial Relations Journal, 42, 3, pp. 293-310. Gumbrell-McCormick, R., Hyman, R. (2013), Trade Unions in Western Europe: Hard Times, Hard Choices, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2005), A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Hassel, A. (2003), The Politics of Social Pacts, in British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 4, pp. 707-726. Heery, E. (2009), Trade Unions and Contingent Labour: Scale and Method, in Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2, pp. 429-442. Hemerijck, A. (2008), Welfare Recalibration as Social Learning, Paper presented at the ESPAnet Doctoral Researcher Workshop. Hyde, M., Dixon, J., Drover, G. (2003), Welfare State Retrenchment or Collective Responsibility? The Privatisation of Public Pensions in Western Europe, in Social Policy and Society, 2, 3, pp. 189-197. IRES (2009), Lavoro in somministrazione e politiche attive. Per un ammortizzatore sociale nella somministrazione di lavoro, Roma: Rapporto di Ricerca. IRES (2011), Condizioni di lavoro e percorsi dei lavoratori e delle lavoratrici interinali, Roma: Rapporto di Ricerca. ISTAT (2013), Rapporto annuale 2013. La situazione del paese, Roma: ISTAT. Järvi, L., Kuivalainen, S. (2012), Does Occupational Welfare Matter? Measurement and the Importance of Collectively Negotiated Sickness Benefits in Crossnational Social Policy Analysis, Paper presented at the 10th Annual ESPANET Conference, Edinburgh. Johnston, A., Kornelakis, A., Rodriguez d’Acri, C. (2011), Social Partners and the Welfare State, in European Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 4, pp. 349-364. Johnston, A., Kornelakis, A., Rodriguez d’Acri, C. (2012), Swords of Jus- tice in an Age of Retrenchment? The Role of Trade Unions in Welfare Provision, in Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 18, 2, pp. 213-224. Keune, M. (2011), Trade Union Responses to Precarious Work, Amsterdam: BARSORI project, Overview Report. Mailand M., Larsen T.P. (2011), Trade Unions and Precarious Work, Copenhagen: BARSORI project, Danish Report.

192

Luigi Burroni e Marcello Pedaci

Mares, I. (2003), The Politics of Social Risk. Business and Welfare State Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Molina, O., Rhodes, M. (2002), Corporatism: The Past, Present, and the Future of a Concept, in Annual Review of Political Science, 5, pp. 305-331. Natali, D., Stamati, F. (2013), Le pensioni «categoriali» in Italia: legislazione e messa in opera del nuovo sistema multi-pilastro, in E. Pavolini, U. Ascoli, M.L. Mirabile, Tempi moderni. Il welfare nelle aziende in Italia, Bologna: Il Mulino. Palier, B. (ed.) (2010), A Long Good-bye to Bismarck. The Politics of Welfare Reforms in Continental Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Pavolini, E., Ascoli, U., Mirabile, M.L. (2013), Tempi moderni. Il welfare nelle aziende in Italia, Bologna: Il Mulino. Pierson, P. (2001), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pulignano, V., De Franceschi, F., Ortiz, L. (2014), Il lavoro precario e le strutture sindacali. Le strategie adottate dai sindacati italiani e spagnoli, in Quaderni di Rassegna Sindacale-Lavori, 15, 1, pp. 162-195. Regalia, I. (2009a), Quale rappresentanza. Dinamiche e prospettive del sindacato in Italia, Roma: Ediesse. Regalia, I. (a cura di) (2009b), Regolare le nuove forme d’impiego. Esperimenti locali di flexicurity in Europa, Milano: FrancoAngeli. Regini, M. (2012), Tre fasi, due modelli e una crisi generalizzata, in Stato e Mercato, 1, pp. 77-90. Reyneri, E., Pintaldi, F. (2013), Dieci domande su un mercato del lavoro in crisi, Bologna: Il Mulino. Scharpf, F.W. (1997), Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder, Co.: Westeview. Schmidt, V.A., Thatcher, M. (eds.) (2013), Resilient Liberalism in Europe’s Political Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schömann, I., Guedes, C. (2012), Temporary Agency Work in the European Union. Implementation of Directive 2008/104/EC in the Member States, Brussels: European Trade Union Institute, Report 125. Seeleib-Kaiser, M., Sauders, A., Nacsyk, M. (2011), Shifting the Public-Private Mix: A New Dualization of Welfare?, in P. Emmenger, S. Häusermann, B. Palier, M. Selieb-Kaiser (eds.), The Age of Dualization. The Changing Face of Inequality in Deindustrializing Societies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151-175. Steger, M.B., Roy, R.K. (2010), Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Streeck, W. (2013), The Politics of Public Debt. Neoliberalism, Capitalist Development and the Restructuring of the State, MPIfG Discussion Paper 13/7. Streeck, W., Thelen, K. (2005), Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change In Advanced Political Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thelen, K. (2014), Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tozza, G.P. (2008), L’accordo per il nuovo contratto, in Il Diario del Lavoro, www.ildiariodellavoro.it.

Collective bargaining, atypical employment and welfare provisions

193

Trampusch, C. (2006), Industrial Relations and Welfare States: The Different Dynamics of Retrenchment in Germany and the Netherlands, in Journal of European Social Policy, 16, 2, pp. 121-133. Trampusch, C. (2007a), Industrial Relations as a Source of Solidarity in Times of Welfare State Retrenchment, in Journal of Social Policy, 36, 2, pp. 197-215. Trampusch, C. (2007b), Industrial Relations as a Source of Social Policy: A Typology of the Institutional Conditions for Industrial Agreements on Social Benefits, in Social Policy & Administration, 41, 3, pp. 251-270. Trampusch, C. (2009), Collective Agreements on Pensions as a Source of Solidarity, in Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 25, 2, pp. 99-107. Vaes, T., Vandenbrande, T. (2009), Implementing the EU Directive on Temporary Agency Work, Leuven: Hoger Instituut voor de Arbeid. Yerkes, M., Tijdens, K. (2010), Social Risk Protection in Collective Agreements: Evidence from the Netherlands, in European Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 4, pp. 369-383.

Collective bargaining, atypical employment and welfare provisions: The case of temporary agency work in Italy Summary: The article focuses on the relationship between collective bargaining and social security provisions in a sector of atypical employment, the Temporary Agency Work, in Italy. Analysing contents and impact of collective bargaining in this sector, we underline that collective bargaining has introduced very important social security provisions such as maternity leave, unemployment benefits, opportunities for the stabilisation of the employment relationship, «availability allowance» for periods in which agency workers are not working in user firms, supplementary pension schemes, etc. This confirms the important role played by collective bargaining in providing welfare measures to support workers. But at the same time, this case study under- lines four main areas of concern. First, specific institutional conditions favored the rise of contractual welfare in the TAW sector and this «institutional embeddedness» means that it is very difficult to «export» such a system of social security provision to other segments of non-standard employment. Second, the difficulty in extending this form of welfare provision to other types of flexible jobs may introduce a stable segmentation in terms of protection among non-standard workers. Third, we show how the main features of the TAW sector together with the specific working conditions of TAW workers may have hindered a widespread use of such welfare provisions. Finally, the kind of benefits supported by collective bargaining are «integrative» and not substitutive of traditional welfare. JEL Classification: J5 - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining; I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty; P16 - Political Economy.