Description
Industrial relations is a multidisciplinary field that studies the employment relationship. Industrial relations is increasingly being called employment relations or employee relations because of the importance of non-industrial employment relationships
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Author: Anni Weiler Research institute: AWWW GmbH, ArbeitsWelt — Working World, Göttingen, Germany Foundation project: The quality of industrial relations Research managers: Timo Kauppinen, Stavroula Demetriades, Christian Welz, David Foden
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland - Tel: (+353 1) 204 31 00 - Fax: (+353 1) 282 42 09 / 282 64 56 email: [email protected] - website: www.eurofound.eu.int
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004
ISBN 92-897-0885-9
© European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2004 For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to the Director, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland.
The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is an autonomous body of the European Union, created to assist in the formulation of future policy on social and work-related matters. Further information can be found on the Foundation website at www.eurofound.eu.int.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Wyattville Road Loughlinstown Dublin 18 Ireland Telephone: (+353 1) 204 31 00 Fax: (+353 1) 282 42 09 / 282 64 56 Email: [email protected] www.eurofound.eu.int
Printed in Denmark
The paper used in this book is chlorine-free and comes from managed forests in Northern Europe. For every tree felled, at least one new tree is planted.
Foreword
This report forms part of a body of work by the Foundation dealing with the overall theme of ‘quality’ in industrial relations. From an economic policy perspective, striving for quality in industrial relations means promoting more and better jobs and addressing persistent unemployment, raising labour force participation and employment, as well as strengthening the conditions for high-productivity, sustainable growth. From the European social policy perspective, the quality aspect of industrial relations is underlined in the efforts on the part of social partners at all levels to implement the Lisbon strategy objectives and to achieve the ambitious goals set by the European summits of Nice and Stockholm. Previous Foundation studies explored the issue of quality in industrial relations in the light of Economic and Monetary Union, both in the private and public sectors, and in relation to the impact of globalisation and European integration on industrial relations. The aim of the present study is to develop a draft set of indicators which could be applied to industrial relations in the context of the priorities set out in the European social policy agenda. The report first explores the concept of quality in industrial relations, against a background of EU policies and of industrial relations theories and research. The first task was to draw up a conceptual framework for the establishment of comparative indicators, which could serve as an instrument for assessing various aspects of industrial relations in terms of quality. In the light of the rapidly changing economic and social environment, having a sound set of comparative indicators could be a useful tool for evaluating and monitoring the current state of industrial relations and highlighting the potential for improvement. The policy definition of quality in industrial relations includes the potential of social partners at all levels to deal jointly with both common and conflicting interests based on interrelationships between actors and established or emerging procedures. It is hoped that the report will provide a useful contribution to the debate between the social partners (and governments) on the development of industrial relations quality and how to manage change.
Willy Buschak Acting Director
v
Contents
Foreword Introduction Policy and research context Purpose and outline of study Methodology 1 – Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations 'Quality' concept in EU policy Other perspectives on 'quality' Theoretical approaches of industrial relations Conceptual framework for comparative indicators 2 – Comparative indicators of industrial relations Existing indicators Review of statistical information Draft set of comparative indicators Bibliography Appendix – Participants at the ‘Quality of industrial relations’ workshop v 1 1 1 3 5 5 6 12 23 29 30 33 34 53 59
vii
Introduction
Policy and research context
Social dialogue and the quality of industrial relations occupy a prime position in the European social model (European Commission, 2002a). The social policy agenda of the European Commission (2000a) is one of several policies which emphasises the quality of industrial relations. Promoting quality in industrial relations involves making social dialogue at all levels contribute in an effective way to the challenges identified in the European social policy agenda. Social dialogue is a key tool in the modernisation and further development of the European social model, as well as macro-economic strategy. Quality of industrial relations and social dialogue also occupy a prominent place in the European Employment Strategy. Industrial relations have a major role to play in paving the way towards the development of a social Europe. The process of managing change at EU level must be conducted in such a way as to enhance the quality of industrial relations within a changing economic and social context. Indeed, the quality of industrial relations constitutes an indispensable element for the successful completion of the objectives of the social policy agenda, as highlighted in the European Commission’s Report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations and Change in the European Union (2002b). This report emphasised the role of the social partners and of social dialogue at all levels. An earlier report by the European Commission (2000b) provided an overview of relevant issues of European and national industrial relations. In a series of earlier studies, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (hereafter referred to as the Foundation) investigated the impact of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) on industrial relations in the private and public sectors. The private sector report focused on the social impact of EMU, in particular aspects relating to industrial relations, employment and working conditions (Sisson and Margison, 2000), while the public sector report concentrated on the relationship between EMU and reforms in the public sector in terms of changes in the scope of the public sector, financial and budgetary frameworks, and public sector labour relations (Hemerijk and Huiskamp, 2002). Two further literature reviews on the ‘Europeanisation’ of industrial relations were also carried out by the Foundation. Hoffmann et al (2002) reviewed the literature on the impact of globalisation and European integration on industrial relations, especially within Europe, and discussed the extent to which industrial relations systems are themselves being ‘Europeanised’. Biagi et al (2002) evaluated the quality of European industrial relations in a global context and developed quality criteria in the field of industrial relations. This current study by the Foundation further explores European industrial relations and develops a draft set of indicators applied to industrial relations in the context of the priorities set in the social policy agenda, the ‘Quality’ Communication and other relevant EU policy processes and documents.
Purpose and outline of study
This study looks at the concept of the quality of industrial relations in EU policies and attempts to find explanations and a basis for categorisations in industrial relations theories and research.
1
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
These considerations underpin the conceptual framework and the development of a set of comparative indicators. The overall purpose is to develop an instrument capable of describing and assessing industrial relations in terms of the quality factor. In the light of today’s rapidly changing economic and social contexts, having a sound set of comparative indicators will primarily and at a theoretical level help to gain a better understanding of industrial relations. At a methodological level, it will serve as an essential tool with which to interpret current developments, detect barriers to improving the quality in industrial relations, support further elaboration of targets and identify new policy priorities. An appropriate set of indicators can be used as a monitoring instrument and assist in promoting the quality of industrial relations at all levels. The purpose of comparative indicators is not to rank national industrial relations or sectoral differences, but rather to assess the current stage of industrial relations and monitor developments and progress. Such indicators can also be of assistance in implementing the joint work programme of the European social partners and help to further develop this joint approach. The first phase of this research project involves the elaboration of an analytical framework of industrial relations for the development of a set of comparative indicators on industrial relations. By considering the broader context of society and economy, the purpose of this study is to set the issue of quality of industrial relations in context and to provide a sound basis for the identification and selection of indicators. The rationale of the analytical framework is to detect decisive factors for the construction of a set of comparative indicators. The recently developed concept of ‘quality’ has not yet been taken up in industrial relations theories and the theoretical approaches towards industrial relations do not offer direct explanations in relation to the ‘quality’ concept. Moreover, the theoretical approaches differ considerably in explaining the diversity of industrial relations in the European Union. The industrial relations theories examined in Chapter 1 are discussed primarily for their potential to offer basic elements of a conceptual framework as references for the development of comparative indicators on industrial relations. Additional theoretical reflections beyond the (narrow) assumption of the traditional theories offer further elements for the analytical configuration of a frame of reference. They provide a basis for the consideration of indicators that are not covered by traditional industrial relations theories. This concerns, for example, the attempt to determine an interface between several levels of industrial relations or such questions as work – life balance, or employment of disabled people, that do not receive attention in traditional industrial relations theories. The aim of the analysis is to establish an operational and well-designed instrument to monitor and assess industrial relations and in this way contribute to the promotion of quality based on structured information. In Chapter 2, comparative indicators are developed in parallel with the key dimensions and elements in the conceptual framework, such as actors, processes and outcomes. The link established between the analytical framework and the indicators proposed is of a general nature. The aim is to offer a sound, operational and neutral basis for reflection and monitoring of key issues and developments of industrial relations in the context of the European social model. It is not possible (nor is it the intention) to directly link a certain element in the framework to a certain indicator or sub-indicator proposed.
2
Introduction
The indicators highlight all the interrelated levels of industrial relations. A key issue in the context of an instrument of monitoring is the interface between national and European level, which is an important subject for future research. This combination of indicators at the European, national, interface and company levels reveals diverse components of the overall picture as, for example, in the context of the European Works Council (EWC) Directive.
Methodology
To develop the analytical framework, consideration has been given to the theoretical background, political context and availability of quantitative and qualitative data. These aspects are based on:
? ? ?
the Foundation’s previous research projects; a review of industrial relations literature and theories; and a review of other relevant research on quality indicators.
In addition, consideration of EU policy processes is based on a review of the relevant policy documents and an analysis of the implications for the selection and construction of indicators. Based on the outcome of these analyses and an assessment in terms of the requirement of the availability of statistical data, a draft set of indicators is developed. Important steps of research and conceptualisation, which are clearly related to the policy objectives and standards and to policy instruments, include:
? ? ? ?
developing the conceptual framework; setting up the structure of the system of comparative indicators; selecting/constructing indicators for specified dimensions; assessing the possibility of building comparative time series, etc. on the basis of the best available data; and construction of synthetic, encompassing indices reflecting key information on industrial relations.
?
This multidimensional study approach assists the identification and selection of structural indicators and constitutes the basis for decision-making in the next phase of developing the final coherent set of indicators of industrial relations.
