EUROPÄISCHE UNION DES HANDWERKS UND DER KLEIN- UND MITTELBETRIEBE
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATON OF CRAFT, SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES
UNIONE EUROPEA DELL’ ARTIGIANATO E DELLE PICCOLE E MEDIE IMPRESE
UEAPME position
Partnership for change in an enlarged Europe
Enhancing the contribution of European social dialogue - COM (2004) 557 final
UEAPME has taken note of the new communication from the Commission of 12 August 2004 on the European social dialogue.
In its introduction, the Commission emphasises that “The social dialogue Communications of 1998 and 2002 described and established the institutional framework in which the European social partners operate, and which is now firmly rooted …. it is a good time to take stock of the European social dialogue, particularly in view of the recent calls for a Partnership for Change to help deliver the reforms necessary to enable the Lisbon objectives.”
The Commission continues by specifying that “the purpose of this Communication is to promote awareness and understanding of the results of the European social dialogue, to improve their impact, and to promote further developments based on effective interaction between different levels of industrial relations.”
General comments:
UEAPME is happy to see that the European Commission reaffirms the importance of the social dialogue whilst recognising the need to better diffuse the social dialogue and its results by better exploiting the texts which come out of it and making them more visible, transparent and more easily accessible via a database and a website dedicated to the social dialogue.
Whilst it can largely support this triple objective, UEAPME nevertheless expresses a certain number of concerns.
According to UEAPME, this communication:
-does not sufficiently explain the specific role of the social partners,
-does not sufficiently specify the responsibilities of the social partners and their limits,
-has a tendency to create some confusion between the strict elements of the social dialogue and certain other initiatives at the level of enterprises such as corporate social responsibility,
-risks seriously violating the autonomy of the social partners which the European Commission explicitly defends.
Specific comments
1.The agenda for reform
The integrated strategy of Lisbon fixed an ambitious calendar to make Europe the most dynamic and competitive economy in the world by 2010, capable of sustainable economic development accompanied by the quantitative and qualitative improvement of work and greater social cohesion.
Although the implementation of the Lisbon agenda primarily engages the authorities of the Member States, the success of the Lisbon objectives depends on the active contribution of all the economic and social actors, and notably the social partners at all levels.
For their part, the European social partners have demonstrated their political will and their capacity to assume their responsibilities in their sphere of competence by adopting a joint multi-annual work programme 2003-2005 which takes up a large part of the priorities of the Lisbon agenda.
The Lisbon agenda has also largely contributed to enlarging the themes and the subjects which are treated by the European social partners today: whether it be questions linked to raising the employment level, active ageing, managing change and the capacity of enterprises and the workforce to adapt, the new balance between flexibility and security, continuous and lifelong training, enlargement and its consequences on the European social dialogue.
2.The role of the social partners: the need for a reinforced partnership
UEAPME notes that the social dialogue contributes all the more effectively to better governance when it rests on greater autonomy of the social partners at all levels, a fundamental principle of bipartism.
As the Commission states the European social dialogue in its current form has evolved considerably since its launch in 1985 quantitatively as well as qualitatively towards greater autonomy.
The quantitative and qualitative evolution of the European bipartite social dialogue clearly demonstrates that the European cross-sectoral social partners have now reached an undisputable degree of maturity.
This evolution has come about in parallel with the development of the new process of tripartite concertation progressively put in place at European level in order to accompany the diverse evolutions linked to the debate on the future of Europe, governance, the enlargement of the Union, and the realisation of the Economic and Monetary Union, which have resulted in a necessary coordination of economic, employment and social policies.
This tripartite concertation between the European public authorities and the social partners has materialised in many types of regular meetings at the highest level: notably the tripartite summit for growth and employment, the macro-economic dialogue, the meetings with the troïka of ministers for social affairs and with the troïka of the ministers for education and training.
This multiple tripartite concertation as well as the consultation of the social partners via consultative committees or official consultations in accordance with Article 138 of the Treaty, is an integral part of good governance.
However, the specific role of the social partners in the European governance is directly linked to the nature of their responsibilities, their legitimacy, their representativity, their capacity to negotiate agreements and above all to implement them whilst applying the principle of subsidiarity.
