Download to read offline
![Successes of the European Social Dialogue
Agreements implemented by Council
decision
[monitoring by the Commission]
1. Framework agreement on parental
leave, 1995
2. Framework agreement on part-time
work, 1997
3. Framework agreement on fixed-
term work, 1999
4. Revised framework agreement on
parental leave, 2009
Autonomous agreements implemented
by procedures and practices specific to
management and labour and the
Member States
[implementation and monitoring by the
social partners]
1. Framework agreement on telework, 2002
2. Framework agreement on work-related,
stress, 2004
3. Framework agreement on harassment and
violence at work (2007)
4. Multi-sectoral agreement on workers’ health
protection against crystalline silica (2006)
5. Framework agreement on active inclusion (10)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/welzeuropeanindustrialrelations-150413090051-conversion-gate01/75/Industrial-relations-Telework-in-the-European-Union-Christian-Welz-Eurofound-Eurofound-32-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byEurofound
Industrial relations - Telework in the European Union - Christian Welz - Eurofound - Eurofound
This document presents an overview of European industrial relations, including the evolution, diversity of national regimes, and their response to the economic crisis. It discusses various levels of industrial relations from cross-sector to company level, highlighting key shifts and constituents in labor relations across Europe. The paper emphasizes the interplay between employers, trade unions, and governmental bodies in shaping collective bargaining and employment legislation.
More Related Content
Similar to Industrial relations - Telework in the European Union - Christian Welz - Eurofound - Eurofound
Industrial relations - Telework in the European Union - Christian Welz - Eurofound - Eurofound
- 1. European Industrial Relations(IR) NUI Galway, 13 November 2014 Dr. Christian Welz christian.welz@eurofound.europa.eu
- 2. Outline A. EU ata glance B. Diversity of national IR regimes C. Europeanisation of IR regimes? a. cross-sector level b. sectoral level c. company level D. Impact of the crisis on IR regimes E. Discussion
- 3. A. Primary EUlaw • 1952: Treaty of Paris (ECSC) • 1958: Treaties of Rome (EEC, EAC) • 1987: Single European Act (Common Market) • 1993: Treaty of Maastricht (Euro, ESD) • 1999: Treaty of Amsterdam • 2003: Treaty of Nice • 2009: Treaty of Lisbon (TEU/TFEU)
- 4. Evolution of EuropeanIndustrial Relations 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 European Company Statute EWCs Coordination of bargaining Macroeconomic Dialogue Social Dialogue Employment Strategy European Integration Art.48/119 • • Standing Employment Committee •Val Duchesse • 1st EMF conference• 1st company agreement • 1st draft
- 6. European industrial relations EMP EC TU“bargaining in theshadow of the law”
- 7. B. Diversity ofnational IR regimes
- 8. Definition of industrialrelations industrial relations (IR) “the focal point of the field (…) is the employee-employer relationship.” (US Social Science Research Council 1928) “(…) the consecrated euphemism for the permanent conflict, now acute, now subdued, between capital and labour.”(Miliband,1969, 80, cited by Blyton/Turnbull, 2004, 9) “The central concern of IR is the collective regulation (governance) of work and employment.” (Sisson 2010)
- 9. environment political legal economic societal actors employers trade unions governments processes collective bargaining participation industrial action settlement of disputes outcomes collective agreements labour legislation outputs> impacts > inputs pay, WT, productivity, employment, job security, labour peace… inputs outputs System of Industrial Relations
- 10. Industrial relations regimes •Liberal market vs. coordinated market economies Peter Hall and David A. Soskice, 2001, Varieties of Capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Oxford University Press.
- 11. Liberal Market Economies •UK – corporate governance: outsider shareholder dominated; performance represented by current earnings and share prices – employee relations: short term, market relations between employee and employer; top management has unilateral control of the firm – industrial relations: employer organisations and unions relatively weak; decentralised wage setting; insecure employment (“hire and fire”; fluid labour markets) – vocational training / education: vocational education offered on market; labour force has high general skills – inter-firm relations: market relations, competition; use of formal contracting and subcontracting relationships.
