集体谈判制度中工会的坚持与退让:德国和美国的历史比较  

The Resistance and Concession of Trade Unions in Collective Bargaining:A historical Comparison of Germany and the U.S.

作　　者：罗斯琦[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]中山大学中国公共管理研究中心 [2]中山大学政治与公共事务管理学院

出　　处：《中国人力资源开发》2016年第7期30-39,49,共11页Human Resources Development of China

基　　金：2014年中山大学高校基本科研业务费青年教师培育项目资助;项目名称"对抗;服从与同意--达成和谐劳动关系的路径探索"(1409027)

摘　　要：本文从美国和德国二十世纪的劳工运动出发,分析两种典型的集体谈判模式之间的关键差异,并试图探讨其历史成因。在战后经济复苏过程中,集体谈判在两国都得以制度化,然而其具体形式和运行效果却大相径庭。本文通过对这两种制度的历史比较,认为最初两国工会都接受了改良主义的产业关系理念,但是在建立"社会契约"过程中德国呈现为社会伙伴关系,而美国则是劳资竞争伙伴关系。从根本上说,特定的历史条件虽然限制了劳工运动的空间,但是两国工会在与国家和雇主的互动中仍然各自有所坚持与退让,而这些选择最终构建了大相径庭的制度。同时,集体谈判制度作为互动的结果,又反过来影响各国长期的产业关系及其社会效果。By analyzing the 20 th century labor history in Germany and the U.S., this paper attempts to identify the key differences between the two classic models of collective bargaining and explore how such differences have developed. During the post-war economic upturn, collective bargaining became institutionalized in both countries but with largely divergent forms and effects. This paper argues that both German and American trade unions have accepted reformist concepts of industrial relations. Nevertheless, the formation process of ＂social contracts＂ resulted to the model of social partnership in Germany, in contrast to a competitive partnership in the U.S. Fundamentally, although the historical economic and political conditions restrained the space for labor, trade unions in both countries also made their own choices. Such choices, in the forms of resistance or concession, eventually lead to divergent institutions. Meanwhile, collective bargaining institutions, as the result of interaction between trade unions, the state and employers, also impact on industrial relations and social consequences in the long run.

关 键 词：集体谈判 社会民主 产业关系 劳工运动史 

分 类 号：D411[政治法律—政治学]