Therefore the wish for a reinforced partnership must not result in an amalgamation of the social dialogue with civil dialogue and the social partners with other actors of civil society. The social partners have their own well-defined competences and these must be strictly respected. In contrast to the other actors from civil society and the various pressure groups, the social partners represent the employers and workers throughout the whole of Europe. They have a real representativeness, are organised democratically and commit their members at national/regional/local/enterprise level in the implementation of their decisions, by replacing or complementing the various legislations in the economic and social areas of the labour market and training policy.
In this context they play a unique role in terms of governance and are dominant in the modernisation of the economy and the economic and social development of the EU.
3.The need for good synergies
By definition, the European bipartite social dialogue cannot truly work without real synergies between the European and national levels and above all a strong involvement of the national social partners.
The democratic functioning of the organisations of the European social partners requires the agreement and the firm commitment of the national members to adopt and implement the negotiated texts at European level.
At the same time, these synergies must strictly respect the principle of subsidiarity and therefore respect the various national practices. Everyone knows that there are several models of social dialogue in Europe which have to be taken into account.
It is therefore necessary to acknowledge that the priorities defined at European level are not necessarily the priorities of the same rank in each of the 25 countries of the EU and that the rhythm and the implementation methods can be different according to the national specificities and practices.
The enlargement of the EU by 10 new Member States poses undeniably the question of the effective interaction between the European and national level of industrial relations.
The lack of social dialogue tradition in some of these countries, the weakness of the employers’ and trade union organisations, their fragmentation, the lack of resources are many of the challenges which have to be met, by the national organisations as well as the European social partners.
The impact of the commitments made at European level depends to a large extent on the capacity of the national social partners to guarantee their follow-up.
It must be well recognised that the technical capacity on the one hand and sometimes the political will on the other hand, or even the two combined, are still lacking in some of the new Member States.
But great differences exist between the new Member States, in the levelof development of the bipartite social dialogue as much as in the attitude of the governments of these countries vis à vis a more autonomous social dialogue.
One can reasonably hope that the speedier evolution in some of these countries, with the help of the Community institutions and the European social partners, will have a positive effect of speeding up the other less developed ones.
In order to face up to the new common challenge, the Commission calls strongly on the social partners to help reinforce the administrative capacities of the national organisations of social partners in these countries.
The European cross-sectoral social partners with the support of the Community have pre-empted this request from the Commission by realising in 2003-2004 their first joint pilot project (UNICE, CEEP, UEAPME, ETUC) to improve the capacity of the social partners in the new Member States to participate in the European social dialogue and consequently to implement the agreements concluded at European level.
A follow-up is already foreseen in the form of an “Integrated Programme of the cross-sectoral European social partners” to support the development of the social dialogue in the new Member States, which proposes a series of coordinated follow-up actions: information, training and mentoring with the employers’ organisations and the trade unions of the new Member States.
The objective of the European social partners is to participate in the development of employers’ and trade union organisations in the new Member States so that they will be stronger, more autonomous and more capable of fully participating in the European social dialogue.
- Promoting the social dialogue
It is the primary responsibility of the European social partners to diffuse and promote their agreements amongst their members, as the latter are by definition the first addressees of these agreements, above all as they have the direct responsibility for implementing them.
This is moreover what has been done up to the present day. It goes without saying that progress can and must be made to improve the promotion and the visibility of the results of the European social dialogue amongst other social partners, notably the sectoral social partners.
But this must also be a shared responsibility. In our opinion, it is equally the responsibility of the Commission to support the promotion and the diffusion of the texts issuing from the social dialogue amongst a larger public, less directly involved in the implementation at national and sectoral level.
- The transparency of the social dialogue
Transparency is one of the five basic principles defined in the white paper of the European Commission on European governance (transparency, participation, responsibility, effectiveness and coherency).
It is therefore a value which UEAPME fully supports. Transparency does not mean however interfering in the autonomy of the social partners.
Creating the obligation for the European social partners to use a codified terminology which is fixed for all time when elaborating or negotiating joint texts is not compatible with the principle of autonomy of the social partners.
This is why UEAPME categorically refutes the proposal of the Commission in annex 3 – Drafting checklist for new generation social partner texts which lays down detailed follow-up instructions.
This represents a limitation of the autonomy of the social partners, which is unacceptable for UEAPME.
As it is clearly recognised by the Commission, the social dialogue is an organic matter, which evolves over time to face the new challenges of change. It is therefore necessary for the social partners to be able to maintain a certain latitude for innovation, including in the choice of their vocabulary.
The essential, in order to guarantee the principle of transparency, is that the social partners are able to clearly explain the aims and objectives pursued via their joint texts.