- 12. Coordinated Market economies •DE – corporate governance: long-term bank-dominated insider systems; cross-directorships; cross-shareholding; – employee relations: long term, formalised participation of employees; consensus decision-making with management – industrial relations: trade unions and employers organised; industry-wide collective bargaining and pay determination; employment relatively secure – vocational training: elaborate industry-based training schemes; labour force has high industry-specific and firm-specific skills – inter-firm relations: development of collaborative networks; cooperation among firms in diffusing technologies
- 13. Industrial relations regimes •5 geographical clusters Visser, Jelle, 2008, in: EC, Industrial Relations in Europe Report, Brussels, DG EMP.
- 14. IR regime Centre–West social partnership North nordiccorporatism West liberal pluralism South polarised pluralism Centre–East transition economies MS Germany Austria Netherlands Belgium Luxembourg Slovenia Sweden Denmark Finland United Kingdom Ireland Cyprus Malta Greece Spain Italy France Portugal Bulgaria Czech Republic Estonia Latvia Lithuania Hungary Poland Romania Slovakia role of SPs in IR institutionalised institutionalised rare/event-driven irregular/politicised irregular/politicised role of State in IR ‘shadow’of hierarchy limited non-intervention frequent intervention organiser of transition employee representation dual unions unions variable unions level of CB sector sector company sector/company company
- 15. Trade Unions Intersectoral level Government Employers Intersectoral level Sectorallevel Sectoral level Company level Levels of CB - wages Company level Belgium Finland Austria Denmark1 France1 Germany Greece Ireland1 Italy Luxembourg1 Netherlands Portugal1 Spain1 Sweden1 Denmark2 France2 Ireland2 Luxembourg2 Portugal2 Spain2 Sweden2 UK
- 16. Trade Unions Intersectoral level Government Employers Intersectoral level Sectorallevel Sectoral level Company level Levels of CB - wages Company level Slovenia 1 Bulagaria1 Cyprus 1 Slovakia 1 Slovenia 2 Bulgaria2 Croatia Cyprus 2 Czech Rep. Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania Slovakia 2
- 17. Trade union density_ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013 FR LT PL EE HU LV CZ SK ES NL DE PT BG UK SI EU IE AT HR RO LU IT BE MT DK SE FI 2011 8 10 12 11 11 12 16 16 15 21 22 20 18 26 27 31 34 34 35 40 37 36 52 59 67 70 68 2012 8 9 10 11 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 26 27 29 31 33 35 35 37 37 50 57 67 70 74 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % of workforce 2011 2012
- 18. Collective bargaining coverage_ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013/14 LT LV HU PL BG EE CZ SK UK RO IE DE CY LU EU HR DE MT GR DK ES IT NL PT SE FR FI SI BE AT 2011 15 17 23 25 33 33 34 35 37 38 44 49 52 54 56 60 61 61 65 65 68 80 84 90 90 90 90 96 96 100 2012 15 16 23 29 29 33 33 35 29 38 44 36 0 59 51 60 53 61 0 65 58 80 80 12 88 92 93 75 96 97 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 % of workforce 2011 2012
- 19. Average hourly labourcosts (2012) EIRO 2014 BG RO LV LT PL HU SK EE CZ PT GR SI CY EU UK ES IT IE DE AT FI NL SE FR LU BE DK 2012 3 4.4 5.3 5.8 7.4 7.5 8.3 8.4 11 12 15 15 18 20 20 21 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 EUR
- 20. Monthly minimum wage_ 2011 v 2012 EIRO 2013/14 BG RO LV LT CZ EE SK HU HR PL PT GR EU ES MT SI CY UK FR BE IE NL LU 2011 128 158 285 232 310 290 327 338 385 345 485 585 661 641 685 748 855 109014251415146114461757 2012 145 157 287 290 312 320 337 372 372 393 485 683 712 753 763 763 870 126414301443146114851874 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 EUR 2011 2012
- 21. Real labour productivty(2012) EIRO 2014 EE SI LV LT PL CZ MT CY EU IT BE AT FI DE SE FR NL IE 2012 1.7 2.4 8.2 10.3 10.4 13.2 14.5 21.5 27 32.2 37.2 39.5 39.5 42.6 44.9 45.4 45.6 50.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 EUR per h worked
- 22. Number of workingdays lost _ 2013 EIRO 2014 BG CZ HU LT LU LV MT PL RO SK HR NO AT SE IE FI DE BE DK UK CY ES 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 9 15 26 150 174 379 444 605 1099 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 in 1000 days
- 23. Cross-sector social partnersin the EU • 108 trade unions • 134 employers associations
- 24. Cross-sector social partnersin the EU EIRO 2014 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 7 6 7 6 5 12 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 3 2 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 4 6 5 7 14 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 LV IE AT CY SK CZ LT MT NL BG EE PL PT GR HR DE FI LU UK BE DK SE SI FR ES HU RO IT TU EO
- 25. C. Europeanisation ofIR regimes?
