Employment Relations In France & Denmark Essay

Question:

Compare and contrast the role that the state plays in the system of employment relations in France with the role that the state plays in the system of employment relations in Denmark.

Answer:

Recently, many researchers have committed themselves to investigating and looking for a detailed conclusion on how various nations coordinate with the public service boards in recruitment and maintenance of employees. This provides clear evidence that the public service labor relations are an important body which is highly recognized than any other sector in most of the states (Milner, 2012). It is also evident that employees do not possess equal bargaining powers for their rights and thus they are always limited to carry industrial actions such as strikes than the private sector workers (Bryson, 2011). Regardless of less or more collective bargaining power possession of rights, employees who work in the same field of specification team up and form trade unions which fight for their exploited rights whenever such case occurs. This trade union spirit is mostly found with the public servants as compared to those who work in the private sector (Wagner & Refslund, 2016. The primary reason why civil servants form these trade unions is the fact that they believe that they have always remained marginalized and instead of the government handling them as influential people, they neglect them hoping to find the assigned duties performed excellently.

What the government expects most from the public servants is total cooperation and maximum commitment regardless of how they treat them and also their remuneration. This is a belief of many of the civil servants in most of the countries. Public service employment conditions of the public sector are always very different compared to those of the industry, and that's why civil servants have the highest probability and always prone to industrial actions such as strikes and public demonstrations through their trade unions (Damesin, 2009). Denmark is better off when compared to France in terms of employee’s protection Act. The industrial relations are more favorable at Denmark that in France


Authority relationship between the government and the civil servants is practiced in most of the countries, France being one of the highly dominated countries by this kind of relationship Laroche (2016). The public civil service system is governed and operated under four civil service laws. The combination of these services forms a civil service statute. The rights and responsibilities of the workers are contained in this law. The statute also gives the three fundamental laws which govern the workers in their day to day activities while working for the government (Due & Madsen, 2008). The law which rules the rights of the public state employees (la Fonction Publique de L’etat), those employees located in regional or local government basements (la Fonction Publique territoriale) and those civil servants who work in the hospitals, specifically the nursing staff (la function public hospitaliere) (Mainland 2010).

In the case of Denmark, it has been an opinion for all that the level of collective bargaining power of the public employees is very high. This was estimated to be about 90% of the total coverage by the Danish ministry of Labor. Just like in France, trade union is also highly practiced in Denmark with the public servants claiming to be neglected by the government, more so when it comes to remuneration (Laroche, 2016. According to studies carried out by different statisticians, it is evident that 52% of the servants under private sector have been covered by the collective bargaining agreement which is entirely different case to that of France since a minimal number of private workers has been included in the accord (Scheuer, Steen, Collective Bargaining Coverage and the Status Divide: Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom Compared). Initially, there was no private worker involved. They believe that the low-level of bargaining power is brought about by the poor or weak organizational structure of the staff and they have discouraged it Ibsen (2016).

In France, the civil service board is the determinant factor and also the most powerful organ in the sector of employment, salaries, and remuneration of various workers. It offers decrees which should be adhered to by the employees. The central principle of the French state recruitment and employment panel is that all the public staff members in whichever field have a civil service status Milner (2012).It is the obligation of the state to determine and set the various salaries for their workers such that if the employees may not feel comfortable with the amount, the best option is to quit and not comprise or negotiate with the government agencies. This has been among the leading drivers leading to the formation of different trade unions which fight for the rights and needs of the neglected (Rosemain, 2013).

Civil service board in Denmark is very highly recognized, just like in France but not because of its stubbornness and ability to stress or exploit the workers but it's because it is made to fight for the rights of the employers. Employees are treated like human beings and with a lot of sympathies and for this reason, there is no enmity or grudge between the private sector worker, public servants and the government (Milner & Mathers, 2013). This is evidenced by the inclusion of about 52% of the private employees in the collective bargaining agreement which is not the case in France where the public servants believe that they have been neglected and all the credits directed to the private workers.

All the relations governing labor in France are organized under a very highly institutionalized system. The system is composed of different commissions which join through an unofficial a collective bargaining system influenced much by politics and which the salaries and remunerated system is always a subject of negotiation. Through the trade unions, the government loosened their stand to allow salary negotiations to allow smooth running and a better relationship with the workers. This was agreed as early as from 1968 through an agreement called the protocol Oudinot between the government and the trade unions. Currently in France now there is no any particular arrangement of salaries and remuneration except that of 1968, so it is a bit difficult to conduct another agreement under whichever scope Thomas (2016).


