Conference Agenda

The study adds to research on the 'zone of acceptance' (Marsden,2013) and technological changes (Doellgast&Wagner, 2022) by examining how labour leverage power through conflict to influence the relationship between Industry 4.0 and QWL. We theorize how unions challenge the ‘zone of acceptance’ and redefine its boundaries through the development of the ‘zone of contestation’. Unions voice the workers’ discontent over the impact of technology on the QWL to negotiate on the social effects of the technology decisions. Insights reveal how collective voice arrangements, managerial practices, and product-market configurations shape labour's power to influence the relationship between I4.0 and QWL.

Two research questions guide our research:

1) How do product-driven managerial regimes, institutional settings, and labour's strategic power leveraging influence the development of a 'zone of contestation'?

2) To what extent does the 'zone of contestation' influence the relationships between I4.0 and QWL?

We compare two qualitative cases of truck and two of car-components in Belgium and the Netherlands and conducted 77 semi-structured interviews with unions, businesses, workers in different units and four focus groups.

In truck plants, management depends on flexible manual labour. Unions leverage workers’ discontent with QWL to create a ‘zone of contestation’. How this zone laid the foundation for negotiation differs, depending on union power leverage. Based on the strength of the union-led works council, unions in Bel-truck renegotiated the relationship between I4.0 and QWL by shifting from conflict to negotiation. Conversely, in Dutch-truck, the union renegotiated this relationship by mobilizing against the (non-union) works council for their support of managerial strategy in deploying new technologies.

In car plants, the production of standard car parts enabled high automation, reducing management's reliance on flexible manual labour. Unions leverage workers’ discontent with QWL by creating a ‘zone of contestation.’ At Bel-car, discontent evolved into negotiation enabling labour to influence the relationship between Industry 4.0 and QWL. Similarly, at Dutch-car, unions leveraged worker discontent due to rising flexibility demands. However, works councils withheld their consent to the technology use until unions negotiated a social restructuring plan for EV.

References

Doellgast, V., and Wagner, I. (2022). Collective regulation and the future of work in the digital economy: Insights from comparative employment relations. Industrial Relations Journal, 53(3), 264–280.

Marsden, D. (2013) Individual voice in employment relationships: a comparison under different forms of workplace representation. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society. 52(1), 221-258.

As new technologies are increasingly introduced in occupational environments, transition processes often overlook workers' participation, experience, and working conditions, as well as the short and long-term impact on their lives and careers. This highlights the urgency of implementing actions that regulate these transitions, supporting decision-makers in adopting human-centered processes with the engagement of the voice of workers.

Research is being developed to address this issue as part of a technological transition project in I4.0 implemented in a large international metalworking company. In the project, we aim to understand how workers can be actively involved in technological transitions to ensure that the specificities of their work are recognized and their voice is acknowledged.

Over a year and a half, the research primarily focused on fieldwork, monitoring three technological use cases at different stages of implementation in the company's warehouse and production site. A mixed-methods approach was employed (e.g., on-site observations, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, discussions with the design team), grounded in participatory and co-construction principles, involving the company's digitalization team, leaders, and workers whose tasks or functions were going to be impacted by the technological changes. Through content analysis, materials were produced to reveal workers' technological acceptance and the company's technological journey. Quantitative data is still being collected to assess workers' current working conditions (including health, training, and skills) and the potential conditions needed to support these transitions.

The results reveal that the transition goals primarily focus on systems improvement and resource optimization impacting workers' leeway, overall sense of work, learning, collaboration, and work recognition. However, individual, collective and organizational resources were identified as opportunities to reflect, with potential for action in the transition processes, and to recognize workers’ contributions to a transition that promotes decent and sustainable work.

The research developed an evidence-based and participatory framework with guidelines and instruments that promote reflection on one's work activity, understanding working conditions and potential impacts on health and development. It is expected that this approach can inform stakeholders in making human-centered decisions to incorporate the voice of workers in transition processes. Furthermore, the innovative nature of this research is also related to identifying different resources as contributions to literature development.

This contribution holds significant policy relevance, offering a practical approach towards what should be the first level of strengthening workers’ voice in digital transition processes that contribute to transforming their work activity and career paths.

This study examines how institutional arrangements and political economic structures shape disabled workers' decisions to pursue competitive rather than sheltered employment in South Korea, despite heightened risks of discrimination and occupational injuries. Drawing on life history interviews with 30 disabled workers, this research investigates the complex interplay between structural constraints and worker agency in employment sector choices.

The analysis reveals that disabled workers' participation in competitive employment reflects both systematic institutional pressures and strategic resistance. Sheltered workshops, while ostensibly protective, often perpetuate exploitation through subminimum wages, limited career advancement, and disciplinary practices that reinforce notions of disabled workers as inherently less ‘productive.’ These conditions, combined with welfare policies that create poverty traps, effectively compel workers toward competitive employment sectors. Simultaneously, workers actively pursue normative labor participation as a means of demonstrating ‘productive’ capacity and challenging disability-based labor market segregation. This strategic engagement presents significant challenges: workers must navigate intensive productivity demands while managing impairments, confront systematic discrimination without adequate accommodations, and balance individual economic survival with possibilities for collective action.

The research documents sophisticated resistance strategies developed by disabled workers. These range from individual tactics like strategic disability disclosure and selective accommodation requests to collective actions including labor union participation and disability rights advocacy. Workers demonstrate remarkable agency in negotiating workplace conditions, though these actions necessarily occur within constraints imposed by capitalist labor relations and ableist institutional structures.

This study makes three primary contributions to literature on labor market institutions and worker agency. First, it provides empirical evidence that employment sector choices reflect broader political economic structures rather than individual preferences or capacities. Second, it reveals how current institutional arrangements simultaneously enable and constrain possibilities for worker resistance and collective mobilization. Third, it demonstrates how simplified binary classifications of protected versus competitive employment fail to capture the complex strategies disabled workers employ to navigate labor markets.

These findings suggest the need for fundamental restructuring of labor market institutions. Policy recommendations include: reforming wage structures in sheltered workshops, strengthening enforcement of workplace accommodation requirements, developing institutional mechanisms for collective worker voice, and creating hybrid employment models that combine adequate protections with opportunities for meaningful agency. Such reforms could help reconcile worker protections with possibilities for strategic resistance to ableist labor market structures.