3
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
‘Quality’ concept in EU policy
In the European Commission’s Communication on ‘investing in quality’ (2001a), it is stated that ‘quality reflects the desire not just to defend minimum standards, but to promote rising standards and ensure a more equitable sharing of progress’. This definition prompts several questions on the quality of industrial relations. What does the term ‘minimum standards’ mean? Are ‘rising standards’ implicitly related to endeavours of rising efficiency and productivity? How is the concept of quality of industrial relations related to questions of labour standards? The concept of quality in the social policy agenda is mentioned in the European Commission’s Communication on ‘promoting core labour standards and improving social governance’ (2001c). However, the relationship between labour standards and quality of industrial relations is not discussed. Respect for labour standards is seen as an integral element of the European social model and as a substantial body of Community legislation. It is stressed that the fundamental principles and rights at work identified by the International Labour Organization apply in their entirety to the countries of the European Union (ILO, 1998). The four core labour standards of the 1998 ILO Declaration encompass:
? ? ? ?
1
freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; effective abolition of child labour; and elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
While the concept of quality of industrial relations is focused on rising standards, this is not a constituting element of the concept of labour standards as enshrined in the ILO Declaration and conventions. Labour standards focus primarily on fundamental standards that have to be observed. A further ILO concept is that of ‘decent work’, which includes a strong involvement of social dialogue. The definition of ‘decent work’ is characterised by productive employment, respect of workers’ rights and social protection through social dialogue. Seven forms of security for decent work are enumerated — security of labour market, employment, work, job, skill production, income and representation (Quality of industrial relations, 2003). The definition of the quality of industrial relations in the social policy agenda goes beyond the concept of core labour standards of the ILO Declaration and the understanding of ‘decent work’. It has a different policy perspective. According to the European Commission (2000a): ‘Quality in industrial relations is determined by the capacity to build consensus on both diagnosis and ways and means to take forward the adaptation and modernisation agenda. This also includes coping successfully with industrial change and corporate restructuring.’ This ‘policy’ definition of quality of industrial relations refers to the potential of social partners at all levels to deal jointly with both common and conflicting interests based on various interrelations
5
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
between actors and established or emerging procedures. The emphasis lies on joint identification of appropriate approaches and processes. A key aspect for the determination of quality of industrial relations is the capacity to find consensus. All aspects determining quality of industrial relations are seen in the broader context of managing change. In the follow-up to the social policy agenda, a number of policy processes and documents issued by the European Commission emphasise the significance of industrial relations for accomplishing the European social model. Examples of these include employment guidelines, reports on employment, broad economic guidelines and the report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations and Change in the European Union (2002b), in addition to the Commission’s Communication on ‘Quality’ (2001a).
Other perspectives on ‘quality’
The multidimensional character of the quality issue (European Commission, 2002f) requires consideration of the ways this character can be combined with the multifaceted industrial relations at European, national and company levels. Beyond the general understanding of quality of industrial relations, several different perspectives on the potential contributions of industrial relations are obvious. Some examples of such perspectives, which are interrelated and overlapping, highlight potential perceptions of quality of industrial relations from different angles. Peña Casas (2002) emphasised the double aspect of quality. In this understanding, quality can be good or bad. The examples of perspectives on quality of industrial relations described below implicitly focus on the positive aspect of quality (i.e. the question of how industrial relations do or can contribute to the achievement of policy objectives and improvement of industrial relations). The examples illustrated are structured in three categories:
? ? ?
general context-related EU policy perspectives; content-related outcome perspectives; and core industrial relations perspectives.
General context-related EU policy perspectives Context-related EU policy perspectives on the quality of industrial relations cover social, economic and employment policies. In the light of streamlining policy procedures (European Commission, 2002d), these perspectives are discussed here together. The main objectives emphasised at the spring European Council meeting in Brussels 2003 in the context of raising employment and social cohesion were full employment, higher productivity and better quality in work. Active participation of the social partners at all stages, from designing policies to their implementation, was seen as crucial for achieving the policy objectives. Therefore, the involvement of the social partners should be promoted at national, sectoral, regional, local and enterprise levels (European Commission, 2003a). In a European social policy perspective, quality of industrial relations is first of all seen in the contribution of the social partners at all levels in implementing the Lisbon Strategy and in
6
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
achieving the ambitious goals set by the European summits of Nice and Stockholm. Concrete contributions of the social partners were addressed in the social policy agenda (European Commission, 2000a). Regarding the pillar of employability, agreements on training, increasing work experience and lifelong learning in particular are highlighted. A core area of contribution to the European employment strategy is seen in the adaptability pillar. In promoting adaptability, the role of bargaining parties at all levels is crucial, particularly at sectoral and enterprise levels. Agreements on modernisation of work organisation, finding a balance in flexibility and security on flexible working arrangements are stressed. Regarding the pillar of equal opportunities, the particular responsibility of the social partners is emphasised. Active support of the social partners is also regarded as crucial for progress on further key subjects for the European Employment Strategy, such as lifelong learning or active ageing (European Commission, 2002a). Within the procedure of the Luxembourg Process, the social partners are explicitly invited to contribute to the Employment Strategy. For example, in the Employment Guidelines 2002, in 4 of the 6 horizontal objectives and in 9 of the 18 guidelines, the social partners are explicitly invited to take action. This emphasis on the role and contribution of the social partners has been reinforced on numerous occasions since the launch of the Luxembourg Process. Quality of industrial relations in an economic policy perspective is determined by safeguarding macro-economic stability, promoting more and better jobs, and raising labour force participation and employment, as well as addressing persistent unemployment, strengthening conditions for high-productivity growth and promoting sustainable development (European Commission, 2002e). At European level, the social partners took up the invitation to contribute to the European Employment Strategy. In their joint work programme, they included a number of the objectives. Beyond these EU policy objectives and procedures, a more general perspective focuses on economic aspects of collective bargaining. Wage developments, in particular, are a core — and contested — issue in negotiations of wage agreements. In an economic and labour market performance perspective, the impact of different collective bargaining systems and outcomes of collective bargaining are in the foreground of interest, although it is difficult to determine such impact and there does not seem to be a systematic and significant straightforward relationship (Quality of industrial relations, 2003). Content-related outcome perspectives Examples of content-related outcome perspectives are managing change, quality in work, gender equality, lifelong learning or active ageing. Anticipating and managing change, and adapting to new working environments are central objectives of EU policy. Negotiations between the social partners are seen as the most suitable way forward on questions related to modernisation and management of change (European Commission, 2000a and 2002a). The parties at all levels can contribute considerably to managing change. On the other hand, the process of increased economic integration, of technological and organisational innovation and change, the accelerated restructuring of companies and shifting branch formations, as well as increased interest differentiation of the workforce and of employers — all these are a challenge to industrial relations actors and processes. These reflect in new or
7
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
modified organisational processes as, for example, trade union mergers, foundation of new employer associations, especially in the area of service work, and the regulation of new forms of work, such as temporary agency work. Thus, in a managing change perspective, quality of industrial relations can be seen both in the contributions to the objective of managing change and in the way actors, processes and outcomes of industrial relations are affected by change and adaptation. In an inclusive society and social cohesion perspective, the inclusion of marginalised and/or unemployed groups in social dialogue and reflection in agreements is concerned in order to overcome potential insider-outsider problems. A further challenge to industrial relations are negotiations on regulations of atypical forms of employment. Treu (2001) argued that ‘a decisive testing ground for industrial relations will be their capacity to handle new qualitative issues having to do with both the quality of production, work, organisation, quality of jobs, training, etc. and the quality of life (in and outside workplaces)’. In discussing the relationship between managing change and the quality of industrial relations, the European Commission’s High Level Group on Industrial Relations (2002b) stated: ‘The role of industrial relations in managing change can be enhanced by renewing the content and the instruments available and by strengthening responsibility, responsiveness and representation. A new approach is emerging, based on new practices leading to higher quality industrial relations.’ In general, the perspective of quality in work concerns the entire range of employment conditions and reconciliation of work and non-working life. As stated in the social policy agenda, ‘it implies better employment policies, fair remuneration and an organisation of work adapted to the needs of both companies and individuals. It is based on high skills, fair labour standards and decent levels of occupational health and safety, and includes facilitating occupational and geographical mobility’ (European Commission, 2000a). Negotiations and regulations between trade unions/employee representatives and employers and their federations in relation to these objectives can contribute to achieving quality in work. An improvement of the work – life balance can be supported considerably by agreements at all levels. Activities in this field of reconciliation of work and family have been going on for about ten years now. Besides the framework agreements on parental leave and part-time work achieved at European level, numerous national intersectoral or sectoral agreements, as well as enterprise-level agreements, have been concluded, although with a different intensity and approach across EU Member States (Bercusson and Weiler, 1999). These regulations and measures, based on collective agreements, also have a positive side-effect on other policy targets, such as increasing female participation in the labour market. Thus, quality bargaining in this respect is closely related to equality bargaining. In a lifelong learning perspective, the role of industrial relations in the development of appropriate strategies involves more than guaranteeing workers access to training. It has to be seen in close relation to other policy perspectives, in particular anticipating and managing change. In the February 2002 agreement of the European social partners on a ‘Framework of action for the lifelong
8
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