In Denmark, it is the responsibility of the government in collaboration with the workers to come up with the governing relations which cater and recognize the welfare of every party. Salaries are distributed according to the task done by the employee and not as per the government setting and wishes. There is the existence of joint commissions which work under formal conditions with a lot of transparency targeting to encourage their employees, retaining them as well as welcoming the new entrants in the industry. One thing in common between the Denmark and French employment systems is that under whichever circumstances, salaries and remuneration of employees is a subject to negotiation though it doesn’t mean that what the trade unions fight for is always given to them.

When it comes to the issue of flexibility and level of employment protection, the France government is characterized by high level of job creation and protection as compared to the different case of Denmark where the security level of employees is low Hansen (2013). In the event of workers compensation in the event of injury or death at the workplace or while on duty, France is marked with low level and neglect of employment compensation which is not the case in Denmark where we have a very high level of set-off. Another thing is that in terms of the consequences in relation to various types of flexibility and creation of different job opportunities, Denmark takes the lead with a noticeable high level of numerical flexibility and also having a very high level of job creation which is entirely the opposite of the case in France where the numerical flexibility is very low as well as the job creation level.

Flexicurity on both macro and micro level is also a comparison element when it comes to the roles played by these governments in the employment of workers. It is well known that the labor markets don't constitute of only one employee or employer, but they represent more than individual staff and employers respectively. This is only evidenced in the case of Denmark as opposed to other nations (Watson, 2017. The overall systems of the national industrial relations are acted upon by the trade unions, associations of employers and some of the governmental agencies as well which is not the case in France. Trade union density at Denmark is at 74 percent while that at France is only 10 percent.

It is evident that the overall organizational characteristics when compared to these two nations, everything is different. In the case where Denmark apply the Ghent system as an unemployment benefits system about trade unions, nothing like that appears in the French system of unemployment. The other major difference is that of the fundamental orientation in labor market regulation was for the Denmark nation it is based on collective agreements which are not the case in France where they base it on legislative matters.

Among the characteristics with relationship to the Danish system of enterprise work, is the existence of unions which fight for the rights of the marginalized and in one way or another they have been able to conquer many battles and remain the epitome of success in their endeavors (Burroni & Keune, 2011). As much as the rights of the workers are concerned, the trade unions in collaboration with the employee's welfare associations join hands in defending their rights. This is a different case in France since each association and trade union works independently though they are all geared towards achieving a similar goal (Rose & Pineau, 2016. In Denmark, the major players in the industrial relations system are the labor market parties, but in France, the main actors and decision makers, as well as the key contributor in the whole sector, is the government. This means that the French government has the final say on matters concerning the workers' salaries and remunerations.

The planning system in France is highly formal, and thus the managerial systems of work, authority, and power are very easy to find in the system. This is not the case in Denmark as the whole planning process seems to be less formal because all the stakeholders must be involved in commending and making decisions in every single step taken in the progress of the workers. Instead of following the simpler procedures applied by the French, Danish work is ruled by a various robust code of conducts which are enhanced and acquired during training sessions of the employees and also during the apprenticeships (Trampusch, 2010). Skilled workers in Denmark also have an excellent and significant view of the unions as they see them as the stewards for their survival as well as the fighters of their rights as opposed to the French employees who argue that the trade unions in collaboration with the government work towards exploiting them by giving a lot of work for little pay.


In the management of both micro and small enterprises sectors, the employment by the government in the case of Denmark has these standards and codes being a craft- based and not firm-based (Auer, 2010. This is an indicator that the firm has little or other insufficient rights in employment and remuneration of workers. This is a fully pledged duty of the government, but still, there must be various consultations with the employees and the firm management because the way of ruling and execution of functions is informal (Adler-Nissen, 2012). Here the information flows easier from one department to another since transparency is exercise and every party is free to ask questions for various clarifications. On the other hand, the management standards of micro and small enterprises in France are a firm based where the firm will perform its duties independently after which the laws under the government may approve or disapprove the decisions (Wagner & Refslund, 2016. To some extent, we can conclude that the rights of the workers in both Denmark and France are somehow limited although in Denmark they are a bit simpler than those of the French employees.

In Denmark still, the larger firms are accredited with higher collective bargaining agreements as opposed to small enterprises. According to the way of ruling and recognition, the Danish mostly emphasize the size of the business before distribution of the bargaining power. This just means that SMEs have very little collective bargaining agreement powers as compared to larger firms (Damesin & Denis, 2005). Contrary in the French nation, there are no boundaries or any jurisdiction in the rights and bargaining powers of the employees, may it be from the small enterprises or the larger firms (Bryson, Forth, & Laroche, 2011. All the staff are taken as equal and in possession of very little rights. No matter the size or the sector a firm is in, for the French government and remuneration department these are just but equal regarding employee treatment.


