1. 1 Social dialogues – the specific case of the European Union PhD course, FAOS, Copenhagen, November 25-27, 2009 Berndt Keller University of Konstanz, Germany

2. 2 Table of contents Introduction growing importance and attention integrated element of the European social model Social dialogues at interprofessional (macro) level stages of development results and (non-)results problems of transposition and implementation Social dialogues at sectoral (meso) level the old variant institutional reforms and their consequences Prospects

3. 3 Social dialogues at interprofessional level Social dialogues at interprofessional level: three stages of development: 1985: traditional stage (à la „Val Duchese“) 1993: Maastricht Treaty; official instutional recognition of SDs; privileged status of the social partners, tripartite SDs 2001: „joint declaration“ of the the social partners, bipartite SDs major social partners: ETUC & UNICE

4. 4 Social dialogues at interprofessional level (2) results and non-results: stage 1: about 40 „joint opinions“ of non-binding character

5. 5 stage 1: joint opinions (until 1992): TitleENDate Joint opinion on the co-operative growth strategy for more employment06/11/1986 Joint opinion concerning training and motivation, and information and consultation 06/03/1987 Joint opinion on the Annual Economic Report 1987/8826/11/1987 Joint opinion on the creation of a European occupational and geographical mobility area and improving the operation of the labour market in Europe 13/02/1990 Joint opinion on education and training19/06/1990 Joint opinion on new technologies, work organisation and adaptability of the labour market 10/01/1991 Joint opinion on the transition from school to adult and working life05/04/1991 Agreement of 31 October 199131/10/1991 Joint opinion on ways of facilitating the broadest possible effective access to training opportunities 20/12/1991 Joint statement on the future of the social dialogue03/07/1992 A renewed co-operative growth strategy for more employment03/07/1992 Joint opinion on vocational qualifications and certification13/10/1992 Social dialogues at interprofessional level (3) Source: European Commission, Social Dialogue texts database

6. 6 Social dialogues at interprofessional level (4) results and non-results: stage 1: about 40 „joint opinions“ of non-binding character stage 2: few but binding framework agreements, in most cases voluntary negotiations either failed or were not even launched  Commission as „prime mover“ in trilateral SDs (“bargaining in the shadow of the law”)

7. 7 stage 2: framework agreements and directives SubjectResult of the social partners’ consultationAdoption of the Regulation European Works Council, 1993Opinion following attempt at negotiationsDirective 94/45/EC Reconciling working life and familiy life, 1995 Agreement on parental leave (Dec. 1996)Directive 96/34/EC Adaption of the burden of proof in gender-based discrimination, 1995 Separate opinionsDirective 97/80/EC Flexibility in working time and workers’ security, 1995 Agreement on part-time work (June 1997) Agreement on fixed-term work (March 1999) Failure of negotiations on temporary work (May 2001) Directive 97/81/EC Directive 99/70/EC Prevention of sexual harassment at work, 1996 Separate opinionsNo specific legislation because of member states resistance Worker information and consultation, 1997 Separate opinionsDirective 2002/14/EC Protecting workers against employer’s insolvency, 2000 Separate opinionsn/a Modernising and improving employment relations, 2000 Agreement on telework (May 2002)n/a Protecting workers against the risks connected with exposure to asbestos at work, 2000 Separate opinionsn/a Safety and health at work for the self- employed, 2000 Separate opinionsn/a Protecting employees’ personal data, 2001 In progressn/a Anticipating and managing change, 2001In progressn/a

8. 8 Social dialogues at interprofessional level (6) results and non-results: stage 1: about 40 „joint opinions“ of non-binding character stage 2: few but binding framework agreements, in most cases voluntary negotiations either failed or were not even launched  Commission as „prime mover“ in trilateral SDs (“bargaining in the shadow of the law”) stage 3: towards bilateral autonomous agreements and the “open method of co-ordination”?  very few non-binding agreements

9. 9 Social dialogues at interprofessional level (7) stage 3: autonomous agreements: framework of actions on the lifelong development of competencies and qualifications (2002) framework agreement on telework (2002) agreement on work-related stress (2004) harassment and violence at work (2007)

10. 10 Problems of transposition and implementation two tracks transposition from European to national level  legislative track (“by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission“)  negotiation track (“in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour in the member states”) implementation at national (regional, enterprise) level  persisting legal and institutional differences between national systems  “new generation texts” of purely voluntary nature Social dialogues at interprofessional level (8)

11. 11 Social dialogues at sectoral level: more dispersed institutional infrastructure more appropriate for specific issues corporate actors: - European Industry Federations (EIFs) - UNICE member organizations the old SSD: Joint Committees & Informal Working Parties Social dialogues at sectoral level (SSD)

12. 12 Social dialogues at sectoral level (2)

13. 13 Social dialogues at sectoral level (3) ambivalent judgements of the “old SSD” institutional reform: unitary, more harmonized “sectoral social dialogue committees” consequences of institutional reform quantitative developments of committees qualitative developments (output) (foreseeable) problems  Problems of the social partners  Problems of transposition and implementation

14. Social dialogues at sectoral level (4) Quantitative developments of committees (1): NEW STRUCTUREOLD STRUCTURES Joint request for a Sectoral Dialogue Committee New dialogue Joint Committees Informal Working Group Agriculture1 1 Audiovisual11 Banking1 1 Catering1 1 Chemical industry11 Civil aviation1 1 Cleaning industry1 1 Commerce1 1 Construction1 1 Electricity1 1 Extractive industry1 1 Football11 Footwear1 1 Furniture1 1 Gas11 Horeca1 1 Hospitals11 Inland waterways1 1

15. Social dialogues at sectoral level (5) Quantitative developments of committees (2): NEW STRUCTUREOLD STRUCTURES Joint request for a Sectoral Dialogue Committee New dialogue Joint Committees Informal Working Group Insurance1 1 Live performance11 Local+regional gov.1 1 Personal services1 1 Postal services1 1 Private security1 1 Railways1 1 Road transport1 1 Sea fisheries1 1 Sea transport1 1 Shipbuilding11 Steel1 1 Sugar1 1 Tanning and leather1 1 Telecommunications1 1 Temporary work11 Textiles and clothing1 1 Woodworking1 1 3681117

16. 16 Qualitative developments: target of Joint Statements Target EU politics184 Member organizations25 EU politics and member organizations24 Parties issuing the statement10 Other1 Source: De Boer et al. 2005, 61. Social dialogues at sectoral level (6)

17. 17 Social dialogues at sectoral level (7) Consequences of institutional reform (output): quantitative developments  lagging and missing sectors  differences between sectors qualitative developments  diversified results  variance of topics  more symbolic than practical relevance (especially as the focal issues of collective bargaining are explicitly excluded)

18. 18 Social dialogues at sectoral level (8) Problems I: corporate actors social partners  conflicting interests in „soft“ and „hard“ regulation  „positive sum games“ as a necessary precondition  only compromises on the smallest common denominator  controversial (but fundamental) topics are not addressed from the Commission‘s point of view: representativeness of the social partners

19. 19 Social dialogues at sectoral level (9) Problems II: transposition and implementation two possible tracks:  legislative track (“by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission“)  negotiation track (“in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour in the member states”) negotiation track faces major problems  coverage rates differ between and within member states  extension clauses not in all member states  lack of interest of some social partners in implementation  no power of European peak associations or national affiliates  no sanctions in cases of non-compliance

20. 20 -- Table 3 -- Results of European Social Dialogue - Typology Social Dialogue Results - Types of Texts Implementation and Monitoring I. Agreements in accordance with Article 139(2): minimum standards a) Council decision Member States responsible for transposition and implementation (even where implemented by collective bargaining); monitoring by the Commission b) Autonomous agreements * implemented in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour and the Member States; social partners responsible for implementing and monitoring II. Process-oriented texts * a) Frameworks of action identification of certain policy priorities; these priorities serve as benchmarks; follow-up and annual reporting by the social partners b) Guidelines, codes of conduct recommendations and/or guidelines to national affiliates concerning the establishment of standards or principles; regular follow-up and reporting by the social partners c) Policy orientations proactive promotion of policies; regular follow-up and reporting by the social partners III. Joint opinions and tools a) Joint opinions provide input to the European institutions and/or national public authorities; no implementation, monitoring or follow-up provisions b) Declarationsoutlining future work and activities which the social partners intend to undertake; no implementation, monitoring or follow-up provisions c) Toolspractical advice to employees and companies; exchange knowledge of good practice; no implementation, monitoring or follow-up provisions IV. Procedural textsProcedural texts rules for the bipartite dialogue between the parties * Texts of type Ib and II are called “new generation texts” by the Commission. Source: Weber 2008, 55 (according to Commission of the European Communities 2004: Annex II) Results of European Social Dialogue – Typology

21. 21 Prospects development towards “minimum standards”, “soft” regulation, extended “voluntarism” “regulatory minimalism” instead of a development of specific European employment relations “open method of co-ordination” as an appropriate tool “eastern enlargement” (organizational preconditions hardly exist) development of the “European social model” social integration still lagging the economic one