development of competencies and qualifications’, the parties dealt with training in a broader perspective and policy approach according to Carley (2003), ‘first, by looking at training from the wider angle of learning, both formal and informal; and then by introducing the concept of competencies, which have to be validated and recognised so as to facilitate geographical mobility, by extending the scope to all categories (young people, employees, job-seekers) and all age groups, and by adopting a multilevel approach (national, regional, local and company)’. The active approach of the social partners in implementing the agreement is expressed in the monitoring clause, i.e. drawing up an annual report on the national actions carried out on the four priorities identified in the agreement and evaluating the impact of the agreement on both companies and workers. The target of active ageing, as developed in the European Employment Strategy, is one example of the impact of industrial relations in achieving contradictory objectives. While early retirement is a central element in a number of enterprise-level pacts on employment and competitiveness, or an issue of sectoral collective bargaining in favour of employment of younger groups of employees, these provisions are in contradiction to the aim of active ageing. The policy objective of gender equality is seen as ‘a basic horizontal principle’ in the ‘Quality’ Communication (European Commission, 2001a). Gender gaps in labour market participation and pay need to be progressively eliminated (European Commission, 2003a). In a gender equality perspective, both a gender mainstreaming approach and specific policy actions are required. Bargaining parties at all levels contribute with agreements promoting gender equality (Bercusson and Weiler, 1999; Bleijenbergh et al, 1999). However, more can be done to address underlying factors of the gender gaps in employment and pay in order to achieve targets on the reduction of such gaps. With regard to equality bargaining, Dickens (2000) asks the question if unions are capable of fulfilling their potential role as initiators of innovative agreements. Equal representation of women in trade unions is a precondition for equality bargaining (Cockburn, 1995). New trade union strategies are emerging in the context of a decline in the traditional male dominance in trade unionism and new employment patterns characterised by the increasing participation of women, often part-time (Dickens, 2000). Trade unions increasingly recognise the requirement to recruit and pay attention to previously marginalised groups and incorporate equality demands within collective bargaining (Colling and Dickens, 2001; Dickens, 2000; Colgan and Ledwith, 1996). However, policy approaches attempting to improve gender equality in the context of European industrial relations appear less developed than other areas of industrial relations. Examples include the report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations (European Commission, 2002b) and the multi-annual work programme of the European social partners. The policy objective of gender equality or the instrument of gender mainstreaming is mentioned, but no real action is described or developed, in contrast to other policy objectives where concrete proposals on actions are formulated. Core industrial relations perspectives Biagi et al (2002) consider a higher degree of workers’ involvement as one of the main factors that might determine the quality of an industrial relations system. The High Level Group on Industrial
9
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Relations describes ‘quality of industrial relations’ with the role and activity of the social partners (European Commission, 2002b, p. 7 and 38). Industrial relations take place on several interrelated levels. The interrelations between these levels can be of crucial importance for an improvement in the quality of industrial relations. In this context, the perceptions of what ‘quality’ of industrial relations can imply differ on the various levels. According to the report Quality of industrial relations (2003): ‘In the EU, industrial relations are confronted with a multilevel system of governance where the interaction between the different levels is crucial. Thus, it is not sufficient to choose the right instrument having regard to the content, but it must also respond to the needs of interplay between the different levels. The potential of the existing and emerging instruments must be assessed against this background.’ Quality of industrial relations can be perceived differently by actors from a European, national, sectoral or company perspective. It can be seen as the degree to which actors at ‘lower’ levels contribute to the issues and policy goals set by actors at the ‘higher’ level. It can also be seen in terms of the degree to which rules developed and negotiated by actors at a ‘higher’ level solve the issues and challenges faced by actors at ‘lower’ levels. Sectoral perspectives of quality of industrial relations can also differ. However, more important than the different perspectives of quality of industrial relations is the interplay between actors and processes on the different levels. The different levels of industrial relations are not hierarchical. They have different functions and the actors and processes have different competencies. For example, with regard to the European (often called ‘higher’) level of industrial relations, it has to be taken into account that, according to Article 137 of the Amsterdam Treaty, this level explicitly has no competencies in regulation of pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs. A crucial aspect in a quality perspective regarding the different levels and their interrelations is the question — what is the strategic level for the processes and determination of regulations? In most European countries, the sectoral level is still the dominant level of industrial relations. Central interrelations of industrial relations are principally those between the European and national level, and between the sectoral and company level. In the background note entitled Quality of Industrial Relations (2003), produced for the mid-term conference on the social policy agenda, aspects of the interrelation between sectoral negotiations and company-level industrial relations are discussed. The report states: ‘Fixing wages and certain other working conditions outside the company may enhance social peace within and can thus be a factor contributing to higher productivity and efficiency. Sectoral or area-wide collective agreements act to stabilise the wage-cost level and thus tend to create equal conditions in this respect for companies operating in the same field.’ The report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations lists critical issues that must be addressed in order to improve the role of the European level of industrial relations, including (European Commission 2002b):
? ? ?
interaction with national and local level; interaction between bipartite and tripartite processes at European level; and interaction between the sectoral and inter-professional levels.
10
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
An issue beyond the questions ‘how do the social partners take up the EU objectives’ or ‘how far are they actively involved in implementing policies’ is how do the social partners initiate and pursue policies, and what is the interaction between bipartite and tripartite procedures. The multiannual work programme of the European social partners covering the period 2003-05 combines their common objectives and guidelines at the European level with regular national status and progress reports. This work programme is for the first time a programme for autonomous social dialogue, following up their joint declaration to the Laeken European Council in December 2001 (European Commission, 2003b). A number of EU policy objectives are addressed in the multi-annual work programme. Priorities are employment, mobility and enlargement of the EU. Regarding employment, some issues of this work programme are:
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
actions in Member States to implement employment guidelines; lifelong learning; stress at work (in view of negotiating a voluntary agreement); gender equality; restructuring (managing change and its social consequences); disability (update of joint declaration of 1999); racism (update of joint declaration of 1995); ageing workforce (explore possible joint actions); harassment (explore possibility of negotiating a voluntary agreement); telework (monitoring of follow-up to framework agreement); and undeclared work (aiming at a joint opinion).
The achieved agreement on telework in June 2002 is a voluntary agreement to establish a framework at European level to be implemented by the members of the signatory parties. The framework of actions on lifelong learning is also a bipartite process, set at European level. A further perspective on the quality of industrial relations focuses on the interrelations between industrial relations structures and content of negotiations and agreements. While increasingly more issues are subject to collective bargaining, there is at the same time a tendency for a shift from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ regulations. In recent years, so-called ‘proceduralisation’ has affected collective bargaining in the form of a growth in the number of ‘framework agreements’, joint opinions, declarations, resolutions, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, codes of conduct and agreement protocols (Quality of industrial relations, 2003). Table 1 compares the nature and implications of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ regulations. With particular reference to EU policy targets, a further question is — are the objectives in line with each other or are there conflicting objectives? Examples of such contradictions are the objectives of active ageing and the role of early retirement provisions in PECs, or the conflicting goals of increasing financial participation schemes and improving mobility.
11
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Table 1
Comparison of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ regulations
‘Hard’ regulation specific rights and obligations involves standard provisions tends to assume the process is finished relies on sanctions compulsory hard issues, such as pay and working time
‘Soft’ regulation general principles tends to be concerned with minimum provisions provides for further negotiations at lower levels relies on open-ended processes (benchmarking, etc.) permissive soft issues, e.g. equal opportunities, training and development
Source: Quality of Industrial Relations (2003)
The examples outlined above of different perspectives on the quality of industrial relations demonstrate several aspects that have to be considered when developing comparative indicators:
? ? ?
the understanding of what determines quality of industrial relations differs considerably; quality is a ‘normative’ concept and there are no objective criteria for what it is; and quality is a relative concept and has to be seen in context.
Theoretical approaches of industrial relations
Definitions of ‘industrial relations’ There is no agreed definition of ‘industrial relations’ either in the literature or in EU policy documents. The entry ‘industrial relations’ in the EMIRE database (UK) illustrates that the term is not used systematically or rigorously by academics or practitioners (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2003). In the European Commission’s first report on industrial relations in Europe in 2000, no attention was paid to defining the term ‘industrial relations’ nor to outlining an understanding of the concept (European Commission, 2000b). In the Commission’s second report undertaken in 2002, an attempt was made to describe features of industrial relations, albeit in a very general way as follows (European Commission, 2002c): ‘Industrial, labour or employment relations regulate the link between the company and the employee and also, indirectly, between society as a whole and its citizens.’ Most of the definitions of industrial relations found in the traditional literature are generally too restricted, particularly for this study on comparative indicators of the quality of industrial relations. The EMIRE database refers to Hyman’s (1975) preferred definition —’Industrial relations is the study of the processes of control over work relations; and among these processes, those involving collective worker organisation and action are of particular concern.’ A recent attempt to define the term ‘industrial relations’ is made by Hoffmann et al (2002): ‘Industrial relations consist of a web of institutionalised relationships between employees and their representatives (trade unions), employers and their representatives (employers’ association), and the state … The relations exist on different levels and between different actors.’ This definition includes further aspects of industrial relations: the relationships are considered as institutionalised and ongoing on several levels, and the state is mentioned as a third actor.
12
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
Müller-Jentsch (1997) points to regulation of interest in the relation of management and workforce and also between employer federations and trade unions. The concrete issue of industrial relations is the cooperative and conflictual interaction between persons, groups and organisations (actors), as well as the norms, agreements and institutions resulting from such interactions. At the same time, industrial relations involve social, economic, political and cultural relations. In this definition, interactions between actors that can be both cooperative or conflictual, and their outcomes, are emphasised as elements of industrial relations. The interaction with society, economy and culture is considered in this understanding. The report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations also emphasises a comprehensive understanding of industrial relations (European Commission, 2002b), while the definition of the term further stresses the wide diversity of industrial relations practices and processes across EU countries: ‘… the term industrial relations is used in a broad sense, covering not only the relations between workers and management or between the organisations representing them, and involving not only the regulation of wages and employment conditions, but also the relevant legal and institutional frameworks and public policies. There is wide diversity in industrial relations practices and processes across Member States: actors, processes, policies and frameworks operate at different levels: local or regional, national, European, even global and sectoral social dialogue can take place at all these levels.’ These various definitions and understandings of industrial relations do not exclude each other and emphasise different elements, the central ones of which can be identified as follows:
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
processes of control over work relations and regulations of interests; web of institutionalised relationships between actors, organisations and institutions; collective relations; different actors (employees and representatives/employers and representatives) and arenas; different levels of industrial relations and interplay between them; legal and institutional framework and public policies; cooperative and conflictual relationships; industrial relations as social, economic, political and cultural relations; diversity between existing national models; and new supranational industrial relations.
