Click here to download

Trade unions and employers associations: a new welfare model
Author/s: Daniele Cattaneo, Filippo Monge 
Year:  2017 Issue: 147 Language: English 
Pages:  18 Pg. 220-237 FullText PDF:  140 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SL2017-147012
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

This paper focuses on the corporate welfare system (strongly incentivized by 2016 Italian Government Stability Law) created by bilateral agreement in the construction sector. It is particularly referred to SMEs business model and on the importance of establishing cooperative relations between employer associations and trade unions. The analysis is developed considering a multi-disciplinary point of view and involving theories taken from industrial relations, strategic human resource management and sociology. In order to support these theories an analysis on the 8 building workers’ welfare funds (Casse Edili) operating in Piedmont has been conducted (employing a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods) with the aim of founding out if the corporate welfare model offered has been efficient and effective in the principle of subsidiarity. Eventually some key drivers like wages, management and governance have been investigated in order to define point of strengths, weaknesses and the opportunity of adopting the model by other sectors and by SMEs.
Keywords: Corporate welfare, bilateral, SME, construction

  1. Addison J.T., Barry T.H. (1989). Union Effects on Productivity, Profits, and Growth: Has the Long Run Arrived? Journal of Labor Economics, 71: 72-105., DOI: 10.1086/298199
  2. Bavaro V. (2011). Gli enti bilaterali nella legislazione italiana. In: Bellardi L., De Santis G., a cura di, La bilateralità fra tradizione e rinnovamento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  3. Bertin G. (2015). Social innovation e politiche di welfare. Salute e Società, 1: 37-50., DOI: 10.3280/SES2015-001004
  4. Cimaglia M.C., Aurilio A. (2011). I sistemi bilaterali di settore. In: Bellardi L., De Santis G., a cura di, La bilateralità fra tradizione e rinnovamento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  5. Dorf M., Sabel C.F. (1998). A Constitution of Democratic Constitutionalism. Columbia Law Review, 98: 267-273.
  6. European Commission (2016). Assessment of the 2016 Stability Programme for Italy. --Url:
  7. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Working Conditions (2007). Working time in the EU and other global economie – Industrial relations in the EU and other global economies 2006-2007. --Url: files/ef_files/docs/eiro/tn0804058s/tn0804058s.pdf.
  8. European Industrial Relations Observatory (2001). Industrial relations in the EU, Japan and USA. Dublin: Eurofound. --Url:
  9. Filca-Cisl (2017). Pronti ad affrontare il futuro. Proceedings of the XI local congress. Torino. 6 february.
  10. Freeman R.B., Medoff J.L. (1984). What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books.
  11. Golinelli G.M. (2008). L’approccio sistemico al governo dell’impresa, vol. II. Padova: CEDAM.
  12. Golinelli G.M. (2011). L’approccio Sistemico Vitale al governo dell’impresa. Padova: CEDAM.
  13. Isfol (2009). Gli Enti Bilaterali ed il fenomeno della bilateralità. In: Isfol, Rapporto Isfol 2009. Roma: 369-382.
  14. Italia Lavoro (2014). Gli Enti Bilaterali in Italia. Rapporto Nazionale 2014. Roma: Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali.
  15. Kristensen P.H., Morgan G. (2012). From Institutional Change to Experimentalist Institutions. Industrial Relations Journal, 51: 413-437.
  16. Lai M. (2006). Appunti sulla bilateralità. Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4: 1020-1042.
  17. Leonardi S., Arlotti M. (2012). Welfare contrattuale e bilateralismo. La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali, 3: 77-114.
  18. Maino F., Ferrera M., a cura di (2013). Percorsi di secondo welfare. 1st edition. Torino: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi.
  19. Maino F., Ferrera M., a cura di (2015). Percorsi di secondo welfare. 2nd edition. Torino: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi.
  20. Monge F., Provvisiero G. (2014). Il settore delle costruzioni in Piemonte e Valle d’Aosta. Milano: Egea.
  21. Pierson P. (2002). Coping with permanent austerity. In: Pierson P., The new politics of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 410-456., DOI: 10.1093/0198297564.003.0014
  22. Razetti F. (2015). Bilateralità e welfare contrattuale: quale ruolo per i territori? In: Maino F., Ferrera M., a cura di, Percorsi di secondo welfare. 2nd edition. Torino: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi.
  23. Spreitzer G., Christine Porath C. (2012). Creating sustainable performance. Harvard Business Review, 90: 93-99. --Url:
  24. Streeck W., Thelen K., eds. (2005). Beyond Continuity. Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Touraine A. (1969). La société post-industrielle. Population, 25, 3: 684-685.
  26. Visconti F. (2002). Il governo dei distretti industriali: strategie, strutture e ruoli. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  27. Welfare Index PMI (2017), Rapporto 2017. --Url:

Daniele Cattaneo, Filippo Monge, in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO " 147/2017, pp. 220-237, DOI:10.3280/SL2017-147012


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content