3. It prevents employees from striking. If there are big problems between workers and employers that are not resolved, it is a popular option for workers to go on strike. These measures hinder operations and, as a result, paralyze businesses. In the end, it is the consumers who suffer. In collective bargaining, it is not necessary for workers to stop working because they have representatives with them who work for their benefits. In addition, collective bargaining also protects employers. Indeed, collective bargaining leads to an agreement. And normally, this is also agreed when the negotiations are beneficial for both parties. Collective bargaining also protects employers in some way, since the activity is not totally affected. While the dominant level of bargaining makes it possible to quickly characterise collective bargaining systems in OECD countries, it also risks giving an overly simplified picture. Figure 2.13 clearly shows that countries with the same dominant level of bargaining differ considerably in their actual structure: even in countries where sectoral negotiations are the dominant level, negotiations can play a very important role at company level and vice versa.

← 38. Australia`s company agreements are supported by a safety net of minimum employment rights and conditions. 2. It represents every employee in the workplace. The collective bargaining process does not exclude workers, even if they are not represented by a union. This means that everyone benefits from the negotiated tariffs and benefits generated by the treaty. Each group must have representation for the contract to be valid, allowing each group to raise concerns or propose ideas before the agreement regulates day-to-day work. Most jurisdictions allow representation when a person`s employment could be affected by collective bargaining. This granular approach makes it possible to rethink old debates such as the one dealing with the optimal degree of centralization of negotiations. While full centralisation can ensure high coverage and inclusion at the expense of flexibility, full decentralisation, on the contrary, while being flexible, can lead companies to low coverage and has clear limits in terms of inclusion. The chapter suggests that the interdependence between collective bargaining at sectoral and company level, the content of collective agreements at sectoral level, the use of extension cords and “leak valves”, such as opening clauses and extension exemptions, are some of the most important instruments for striking the right balance between flexibility and inclusion.

Coordination mechanisms between sectors and businesses are also key elements to ensure inclusion and flexibility. On the contrary, extensions can become an instrument of unfair competition, for example. B when extensions are used by “insider companies” to eliminate competitors (Haucap, Pauly, & Wey, 2001[54]); Magruder, (2012[55]); Martins (2014[56]). In general, extensions can also have a negative impact if the conditions set out in the agreement do not take into account the economic situation of a majority of companies in the sector: for example, if the employers` organisation is representative only of large companies and relatively more productive (and is therefore willing to pay higher wages), it can agree on wage ceilings and other components that are not viable for companies. smaller and less productive rises. r. . . .