Quality of industrial relations in theory and research In the context of developing a set of indicators of industrial relations against the background of the EU policy concept of ‘quality’, the next steps are:
? ?
to analyse how industrial relations theory and research deal with the concept of quality; and to find theoretical foundations for an analytical framework.
13
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Two limitations have to be taken into account in this analysis. These concern, firstly, the fact that the recently developed concept of ‘quality’ has not been taken up in industrial relations theories and, secondly, the normative foundations of the discipline. Expectations that industrial relations theories can offer objective perspectives on quality in contrast to the normative policy-related perspective of quality of industrial relations turn out to be inappropriate due to the nature of the field of industrial relations. In an overview on the specific characteristics of the discipline, Kochan (1998) describes distinguishing features of industrial relations research:
?
The primary feature that distinguishes industrial relations from other social sciences is its normative foundations. Normative assumptions and perspectives underlie the conceptualisation of industrial relations research. Industrial relations is a multidisciplinary discipline dealing with complex phenomena. An enduring feature of industrial relations research is its problem-centred orientation. The ‘problems’ are generally framed with a societal or public interest perspective.
? ?
The normative assumptions in industrial relations theory concern, firstly, the issue of ‘conflict’. In a pluralist view, the industrial relations parties can be seen, according to Kochan (1998), as ‘tied together in an enduring web of partially conflicting and partially common interests or objectives. From this perspective, the key task of industrial relations theory and research is to contribute to an understanding of how conflicting interests can be resolved periodically and how the parties can expand the frontier of joint problem-solving’. The specific features of industrial relations research reflect in the differing theoretical approaches in the field of industrial relations. Theories on industrial relations do not fit together into an integral theory of industrial relations. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of the different approaches, but the overview given in Table 2 illustrates that there are very different and competing industrial relations theories. Besides different political or ideological perspectives, there is a strong tendency in industrial relations theory to tailor theories to the specific national context (Kochan, 1998). This tendency can explain the lack of a general analytical model. As Kochan (1998) puts it: ‘Each national system carries with it certain historical patterns of development and features that restrict the range of variation on critical variables (such as culture, ideology and institutional structures) that affect how individual actors respond to similar change in their external environments.’ Industrial relations theories can contribute to the development of an analytical framework and a set of comparative indicators in two ways. They can:
? ?
offer an analytical instrument; and help to establish the background for studying the interrelation of the political concept of ‘quality’ and the theoretical debate.
Since the ‘quality’ concept is normative and industrial relations research and theorising tend to be based on normative concepts, it seems to be inappropriate to search for a theoretical foundation
14
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
of the ‘quality’ concept. The theoretical approaches of industrial relations do not offer direct explanations in relation to the ‘quality’ concept or to the concept of managing change. Moreover, the theoretical approaches differ considerably with regard to explaining the diversity of industrial relations in the European Union. They also differ in their explanatory potential regarding European social policy. Table 2 Theoretical approaches of industrial relations
Marxist theories Dunlop: Industrial relations system as analytical subsystem of industrial societies’ core: web of rules. Dunlop’s view: Stability, consensus and integration central to the industrial relations system. Clegg and Flanders: Focus more on power and counter power. Regulations theory Labour process debate (Bravermann) Negotiated order Main approaches: Political economy of industrial relations (Hyman) Institutionalist theories Main approaches: Extended versions of institutionalist theories: arena concept (Müller-Jentsch) Action theories Main approaches: Bargaining theories/ negotiation of order on the level of formal processes of labour negotiations (Walton and • distributive bargaining • integrated bargaining • attitudinal structuring • intra-organisational bargaining Strategic choice (Kochan, Katz and McKersie): Extension of the systems theory by action theories approach of Strauss McKersie) Corporatism as a policy-making process (also known as ‘concertation’ or ‘social partnership’) (Lembruch) Economic approaches Rational choice Transaction costs Corporatist theories Main approaches: Particular structure of interest representation system (Schmitter)
Systems theory
Source: Based on Müller-Jentsch (1997); Baccaro (2002)
The focus of the following illustration and discussion of selected theoretical approaches is on the capability to offer a frame of reference for the analysis. The industrial relations theories will be discussed primarily regarding their potential to offer basic elements of an analytical framework for the development of comparative indicators on industrial relations. This discussion should not be understood as a general review of industrial relations theories. Based on a comparative study of industrial relations systems in different countries, Dunlop (1958) developed the systems theory. He described industrial relations systems as analytical subsystems of industrialised societies. He specified the core elements of industrial relations systems as:
?
the actors (employees, their representatives respectively, their organisations, employers and their organisations, and state institutions concerned with industrial relations); the environment; and an ideology that is the basis for cohesion of the system and that is shared by all actors.
? ?
15
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Dunlop’s analysis focuses on norms and rules of industrial relations. A complex web of substantial and normative rules are the core of the industrial relations system. This systems model applies to different levels of industrial relations, i.e. workplace, company, sector and national level. The normative consensus is required in order to keep the industrial relations system stable. Therefore, Dunlop rejects ‘conflict’ as a dominant structural feature. This systems theory approach was very influential and at the same time triggered critique in many ways. The main criticism of this theoretical approach is directed towards its inability to explain change. According to Kauppinen (1994), the limitation of the systems theory is that it is ‘static and unable to explain changes. It is concerned only with structures, not with processes. It emphasizes the stability of a system and neglects the conflicts it involves. It analyses official rules, but not unofficial ones’. Further aspects are the exclusion of strategies of the actors and the harmonistic underpinnings of the approach that is based on consensus and stable labour relations. However, despite these criticisms, the systems theory approach allows us to break down industrial relations into components for analysis and allows comparisons of the industrial relations systems of different countries (Kauppinen, 1994). Two examples of critical reactions that lead to new theoretical approaches are outlined below. Political economy of industrial relations In the political economy of industrial relations, Hyman (1975) questions in particular the assumption of harmonious industrial relations that characterises the systems theory. He raises the question: ‘If the system of industrial relations is so well integrated, and if the goals and values of the participants are so much in agreement, how is it that industrial conflict occurs at all?’ Furthermore, Hyman argues that the notion of an industrial relations systems ‘is of analytical value only if it incorporates the existence of contradictory processes and forces, and hence treats instability and stability as of equal significance as “system outcomes”. Second, and in consequence, the definition in terms of job regulations must be broadened to take account of the sources as well as the consequences of industrial conflict’. Hyman (1975) also points to the growing awareness that most of the important processes of control over work relations do not flow through official institutionalised channels. Therefore, the limitation of the study of industrial relations on the formal procedures and organisations is inadequate. In his analysis, Hyman emphasises a further central feature of industrial relations — an unceasing power struggle. He argues that conflict and change are inseparable from industrial relations. His concept of ‘processes of control over work relations’ includes informal processes and he points to the fluidity of such processes of control that are continuous and shifting relationships that can never be effectively frozen in a formal rule. Strategic choice approach The central critique of the strategic choice approach concerns the view of the systems theory that a shared ideology perpetuates the system. Kochan et al (1984) see the concept of strategy, or strategic choice, as a more dynamic component to the systems theory framework and not as an alternative, completely new theory. According to Kochan et al (1986), a key premise of the framework is that ‘choices and discretion on the part of labour, management and government affect the course and structure of industrial relations systems’.
16
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
This framework should encourage analysis of the roles that labour, management and government play in each other’s domains and activities. Starting from the tradition of industrial relations theory to identify key variables or institutional forces that determine the outcomes of labour management interactions, the researchers criticised the too-narrow conception of the institutional structure and forces that influence industrial relations, in particular in the American industrial relations literature. The underlying general theoretical approach is based on the assumption that industrial relations take place in the framework of external environments (labour markets, workforce characteristics and values, product markets, technology, public policies), institutional structure of company-level industrial relations and performance/outcome (employers, workers, labour unions, society). The focus of this approach is primarily on the institutional structure of company-level industrial relations, where several levels are distinguished: strategic activities, collective bargaining, personnel functional activities and workplace activities (Kochan et al, 1986). The attempt is to outline the strategic choices not only at the level of collective bargaining, but also at the level of strategic decision-making and at workplace level. There are two preconditions for strategic choices in industrial relations:
? ?
strategic decisions can only occur where the parties have discretion over their decisions; and strategic decisions are those that alter the party’s role or its relationships with other actors in the industrial relations system. It is important to note that the effects of strategic choices may be evident only over the long term, may appear only indirectly and may not even be the result of a consciously articulated or preconceived plan (Kochan et al, 1984).