- 26. Intersectoral social dialogue Sectoral social dialogue EWCs IFAs_EFAs SEs Crossindustry Sectoral Company national social dialogue European Industrial Relations- level linkages
- 27.
- 28. EnvironmentEnvironment politicalpolitical legallegal economiceconomic societalsocietal ActorsActors BUSINESSEUROPEBUSINESSEUROPE UEAPMEUEAPME CEEPCEEP ETUCETUC EU institutionsEU institutions Nat.GNat. Governovern.. Nat. SPNat. SP ProcessesProcesses EuropeanEuropean social dialoguesocial dialogue under EC lawunder EC law ((““negotiate ornegotiate or we willwe will legislegis-- latelate””)) OutcomesOutcomes collectivecollective agreementsagreements (negotiate)(negotiate) ECEC labourlabour legislationlegislation (legislate(legislate)) ImpImplementationlementation a)a) Council decisionCouncil decision b)b) Nat. practices of SPNat. practices of SP and MSand MS InputsInputs OutputsOutputs
- 29. Bipartite Dialogue Employers –Trade Unions Tripartite Concertation Public Authorities (Commission, Council) + Trade Unions + Employers European Social Dialogue Sectoral Covering workers and employers of 43 specific sectors of the economy, Cross-industry "Val Duchesse" Covering the economy as a whole: workers and employers European social dialogue
- 30. Social dialogue underarticles 154/155 TFEU proposal in the social policy field where appropriate, Commission follow-up where appropriate, Commission follow-up Commission art. 155art. 154 1. consultation on the direction opinion 2. consultation on the content opinion failure if Community action is desirable negotiation nine months, unless extended agreement
- 31. Agreement implementation autonomous route 1.according to the national practices of the social partners 2. and the Member States legislative route 1. submitted to the Commission 2. Commission makes proposal 3. Council decision = extension erga omnes 4. no EP/EESC involvement
- 32. Successes of theEuropean Social Dialogue Agreements implemented by Council decision [monitoring by the Commission] 1. Framework agreement on parental leave, 1995 2. Framework agreement on part-time work, 1997 3. Framework agreement on fixed- term work, 1999 4. Revised framework agreement on parental leave, 2009 Autonomous agreements implemented by procedures and practices specific to management and labour and the Member States [implementation and monitoring by the social partners] 1. Framework agreement on telework, 2002 2. Framework agreement on work-related, stress, 2004 3. Framework agreement on harassment and violence at work (2007) 4. Multi-sectoral agreement on workers’ health protection against crystalline silica (2006) 5. Framework agreement on active inclusion (10)
- 33. • is aform of (…) work, using IT, in the context of an employment contract/relationship, where work, which could also be performed at the employers premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular basis.” (art.2) Autonomous agreement: telework (2002)
- 34. heteronomousautonomous soft law hard law FISE NL LV IE UK AT DE DK EL ES IT BE FR LU CZ HU SKPL PT SI tripartite processbipartite process social partner consultation legislation without SP consultation code of practice/ guidance collective agreement legislation extension of CA voluntary agreement
- 35. Failures of theEuropean Social Dialogue Failures resulting in legislation 1. European Works Councils 2. Reversal of burden of proof 3. Information and consultation 4. Temporary agency work e.g. revision of working time directive Failures of the ESD and of legislation
- 36.
