European Industrial Relations (IR)

NUI Galway, 13 November 2014

Dr. Christian Welz

christian.welz@eurofound.europa.eu

Outline

A. EU at a glance

B. Diversity of national IR regimes

C. Europeanisation of IR regimes?

a. cross-sector level

b. sectoral level

c. company level

D. Impact of the crisis on IR regimes

E. Discussion

A. Primary EU law

• 1952: Treaty of Paris (ECSC)

• 1958: Treaties of Rome (EEC, EAC)

• 1987: Single European Act (Common

Market)

• 1993: Treaty of Maastricht (Euro,

ESD)

• 1999: Treaty of Amsterdam

• 2003: Treaty of Nice

• 2009: Treaty of Lisbon (TEU/TFEU)

Evolution of European Industrial

Relations

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

European Company Statute

EWCs

Coordination of bargaining

Macroeconomic Dialogue

Social Dialogue

Employment Strategy

European IntegrationArt.48/119

• •Standing Employment Committee

•Val Duchesse

•

1st EMF conference•

1st company agreement

• 1st draft

European

industrial

relations

EMP

EC

TU“bargaining in the shadow of the law”

B. Diversity 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

collective

bargaining

participation

industrial

action

settlement 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

IRinstitutionalised 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

representationdual unions unions variable unions

level of CB sector sector company sector/company company

Trade Unions

Intersectorallevel

Government

Employers

Intersectoral level

Sectoral level Sectoral level

Company level

Levels of CB - wages

Company level

Belgium

Finland

Austria

Denmark1

France1

Germany

Greece

Ireland1

Italy

Luxembourg1

Netherlands

Portugal1

Spain1

Sweden1

Denmark2

France2

Ireland2

Luxembourg2

Portugal2

Spain2

Sweden2

UK

Trade Unions

Intersectorallevel

Government

Employers

Intersectoral level

Sectoral level Sectoral level

Company level

Levels of CB - wages

Company level

Slovenia 1

Bulagaria1

Cyprus 1

Slovakia 1

Slovenia 2

Bulgaria2

Croatia

Cyprus 2

Czech Rep.

Estonia

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Malta

Poland

Romania

Slovakia 2

Trade union density _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80% of workforce 2011 2012

Collective bargaining coverage _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013/14

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120% of workforce 2011 2012

Average hourly labour costs (2012) EIRO 2014

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

0

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 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

0

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 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

0

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 ES

2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 9 15 26 150 174 379 444 605 1099

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

in 1000 days

Cross-sector social partners in the EU

• 108 trade unions

• 134 employers associations

Cross-sector social partners in the EUEIRO 2014

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

LV IE AT

CY

SK

CZ

LT

MT

NL

BG

EE

PL

PT

GR

HR

DE FI

LU

UK

BE

DK SE SI

FR

ES

HU

RO IT

TU EO

C. Europeanisation of IR regimes?

Intersectoral

social dialogue

Sectoral social

dialogue

EWCs

IFAs_EFAs

SEs

Cross industry Sectoral Company

national social dialogue

European Industrial Relations- level linkages

cross-sector level

EnvironmentEnvironment

politicalpolitical

legallegal

economiceconomic

societalsocietal

Actors Actors

BUSINESSEUROPEBUSINESSEUROPE

UEAPMEUEAPME

CEEPCEEP

ETUCETUC

EU institutionsEU institutions

Nat. GNat. Governovern..

Nat. SPNat. SP

ProcessesProcesses

European European

social dialoguesocial dialogue

under EC lawunder EC law

((““negotiate or negotiate or

we will we will legislegis--

latelate””))

OutcomesOutcomes

collectivecollective

agreementsagreements

(negotiate)(negotiate)

EC EC labour labour

legislationlegislation

(legislate(legislate))

ImpImplementationlementation

a)a) Council decisionCouncil decision

b)b) Nat. practices of SP Nat. practices of SP

and MSand MS

InputsInputs OutputsOutputs

Bipartite DialogueEmployers – Trade Unions

Tripartite

ConcertationPublic Authorities

(Commission, Council) +

Trade Unions + Employers

European Social Dialogue

Sectoral

Covering workers

and employers

of 43 specific sectors

of the economy,

Cross-industry

"Val Duchesse"Covering the economy

as a whole:

workers

and employers

European social dialogue

Social dialogue under articles 154/155 TFEU

proposal in the

social policy field

where appropriate,

Commission follow-up

where appropriate,

Commission follow-up

Commission art. 155art. 154

1. consultation

on the direction

opinion

2. consultation on the

content

opinion

failure

if Community action

is desirable

negotiation

nine months,

unless extended

agreement

Agreement implementation

autonomous route

1. according to the national

practices of the social partners

2. and the Member States

legislative route

1. submitted to the Commission

2. Commission makes proposal

3. Council decision

= extension erga omnes

4. no EP/EESC involvement

Successes of the European Social Dialogue

Agreements implemented by Council

decision

[monitoring by the Commission]

1. Framework agreement on parental

leave, 1995

2. Framework agreement on part-time

work, 1997

3. Framework agreement on fixed-

term work, 1999

4. Revised framework agreement on

parental leave, 2009

Autonomous agreements implemented

by procedures and practices specific to

management and labour and the

Member States

[implementation and monitoring by the

social partners]

1. Framework agreement on telework, 2002

2. Framework agreement on work-related,

stress, 2004

3. Framework agreement on harassment and

violence at work (2007)

4. Multi-sectoral agreement on workers’ health

protection against crystalline silica (2006)

5. Framework agreement on active inclusion (10)

• is a form of (…)

work, using IT, in the context of an employment

contract/relationship, where work, which could also

be performed at the employers premises, is carried

out away from those premises on a regular basis.”

(art.2)

Autonomous agreement:

telework (2002)

heteronomousautonomous

soft law

hard law

FI SE

NL LV IE UK

AT DE DK

EL ES IT

BE FR LU CZ HU SKPL PT SI

tripartite processbipartite process social partner

consultation

legislation without

SP consultation

code of

practice/

guidance

collective

agreement

legislation

extension

of CA

voluntary

agreement

Failures of the European Social Dialogue

Failures resulting in legislation1. European Works Councils

2. Reversal of burden of proof

3. Information and consultation

4. Temporary agency work

e.g. revision of working time

directiveFailures of the ESD and of

legislation

sectoral level

Sectoral Social Partners:

15 European Industry Federations (e.g.)

• EFBWW European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

• ECF European Federation of Food Workers

• EFFAT European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

• EPSU European Federation of Public Service Unions

• FST Federation of Transport Workers

• ETUCE European Committee for Education

• UNI-Europa Union Network International

• EEA European Alliance of Media and Entertainment

• EFJ European Federation of Journalists

• IndustriALL ETUF-TCL + EMCEF + EMF

Sectoral Social Partners:

65 employers’ organizations (e.g.)

• CEEMET Council of European Employers of the

Metal, Engineering and Technology-

Based Industries

• ECSA European Community Shipowners’

Association

• Eurociett European Organisation of CIETT

(International Confederation of

Private Employment Agencies)

• FERCO Federation of Contract Catering

Organisations

• HOSPEEM European Hospital and Healthcare

Employers Association an

• ……………

43 Sectoral Social Dialogue

Committees

- Agriculture

- Audiovisual

- Banking

-Catering

- Central Admin

- Chemical

industry

- Civil aviation

- Cleaning

Industry

- Commerce

-Construction

- Education

-Electricity

- Extractive

Industries

- Food and Drink

-Football

- Footwear

- Furniture

- Gas

- Graphical sector

- Horeca

- Hospitals

- Inland Waterways

- Insurance

- Local and regional

Government

- Liver performance

- Maritime Transport

- Metal

- Paper

- Personal services

- Ports

- Postal services

- Private security

- Railways

- Road transport

- Sea fisheries

- Sea Transport

- Shipbuilding

- Steel

- Sports

- Sugar

- Tanning and leather

- Telecommunications

- Temporary agency work

- Textile and clothing

- Woodworking

sectoral outputs

• joint texts

+ 650 texts

majority of ‘common positions’ to European

institutions

no clear trend towards binding agreements

11 agreements = less than 2%

majority > not legally binding + process-oriented

texts

company level

• European Works Council

• European Company Statute

• International/European Framework Agreements

European Works Councils

• EWC directive (94/45/EC recast 2009/38/EC)

• 2204 companies covered 1000 employees

150 in 2 Member States

• 1056 active EWCs in 2014 8 HQs in IE: Aer Lingus, Ardagh, Board Mona, CHR, Glen Dimplex, James

Hardie, Kerry Group, Smurfit Kappa

58 EWCs > IE chosen as country of law applicable

• process must be triggered at least 100 employees in at least 2 Member States (written request)

• 60 % of workforce / 14.5 million covered

MS with active EWCs in 2013 EIRO 2014

CY CZ GR PT HU LU ES AT DK IE FI IT EU SE NL BE FR DE

2013 1 1 1 1 3 17 18 34 41 58 62 82 85 111 119 181 263 372

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400%

European company statute

• European Company Statute (EC 2157/2001)

involvement of employees (2001/86/EC)

SE works councils

• over 2239 SEs registered in 2014

10 in IE > 2 with more than 5 employees

e.g. Aviva, Atrium, Axis RE, Axon Neuroscience, Carthago Invest, Paypal

289 normal SEs

= activities + 6 employees (Allianz, Porsche, Strabag)

more than 309 empty/micro SEs

= activities + less 5 employees

1562 UFO SEs

> little information

International / European

framework agreements

• IFA

company agreement signed by a MNC and a Global Union Federation (GUF)

• EFA

company agreement signed by a MNC and a European Industry Federation (EIF) and/or a EWC

International Framework Agreements in 10/08

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18JP

CA

AU

NZ

RS

A

RU

GB

CZ

PT

BE

DK

NO

LU IT ES

SE

NL

FR

DE

EFA _incidence

• 73 EFAs

• 52 co-signed by and EWC

• 42 signed by an EWC only

• leader: France with 26 EFAs in 14 companies

Suez 5, Air France 4, Vivendi 3,

Content of EFAs

0 5 10 15 20 25

CSR

Training

Equal opportunities

Sub-contracting

Financial participation

Fundamental rights

Other

Data protection

HRM + Social Management

H&S

Social dialogue

Restructuring

D. 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

Table of content

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 MS

decreasing 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 MS

Main level(s) of bargaining:

Decentralisation AT BG CY EL ES FR IE IT RO SI

Recentralisation BE FI

Horizontal coordination across bargaining

units

AT ES HU IE RO SE SK

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

procedures

BG DE IT

Continuation beyond expiry EE EL ES HR PT

Minimum wage setting and indexation

mechanisms

Trade union density _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013

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

0

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 IE FR FI BE LU SI SE NL AT

2011 15 20 25 28 33 34 35 41 42 54 58 58 60 60 70 76 80 80 87 90 100

2012 15 20 25 28 30 41 35 49 0 56 58 0 60 75 71 80 80 80 86 85 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120% of employees in companies members of an EO

2011 2012

TU developments in 2013

• membership

• organisational change

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)

merger BE, FR, HU, UK

fragmentation NL

other EL, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, RO, SI, UK

Employers developments in 2013

• membership

• organisational change

merger FR, LT

fragmentation NL

other EL, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, RO, SI

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

Country Multi-employer (MEB) or Single-employer (SEB) bargaining prevalent

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

Company level

Sector level

National level

AT

CY

EL

IT

BG

ES

FR

FI

RO SI

IE

Trends in main levels of CB

BE

PT

Collective bargaining coverage _ 2011 v 2012 EIRO/ETUI 2013/14

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120% of workforce 2011 2012

• 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

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 MS

AT, DE, FI, IT, PT, SE

changes in opt-out clauses 8 MS

BG, 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 MS

BG, 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 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

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

sector CA200

164 166 115 46 46

company

CA

95 87 64 55 39 48

total CA 295 251 230 170 85 94

extension 137 102 116 17 12 9

coverage /

in 1000 pers.

1,894 1,397 1,407 1,236 327 242

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 WSMs

amongst those countries receiving financial

assistance packages is clear

• government-imposed measures in these countries

have substantially reconfigured WSMs

Conclusions

E. 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

Discussion: crisis > WSM and IR regimes

FI

CYIE

MT

FR AT

BG

DK SE UK

PTEL ES

SI

BE

DE

LU NL

RO

EE

SK

PLLVLT

HU

0

1

2

3

4

Industrial relations systems

Severi

ty o

f im

pact

Nordic Central EastCentral WestMediterranean/

South

Anglo-Saxon

Western

CZ

IT HR

Trend Origin

Restructuring of actors megatrend

Decline in trade union density megatrend

Public Sector Reform megatrend

Decentralisation of collective bargaining megatrend

(crisis accelerated)

Increase in opt-out clauses crisis-induced trend

Increase in opening clauses crisis-induced trend

Decrease of extensions crisis-induced trend

Shorter duration of collective agreements crisis-induced trend

Drop in volume of bargaining crisis-induced trend

Drop in quality of bargaining crisis-induced trend

Shorter continuation of CAs crisis-induced trend

Reforms in wage-setting mechanisms crisis-induced trend

More adversarial industrial relations crisis-induced trend

Discussion: crisis vs. megatrends

• http://www.eurofound.europa.eu

• christian.welz@eurofound.europa.eu

• European industrial relations dictionary

Further information