One outcome of the approach is to point to the impact of strategies or strategic choices by the industrial relations actors. Despite the emphasis on strategic choices of the management in the later empirical research, the original theoretical framework covers all actors (Kochan et al, 1984). The authors of the approach state that they developed the theoretical framework using American industrial relations in a specific historical period and applied the model in this national context, therefore stressing the managerial strategies, ‘but under different environmental conditions, either union or government strategies could serve as the catalyst for change’ (Kochan et al, 1984). They emphasise that in other historical phases or national contexts, the application of the theoretical approach and the explanation would differ considerably, notably with regard to the role and power of trade unions. They explicitly do not exclude other permutations. In comparing the American situation with the European one with regard to the top tier strategic decision-making, they point to the fact that choices at this global level are ‘more common in European systems where … tripartite negotiations between the government and union and employer associations frequently occur’. The contribution of the strategic choice approach is to lead away from the deterministic systems model and to emphasise the impact of strategies of actors on various levels and in various arenas in industrial relations processes. Taking the definition of the social policy agenda— that quality of industrial relations is determined by the capacity to build consensus between the social partners and coping successfully with industrial change and corporate restructuring — the negotiation theories developed by Walton and
17
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
McKersie (1991) can offer a further frame of reference as far as formal negotiations are concerned. This model has been developed against the background of industrial relations in the USA. Nonetheless, on a general level, the theoretical concept offers a model of bargaining processes beyond the core negotiation processes of collective bargaining. Walton and McKersie distinguished four sub-processes of negotiation (Kochan and Lipsky, 2003):
?
Distributive bargaining refers to resolution of situations in which the interests or positions of the negotiators are in conflict. The assumption is that the negotiators start bargaining with a gap between their positions and have to find a compromise on a continuum somewhere in between. The offers and counter-offers are influenced by some target point and some resistance point that bargainers have in mind. Integrative bargaining is described as a process of achieving an agreement in a problem-solving model. The most common type of integrative bargaining is a mixed-motive situation in which there are mostly both shared interests and conflicting interests. The task for the negotiators is to look for trade-offs across the issues that improve the situation for both parties. This situation is often described as ‘win-win’ bargaining. Intra-organisational bargaining refers to potentially diverse interests within organisations. It is required to reconcile differences and unite negotiating efforts. Attitudinal structuring refers to the observations that negotiations also produce relationship outcomes beyond the substantive terms of the agreements achieved.
?
?
?
The distinction between ‘distributive’ and ‘integrative’ bargaining, in particular, has gained attention in the industrial relations literature. In a further analysis of this theoretical approach in the context of economic and technological change, Walton et al (2000) formulated this distinction in an even more pronounced way. The sub-process of distributive bargaining is focused on resolving pure conflicts of interest. This approach serves to allocate fixed sums of resources (‘dividing the pie’) and for this reason often has a ‘win-lose’ quality. Integrative bargaining aims at finding common or complementary interests and solving problems confronting both partners. In trying to optimise the potential for joint gains (‘expanding the pie’), this approach often has a ‘win-win’ quality. Transferred to the debate of quality of industrial relations, there is a temptation to consider only ‘win-win’ situations as (good) quality of industrial relations, ignoring conflict and differing interests within and between organisations. Indeed, such an interpretation of the theoretical approach is widespread. In a more recent publication, the authors themselves stated that such a view is inadequate, in particular with regard to recent economic and technological developments and in the context of processes of change and restructuring (McKersie and Walton, 2003). McKersie and Walton (2003) emphasise that all change involves interests, power and tension, and they discuss the intersection between integrative and distributive bargaining, and tensions between these sub-processes. Firstly, they question the simple equation of ‘win-win’ situations with an ideal outcome of negotiations: ‘Such an image of the process is not faithful to the reality of most situations. Major conflicts of interest do exist, deadlocks do develop, and the parties are often prone to utilise coercive forms of power. Anyone familiar with collective bargaining understands
18
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
these realities, but at the same time there is a recognition that conflict can sometimes set the stage for a transformation of the relationship. The point is that a more nuanced view of the process is necessary and that the mixed-motive nature of the engagement holds the potential for breakdowns as well as breakthroughs.’ Analytically, negotiating processes are distinct. Nevertheless, they are highly interrelated in practice (Walton et al, 2000). In reality, collective bargaining includes a mixture of distributive and integrative bargaining. In the application of these principles to negotiating change, the importance of mixing distributive and integrative processes is emphasised: ‘The point is, going too far in either distributive or integrative directions in an era of significant change can blind parties to the need to balance short- and long-run pressures’ (McKersie and Walton, 2003). The approach of integrative bargaining has further limitations. It can diminish management’s independent prerogative and, on the other hand, can generate political and practical dilemmas for a trade union (Walton et al, 2000). However, not only labour relations have changed. More complex internal differences are also evident within labour and management. Therefore, more emphasis is put on the other sub-processes of intra-organisational bargaining and of attitudinal structuring, and the way in which all four, analytically distinct sub-processes interact. McKersie and Walton (2003) argue that intra-organisational bargaining has become increasingly demanding and complex as a result of a number of new developments, both on the side of the employees as well as on the side of the employers. The authors further expound that in the original ‘behavioural theory’, they used the term ‘attitudinal structuring’ for the fourth sub-process. This process was primarily understood as a companion activity to either distributive bargaining or integrative bargaining. In the meantime, they put more emphasis on the importance of the relationship dimension of negotiations and argue that the ‘social contract’ should be viewed as a distinct outcome of the process of negotiations between labour and management which is separate but related to the substantive contract. As McKersie and Walton (2003) state: ‘Another way of making the point is that in many situations today the character of the labour-management relationship is as important as the substantive agenda … The quality of the relationship shapes the ability of the parties to work together over the long run to find solutions to their conflicting, as well as common, interests.’ McKersie and Walton (2003) stress the importance of long-term productive relationships between labour and management, and see this recognition as the main lesson to be learnt from all these efforts that seek to identify common interests and to work collaboratively. Kochan and Lipsky (2003) underline this argumentation: ‘Parties may increase or decrease their trust in each other as a result of how they are treated by the other party in negotiations. In turn, these perceptions will shape the context for future interactions or rounds of negotiations the parties have with each other.’ In relation to quality of industrial relations and managing change, this theoretical approach offers a frame of reference. The approach focuses on negotiation mechanisms and processes. In this context, the theoretical approach is a helpful tool. One limitation is that it does not touch on other spheres of industrial relations. As Kochan and Lipsky (2003) stress, ‘all the dynamics and the ultimate outcome of negotiations are influenced by the relative power of the parties’.
19
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
It must also be taken into account that the approach of the bargaining theories is primarily tailored for bilateral bargaining situations, typical of those that predominant in American industrial relations. In most EU countries and on the European level, the state is also involved in the process of bargaining. This leads us on to the field of corporatist theories of industrial relations. Corporatist theories in the context of a policy-making process have the potential to explain developments in some of the EU countries and at European level (Baccaro, 2002). Unfortunately, space does not permit a detailed discussion of corporatism; only the underlying concept is reviewed here. But corporatism on all levels, and across levels, is an important aspect of achieving quality of industrial relations. A central question of corporatist theories is how organisations form and coordinate interests within the associations and in tripartite processes between trade unions, employer associations and the state. Baccaro (2002) distinguishes between ‘corporatism as a particular structure of the interest representation system’ and ‘corporatism as a particular policy-making process, also known as concertation or social partnership’. He argues that the latter form captures much of what is going on in various countries today, in particular European ones. According to Kauppinen (1994), corporatism in the context of a policy-making process ‘denotes interactions between the government and labour market partners. It means that the government and these organizations agree trilaterally on economic, social and labour-policy targets’. In a study on the development of national labour relations in internationalised markets, Traxler et al (2001) developed an analytical framework that addresses several aspects of intra- and interorganisational cohesion and coordination. They ‘differentiate between the organisation of interests (i.e. the unions and employer associations) and the bargaining system as a core institutional arrangement in labour relations’. In addition, they consider three structural properties for both the organisations and the bargaining system:
?
Domains demarcate certain areas of common interests as defined by the actors. This refers to the representational domain in the case of organisations. Levels of bargaining and the degree of coordination across established bargaining units are the corresponding structures in the case of bargaining. The second issue is the governance capacity. This refers to the extent of compliance of individual actors with common goals. The degree of centralisation of union and employer organisations influences their capacity to achieve this compliance. Substantive and/or procedural state regulation are important for the capacity of bargaining systems. Thirdly, there is the power dimension of labour relations. The strength of organisations is based on the institutional and membership support. The power of bargaining derives from the relative importance of collective bargaining.
?
?
Beyond these theories on industrial relations, the development of comparative indicators of industrial relations demands further theoretical and methodological considerations. Investigation into European industrial relations has to consider that there is a dominance of Anglo-Saxon influences in industrial relations theory and corresponding analytical frameworks for industrial relations are partially inadequate because they fail to capture characteristic features, issues and developments of most European models of industrial relations.