- 37. Sectoral Social Partners: 15European Industry Federations (e.g.) • EFBWW European Federation of Building and Woodworkers • ECF European Federation of Food Workers • EFFAT European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions • EPSU European Federation of Public Service Unions • FST Federation of Transport Workers • ETUCE European Committee for Education • UNI-Europa Union Network International • EEA European Alliance of Media and Entertainment • EFJ European Federation of Journalists • IndustriALL ETUF-TCL + EMCEF + EMF
- 38. Sectoral Social Partners: 65employers’ organizations (e.g.) • CEEMET Council of European Employers of the Metal, Engineering and Technology- Based Industries • ECSA European Community Shipowners’ Association • Eurociett European Organisation of CIETT (International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies) • FERCO Federation of Contract Catering Organisations • HOSPEEM European Hospital and Healthcare Employers Association an • ……………
- 39. 43 Sectoral SocialDialogue Committees - Agriculture - Audiovisual - Banking -Catering - Central Admin - Chemical industry - Civil aviation - Cleaning Industry - Commerce -Construction - Education -Electricity - Extractive Industries - Food and Drink -Football - Footwear - Furniture - Gas - Graphical sector - Horeca - Hospitals - Inland Waterways - Insurance - Local and regional Government - Liver performance - Maritime Transport - Metal - Paper - Personal services - Ports - Postal services - Private security - Railways - Road transport - Sea fisheries - Sea Transport - Shipbuilding - Steel - Sports - Sugar - Tanning and leather - Telecommunications - Temporary agency work - Textile and clothing - Woodworking
- 40. sectoral outputs • jointtexts + 650 texts majority of ‘common positions’ to European institutions no clear trend towards binding agreements 11 agreements = less than 2% majority > not legally binding + process-oriented texts
- 41. company level • EuropeanWorks Council • European Company Statute • International/European Framework Agreements
- 42. European Works Councils •EWC directive (94/45/EC recast 2009/38/EC) • 2204 companies covered 1000 employees 150 in 2 Member States • 1056 active EWCs in 2014 8 HQs in IE: Aer Lingus, Ardagh, Board Mona, CHR, Glen Dimplex, James Hardie, Kerry Group, Smurfit Kappa 58 EWCs > IE chosen as country of law applicable • process must be triggered at least 100 employees in at least 2 Member States (written request) • 60 % of workforce / 14.5 million covered
- 43. MS with activeEWCs in 2013 EIRO 2014 CY CZ GR PT HU LU ES AT DK IE FI IT EU SE NL BE FR DE 2013 1 1 1 1 3 17 18 34 41 58 62 82 85 111 119 181 263 372 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 %
- 44. European company statute •European Company Statute (EC 2157/2001) involvement of employees (2001/86/EC) SE works councils • over 2239 SEs registered in 2014 10 in IE > 2 with more than 5 employees e.g. Aviva, Atrium, Axis RE, Axon Neuroscience, Carthago Invest, Paypal 289 normal SEs = activities + 6 employees (Allianz, Porsche, Strabag) more than 309 empty/micro SEs = activities + less 5 employees 1562 UFO SEs > little information
- 45. International / European frameworkagreements • IFA company agreement signed by a MNC and a Global Union Federation (GUF) • EFA company agreement signed by a MNC and a European Industry Federation (EIF) and/or a EWC
- 46. International Framework Agreementsin 10/08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 JP CA AU NZ RSA RU GB CZ PT BE DK NO LU IT ES SE NL FR DE
- 47. EFA _incidence • 73EFAs • 52 co-signed by and EWC • 42 signed by an EWC only • leader: France with 26 EFAs in 14 companies Suez 5, Air France 4, Vivendi 3,
