Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Employers young professionals’ academy:
engaging as social partners
Turin
3 September 2014
www.eurofound.europa.eu
Outline
A. EU at a 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
A. Primary EU law
• 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)
Evolution of European Industrial
Relations
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
European Company Statute
EWCs
Coordination of bargaining
Macroeconomic Dialogue
Social Dialogue
Employment Strategy
European IntegrationArt.48/119
• •Standing Employment Committee
•Val Duchesse
•
1st EMF conference•
1st company agreement
• 1st draft
European
industrial
relations
EMP
EC
TU“bargaining in the shadow of the law”
B. Diversity of national IR regimes
Definition of industrial relations
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)
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
Industrial relations regimes
• Liberal market vs. coordinated market economies
Hall, Peter, David A. Soskice, 2001, Varieties of Capitalism: the
institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Oxford,
University Press.
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.
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
Industrial relations regimes
• 5 geographical clusters
Visser, Jelle, 2008, in: EC, Industrial Relations in Europe Report, Brussels,
DG EMP.
Industrial Relation RegimesIR regimeCentre–West
social partnership
North
nordic corporatism
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
IRinstitutionalised institutionalised rare/event-driven irregular/politicisedirregular/politicised
role of State in
IR
‘shadow’ of
hierarchylimited non-intervention
frequent
intervention
organiser of
transition
Country Multi-employer (MEB) or Single-employer (SEB) bargaining prevalent
2008 2011
Austria MEB MEB
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
Trade Unions
Intersectorallevel
Government
Employers
Intersectoral level
Sectoral level 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
Trade Unions
Intersectorallevel
Government
Employers
Intersectoral level
Sectoral level 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
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 DEM
TGR 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
Cross-sector social partners in the EU
• 108 trade unions
• 134 employers associations
Cross-sector social partners in the EUEIRO 2014
1 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 53 3 3 4 4 4 4
7 6 7 6 5
12
2 33 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
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 BEM
TDK SE FI GR CY
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 28 50
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 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80% of workforce 2011 2012
Employer density _ 2012 v 2013 EIRO 2013/14
LT PL EE HR SK LV UK CZ BG EU DK IT FR FI BE LU SI SE NL AT
2011 15 20 25 28 33 34 35 41 42 54 58 58 60 70 76 80 80 87 90 100
2012 15 20 25 27.5 30 41 35 48.6 0 56 58 0 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
TU developments in 2013
• 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
Employers developments in 2013
• 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, LV, 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
Number of working days 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
Unemployment rate _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO 2013/14
AT DE LUM
TNL CZ RO UK DK BE SE FI SI PL FR EE EU HU LT CY IT BG IE SK LV PT HR ES GR
2011 4.2 5.9 4.9 6.5 6 6.8 7.4 8 7.6 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.2 9.7 10 13 9.9 11 15 7.8 8.4 11 13 14 15 13 9.1 22 18
2012 4.4 5.6 6.2 6.4 7 7 7.2 7.2 7.5 7.6 8.1 8.4 8.9 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 14 14 15 17 19 26 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
3015-64 years 2011 2012
Inflation rate (2012) EIRO 2014
SE GR FR DE AT FI IE HR LV IT BG DK ES BE UK EU CZ NL PT SI LU CYM
TRO PL SK LT EE HU
2012 0.9 1 1 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.2 5.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6%
Monthly minimum wage _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO 2013/14
BG RO LT LV EE CZ SK HU PL HR PT GR EU ES MT SI CY UK BE FR NL IE LU
2011 128 158 232 285 290 310 327 338 345 385 485 585 661 641 685 748 855 109014151425144614611757
2012 145 157 290 287 320 312 337 372 393 372 485 683 712 753 162 763 870 126414431430148514611874
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000EUR 2011 2012
Average hourly labour costs (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
45EUR
Real labour productivity (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
60EUR per h worked
Workplace representation in the EU 28 EIRO 2013
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
TU WC other
Country MEB / SEB prevalent
2013
Brazil mixed
China SEB
India SEB
Japan SEB
US SEB
TU / EO density and CB coverage (%)EIRO 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
US JP CN BR IN EU
11
18
34
19
16
29
20 0
65
0
56
13
16
30
45 46
51
TU EO CB
C. Europeanisation of IR regimes?
Intersectoral
social dialogue
Sectoral social
dialogue
EWCs
IFAs_EFAs
SEs
Cross industry Sectoral Company
national social dialogue
European Industrial Relations- level linkages
a. cross-sector level
EnvironmentEnvironment
politicalpolitical
legallegal
economiceconomic
societalsocietal
Actors Actors
BUSINESSEUROPEBUSINESSEUROPE
UEAPMEUEAPME
CEEPCEEP
ETUCETUC
EU institutionsEU institutions
Nat. GNat. Governovern..
