Key Influences on Bargaining Approaches: is state support for the work-wage bargain vanishing? Resolve Symposium Cork - 19 November 2014 Christian Welz Eurofound – European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions www.eurofound.europa.eu
Table of content 1. Prologue 2. Actors u n d e r p r e s s u r e 3. Processes u n d e r p r e s s u r e 4. Outcomes u n d e r p r e s s u r e 5. Conclusions 6. Epiloque and discussion
Prologue • “ 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 ) • Clayton Anti-Trust Act (section 6) • 'that the labor of a human being is a commodity or article of commerce'. Samuel Gompers – leader of the American Federation of Labour for 20 years was inspired by Dr. Ingram
Prologue • Treaty of Versailles (article 427) first principle of the new ILO pro- claimed ‘ that labour should not be regarded as a commodity or article of commerce introduced by British delegation Gompers > personal defeat • ILO DECLARATION OF PHILADELP labour is a commodity
Actors Impact Member State successful tripartite 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 AT, CZ, DE, EE (for transport), LT trade union density changes to membership of employer bodies CY (increase), DE (increase in members not bound by CA), LT (first decline then increase)
Actors Impact MS decreasing influence and visibility BE, DK, EE, HU, IE, LV, NL increased cooperation between the social DE, HU, LT, NL partners 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
Processes Type of change MS Main level(s) of bargaining: Decentralisation AT BG CY EL ES FR IE IT RO SI Recentralisation BE FI Horizontal coordination across bargaining AT ES HU IE RO SE SK units 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 BG DE IT procedures Continuation beyond expiry EE EL ES HR PT PROCESSES - Minimum wage setting and indexation SUMMARY mechanisms
Trade union density _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013 80 % of workforce 2011 2012 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 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
Employer density _ 2012 v 2013 EIRO 2013/14 120 % of employees in companies members of an EO 2011 2012 100 80 60 40 20 0 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 28 30 41 35 49 0 56 58 0 75 71 80 80 80 86 85 100
TU developments in 2013 • membership 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) • organisational change merger BE, FR, HU, UK fragmentation NL other EL, FR, IE , IT, LU, NL, RO, SI, UK
Employers developments in 2013 • membership 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 • organisational change merger FR, LT fragmentation NL other EL, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, RO, SI
Collective bargaining coverage _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013/14 120 % of workforce 2011 2012 100 80 60 40 20 0 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
Outcomes Impact MS inconclusive outcomes BG, 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
Average hourly labour costs (2012) EIRO 2014 45 EUR 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 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
Monthly minimum wage _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO 2013/14 2000 2011 2012 EUR 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 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
Real labour productivty (2012) EIRO 2014 60 EUR per h worked 50 40 30 20 10 0 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
Number of working days lost _ 2013 EIRO 2014 1200 in 1000 days 1000 800 600 400 200 0 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
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
Trends in main levels of CB National level Sector level BE FI Company level BG AT ES CY FR EL PT IT IE LT RO SI
Ordering / favourability principle • 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
Changes in opening/opt-out clauses opening clauses in sector/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 •
Extension of CB competence • 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 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
Recommend
More recommend