- 48. Content of EFAs 05 10 15 20 25 CSR Training Equal opportunities Sub-contracting Financial participation Fundamental rights Other Data protection HRM+ Social Management H&S Social dialogue Restructuring
- 49. D. Impact ofthe crisis on IR regimes
- 50. 1. Actors un d e r p r e s s u r e 2. Processes u n d e r p r e s s u r e 3. Outcomes u n d e r p r e s s u r e 4. Conclusions 5. Epiloque and discussion Table of content
- 51. Actors Impact Member State successfultripartite negotiation (8-10) BE, BG, CZ, EE, FR, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT breakdown of tripartite negotiations (10---) BE(2011/12), ES, FI, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LU, PL(2011/12), SI reorganisation of public actors and bodies ES, GR, HR, HU, IE, LU, RO decline in trade union density CY, BG, DK, EE, IE, LT, LV, SE, SI, SK, UK halt in trade union density decline/increase in trade union density AT, CZ, DE, EE (for transport), LT changes to membership of employer bodies CY (increase), DE (increase in members not bound by CA), LT (first decline then increase)
- 52. Actors Impact MS decreasing influenceand visibility BE, DK, EE, HU, IE, LV, NL increased cooperation between the social partners DE, HU, LT, NL emergence of new social movements ES, GR, PT, SI increase government unilateralism BE, BG, EE, ES, GR, HR, IE, PL, PT, SI new power balance among actors BG, EE, ES, GR, LT, LV, PT
- 53. Processes PROCESSES - SUMMARY Type ofchange MS Main level(s) of bargaining: Decentralisation AT BG CY EL ES FR IE IT RO SI Recentralisation BE FI Horizontal coordination across bargaining units AT ES HU IE RO SE SK Linkages between levels of bargaining Ordering between levels EL ES PT Opening and opt-out clauses AT BG CY DE EL ES FI FR IE IT NO PT SE SI Extending bargaining competence EL FR HU PT RO Reach and continuity of bargaining Extension procedures EL IE SK PT RO Increased / changed use of existing procedures BG DE IT Continuation beyond expiry EE EL ES HR PT Minimum wage setting and indexation
- 54. Trade union density_ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013 FR LT PL EE HU LV CZ SK ES NL DE PT BG UK SI EU IE AT HR RO LU IT BE MT DK SE FI 2011 8 10 12 11 11 12 16 16 15 21 22 20 18 26 27 31 34 34 35 40 37 36 52 59 67 70 68 2012 8 9 10 11 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 26 27 29 31 33 35 35 37 37 50 57 67 70 74 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % of workforce 2011 2012
- 55. Employer density _2012 v 2013 EIRO 2013/14 LT PL EE HR SK LV UK CZ BG EU DK IT IE FR FI BE LU SI SE NL AT 2011 15 20 25 28 33 34 35 41 42 54 58 58 60 60 70 76 80 80 87 90 100 2012 15 20 25 28 30 41 35 49 0 56 58 0 60 75 71 80 80 80 86 85 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 % of employees in companies members of an EO 2011 2012
- 56. TU developments in2013 • membership • organisational change increase DK (1), FR (1), LU, MT, NL, RO(1) decrease AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK (2), EL, ES, HR, IE, IT, LV, MT, NL, RO(2), SI, SK, UK stable BE, BG, DE, DK (3), FI, FR(2), IE, IT(1), NO, PL, SE no data EL, FR(3), HU, IE(2), LT, MT, NO, PT, RO(3) merger BE, FR, HU, UK fragmentation NL other EL, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, RO, SI, UK
- 57. Employers developments in2013 • membership • organisational change merger FR, LT fragmentation NL other EL, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, RO, SI increase EL, LV, MT(1), NO decrease AT, LU, MT (2), RO(1), SI, SK stable BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FI, HR, IE, MT (3),IT, SI, UK no data ES, FR, HU, LT, MT, NL, MT (4), NO, PL, RO(2), SE