Every negotiated text, including the title, is the result of a compromise whose balance has to be respected, even if the result appears sometimes difficult to understand for those who are not participating directly in the dialogue, as the Commission seems to criticise.
This is furthermore one of the reasons which has lead the social partners to specify in their voluntary agreements on telework and stress at work, that for any interpretation of the text it is necessary to refer to the signatory parties, either separately or jointly.
- Synergies between the European social dialogue and the enterprise level
The European Works Councils constitute one of the proven methods of making the link between the European level and the level of the enterprise.
However, even though EWCs deal with corporate social responsibility amongst other subjects, the reality of the social dialogue must not be confused with that of CSR, which are distinctly different subjects.
CSR goes well beyond the social dialogue. It is a voluntary practice on the part of enterprises. The actors involved in CSR go largely beyond the circle of the social partners, as by definition the practice of CSR integrates NGOs, consumer organisations, clients, suppliers, banks and other financial organisms, etc…
Even if the social partners are an integral element of the stakeholders, the majority of the actors are completely external to the enterprise, and do not assume in any way the responsibilities shouldered by the social partners in the implementation and respect of autonomously negotiated agreements.
This is why UEAPME is once again surprised to see that the Commission insists so much on the dimension of CSR in a communication specifically dedicated to the socialdialogue.
- The role of the Commission in supporting the social dialogue
The autonomy of the social partners as a measure of their effectiveness
UEAPME like the other social partners is very attached to the procedures set out in the Treaty - Articles 138 and 139. UEAPME fully recognises the right of initiative of the European Commission and the role of the institutions in the realisation of the Lisbon objectives.
At the same time, the commitment of the European social partners to a renewed partnership for change at the tripartite social summit in March 2004, in order to promote growth and accelerate employment and productivity in Europe, must to a large extent rest on their capacity for bipartite dialogue.
This autonomous bipartite dialogue is expressed by the elaboration of a joint work programme relying on a palette of varied instruments, notably with the objective of contributing to the realisation of the Lisbon strategy and reinforcing the capacity of the social partners in the new Member States.
This is why UEAPME welcomes the intention of the Commission to support the bipartite social dialogue in the new Member States and its wish to intensify its support for the social partners in order to help them face the consequences of enlargement.
Representativeness
Representativeness is one of the three major criteria established from the beginning by the European Commission in order to be recognised as a social partner at European level. It is also one of the foundations of representative democracy and of the legitimacy of the organisations for participating in the European social dialogue and one of the keys for accepting the principle of the co-legislative power of the social partners at European level. It is therefore an essential criteria which must be followed up.
This is why UEAPME fully supports the extension and updating of the studies on representativeness which the European Commission has undertaken. In fact, the European social dialogue must also be capable of responding to the evolution of the organisations and their representativeness.
Improving the impact of the follow-up to the European social dialogue
The evolution in the choice of instruments which the European cross-sectoral social partners use within the joint work programme has been closely linked to the necessity for better governance.
This has notably led to the application of the open method of coordination in the European social dialogue.
The diversification of instruments by the European social partners has also arisen in order to face the diversification of the subjects treated and their scale, as well as to better respond to the principle of subsidiarity.
As well as the first framework agreements implemented by a Council decision and the joint declarations and opinions of the European social partners, more recently one can add:
-The autonomous agreements implemented according to the procedures and practices of employers and workers and of the Member States,
-The frameworks of actions defining the jointly identified priorities,
-The orientations of reference,
-The guidelines and codes of conduct establishing principles.
The negotiation of the frameworks of actions, such as the “Framework of action of the European social partners for the lifelong development of competences and qualifications” is based on jointly defined priorities, which must be followed up at national level and regularly reported on.
However, UEAPME does not consider it appropriate to fix quantative objectives or performance indicators in the application of the open method of coordination to the European social dialogue. This would not respect the different systems of social dialogue in the 25 Member States and would risk seriously limiting the national social partners’ room for manœuvre.
The technique of peer review is partly already in application for the frameworks of action, via the elaboration of annual reports discussed in the Social Dialogue Committee and which must be followed by a more analytical evaluation.
The use of these new instruments does not however signify a systematic refusal to negotiate framework agreements implemented by Council decision in accordance with Article 139 of the Treaty. The choice of instrument is an autonomous decision of the social partners, which is made on a case-by-case basis according to the subjects being dealt with and the impact which they intend to these agreements to have.