20
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
The term ‘model’ of industrial relations used in this study is a broader term than, for example, ‘system’ or ‘regime’, which are more common in the literature. The connotation of the term ‘model’ inherently implies a potential future change and underlying processes, while the other terms stress more the (national) status quo. Secondly, the term ‘model’ implicitly covers the potential of considering supranational bodies, like those in the European Union. Thus, the term ‘model’ is more appropriate with regard to constructing comparative indicators of industrial relations and future monitoring of the evolution of national and European industrial relations. It offers a wider frame for developing future research, as well as considerations on political tools in EU and national policies. Impact of ‘Europeanisation’ of industrial relations An analysis of industrial relations research relevant for the development of comparative indicators of industrial relations has to take account of the impact of a ‘Europeanisation’ of industrial relations and the traditional focus of much of the research and literature. Europeanisation of industrial relations involves a considerable widening of the scope of industrial relations theorising and research. Comparative indicators focus across national and European levels of industrial relations. A multidimensional concept of industrial relations indicators has to consider that national industrial relations can be completely different, but equally effective approaches in the countries’ context. The distinction between European and national-level industrial relations is questionable. However, most of the theoretical debate and empirical research sees national and European industrial relations on two levels, disregarding the intertwined interrelations and a dynamic between the levels. Much of the contemporary (national and comparative) industrial relations literature concentrates on the national analytical perspective. A result of this focus is that these approaches consider changes effected by Europeanisation as happening outside the national boundaries and attempt to understand their consequences within the national systems of industrial relations. Thus, it is necessary to develop an industrial relations analysis that considers European impacts as internal factors and not simply as external elements, located on another level. EU-level industrial relations are unique with regard to the procedures and institutions implemented on a supranational level. Limitations of conventional nation-state categories are evident. Besides categories like transnational, national, sectoral and local, a conceptualisation of ‘regions’ within Europe as a further category is imperative. For example, business strategies within the Eurozone increasingly have a focus on regions across countries rather than strictly on national boundaries. Another example of a Euro-regional focus is that of transnational wage leadership or attempts at wage coordination across countries. In principle, this approach should allow more perspectives than just a national or European view with regard to the core objective of managing change and in order to capture the processes taking place. This encompasses several aspects:
? ?
national differences in employment and industrial relations; ‘shifting frontiers’ of national and European industrial relations, their interrelationship and dynamics resulting from a synergy of these processes;
21
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
? ?
cross-country perspective (especially regarding European sectoral social dialogue); and cross-border industrial relations in European regions.
For the selection and construction of indicators, this implies not only that European industrial relations models on the national level of labour regulation encompass a variety of models, but the complex interrelations between the various levels. A further aspect that still requires conceptualisation is the impact of multinational companies and the relationship to national and sectoral industrial relations. In the context of the debate on a decentralisation of industrial relations, Traxler (1995) developed a theoretical concept that captured the interrelations and dynamics between levels of industrial relations — at least on the national level. He emphasised that attention should be paid not only to the level of bargaining, but also to the degree of its coordination. Secondly, an increase in importance of one bargaining level does not inevitably mean that it takes place at the cost of other levels. This applies especially to countries where an ‘organised decentralisation’ takes place. Traditional focus of industrial relations research and theory Considerations on the construction of comparative indicators of industrial relations also require a rethinking of industrial relations research at national levels. The narrow focus of much of the research on traditional core areas of industry, on certain occupational groups or forms of employment relationships, and on issues of regulation is not appropriate to cover all dimensions of industrial relations and to formulate general conclusions. Referring to existing, traditionally used key features in the description of determinants of industrial relations can be problematic for the development of comparative indicators of industrial relations. In particular, the ‘gender blindness’ of industrial relations theory and research is increasingly discussed (Pocock, 1997, 2000; Rubery and Fagan, 1995; Dickens, 2000; Cockburn, 1995; Colling and Dickens, 2001; Colgan and Ledwith, 1996; Forrest, 1993; Wajcman, 2000). Gender represents an important category of analysis in any thorough conceptualisation of workplace and industrial relations, and is essential for any accurate understanding of the institutions (Pocock, 1997). The traditional orientation of industrial relations research limits the implications that are drawn for other aspects of industrial relations and affects the adequacy of theoretical concepts. The concern is not just the neglect of gender divisions, but also the neglect of the dominant area of European employment, i.e. work in the service sectors. Discussions of the quality and form of collective bargaining often still relate primarily to the industrial and manual workforce. Rubery and Fagan (1995) outline the need for a new focus of comparative industrial relations research to overcome the inadequate and incomplete description of differences in industrial relations regimes with regard to their implications for different groups of employees. A further complex issue of conceptualisation for the development of comparative indicators is the diversity within the industrial relations actors, which is also reflected in related processes and outcomes of industrial relations. Some of these developments have to be seen in the context of EMU, intensification of competitive pressures, shifting branch formation or accelerated restructuring of companies. Some examples are:
? ?
trade union mergers; emergence of new trade unions and employer organisations;
22
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
? ?
conflicts within and between trade unions; and conflicts within and between employer organisations.
Conceptual framework for comparative indicators
Based on the analyses of different perspectives on quality of industrial relations and different theoretical approaches, an attempt to find an integrated frame of reference for the conceptual analysis is presented below. This analytical concept should be understood as a framework in the endeavour to develop comparative indicators, and not as an explanation of industrial relations. Figure 1 highlights the key dimensions of industrial relations. They are interrelated and only distinct from each other for analytical purposes. They are differentiated as follows:
? ? ? ?
Regulatory framework — labour law, litigation, etc. Actors — state, trade unions, employers, employee representatives, EWCs, etc. Processes — collective bargaining, social dialogue, etc. Outcomes — collective agreements, joint declaration, social pacts, etc. Analytical framework of industrial relations models
Context
Figure 1
Level: European National Sectoral Regional Local/company Regulatory framework Actors Processes Outcomes
Level: European National Sectoral Regional Local/company
Impact
Source: Based on Kauppinen (1994)
The ‘context’ category encompasses the political and socio-economic environment, national cultures and values, history, etc. It also includes the nature of the industrial relations, which can be consensual or conflictual, and considers power as an inherent element of industrial relations. This diagrammatic model of dimensions and elements of industrial relations should not be understood as static, unhistorical or apolitical. In the attempt to develop indicators of industrial relations against the background of theories and EU policies, the context of the key dimensions and key indicators is a crucial element of the model. Industrial relations are interwoven on various levels. The main levels are the European level, a new emerging interface between the European and national level, the national level, the regional level
23
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
within countries and cross-country, and the local level. These levels are not isolated from each other, but are closely interlinked in various ways. The nature of these interrelations applies in particular to the sectoral and company level. All levels could be portrayed in various overlapping intersections. Figure 2 illustrates the complexity of interrelations between several levels and arenas of industrial relations. Figure 2 Complexity of levels and interrelations of industrial relations
European
Interface EU/countries
Companies
Sectoral
National
Regional/Cross-country
Local
Only a differentiated view on the diverse arenas of industrial relations and the interactions between these arenas is capable of including the aspect of change into the framework. This analytical framework model offers a number of options in relation to developing comparative indicators of industrial relations. The analysis along the key dimensions of industrial relations (regulatory frameworks, actors, processes and outcomes), considering the different levels and interactions as well as the context, can:
? ?
reflect the complexity of industrial relations on all levels and their interactions; assess quality of industrial relations in a structured approach without diluting national diversity; offer the chance to consider similar patterns of outcomes of diverse national industrial relations.
?
A further ‘layer’ over this basic analytical framework reflects diversity within the key dimensions:
?
Key dimension ‘Regulatory framework’: EU-level and national-level regulatory frameworks can be meshed with each other, complement each other or they can differ considerably or even be contradictory to each other. This relationship can differ with regard to different issues of regulation. Key dimension ‘Actors’: A diversity within the main actors/organisations and within their member groups is increasingly observable.
?
24
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
?
Key dimension ‘Processes’: Processes at different levels and different issues can mesh with each other, complement each other or compete with each other. Key dimension ‘Outcomes’: Core factors regarding outcomes are the nature of legal binding of agreements, the range of issues and the results of both quantitative and qualitative bargaining. Key dimension ‘Impact’: The impact of outcomes of industrial relations processes can differ for groups of employees, for companies, in the national or sectoral situation, etc.
?
?
Table 3 illustrates how collective bargaining is related to the key dimensions of the analytical framework. Table 3 Collective bargaining at national level in the analytical framework
Key dimension Regulatory framework Union recognition Collective bargaining autonomy, etc. Actors Predominantly sectoral and company level: unions, employer federation Actors on the company level Processes Negotiations Achieving agreements Strikes Outcomes Impacts Regulations in collective agreements Application of collective agreements on the company level can differ for groups of employees and for companies (in the range of MNC – SME) Compliance with collective agreements
Indicators are developed within the key dimensions. The indicators for the dimension ‘actors’ (social partners) cover indicators such as union density and employers’ density. In this category, the European actors beyond the national level data on union and employers’ density are also integrated. These are the actors on the intersectoral and sectoral levels and EWCs. On the company level, the indicator is employee participation in the different national contexts. Quality of industrial relations in the context of negotiations has several aspects, the most important of which are:
? ? ? ? ?
character of processes of negotiations in a formal or informal way; outcome regarding content of regulations, agreements, etc.; relationship between the main parties of industrial relations; internal voice and processes of formulation of political demands and objectives; and duration of consensus achieved.
In applying negotiation theories to the concept of quality of industrial relations, all four subprocesses are relevant. Integrative bargaining is closely related to finding consensus between the industrial relations actors. However, the other sub-processes and the way they interact play an important role, as illustrated in Figure 3.