- 58. 2008 2011 Austria MEBMEB Belgium MEB MEB Bulgaria Mixed Mixed Croatia MEB MEB Cyprus Mixed Mixed Czech Republic SEB SEB Denmark MEB MEB Estonia SEB SEB Finland MEB MEB France MEB MEB Germany MEB MEB Greece MEB MEB Hungary SEB SEB Ireland MEB SEB Italy MEB MEB Latvia SEB SEB Lithuania SEB SEB Luxembourg MEB MEB Malta SEB SEB Netherlands MEB MEB Norway MEB MEB Poland SEB SEB Portugal MEB MEB Romania MEB SEB Slovakia Mixed Mixed Slovenia MEB MEB Spain MEB MEB Sweden MEB MEB United Kingdom SEB SEB
- 59. Company level Sector level Nationallevel AT CY EL IT BG ES FR FI RO SI IE Trends in main levels of CB BE PT
- 60. Collective bargaining coverage_ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013/14 LT LV HU PL BG EE CZ SK UK RO IE DE CY LU EU HR DE MT GR DK ES IT NL PT SE FR FI SI BE AT 2011 15 17 23 25 33 33 34 35 37 38 44 49 52 54 56 60 61 61 65 65 68 80 84 90 90 90 90 96 96 100 2012 15 16 23 29 29 33 33 35 29 38 44 36 0 59 51 60 53 61 0 65 58 80 80 12 88 92 93 75 96 97 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 % of workforce 2011 2012
- 61. • continental Western,central Eastern and Nordic IR regimes apply the favourability’ principle to govern the relationship between different levels of CB CAs at lower levels can only on standards established by higher levels exceptions: IE and the UK > reflecting their different legal tradition based on voluntarism • FR FR made changes already in 2004 (loi Fillon) • ES 2011 law inverted the principle as between sector or provincial agreements and company agreements EL 2011 law inverts the principle between the sector and company levels for the duration of the financial assistance until at least 2015 • PT 2012 Labour Code inverts the principle, but allows EOs and TUs to negotiate a clause in higher-level CA reverting to the favourability principle Ordering / favourability principle
- 62. opening clauses insector/cross-sector CAs provide scope for further negotiation on aspects of wages at company level opt-out clauses permit derogation under certain conditions from the wage standards specified in the sector/cross-sector CA changes in opening clauses 6 MS AT, DE, FI, IT, PT, SE changes in opt-out clauses 8 MS BG, CY, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, SI • Changes in opening/opt-out clauses
- 63. • changes: EL,FR, HU, PT and RO • EL under 2011 legislation, CAs can be concluded in companies with fewer than 50 employees with unspecified ‘associations of persons’ these must represent at least 60% of the employees concerned • RO legislation (2011) introduces harder criteria for trade TU representativeness where TUs do not meet the new criteria at company level, EOs can now negotiate CAs with unspecified elected employee reps Extension of CB competence
- 64. Extension mechanisms of the28 MS > 23 MS have extension mechanisms or a functional equivalent (IT) no legal procedure for extending collective agreements in CY, DK, MT SE and UK changes to either extension procedures or in their use in 8 MS BG, DE, EL, IE, PT, RO, SK, IT
- 65. clauses providingfor agreements to continue to have effect beyond the date of expiry until a new agreement is concluded are intended to protect workers should employers refuse to negotiate a renewal they are found in a 9 MS at least AT, DK, EE, EL, ES, HR, PT, SE, SK changes have been made to such provisions in 5 MS EE, EL, ES, HR, PT Continuation of CAs beyond expiry
- 66. Outcomes Impact MS inconclusive outcomesBG, CY, CZ ES, MT, NL decrease in number of agreements CY, CZ, EE, LV, MT, PT, RO, SI increase in duration of agreements AT, DE decrease in duration of agreements BG, CY, DK, GR, LV, ES, SE decrease in the level of pay increases AT, ES, FI, NL pay cuts or freezes AT, BE, BG, DE, DK, ES, FI, GR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, SI, SK, UK working time reduction/short-time working AT, BE, BG, DE, FR, HU, IT, LT, NL, PL, SI, SK non-renewal of agreements BG, CY, EE, ES
