This article analyses if and to what extent labour market segmentation and labour market mobility influence trade union density. Some industries and sectors have stable employment domains and employees stay to a high degree within the industry even if they change jobs. Other industries and sectors have more unstable employments domains and employees to a higher degree shift to employment in other industries and sectors when they move to another job. In this article, it is analysed how differences in segmentation and employee mobility out of an industry influence union density. The analysis is based on a statistical analysis of registry data from Denmark and contains almost 2 million employees employed in 111 different industries (NACE-coded). The analysis shows that trade union density especially in the private sector industries is significantly influenced by level of segmentation and level of mobility.
AbrahamsonB (1993) Union structural change. Economic and Industrial Democracy14(3): 399–421.
2.
BeynonHDaviesRDaviesS (2012) Sources of variation in trade union membership across the UK: The case of Wales. Industrial Relations Journal43(3): 200–221.
3.
BlanchflowerDG (2007) International patterns of union membership. British Journal of Industrial Relations45(1): 1–28.
4.
BrysonAEbbinghausBVisserJ (2011) Introduction: Causes, consequences and cures of union decline. European Journal of Industrial Relations17(2): 97–105.
5.
ChecchiDVisserJ (2005) Pattern persistence in European trade union density: A longitudinal analysis 1950–1996. European Sociological Review21(1): 1–21.
6.
CleggHA (1976) Trade Unionism under Collective Bargaining: A Theory Based on Comparisons Of Six Countries. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
7.
DoeringerPBPioreMJ (1985) Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
8.
DueJMadsenJS (2008) The Danish model of industrial relations: Erosion or renewal?Journal of Industrial Relations50(3): 513–529.
9.
DueJMadsenJSPihlMD (2010) LO-dokumentation nr. 1/2010. Silkeborg: Landsorganisationen i Danmark.
10.
EbbinghausBVisserJ (1999) When institutions matter: Union growth and decline in Western Europe, 1950–1995. European Sociological Review15(2): 135–158.
11.
EbbinghausBGobelCKoosS (2011) Social capital, ‘Ghent’ and workplace contexts matter: Comparing union membership in Europe. European Journal of Industrial Relations17(2): 107–124.
12.
European Commission (2008) NACE Rev. 2 Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
13.
FazekasZ (2011) Institutional effects on the presence of trade unions at the workplace: Moderation in a multilevel setting. European Journal of Industrial Relations17(2): 153–169.
14.
FuråkerBBengtssonM (2013) Collective and individual benefits of trade unions: A multi-level analysis of 21 European countries. Industrial Relations Journal44(5–6): 548–565.
15.
Gumbrell-McCormickRHymanR (2013) Trade Unions in Western Europe: Hard Times, Hard Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
Gyimah-BrempongKOlsonP (1994) New evidence on the labor market segmentation hypothesis. Review of Social Economy52(1): 20–39.
17.
HechterM (1988) Principles of Group Solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
HeeryE (2009) Trade unions and contingent labour: Scale and method. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society2(3): 429–442.
19.
HøgedahlL (2014) The Ghent effect for whom? Mapping the variations of the Ghent effect across different trade unions in Denmark. Industrial Relations Journal45(6): 469–485.
20.
HosmerDWLemeshowS (2000) Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn.New York: John Wiley.
21.
IbsenCL (2012) Trade Unions in Denmark. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
22.
IbsenFHøgedahlLScheuerS (2013) Free riders: The rise of alternative unionism in Denmark. Industrial Relations Journal44(5–6): 444–461.
23.
IlsøeA (2012) Signs of segmentation? A flexicurity perspective on decentralized collective bargaining in Denmark. Economic and Industrial Democracy33(2): 245–265.
24.
JensenCS (2011) The flexibility of flexicurity: The Danish model reconsidered. Economic and Industrial Democracy32(4): 721–737.
25.
JørgensenHMadsenPK (2007) Flexicurity and Beyond: Finding a New Agenda for the European Social Model. Gylling: DJØF Publishing.
26.
JørgensenHSchulzeM (2011) Leaving the Nordic path? The changing role of Danish trade unions in the welfare reform process. Social Policy and Administration45(2): 206–219.
27.
KarlsonKBHolmABreenR (2012) Comparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested models using logit and probit: A new method. Sociological Methodology42(1): 286–313.
28.
KjellbergA (2009) The Swedish Ghent system and trade unions under pressure. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research15(3–4): 481–504.
29.
KöhlerH-DCalleja JiménezJP (2012) Transformations in Spanish trade union membership. Industrial Relations Journal43(3): 281–292.
30.
LindJ (2007) A Nordic saga? The Ghent system and trade unions. International Journal of Employment Studies15(1): 49–68.
31.
LindbeckASnowerDJ (2001) Insiders versus outsiders. The Journal of Economic Perspectives15(1): 165–188.
32.
MailandM (2016) Proactive employers and teachers’ working time regulation: Public sector industrial conflicts in Denmark and Norway. Economic and Industrial Democracy. Epub ahead of print 2August2016. DOI: 10.1177/0143831X16657414
33.
MilnerS (2012) Towards a European labour market? Trade unions and flexicurity in France and Britain. European Journal of Industrial Relations18(3): 219–234.
34.
OlsonM (1965) The Logic of Collective Action; Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
PioreMJ (1983) Labor market segmentation: To what paradigm does it belong?The American Economic Review73(2): 249–253.
36.
Rabe-HeskethSEverittBElliottJ (2006) A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using Stata, 4th edn.Seattle, WA: CRC Press.
37.
RileyN-M (1997) Determinants of union membership: A review. Labour11(2): 265–301.
38.
ScheuerS (2000) Social and Economic Motivation at Work: Theories of Motivation Reassessed. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolens Forlag.
39.
SchmittJMitukiewiczA (2012) Politics matter: Changes in unionisation rates in rich countries, 1960–2010. Industrial Relations Journal43(3): 260–280.
40.
SchnabelC (2013) Union membership and density: Some (not so) stylized facts and challenges. European Journal of Industrial Relations19(3): 255–272.
41.
SchnabelCWagnerJ (2007) Union density and determinants of union membership in 18 EU countries: Evidence from micro data, 2002/031. Industrial Relations Journal38(1): 5–32.
42.
SzumilasM (2010) Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry19(3): 227–229.
43.
ToubølJJensenCS (2014) Why do people join trade unions? The impact of workplace union density on union recruitment. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research20(1): 135–154.
44.
Van RieTMarxIHoremansJ (2011) Ghent revisited: Unemployment insurance and union membership in Belgium and the Nordic countries. European Journal of Industrial Relations17(2): 125–139.
45.
VisserJ (2011) Why fewer workers join unions in Europe: A social custom explanation of memberships trends. British Journal of Industrial Relations40(3): 403–430.
46.
WesternB (1997) Between Class and Market: Postwar Unionization in the Capitalist Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
WilkinsonF (1981) The Dynamics of Labour Market Segmentation. London: Academic Press.
48.
WynnM (2015) Organising freelancers: A hard case or a new opportunity?The Handbook of Research on Freelancing and Self-Employment. Shankill, Dublin: Senate Hall Academic Publishing.