25
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Figure 3
Quality of industrial relations and bargaining theories
Integrative bargaining
Intra-organisational bargaining
QUALITY OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Attitudinal structuring (Social contracts)
Distributive bargaining
Regarding integrative bargaining and distributive bargaining, a distinction between the outcome and the process is useful. The outcome of integrative bargaining is a consensus on one or a mixture of issues; the process can be both cooperative and conflictual in certain phases of the process of negotiations. In the case of distributive bargaining, the outcome has more the character of a compromise and the process involves a latent tendency of conflictual relations. The degree of internal agreement that can be achieved as a result of intra-organisational bargaining is fundamental for the bargaining position for the sub-processes of integrative and of distributive bargaining. The sub-process of attitudinal structuring is important for both integrative and distributive bargaining. In the long term, it is fundamental in particular for integrative bargaining. Criteria for selection and development of indicators Further considerations are required for the monitoring and assessment of the prospective advancement of industrial relations and an identification of the factors for improvement of their quality and success in a changing environment in the European and global context. The analytical framework described above highlights potential dimensions of industrial relations. Following on from this, the next step in the analysis is the elaboration of principles and criteria for the selection of potential comparative indicators. These principles and criteria have to reflect and capture the multidimensional complexity of industrial relations and of the concept of quality. The selection of comparative indicators of the quality of industrial relations cannot be dictated by practical considerations alone. The context of indicators and their role should be recorded in order to avoid a comparison of ‘apples’ with ‘oranges’. Indicators can have a different meaning in different contexts and so it is essential to clearly define the role of an indicator as, for example, certain institutional arrangements or certain issues of collective bargaining. The concept of the theoretical framework is considered as dynamic. ‘Dynamic’ means to incorporate and reflect change. It also means to leave space for new issues as indicators. For example, in the context of EU social dialogue, the focus is not only the quantity, or number, of
26
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
agreements, but also their ‘quality’ (i.e. the development of the contents and characteristics of the outcome of the agreements). In a broader sense, the interrelation between managing change and quality of industrial relations is determined by the way the social partners contribute to economic and social progress. Examples of indicators for modernising contractual relations are:
?
progress of issues — joint attempts to improve the quality in work (more and better jobs) or negotiated flexibility and the competitiveness of companies; regulation of new types of employment relations — temporary agency work, teleworking, etc.; implementing new procedures and bodies — an example on the company level would be joint committees in the context of PECs (Weiler, 2002) or joint committees in the context of monitoring the implementation of innovative agreements on equal opportunities (Bercusson and Weiler, 1999); or joint annual reports and monitoring of the impact of framework agreements.
? ?
?
Potential indicators for interaction between European and national levels It is difficult to develop indicators on the interface between European and national-level industrial relations, but it seems to be essential to cover the dynamic and potential synergy effects resulting from the processes of European integration or the obstacles for successful interaction. The synergy of the interactions between industrial relations on the level of the EU and nation states is an expression of change itself. The interface between the two levels is seen as the weakest link of current industrial relations by the High Level Group on Industrial Relations (European Commission, 2002b). The Industrial Relations in Europe 2002 report regards the close link between the European and national levels, as well as the regional and local levels, as a key to success of the social partners’ contribution to the employment strategy and the inclusion strategy (European Commission, 2002c). A further conceptual problem of a simple differentiation between European and national-level industrial relations is the question of where, for example, EWCs or EU Directive will be placed. Examples for indicators on the interrelation/interaction between European and national-level industrial relations are:
? ? ?
involvement of the national social partners in the NAPs; territorial pacts; or coordination of collective bargaining.
Role of comparative indicators As Figure 4 illustrates, a double strategy of looking at industrial relations in an holistic perspective and with an analytical focus on key dimensions and key indicators is the basis for identifying the set of indicators. A well-founded set of comparative indicators on industrial relations can help to achieve a better understanding of industrial relations. Comparative indicators of industrial relations related to the
27
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
concept of ‘quality’ have a clear political reference and can be used to evaluate and monitor the current state of industrial relations and the potential for improvement. Such a set of comparative indicators facilitates the assessment of the implementation and impact of the ‘quality’ concept. Supporting statistical databases and qualitative data enables progress to be measured in the actions taken. A clear picture and accurate information on industrial relations can assist the debate between the social partners (and governments) on the development of the quality of industrial relations and the contribution to managing change. Within a changing economic and social context, a set of comparative indicators on industrial relations assists practitioners and policy-makers in accurately interpreting current developments, enabling barriers to be detected for an improvement of quality, supporting further elaboration on targets and helping to identify new priorities of policies. If the actors of industrial relations have a well-grounded understanding of their environment and how it is changing, this will facilitate the process of negotiations and the finding of consensus and agreement. Furthermore, comparative indicators can assist in implementing the joint work programme of the European social partners and other joint initiatives. Figure 4 Indicators of the quality of industrial relations
Purpose of the indicators: high quality industrial relations on all levels
Holistic view of the industrial relations context
Dimensions of industrial relations: regulatory framework, actors, processes, outcomes
Determination of key indicators related to key dimensions
Determination of contextual factors
Time axis Development of industrial relations
current stage
short-termed
long-termed
28
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
The European Commission’s Communication on ‘Quality’ (2001a) emphasises that in order to address quality in full, it is necessary to develop indicators in a coherent and structured manner and establish an appropriate set of indicators within a framework. This approach combines existing indicators with indicators to be (further) developed. A theoretically and methodologically sound set of comparative indicators has to meet certain requirements, in particular:
? ? ? ?
2
coverage of relevant dimensions of quality in industrial relations; informative power; reflection of development and change; options for incorporating new dimensions/categories and continuous improvement of the set of indicators; use of the best available databases; consider cross-national and cross-cultural comparability of indicators; and include a gender breakdown as a standard horizontal element across all indicators.
? ? ?
The analytical framework focuses on the identification of clear policy objectives and standards, and the development of an appropriate set of indicators for the measurement of these objectives. A clear idea of the purpose of an indicator has to be the guiding principle. Furthermore, the understanding of what a ‘comparative indicator’ is has to be clarified. An ‘indicator’ can be understood as a feature that serves as a (conclusive) sign or reference regarding other circumstances and conditions. The term ‘comparative’ can be defined as principles that apply everywhere, not just in one country (Strauss, 1998). On the one hand, comparative indicators on industrial relations require a high level of abstraction. On the other, they have to be suitable to serve policy purposes. Further considerations regarding the development of comparative indicators on industrial relations are:
? ?
cultural boundaries do not always correspond with national boundaries (Strauss, 1998); industrial relations within a country are not similar across the sectors and branches, and for MNCs and SMEs.
Attempts to approach industrial relations with a focus on topics rather than country-by-country are more appropriate for the purpose of developing a set of indicators. Different perspectives on comparative research can have different theoretical implications. Rubery and Grimshaw (2003) describe three main schools of comparative research on employment (universalists, culturalists and institutionalists), whose perspectives lead to different frameworks for comparative research. The authors propose the adoption of a modified and more dynamic institutionalist perspective. Regarding the societal effect theory, they discuss in particular if the nation state is the appropriate level of analysis and if the societal effect approach leads to an
29
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
overemphasis on coherence and consensus, failing to recognise sources of conflict and inconsistency. They point to supranational influences and the example of the pan-European effect. They advocate a more dynamic framework and see a crucial test for an appropriate theoretical framework in its ‘ability to deal with and explain processes of change. This poses particular problems for comparative analysis since a natural tendency is to focus on differences. Moreover, there is a temptation to regard such differences as static and unchanging characteristics of particular economies’ (Rubery and Grimshaw, 2003). It is necessary to examine the political, social and economic context of industrial relations models in order to avoid oversimplification and fallacies based on certain (more or less isolated) figures and related indicators. Drawing conclusions from certain indicators can be critical; for example, union density can be viewed as a measure of the strength of a trade union in one country, but can be misleading in others. Due to a lack of a common language and terminology in industrial relations (even in the AngloSaxon countries), a careful use and application of terms is inevitable. In developing comparative indicators of industrial relations, it has to be considered that the same terms can have different meanings or vice versa: different terms can have an equivalent meaning among the industrial relations models and national contexts. Categories like ‘union density’, ‘strikes’ and ‘industrial relations institution’ can have different meanings and functions in various countries. Being a union member in France or Spain, for example, may have a different meaning in Sweden or in other countries where union membership is closely linked with social security benefits. Strikes can have a different meaning or impact in countries depending on the industrial relations system and national cultures. The term ‘trade union’ can be applied to an organisation with more than 3 million members (as, for example, Ver.di — the German unified service sector union) or to a company-level crafts trade union with a small number of members (as in the UK). Therefore, a careful use of terms and definitions is fundamental in the development of comparative indicators.
Existing indicators
A review of existing indicators related to industrial relations encompasses several aspects:
? ? ?
systematic overview of existing indicators; analysis of the methodology of existing indicators; and analysis of potential problems or shortcomings of existing indicators.
A reference to existing indicators on industrial relations reveals a number of different approaches of comparisons:
? ? ? ?
traditional comparative industrial relations; content-related comparisons across countries; related indicators in adjoining fields; and policy-based indicators of industrial relations.