- 67. No. of CAs EIRO2014 AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL1 EL2 ES FR IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK UK
- 68. 2008 2009 20102011 2012 2013 sector CA 200 164 166 115 46 46 company CA 95 87 64 55 39 48 total CA 295 251 230 170 85 94 extension 137 102 116 17 12 9 coverage / in 1000 pers. 1,894 1,397 1,407 1,236 327 242 No. of CAs in PT
- 69. • change hasbeen concentrated amongst 6 MS, whose WSMs have each undergone multiple changes CY, EL, ES, IE, PT, RO been in receipt of financial assistance packages from the ‘troika’ changes in WSMs were required in all except ES • in a further 4 MS there have been some changes to WSMs HR, HU, IT and SI change primarily driven by domestic actors > governments or SP • in a majority of 18 MS WSMs have seen few or no changes since 2008 Conclusions
- 70. • impact ofthe ‘troika’ in inducing changes to WSMs amongst those countries receiving financial assistance packages is clear • government-imposed measures in these countries have substantially reconfigured WSMs Conclusions
- 71.
- 72. • “By viewinglabour as a commodity, we at once get rid of the moral basis on which the relation of employer and employed should stand, and make the so-called law of the market the sole regulator of that relation.” • (Dr John Kells Ingram, address to the British TUC in Dublin 1880) Discussion > labour = commodity?
- 73. • Clayton Anti-TrustAct (1914: section 6) • 'that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce'. Samuel Gompers – leader of the American Federation of Labour for 20 years was inspired by Ingram Discussion
- 74. • Treaty ofVersailles (1919: article 427) first principle of the new ILO pro- claimed ‘ that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce introduced by British delegation Gompers > personal defeat • ILO DECLARATION OF PHILADELPHIA (10 May 1944) labour is not a commodity Discussion
- 75. • towardsa re-commodification of labour ? • Labour is not a commodity > clause is not in the EU Treaties • yet Albany case (1996) • Albany used the competition rules in article 81(1) EC (now article 101(1) TFEU) claiming that mandatory pension scheme compromised their competitiveness • Discussion
- 76. • ECJ • “social policy objectives pursued by CAs would be seriously undermined if management and labour were subject to Article 85(1) “ • Advocate General Jacobs • “ CAs enjoy automatic immunity from antitrust scrutiny” • Art. 153 (5) TFEU • The provisions of this Article shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs. Discussion
- 77. Discussion: crisis >WSM and IR regimes FI CYIE MT FR AT BG DK SE UK PTEL ES SI BE DE LU NL RO EE SK PLLVLT HU 0 1 2 3 4 Industrial relations systems Severityofimpact Nordic Central EastCentral WestMediterranean/ South Anglo-Saxon Western CZ IT HR
- 78. Trend Origin Restructuring ofactors megatrend Decline in trade union density megatrend Public Sector Reform megatrend Decentralisation of collective bargaining megatrend (crisis accelerated) Increase in opt-out clauses crisis-induced trend Increase in opening clauses crisis-induced trend Decrease of extensions crisis-induced trend Shorter duration of collective agreements crisis-induced trend Drop in volume of bargaining crisis-induced trend Drop in quality of bargaining crisis-induced trend Shorter continuation of CAs crisis-induced trend Reforms in wage-setting mechanisms crisis-induced trend More adversarial industrial relations crisis-induced trend Discussion: crisis vs. megatrends
- 79. • http://www.eurofound.europa.eu • christian.welz@eurofound.europa.eu •European industrial relations dictionary Further information