In conclusion, it is evident that the system of the workplace representation applied in whichever institution is of great importance and led to either success or failure of the entire enterprise. Employees are the most important people in every organization and they should be treated with a lot of respect and should not be exploited in whichever way. In Denmark there has been a tradition of the trade unions representing the rights of the workers to the government and this has helped the employees improve in their standards due to this kind of unity as opposed to the French system where even after they form organizations to fight for their rights, they still feel neglected as the government doesn't give them time to express their needs. No matter the type of employees the government has, there should be recognition for what they cannot be compared to other activities. A motivated employee will always commit themselves towards achieving the company goals and objectives. They are the determinant factors of either the success or failure of any thriving organization.

References List

Employment relations in France

Bryson, A, Forth, J & Laroche, P 2011, ‘Evolution or revolution? The impact of unions on workplace performance in Britain and France’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 171–187.

Damesin, R & Denis, J 2005, ‘SUD trade unions: the new organizations trying to conquer the French trade union scene,' Capital & Class, 86, pp. 17–37

Gumbrell-McCormick, R & Hyman, R 2006, ‘Embedded collectivism? Workplace representation in France and Germany’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 473-491.

Laroche, P 2016, ‘Employment relations in France,' in GJ Bamber, RD Lansbury, N Wailes & CF Wright (eds), International and comparative employment relations: National regulation, global changes, 6th ed, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Mehaut, P 2005, ‘Reforming the training system in France’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 303–317.

Milner, S 2012, ‘Towards a European labor market? Trade unions and flexicurity in France and Britain’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 219-234.

Milner, S & Mathers, 2013, ‘Membership, influence, and voice: a discussion of trade union renewal in the French context,' Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 122-138.

Rose, M & Pineau, E 2016, ‘Protests force French labor reform retreat,' Australian Financial Review, 16 March, p. 9.

Rose, M & Melander, I 2016, ‘French leaders ram through labor reform,' Australian Financial Review, 12 May, p. 12.

Rosemain, M & Viscusi, G 2015, ‘Daimler tries to kill French 35-hour law’, Australian Financial Review, 14 August, p. 30.

Tapia, M & Turner, L 2013, ‘Union campaigns as countermovements: mobilizing immigrant workers in France and the United Kingdom’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 601-622.

Thomas., A 2016, "The transnational circulation of the ‘organizing model' and its reception in Germany and France," European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 317-333

Watson, G 2017, ‘Can labor law reform be made popular?’, Australian Financial Review, 29 June, p. 43.

Employment relations in Denmark

Auer, P 2010, ‘What’s in a name?: The rise (and fall?) of flexicurity’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 371-386.

Burroni, L & Keune, M 2011, ‘Flexicurity: A conceptual critique’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 75–91.

Due, J, & Madsen, JS 2008, ‘The Danish model of industrial relations: Erosion or renewal?’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 513-529.

Gooderham, PN, Navrbjerg, SE, Olsen, KM & Steen, CR 2015, ‘The labor market regimes of Denmark and Norway – one Nordic model?’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 166-186.

Hansen, NW & Mailand, M 2013, ‘Public service employment relations in an era of austerity: The case of Denmark’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 375–389.

Hassel, A 2009, ‘Policies, and politics in social pacts in Europe,' European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 7-26.

Ibsen, CL 2016, ‘The role of mediation institutions in Sweden and Denmark after centralized bargaining,' British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 285-310.

Ibsen, CL 2016, ‘Making sense of employer collectivism – The case of Danish wage bargaining under recession,' Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 669–687.

Ibsen, F, H?gedahl, L & Scheuer, S 2013, ‘Free riders: the rise of alternative unionism in Denmark’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 44, no. 5-6, pp. 444-461.

Ilsoe, A 2012, ‘The flip side of organized decentralization: company-level bargaining in Denmark,' British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 760-781.

Ilsoe, A 2016, ‘From living wage to living hours – the Nordic version of the working poor,' Labour and Industry, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 40-57.

Madsen, JS, Due, J & Andersen, SK 2016, ‘Employment relations in Denmark,' in GJ Bamber, RD Lansbury, N Wailes & CF Wright (eds), International and comparative employment relations: National regulation, global changes, 6th ed, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Mailand, M 2010, ‘The common European flexicurity principles: How a fragile consensus was reached,' European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 241-257.

Trampusch, C 2010, ‘Co-evolution of skills and welfare in coordinated market economies?: A comparative historical analysis of Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland', European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 197-220.

Wagner, I & Refslund, B 2016, ‘Understanding the diverging trajectories of slaughterhouse work in Denmark and Germany: A power resource approach,' European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 335-351.

How to cite this essay: