Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EMPLOYERS YOUNG PROFESSIONALS ACADEMY
Varieties of Industrial Relations (IR) in the European Union
Turin, ITCILO, 07 September 2015Christian Welz
Outline
A. Varieties of national IR regimes
B. Impact of the crisis on IR regimes
C. Discussion
A. Varieties 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
collectivebargainingparticipation
industrialactionsettlement 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
Peter Hall and 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.
IR 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 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
Trade Unions
Intersectoral level
Government
Employers
Intersectoral level
Sectoral level Sectoral level
Company level
Levels of CB - wages
Company level
BelgiumFinland
AustriaDenmark1France1GermanyGreeceIreland1ItalyLuxembourg1NetherlandsPortugal1Spain1Sweden1
Denmark2France2Ireland2Luxembourg2 Portugal2Spain2Sweden2UK
Trade Unions
Intersectoral level
Government
Employers
Intersectoral level
Sectoral level Sectoral level
Company level
Levels of CB - wages
Company level
Slovenia 1
Bulagaria1Cyprus 1Slovakia 1Slovenia 2
Bulgaria2CroatiaCyprus 2Czech Rep.EstoniaHungaryLatviaLithuaniaMaltaPolandRomaniaSlovakia 2
Trade union density _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013
FR PL HU CZ ES DE BG SI IE HR LU BE DK FI0
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 AT0
20
40
60
80
100
120% of employees in companies members of an EO
2011 2012
Collective bargaining coverage _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013/14
LT HU BG CZ UK IE CY EU DE GR ES NL SE FIBE
0
20
40
60
80
100
120% of workforce 2011 2012
Average hourly labour costs (2012) EIRO 2014
BG LV PL SK CZ GR CY UK IT DE FI SE LU DK0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45EUR
Monthly minimum wage _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO 2013/14
BG RO LV LT CZ EE SK HUHR PL PT GR EU ES MT SI CY UK FR BE IE NL LU0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000EUR 2011 2012
Real labour productivty (2012) EIRO 2014
EE SI LV LT PL CZ MT CY EU IT BE AT FI DE SE FR NL IE0
10
20
30
40
50
60EUR per h worked
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 ES0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200in 1000 days
Coordinating the Network of EU Agencies 2015
Different concepts of representativeness
different concepts examples
mutual recognition UK, Ireland
capacity to negotiate Germany, Austria
industrial democracy (elections) France, Luxemburg
organisational strength (membership) Poland, Romania
Coordinating the Network of EU Agencies 2015
Thresholds: elections (p=peak/s=sectoral/c=companty)
Country Trade Unions votes in %
peak sector company
Spain 10% national working delegates15 % regional working delegates
10% national working delegates15% regional working delegates
France 8% 8% 10%
Italy 5% / 51% > ext. of CAs
Luxembourg 20% 50%
Coordinating the Network of EU Agencies 2015
Thresholds of membership (p=peak / s=sectoral / c=companty / r=region)
Year of law Country Employers UnionsDensity % Number Density % Number
1971 Netherlands 51 > ext. of CA
1985 Spain 10 (P) / 15 (R) 1993
Slovenia 10 - 15 (S)
1999 Latvia 50 (S) 2000 Poland 300.000 (P) 7 - 10 (C) 300.000 (P)2001
Italy 5 (S) / 51 > ext. of CA
2006 Czech Republic 400.000 (P) 150.000 (P)
2007 Slovakia 100.000 (P) 100.000 (P)2008 France no concrete figure
2009 Belgium 125.000 (P) 125.000 (P)
2011 Romania 7 10 50
2012
Croatia 20 (S) 50.000 (P)Bulgaria 15.000 (P) 75.000 (P)Hungary 10 (C)
2014 Portugal 30 of SMEs(S) or 50 of emp > ext. of CA
2015 Estonia (reform) 51 > ext. of CA
Cross-sector social partners in the EU
• 108 trade unions
• 134 employers associations
Coordinating the Network of EU Agencies 2015
Cross-sector social partners in the EU EIRO 2014
LV AT SK LT NL EE PT HR FIUK DK SI ES
RO0
5
10
15
20
25
30
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
TU EO
cross - industry
Employers
- BUSINESSEUROPE- European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Services (CEEP) - European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises (UEAPME) Trade Unions- European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) - CEC-European Managers - EUROCADRES (Council of European Professional
and Managerial Staff)
B. Impact of the crisis on IR regimes
1. Actors u n 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
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 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)
Actors
Impact MSdecreasing influence and 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
Processes
PROCESSES - SUMMARY
Type of change MSMain level(s) of bargaining: Decentralisation AT BG CY EL ES FR IE IT RO SI Recentralisation BE FIHorizontal coordination across bargaining units
AT ES HU IE RO SE SK
Linkages between levels of bargaining Ordering between levels EL ES PTOpening and opt-out clauses AT BG CY DE EL ES FI FR IE IT NO PT
SE SIExtending bargaining competence EL FR HU PT ROReach and continuity of bargaining Extension procedures EL IE SK PT ROIncreased / changed use of existing procedures
BG DE IT
Continuation beyond expiry EE EL ES HR PTMinimum wage setting and indexation mechanisms
Minimum wage setting CY DE EL ES HR HU IE PL PT SI SKIndexation BE CY ES IT LU
Trade Union density rates 2013 in %
Employer density rates 2013
Eurofound 2015
Membership of employers’ organisations participating in collective bargaining (%)
Collective bargaining coverage 2002 - 2013
Country Multi-employer (MEB) or Single-employer (SEB) bargaining prevalent 2008 2011
Austria MEB MEBBelgium MEB MEBBulgaria Mixed MixedCroatia MEB MEB
Cyprus Mixed MixedCzech Republic SEB SEBDenmark MEB MEBEstonia SEB SEBFinland MEB MEB
France MEB MEBGermany MEB MEBGreece MEB MEBHungary SEB SEBIreland MEB SEBItaly MEB MEBLatvia SEB SEBLithuania SEB SEBLuxembourg MEB MEBMalta SEB SEBNetherlands MEB MEBNorway MEB MEBPoland SEB SEBPortugal MEB MEBRomania MEB SEBSlovakia Mixed MixedSlovenia MEB MEBSpain MEB MEBSweden MEB MEBUnited Kingdom SEB SEB
Company level
Sector level
National level
AT
CY
EL
IT
BG
ES
FR
FI
RO
Trends in main levels of CB
BE
PT
• 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 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
agreementsEL 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
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 MSAT, DE, FI, IT, PT, SE
changes in opt-out clauses 8 MSBG, CY, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, SI
•
Changes in opening/opt-out clauses
• 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
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 MSBG, 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
Outcomes
Impact MSinconclusive 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
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 2014
sector CA194
164 166 115 46 46 72
companyCA
97 87 64 55 39 49 80
total CA 291 251 230 170 85 95 152
extension 137 102 116 17 12 9 +/_15
coverage /in 1000 pers.
1,895 1,397 1,407 1,237 328 243 246
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
• impact of the ‘troika’ in inducing changes to WSMsamongst those countries receiving financial assistance packages is clear
• government-imposed measures in these countries have substantially reconfigured WSMs
Conclusions
C. 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)
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
Trend OriginRestructuring of actors megatrendDecline in trade union density megatrendPublic Sector Reform megatrend Decentralisation of collective bargaining megatrend
(crisis accelerated)Increase in opt-out clauses crisis-induced trendIncrease in opening clauses crisis-induced trendDecrease of extensions crisis-induced trendShorter duration of collective agreements crisis-induced trendDrop in volume of bargaining crisis-induced trendDrop in quality of bargaining crisis-induced trendShorter continuation of CAs crisis-induced trendReforms in wage-setting mechanisms crisis-induced trendMore adversarial industrial relations crisis-induced trend
Discussion: crisis vs. megatrends
• http://www.eurofound.europa.eu
• European industrial relations dictionary
Further information
thank you!
