T2-06: European social dialogue

Peter Kerckhofs, Eurofound

Based on information from representativeness studies there is comparable information available for 40 of the 43 European Sector Social Dialogue Committees (ESSDCs). This comparative data will be presented in tables, figures and graphs.

In a first section the history of European sector social dialogue is presented. Milestones in this are the European Commission Decision of May 1998 and the European Commission staff working document of 2010. The proportion of the EU workforce presented in different ESSDCs, will be indicated here, just like the numbers of employees in activities not yet covered by ESSDCs.

The second part of the paper & presentation, will be the data from national trade unions and employers organisations in the different sectors. The degree of fragmentation and the sector relatedness will be presented and compared. For trade unions there is more fragmentation at national level. On average there are about 3 trade unions per country in a sector, while for the employers this is 2. At European level however there are 65 European employers organisations and a much less fragmented European Trade union landscape with 6 main European Sectoral Trade Union Organisations.

A third section will assess and compare the representativeness of European Social Partner organisations, in terms of the proportion of affiliated organisations and in terms of the proportion of EU member states where there is an affiliated member organisation.

Practices and processes in European sectoral social dialogue

Sabrina Weber, Pforzheim University
Barbara Bechter, Durham University Business School
Manuela Galetto, University of Warwick
Bengt Larsson, University of Gothenburg
Tom Prosser, Cardiff University

Background

Research on the European sectoral social dialogue (ESSD) has highlighted two aspects. First, that there is a huge variance between the existing 43 sectoral social dialogue committees (SSDC) (Degryse, 2015; Keller and Sörries, 1998) which is often attributed to certain sector-specific characteristics (de Boer et al., 2005; Leisink, 2002). Second, ESSD has been characterized as a multilevel setting where coordination efforts not only between social partners, but also within the respective organisations with a wide range of (national) actors must be achieved (Keller and Weber, 2011; Keune and Marginson, 2013). However, where and how exactly “the sector” makes a difference in this multilevel setting is largely unclear.

We open up the black box of sectoral practices and processes by investigating two SSDCs in more depth, namely Hospital (HOSP) and Metal (MET). The two SSDCs share a number of similarities – such as the establishment date of SSDC or the number and kind of European organizations involved (one single trade union, one single employer (not: business) organisation). Moreover, the two SSDCs have also managed to reach a similar number of joint texts. However, the focus of these joint texts differs: whereas the SSDC MET concentrates on industrial policy, the SSDC HOSP more closely considers  working conditions. Our paper therefore takes a micro perspective and investigates the practices and processes within the SSDCs, such as topic selection.

Argument

Our argument is twofold. First, we argue that it is useful to analyze SSDCs as a multilevel ‘network of organisations’ (Metcalfe, 1976; 1994) (represented by national and EU actors in SSDCs) that must ensure that the organisations participating in SSDCs develop capacities for working together effectively to produce desired outcomes. Modes of management/coordination in such networks may imply rules and procedures and the specification of output, or may be characterised by the formation of task forces and teams. Second, we advance the argument that such practices of coordination to achieve a desired outcome are shaped by (key) actors (Brass et al., 2004). In particular, in the multilevel setting of ESSD, national key actors define “the sector” and the sectoral practices by involving themselves in SSDCs.

Findings

We find that the management/coordination capacity of both SSDCs is high. However, the variance in output (focus) is reflected in different sectoral practices. Whereas the practices to reach the desired outcome in SSDC HOSP are characterized by horizontal coordination leading to a ‘problem-solving oriented social dialogue structure’, SSDC MET instead shows a rather hierarchical coordination approach (‘political management structure’). These differing SSDC practices are shaped by key national actors and we identify a very similar set of key actors (countries) in the two SSDCs.

Methodology

The paper draws on a range of qualitative data including interview and documentary sources at the national, EU and sectoral levels. First, qualitative data from interviews with social partner representatives and Commission representatives at the EU level in the sectors HOSP and MET.  A second source of data are selected joint SSDC texts, such as rules of procedure and working programmes. This data is completed by observations of SSDC meetings and, whenever appropriate, by national level interview data (e. g. where topic selection is mentioned).

References

• Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR and Tsai W (2004) Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal 47: 795–817.
• De Boer R, Benedictus H. and Van Der Meer M. (2005) Broadening without intensification: The added value of the European social and sectoral dialogue. European Journal of Industrial Relations 11: 51–70.
• Degryse C (2015) The European sectoral social dialogue: an uneven record of achievement? ETUI Working Paper 2015.02. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2628064 [Accessed 4 May 2018].
• Keller B and Sörries B (1998) The sectoral social dialogue and European social policy - more fantasy, fewer facts. European Journal of Industrial Relations 4: 331–347.
• Keller B and Weber S (2011) Sectoral social dialogue at EU level: Problems and prospects of implementation. European Journal of Industrial Relations 17: 227–243.
• Keune M and Marginson P (2013) Transnational industrial relations as multi-level governance: interdependencies in European social dialogue. British Journal of Industrial Relations 51: 473–497.
• Leisink P (2002) The European Sectoral Social Dialogue and the Graphical Industry. European Journal of Industrial Relations 8: 101–17.
• Metcalfe L (1976) Organizational strategies and interorganizational networks. Human Relations 29: 327–343.
• Metcalfe L (1994) International policy co-ordination and public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 60: 271–290.

Acknowledgement

The research for this paper was financially supported by the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Call for proposals: Improving expertise in the field of industrial relations. Project VP/2016/0092 (2016-2018).

New actors’ old problems?

Barbara Bechter, Durham University Business School

Background

The integration of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries into the European Union (EU) in 2004 has increased the level of heterogeneity and competition within it. Greater competition arises from the imbalance between economic and social standards in established Western European member states compared to CEE countries. In the absence of sectoral structures for social dialogue in many CEE countries, the capacity to fight regime competition and to mitigate downward pressures on social standards at the national level is limited. This study examines European sectoral social dialogue (ESSD) as a factor in establishing social standards and counteracting downward pressures on wages and working conditions in the EU. In the past, where cooperation occurred between social actors, it was strongly motivated by economic self-interest. This paper examines the role played by heterogeneous actors in the old and new member states since 2004 and their motivation to cooperate or compete with each other over the potential “losses” and “gains” of ESSD outcomes.

Argument

The overall purpose of this paper is to assess the interests of actors/social partners who represent both old and new member states in ESSD. The focus is on issues hampering integrative bargaining and the ability of actors involved to realize mutual gains through consensus. Similar to the unification of East and West Germany, we expect to observe not only a conflict between labour and capital about the distribution of social dialogue gains but also between old and new member states (Hyman, 1996).

It has been argued that policy issues tackled at the European level need to be of a consensual character in order to accommodate existing heterogeneity between actors (Keller and Soerris, 1998; DeBoer et al., 2005). Moreover, intended outcomes should be vague so that they are without legal effect and thus incapable of directing national policy choices and of disciplining competitive “beggar-my-neighbor strategies” (Scharpf, 2002). European sectoral framework agreements concluded after 2004 aim to supplement market integration for example by enabling transnational transport services or introducing EU-wide product standards (e.g. Silica, working time framework agreements) rather than establishing a minimum level of social protection (European Commission, 2018). We argue that the incentives for consensus decisions in ESSD are asymmetric, with strong rewards for cooperation in the old member states, in order to safeguard established standards, but incentives for non-cooperation in the new member states.

Functional arguments are used to examine and explain the contribution of different patterns of actor constellations to ESSD outcomes after enlargement of the EU. Particular emphasis will be drawn to the interdependency of actors in western and eastern Europe and the likely consequences of reaching consensus among actors.

Methodology

We base our analysis on a cross country comparison and develop a model mapping the motives of cooperation and preferences of trade unions and employers in western and eastern Europe over ESSD outcomes. Empirically we use data on actors involved in ESSD from Eurofound representativeness studies for 39 sectors and economic data based on Eurostat’s Structural Business Statistics for the EU-28.

Findings

Coalition building efforts and interest coordination between employers and trade unions in CEE are generally limited to the local context. Regional coalition building among likeminded trade unions and employers’ associations is rare with the exception of the Nordic countries. Multinational employers have taken advantage of the less regulated industrial relations systems and employer friendly taxation in CEE, together with lower labor costs and flexible labor markets (Bohle and Sadowski, 2010). The resulting asymmetric power structure is conducive to cooperation within national boundaries but detrimental to cooperation between trade unions across the east and west and does not promote an interest in shared EU policies. Thus for trade unions, ESSD is not seen as the “harbinger” of social integration but an instrument to defend local labour relations (Hancké, 2000).

Acknowledgement

The research for this paper was financially supported by the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Call for proposals: Improving expertise in the field of industrial relations. Project VP/2016/0092 (2016-2018).

References

• Bohle, D. and Sadowski, D. (2010). Transnationale Unternehmen und Gewerkschaften in Osteuropa. Industrielle Beziehungen/The German Journal of Industrial Relations, pp.119-122.
• De Boer, R., Benedictus, H. and Van Der Meer, M. (2005). Broadening without intensification: The added value of the European social and sectoral dialogue. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 11(1), pp.51-70.
• European Commission (2018) Social dialogue text database. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=521 [accessed November 2018].
• Hancké, B. (2000). European works councils and industrial restructuring in the European motor industry. European Journal of Industrial relations, 6(1), pp.35-59.
• Hyman, R. (1996). Institutional transfer: industrial relations in Eastern Germany. Work, Employment and Society, 10(4), pp.601-639.
• Keller, B. and Sorries, B. (1998). The sectoral social dialogue and European social policy: more fantasy, fewer facts. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 4(3), pp.331-348.
• Scharpf, F.W. (2002). The European social model. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4), pp.645-670.