Partnership approach to social policy

Date: 04/07/1996

NEGOTIATORS from European employers' and union organisations are busy finalising their tactics for the approaching talks aimed at reaching agreement on Union-wide rules for part-time and other 'atypical' workers.

Following the social partners' success in concluding a deal on parental leave this March, the latest negotiations are viewed by many as the acid test of the feasibility of the much-vaunted 'social dialogue' as a viable alternative to legislation on social questions.

Parental leave was a tricky dossier for employers, but their decision to accept minimum standards was made easier because most member states already had measures in place which went beyond what was finally agreed by the social partners after months of intense negotiations.

But officials at European employers' federation UNICE stress that part-time work is an altogether more complex matter, for one simple reason. “It is us who have to pick up the bill,” said one.

The anxiety of all the negotiating parties to reach an agreement is evident. This feeling is reflected in the Commission, where Social Affairs Commissioner Pádraig Flynn has set great store by the social dialogue, formalised in an EU context by Articles 3 and 4 of the Maastricht Treaty's Social Protocol.

But there is also no doubt that UNICE and its negotiating partners - the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the European Centre for Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) - approach the dialogue from quite different perspectives.

With employment at the top of the EU's political agenda, employers insist that only a limited range of social questions should come under the Union's competence. UNICE's primary concern is to create a background in which European companies can take on their non-EU rivals with the minimum of legal strictures.

“We have a pragmatic approach. Rules for part-time work should not be something for the Community to decide, but if politicians say they are, we try to influence the process. If we do not succeed, we will have laws imposed on us, so let's negotiate,” says a UNICE official frankly.

Clearly feeling the pinch of Europe's drive for liberalisation and competitiveness, the unions are fighting a rearguard action to defend their members' rights.

“We do not have too many illusions about the attitude of UNICE. It is still an old liberal thinker from the last century, Thatcher-style. If we keep the pressure on for legislation, that improves the chances that they will opt to negotiate,” comments an ETUC official, stressing the importance of a Europe-wide approach to social and employment policy.

Often forgotten in the whole process is CEEP, a body representing the management of state-owned enterprises across the Union. CEEP officials are quick to stress that the social dialogue goes far beyond the few negotiated agreements which are given a high profile by the media.

“We promote a lot more activities, which may not be so high profile, but are very important, such as our programmes to improve vocational training,” says one.

The other groups also emphasise the important day-to-day role played by the dialogue, which finds its clearest outlet in the quarterly meetings of the social dialogue committee and a number of sub-groups on issues ranging from macro-economic policy to education.

The main role of the social dialogue committee is to keep the most important policy issues at the top of the political agenda. It also provides a forum for deciding what form any formal negotiations will take.

On parental leave, both employers and unions tried to ensure that at least one representative from each country was in the room during discussions. At each stage of the talks, negotiators from each side reported back to their political masters on progress to make certain they were not straying too far from their brief.

Another central part of the jigsaw is the Standing Committee on Employment, an institution left largely unchanged since the mid-1970s. Commission plans to reform the body now look like being put on the back burner, most probably until the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference, which is likely to take on board a greater commitment - at least on paper - to the fight against unemployment.

There are also numerous sectoral committees which meet regularly. The group on commercial policy is held up as a particularly lively forum, while another group reached an accord on how the working time directive was to be applied in the cleaning sector. Meanwhile, the European farmers' body COPA is currently finalising the terms of an agreement on working time with the European Federation of Agricultural Workers' Unions (EFA).

In line with Commission President Jacques Santer's stated aim to “do less, but better”, Flynn has repeatedly stressed his determination to make the most of the opportunities presented by the Social Protocol.

Apart from anything else, this reduces the pressure on the Commission to draw up legislative proposals, because deals negotiated by the partners must either be written directly into EU law or rejected by the member states outright.

The process also gives the Commission a unique opportunity to get agreement on dossiers which have long been blocked in the Council of Ministers. Agreements under the dialogue are subject to qualified majority voting, rather than unanimity. If the social partners fail to reach a compromise acceptable to both sides - as happened with plans for European works councils - the Commission can present proposals for legislation which also require support from just a qualified majority of countries, excluding the UK because of its 'opt-out' from the Social Protocol.

The UK's opt-out - seen by many as an overriding weakness in the system - means that, in theory at least, British workers are not covered by the deal on parental leave or the European Works Council Directive.

There have also been regular rumblings of discontent about the make-up of the dialogue, a question the Commission seems unwilling to address in a communication it is preparing to unveil this autumn.

“We will probably suggest ways to streamline the dialogue and make it more flexible. Although we will look at the question of representation, we cannot impose on the social partners those they do not want to recognise themselves,” says a Commission official.

This is a particular bone of contention for former German parliamentarian Hans-Werner Müller, secretary-general of UEAPME, which represents over a million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) throughout the Union.

“Any deal that is done on part-time work will have to be taken on board by a million SMEs and that would be ridiculous if we are not even involved in the discussions. What is CEEP compared with the importance of SMEs, particularly as everyone accepts that the SMEs are the only way to create jobs?” asks Müller.

UEAPME is still considering challenging the dialogue's composition in the European Court of Justice, and has written to the Council saying that its members will not be able to comply with the parental leave arrangements.

The organisation's claims that the dialogue is undemocratic are echoed in the European Parliament. Social affairs committee chairman Stephen Hughes argues parliamentarians should be given a stronger role in the process, preferably when the Commission drafts its initial proposals.

The Commission did send the social partners' deal on parental leave to the Parliament for consideration, but only because of nervousness about by-passing the Union's only directly-elected body. Commission officials admit the lack of parliamentary involvement was “an oversight” when the protocol was drawn up, but say the advantage of the system is that measures can be turned into legislation quickly and member states cannot change them.

Member state deliberations on the parental leave agreement also revealed concern over a perceived democratic deficit, not least in Germany, which has become very sensitive to the likely attitude of its constitutional court in Karlsruhe to anything agreed in Brussels.

The future role of the various players will depend on what changes are made in the social policy area during the IGC, which is also considering calls from the Commission and most member states for an end to the UK's opt-out - a move London has vowed to veto.

The unions are pressing for the protocol to be formally written into the revised treaty. “We need the protocol particularly because of the obstruction of one member state in the social field,” says an ETUC official.

This view was reflected in the Commission's official submission to the IGC, but UNICE is unimpressed by the idea. “We do not want the protocol put into the treaty. There should be less Community competence and more for the member states,” stressed an official.