Dynamics of the European Sectoral Dynamics of the European Sectoral Social DialogueSocial Dialogue

The role of social partners in CVT in Europe: The role of social partners in CVT in Europe:

reviewing practices and sharing challengesreviewing practices and sharing challenges

CEDEFOP, Thessaloniki: 9-10 February 2009

Christian Welz Christian Welz

European Foundation, DublinEuropean Foundation, Dublin

19/04/15 2

OutlineOutline

I. Analytical framework

II. Institutional developments

III. Coordination of a multi-level governance

IV. Implementation of texts

V. Conclusions

19/04/15 3

I. Analytical frameworkI. Analytical framework

2 levels of analysis

European institutions and actors participants + interaction with the European Commission

relationship with the Member States

19/04/15 4

I. Research questionsI. Research questions

recent developments in the ESSD

how do players act and interact

within ESSD committees

with national constituencies

implementation of texts

19/04/15 5

l. Methodologyl. Methodology

combination of methods

documentary search

databases (OSE)

‘representativeness studies’

interviews 45 semi-structured interviews

19/04/15 6

II. Institutional developmentsII. Institutional developments

36 committees

with increasing visibility

19/04/15 7

36 Sectoral Social Dialogue Committees36 Sectoral Social Dialogue Committees

- Agriculture- Audiovisual- Banking - Catering- Chemicalindustry- Civi l aviation- CleaningIndustry- Commerce-Construction-Electricity- Extractive -Industry-Football

- Footwear- Furniture- Gas- Horeca- Hospitals- Inland Waterways- Insurance- Local and regional Government- Personal services- Postal services- Private security- Railways- Road transport

- Sea fisheries- Sea Transport- Shipbuilding- Steel- Sugar- Tanning and leather- Telecommunications- Temporary agency work- Texti le and clothing- Woodworking

requests:- automotive industry- non-ferrous metals- cycling - sports

test (08-10):- public administration

19/04/15 8

II. Institutional developmentsII. Institutional developments

more than 300 joint texts

plethora of texts > growing in nos.

majority of ‘common positions’ to

European institutions

no clear trend towards more binding

agreements (2% only !)

19/04/15 9

SSD: Number of documents per type (1999-2007)

6

33

31

46 53 127

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

agreements

Process-oriented text

Procedurals text

Joint opinions and tools

No subgroup Tools Declarations Joints opinions

19/04/15 10

SSD: Number of documents by topic (1999-2007)

2

3

5

9

3

7

12

6

11

22

13

2

2

4

5

1

10

9

4

9

12

20

14

14

10

1

4

12

10

6

5

4

5

11

28

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Working time

Sustainable development

Non-discrimination

CSR - Corporate social responsability

Employment

Enlargement

Working conditions

Soc. Aspects of Community pol.

Health and safety

Training

Social dialogue

Economic and/or sectoral pol.

1999-2001 2002-2004 2005-2007

19/04/15 11

II. Joint textsII. Joint texts

2 broad categories of documents

intended for the attention of European

or national public authorities (common

position)

addressed to the social partners

themselves (reciprocal commitments)

19/04/15 12

4

22

24

43

7

25

28

32

2

21

30

57

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Companies

European social partners

National organisations

European inst.& nationalauthorities

1999-2001 2002-2004 2005-2007

19/04/15 13

III. Coordinating multi-level playersIII. Coordinating multi-level players

sectoral specificities prevail

growing interaction

between sectoral and cross-sectoral

social dialogue e.g. telework, violence at workplace

between sectors (crystalline sylica)

19/04/15 14

III. Coordinating multi-level playersIII. Coordinating multi-level players

coordination with national members

heterogeneity of perimeters e.g. NACE demarcation

heterogeneity of roles social partners vs. trade associations

19/04/15 15

III. Coordinating multi-level playersIII. Coordinating multi-level players

national players’ commitment in ESSD

various degrees of participation centre / periphery / absent

issues at stake

opportunities and constraints

human and financial resources

national IR context

19/04/15 16

IV. Implementation of textsIV. Implementation of texts

implementation in MS “EU peak organisations have no power or authority to

enforce compliance…” (Keller 2003) process-oriented texts

implementation on a voluntary basis depend on

nature of text

national legal framework

maturity and level of experience in ESSD

19/04/15 17

IV. Implementation of textsIV. Implementation of texts

categories of practical follow-up techniques

1) written survey among members

2) annual/periodic reports

3) task forces/working groups/plenary meetings

4) agreement on good practices

5) conferences/websites

6) new texts/new initiatives

19/04/15 18

IV. Implementation of textsIV. Implementation of texts

follow-up procedures > problematic

lack of regular and systematic monitoring

lack of information on impact in MS

patchy information > patchy implementation?

yet: mutual learning and informal contacts

19/04/15 19

V. ConclusionsV. Conclusions

from a quantitative perspective:

less than 2% of the texts adopted

are agreements with binding effect

only some texts are expected to have

measurable impact at national level

19/04/15 20

V. ConclusionsV. Conclusions

each sector has its own specific dynamics

defining a common interest not only

represents a difficulty between trade unions

and employers

also involves much intra-organisational

negotiation

19/04/15 21

V. ConclusionsV. Conclusions

implementation of texts relies on

the EU peak organisations

the goodwill of the national members

domestic institutional framework is a key

dimension for implementation at national

level (path dependency)

19/04/15 22

V. ConclusionsV. Conclusions

growing interaction both between

the cross-industry and the sectoral level

and among sectors themselves

complex level linkages between the EU and national level

19/04/15 23

V. ConclusionsV. Conclusions

dynamics at play are complex, multiple and opaque

dynamics differ from the traditional sector-level collective bargaining in the MS

multi-level/multi-actor

close cooperation with the EU institutions

numerous coordination processes

subtle forms of mutual learning

there is a multiplicity of activities and high degree of vitality

19/04/15 24

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/governance.htm

christian.welz@eurofound.europa.eu

Further informationFurther information