The Influence of External Information on Collective Bargaining: Survey Evidence of Union and Firm Negotiators in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to answer two questions: 1- To what extent are negotiators in collective bargaining influenced by different types of external information? 2- How can differences in the influence of external information between negotiators be explained by the characteristics of the negotiators and bargaining units? A standardized questionnaire measuring self-reported influences of different types of external information was developed and administered to a representative sample of union and firm negotiators in the Netherlands. In total, 123 negotiators participated in the survey. Four types of external information were investigated: 1- economic information; 2- information on organizational power; 3- institutional information; and 4- information spillovers. Descriptive analyses show that economic information, particularly when referring to the sector level, was very influential, as was institutional information on national and sectoral collective agreement developments. Information reflecting organizational power, e.g. militancy, carried less weight, while information on other bargaining events, i.e. spillover, was also very important. From extant theory, empirical findings and common assumptions in labour relations literature, the paper developed and tested a number of hypotheses concerning the influence of external information. It was found that the influence of spillovers increased with the proximity of their source. Union negotiators were generally more influenced by external information than firm negotiators. There was some evidence that influence increased with experience, but this effect was rather modest. Evidence that negotiators in sector bargaining were less affected by the economic environment than negotiators in company bargaining was weak, but they were found to be less influenced by spillovers and international collective agreement developments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".