Nat. SPNat. SP
ProcessesProcesses
European European
social dialoguesocial dialogue
under EC lawunder EC law
((““negotiate or negotiate or
we will we will legislegis--
latelate””))
OutcomesOutcomes
collectivecollective
agreementsagreements
(negotiate)(negotiate)
EC EC labour labour
legislationlegislation
(legislate(legislate))
ImpImplementationlementation
a)a) Council decisionCouncil decision
b)b) Nat. practices of SP Nat. practices of SP
and MSand MS
InputsInputs OutputsOutputs
Bipartite DialogueEmployers – Trade Unions
Tripartite
ConcertationPublic Authorities
(Commission, Council) +
Trade Unions + Employers
European Social Dialogue
Sectoral
Covering workers
and employers
of 41 specific sectors
of the economy,
Cross-industry
"Val Duchesse"Covering the economy
as a whole:
workers
and employers
European social dialogue
Social dialogue under articles 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
source: European Foundation 2002 (adapted)
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
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)
• is a form 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)
heteronomousautonomous
soft law
hard law
FI SE
NL LV IE UK
AT DE DK
EL ES IT
BE FR LU CZ HU SKPL PT SI
tripartite processbipartite process social partner
consultationlegislation without
SP consultation
code of
practice/
guidance
collective
agreement
legislation
extension
of CA
voluntary
agreement
Failures of the European Social Dialogue
Failures resulting in legislation1. European Works Councils
2. Reversal of burden of proof
3. Information and consultation
4. Temporary agency work
Failures of the ESD and of
legislation
b. sectoral level
Sectoral Social Partners:
15 European Industry Federations (e.g.)
• EFBWW European Federation of Building and Woodworkers
• ECF European Federation of Food Workers
• EFA European Federation of Agriculture
• 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
Sectoral Social Partners:
65 employers’ 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
• ……………
43 Sectoral Social Dialogue
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
sectoral outputs
• joint texts
~ 600 texts > growing
majority of ‘common positions’ to European
institutions
no clear trend towards binding agreements
11 agreements = 2% only !
majority > not legally binding + process-oriented
texts
c. company level
• European Works Council
• European Company Statute
• International/European Framework Agreements
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 (e.g. SNCF 6.12.12)
• process must be triggered
at least 100 employees in at least 2 Member States
(written request)
• 60 % of workforce / 14.5 million covered
MS with active EWCs 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%
European company statute
• European Company Statute (EC 2157/2001)
involvement of employees (2001/86/EC)
SE works councils
• over 2153 SEs registered in 2014
282 normal ones
= activities + 6 employees (Allianz, Porsche, Strabag)
309 empty/micro
= activities + less 5 employees
1562 UFOs
> little information
International / European
framework agreements
• 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
International Framework Agreements in 10/08
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18JP
CA
AU
NZ
RS
A
RU
GB
CZ
PT
BE
DK
NO
LU IT ES
SE
NL
FR
DE
EFA _incidence
• 73 EFAs
• 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,
Content of EFAs
0 5 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
D. Impact of the crisis on IR
regimes
Country Multi-employer (MEB) or Single-employer (SEB) bargaining prevalent
2008 2011
Austria MEB MEB
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
Company level
Sector level
National level
AT
CY
EL
IT
BG
ES
FR
FI
IE
LT
ROSI
Trends in main levels of CB
Source: Eurofound 2014
BE
PT
Type of change Countries
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
mechanisms
Minimum wage setting CY DE EL ES HR HU IE PL PT SI SK
Indexation BE CY ES IT LU
• changes in EL, ES, PT
• continental Western, central Eastern and Nordic IR regimes have applied the ‘favourability’
principle to govern the relationship between different levels of CB
CAs concluded at lower levels can only improve 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 as 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
opening clauses in sector and/or cross-sector CAs provide scope
for further negotiation on aspects of wages at company level
whereas opt-out clauses permit derogation under certain
conditions from the wage standards specified in the sector and/or
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
• changes in: 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 from 2011 introduces tougher criteria for trade TU representativeness
where unions do not meet the new criteria at company level, employers can now
negotiate CAs with unspecified elected employee reps
Extension of CB competence
Extension mechanisms
of the 28 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
clauses providing for 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
No. of CAsEIRO 2014
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL1 EL2 ES FR IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK UK
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
sector CA200
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 1,397.000 1,407.000 1,236 327 242
No. of CAs in PT
• change has been 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 from the crisis
• impact of the ‘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 from the crisis
• amongst the programme MS the broader effect of multiple,
government-imposed changes has been to reconfigure WSMs
by weakening or removing key state support for MEB
favourability principle
extension procedures
continuation of agreements beyond expiry
• capacity of MEB to comprehensively regulate wages has been
weakened
•
Conclusions from the crisis
• CSRs have mostly been targeted at countries with MEB
rather than SEB bargaining regimes
• impact of CSR is less clear than MoUs
Conclusions from the crisis
• EU’s new economic governance regime seems primarily to
be aimed at ‘marketising’ collective wage setting
WSMs becoming more sensitive to the market circumstances of
companies through (further) decentralisation
Conclusions from the crisis
E. Discussion
• “By viewing labour 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)
a. Discussion > labour = commodity?
• Clayton Anti-Trust Act (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
• Treaty of Versailles (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
• towards a 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
• 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
b. Discussion: crisis and IR models
FI CY
IE
MT
FR
AT BG
DK NO SE
UK
PTEL ES
SIBE
DE
LU
NL
ROCZ
EE SK
PL
LV
LT
HU
0
1
2
3
4
Industrial relations system
Severi
ty o
f im
pact
Nordic Central EastCentral WestMediterranean/
South
Anglo-Saxon
Western
Trend Origin
Restructuring of actors 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 trendSource: EIRO 2013
c. Discussion: crisis vs. megatrends
