Conference Agenda

This study examines the emergence of the Lesotho- and Dindigul agreements to eliminate gender-based violence and harassment. Drawing on interviews and fieldwork, the author asks how local worker representatives and international labor stakeholders collaborate to form Enforceable Brand Agreements (EBAs) and their approaches to women worker representation. The analysis reveals two pathways: In the Lesotho agreement, international labor stakeholders identified and organized local unions and collaborated with women's organizations to address gender gaps in male-dominated unions. In the Dindigul agreement, a women-only union with experience in gender issues initiated the alliance with international stakeholders and directly represented women workers. Both cases highlight the role of international NGOs acting as "institutional entrepreneurs" in establishing novel institutional arrangements and the need to address power imbalances between local- and international stakeholders. Thereby, this study responds to calls for analyzing local-global dynamics in EBAs and incorporates a typically underacknowledged gender perspective.

Amid multiple challenges, trade unions have sought to maintain/augment their membership, coverage and power (Visser 2024). Alongside the feminisation of their rank-and-file, many have also promoted gender equality internally (McBride 2020). Outwardly, unions have pursued workplace equality via collective bargaining and other means, such as the endeavours by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and their affiliates (ETUC 2024). However, this outward equality activity has received comparatively limited examination (Williamson and Baird 2014). Little is thus known about unions’ (comparative) workplace-centred gender and intersectional equality advances, or the influences on such.

We ask: i) which equality approaches do unions emphasise in the workplace?; ii) how do they do this?; iii) what is the comparative extent of unions’ equality progress?; iv) what influences this progress?; and v) what ‘lessons’ can unions draw on? The dimensions used to frame this inquiry are those of a new institutional-level equality index (Parker et al. 2024). This study also ‘stress tests’ the index in relation to union equality endeavours.

Evidence was gathered from a survey of senior union women at European and other levels; EU-level documentation; interviews with ETUC Women’s Committee members; and union records. The first research question required qualitative (thematic content) analysis of all materials structured by an equality approach typology (Smith and Stewart 2017), a dimension of the index. Again framed by index dimensions, findings concerning the remaining questions emerged from qualitative thematic and statistical analyses and helped to inform refinements of the index.

Substantive findings include that many unions in Europe adopt gender and, less so, intersectional equality approaches (the first index dimension) to pursue workplace equality, mostly reflecting ‘liberal’ equality ambitions. Survey results indicate that union campaigns, collective bargaining, and social dialogue often yield equality progress. Target areas for change are far-ranging; emphasise gender-based rather than intersectional interests; and concern workplace outcomes and workplace/union processes. However, unions recognise that more progress on workplace equality is vital as challenges (e.g. employer resistance to meaningfully engaging in collective bargaining; extreme right (political actors) gaining ground) escalate.

Methodologically, the index helps to frame, classify, and identify emergent aspects and the significance of union equality endeavours. For assessing workplace equality progress by unions, its dimensions could be extended to reflect union particularities (e.g. their collective bargaining and campaigning functions). It thus helps to pinpoint how unions, alongside other workplace actors, can inform opportunity structures (Pillinger and Wintour 2019) to advance equality.

Introduction

Workplace equality frameworks across Europe have evolved through a combination of legislation, industrial relations mechanisms, and employer-led initiatives. However, these frameworks remain uneven, contested, and selective. Despite differing industrial relations traditions and legal structures, France, the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands share key silences and closures—areas of exclusion and resistance that shape equality outcomes.

Research question

This paper draws on Hyman et al.’s (2012) concept of social regulation to analyse how institutional constraints, trade union strategies, and corporate policies influence workplace equality.

Methodology

Our study is based on over 150 interviews with HR managers, trade union representatives, state officials, NGOs, and third-sector organisations as part of a UK ESRC-funded project.

Contribution and findings

We examine four key dimensions of workplace equality. First, we explore regulatory frameworks and institutional silences. While the UK’s Equality Act (2010) provides a comprehensive framework, enforcement gaps persist. France and Spain prioritise gender equality but lack provisions for race and ethnicity. The Netherlands relies on soft law to regulate migrant workers, reducing legal protections. Second, we analyse the role of trade unions in shaping workplace equality. Historically male-dominated, unions have struggled to integrate equality concerns. In Spain and the Netherlands, collective agreements address flexible work but implementation is uneven. In France, collective bargaining is increasingly managerial, limiting its impact. The UK’s weakened bargaining structures mean employer-led initiatives dominate. Third, we discuss race and migration. European workplace equality policies often marginalise racial discrimination. France and Spain lack ethnic data collection, the UK faces resistance to mandatory ethnic pay gap reporting, and the Netherlands lacks strong enforcement for migrant worker protections. Finally, we examine political and economic constraints. Economic downturns, government policies, and industrial relations traditions shape equality outcomes. France’s social dialogue has become managerial, the UK faces uncertain employment reforms, and Spain and the Netherlands balance state intervention with employer resistance. Our study highlights the silences and closures embedded in industrial relations, employer strategies, and state policies. While legal and collective bargaining mechanisms exist, their effectiveness varies. The rise of soft law and corporate diversity initiatives raises concerns about the erosion of legally binding protections. Our research identifies the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms, inclusive collective bargaining, and intersectional approaches to workplace equality.

References

Hyman, R., Klarsfeld, A., Ng, E. S., & Haq, R. (2012). Introduction: Social regulation of diversity and equality. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 18(4), 279–292.

How did private household workers respond to the pandemic when excluded from state and national occupational health and safety laws? This paper, part of a 6-nation Trans-Atlantic Partnership project, places focus group interviews in the larger context of domestic and care work in the United States, a neo-liberal private-public welfare state that ties benefits to employment status with social assistance that is means-tested and contingent on location. The pandemic brought temporary national relief, but not all states fully availed themselves of such programs, with a few notable exceptions, went only to citizens. I first present a generalized portrait of the conditions before COVID, then discuss the impact of the pandemic, and end with the ways that domestic workers have fought back through collective action, focusing on the worker-led campaign run by the California Domestic Worker Coalition to win Health and Safety for All. Initiated in response to wildfire harms, the campaign took off in March 2020 during the pandemic and had to adapt its organizing strategies for remote lobbying. Over four years, workers decided to shift regulatory demands in the face of opposition by the state’s governor, who rejected regulating the home workplace and vetoes the bill twice before allowing for agency compliance with OSHA, already part of federal rules.

We address three sets of questions: first, how did household workers experience the health and safety challenges of the pandemic? Second, what resources from their own organizations did they rely on to get through lockdowns and loss of employment? Third, what kinds of collective organizing and demands did they attempt to improve working conditions? We turn to a series of focus group interviews with members of worker councils of the National Domestic Worker Alliance conducted in Fall 2023 as part of “Who Cares? Rebuilding care in a post-pandemic world,” led by one of us. We analyze these in light of worker researched studies conducted by the NDWA and others. We then turn to the California case study, with materials gathered through participant observation, written records, campaign materials, interviews, and legislative outcomes.

These findings illuminate the activism of household workers even in a nation that has not ratified C189 but has developed grassroots local and regional organizations. They enhance the interdisciplinary literature on Covid and post-Covid responses (i.e., Triandafyllidou, Migrations and Pandemics, 2022; Guimarães et al, Care and Pandemic, 2025), offering models of informal worker mobilization.