30
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
This study aims to avoid an overlap and at the same time to create links with work in progress on indicators in adjoining fields, such as quality in work and employment. This effort is realised, firstly, by defining indicators that are specific to industrial relations and, secondly, by defining indicators that measure the degree to which procedures and structures for information, consultation, coordination and negotiation contribute to appropriate and workable solutions in adjoining fields. In referring to existing indicators traditionally employed in industrial relations research, the different focus and purposes of the indicators have to be considered. Traditional indicators applied in (comparative) industrial relations research predominantly focus on national data and not on a content perspective across countries. The European-level industrial relations are separated from the national data and analysis. For monitoring purposes, the traditional perspective is insufficient. The development of comparative indicators of industrial relations has to go beyond traditional comparative industrial relations research and simple national statistical data. In contrast to these approaches, indicators of industrial relations related to the concept of ‘quality’ have a clear political reference and can be used to evaluate and monitor the current state of industrial relations and the potential for improvement. This is a different perspective. Some basic labour statistics are the subject of the ILO’s Labour Statistics Convention (C160, 1985). This convention is an international guideline for labour statistics. The convention is ratified by 12 EU Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and some of the acceding countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania). These basic labour statistics refer primarily to the ‘context’ dimension, some to ‘outcomes’ and one to ‘processes’ of industrial relations (see Table 4). Table 4 Basic labour statistics according to Labour Statistics Convention (ILO)
Basic labour statistics
Dimensions of the analytical framework Context
• economically active population • employment • unemployment • (where visible) underemployment Structure and distribution of the economically active population (for detailed analysis and to serve as benchmark data) • labour cost • consumer price indices • household expenditure
Actors Processes Outcomes industrial disputes • average earning and hours of work • wage structure and distribution • occupational injuries • occupational diseases
Source: ILO, Labour Statistics Convention (C160, 1985)
31
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
One example of a policy-based proposal of indicators or criteria for the development of indicators of industrial relations is the proposed list of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations (see Table 5). The criteria are suggested in relation to the European Employment Strategy. These criteria are not systematically related to key indicators in industrial relations research. The list of 14 criteria appears unsystematic. In relation to the European Employment Strategy, it is incomplete since the employment guidelines (for the year 2002) are more encompassing. Some targets and clear invitations towards the social partners are not taken up. This concerns, for example, e-learning, tackling gender gaps and reconciling work and family life. Modernisation of work organisation is only considered in the context of a review of the regulatory framework. Some criteria, especially ‘mainstreaming of gender’, are simply mentioned as policy targets without any further proposals on actions. Table 5 Proposed criteria by the High Level Group on Industrial Relations for developing appropriate indicators
Role of social partners Contribution Overarching objective Instruments/tool
Policy objective 1 2 Social cohesion, competitiveness, socially sustainable economic growth Full employment and fair and decent terms and conditions of employment for all workers 3 Creation of quality employment
• fostering employability • change organisation of work • modernisation of the regulatory framework
4 5 6 7
Active ageing Access to lifelong-learning (including those with atypical contracts) Preventing skill shortages Social inclusion
Promotion Facilitation Contribution
Enhancing capacity of and incentives for older workers to remain in the labour force
Promotion of occupational and geographical mobility Effective preventive and active policy measures to promote integration into the labour market of groups or individuals at risk or with a disadvantage
8
Integration into the labour market of workers with disabilities, ethnic minorities and migrant workers
‘Appropriate’ measures
9
Improvement of OHS at the workplace
• better application of legislation • more training and promoting measures for the reduction of occupational accidents and diseases (emphasis on traditionally high-risk sectors)
10 11 12
Mainstreaming of gender High representativeness of social partners Wide coverage of collective bargaining (including all forms of atypical employment)
13 14
Improving ways of preventing and/or settling labour disputes Employees’ participation in decisionmaking, including financial participation
In both collective and individual cases: nonjudicial mechanisms, conciliation, arbitration
Source: European Commission (2002b)
32
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Review of statistical information
The approach of the study is to clearly link key policy objectives and policy instruments, key indicators and a review of the availability and suitability of statistical data, and to outline potential barriers and gaps. The availability of existing data in this respect demands further consideration. Firstly, indicators can range from quantitative to qualitative in nature. Examples are the categories for quality indicators in the area of social dialogue and worker involvement highlighted in the report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations (European Commission, 2002b) and along similar lines in the Commission’s Communication on quality in employment and social policies (European Commission, 2001a). In contrast to the long-established social indicator research that is based on quantitative social statistics, the strong impact of different national framework and legal foundations in industrial relations recommends qualitative data to be considered besides pure quantitative data. Integrated encompassing general statistics on industrial relations are not established. The issue of industrial disputes is one of the rare available datasets provided by Eurostat that is directly linked to industrial relations. Secondly, a set of indicators can be seen as a catalyst for the improvement of policy procedures and of statistics. One example for an improvement of statistical data is the development of nine qualitative and quantitative indicators on the gender pay gap and ways to reduce it during the Belgian EU presidency. The analysis for the development of these indicators demonstrated insufficiencies in the different databases. The Council encouraged the Commission and Member States to consider reviewing their existing data collection and processing systems in order to improve them and made concrete proposals for adjustments (European Council, 2001). The potential of such an application of the comparative indicators of industrial relations is considered in the concept and the development of indicators. Quantifying qualitative elements of industrial relations and linking them with statistical figures/data sources may require going beyond existing official statistics. Besides a review of potential statistical sources and survey data, possible indicators developed by the social partners are taken into account. In the horizontal objective F of the European Employment Strategy laid down in the employment guidelines for 2002, the social partners are explicitly invited to develop appropriate indicators, benchmarks and supporting statistical databases to measure progress in the actions for which they are responsible (European Commission, 2001b). In the assessment of the sources for statistical data with regard to availability, it is advisable to differentiate between the level of availability according to the following stages:
? ? ? ?
available statistical data for comparative indicators; data that could be made available in a short-term period; data that could be made available in a long-term period; data that is available but should be adapted to be useful for monitoring/assessment needs;
33
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
?
data that could potentially be combined from different sources and be fruitful in such a combination.
The availability of statistical quantitative data and of qualitative data differs considerably between countries. While some countries, like the UK, have encompassing Workplace Employee Relations Surveys (WERS), others (such as Germany) can refer to encompassing collective agreement archives and substantial analysis of the collective agreements between employer associations or single employers and trade unions. In further phases of this research project, a key element, which particularly concerns the outcome indicators, will be to select quantitative data on collectively agreed pay and working conditions or data on actual pay, working time. etc. in official statistics or a combination of both data sources. This is because there can be a gap between collectively agreed conditions and effective pay and working time, especially in countries with a dual system of employees’ representation and collective bargaining. The core focus in developing comparative indicators is on the proposal for a set of indicators, not on individual indicators. Further aspects of the construction of a set of indicators are horizontal characteristics across the indicators — for example, a gender breakdown as a standard feature of indicators or including a sectoral perspective as far as possible. The European Commission’s ‘Quality’ Communication (2001a) explicitly demands a gender breakdown of data. Considerations on how this policy and statistical objective can be achieved lead to more general considerations on the quality and use of databases. However, incorporating the gender dimension in the datasets means more than just including the categories ‘female’ and ‘male’ in tables and determining whether relevant data is available or can be made available. The role played by definitions and classifications is critical in the production of relevant statistics. According to Greenwood (2001), ‘definitions and classifications determine what is to be covered and in how much detail, and are the basis for the whole data production process’. Further factors include the level of aggregation, coverage of data and the method of data collection and measurement. The solution is not simply to list data according to gender if available. Several considerations are required in order to fulfil the gender mainstreaming approach laid down in the Amsterdam Treaty. One (quality) side-effect of these considerations is to achieve a more appropriate reflection of reality in statistical databases, indicator development and monitoring.
Draft set of comparative indicators
A draft set of comparative indicators based on the analytical framework has been developed according to the specified key dimensions of industrial relations, namely:
? ? ? ?
context actors processes outcomes
34
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
The indicators are presented according to the key dimensions of industrial relations independent of the level or arena of industrial relations. For each of the dimensions of industrial relations, key indicators are suggested. The selected key indicators will be presented in terms of the following frame structure:
? ? ? ?
key indicator(s) availability of quantitative/qualitative statistical data limitations/remarks sub-indicators
Overview on the draft set of indicators on industrial relations (see following pages for details)
Dimension Context Key indicators • Labour productivity • Unit labour costs • Inflation rate • Unemployment rates • Employment growth • Employment rates Actors • Union density • Employers’ density • Collective agreement coverage • Company employee participation • European works councils • Representativeness of European social partners • Incidence of sectoral social dialogue Processes • Industrial disputes/action • Collective bargaining • Scope of employee representation • Scope of EWCs • European intersectoral social dialogue • European sectoral social dialogue • Negotiating PECs/social pacts • Involvement of national social partners in NAPs Outcomes • Pay • Gender pay equity • Working time • Employment security/competitiveness • Lifelong learning • Employee financial participation • New forms of work • Gender equality • Employment/equal treatment of disabled people • Work – life balance • Agreements/joints texts of European sectoral social dialogue • Agreements/joint texts of European intersectoral social dialogue
35
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Regarding the availability of data, each key indicator is analysed according to statistical definition, statistical source, geographical coverage, periodicity, latest update and availability. The gender dimension is considered in the sense of the gender mainstreaming approach in accordance with the ‘Quality’ Communication across all indicators as a horizontal aspect. Whereas for the key indicators the availability of data is analysed, this is the case only for some of the sub-indicators for which data is easily accessible. This compromise of presentation of data availability shall guarantee a basis for a set of indicators covering the key factors of industrial relations. A more in-depth analysis will focus on the development of context and sub-indicators in the next phase of the project.
CONTEXT dimension
A number of economic and employment indicators are already established in the system of European monitoring of socio-economic development as Eurostat structural indicators. At this stage of the project, a reference to these existing and easily accessible indicators is sufficient. Later, it could be decided if further or more detailed sub-indicators would be required on industrial relations or if a composition of these indicators should be applied to monitor the development and progress of industrial relations. Labour productivity Key indicator: Labour productivity
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Labour productivity (per person employed and per hour worked) Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Unit labour costs Key indicator: Unit labour costs growth
Availability of data Definition Growth rate of the ratio: compensation per employee in current prices divided by GDP (in current prices) per total employment Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
36
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Inflation rate Key indicator: Inflation rate
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Annual average rate of change in Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices (HICPs) Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Employment growth Key indicator: Employment growth
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Annual percentage change in the total employed population (total, female and male population) Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Employment rates Key indicator: Employment rates
Availability of data Definition Employed persons aged 15-64 as a share of the total population aged 15-64 (total, female and male population) Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Key indicator: Employment rates of older workers
Availability of data Definition Employed persons aged 55-64 as a share of the total population aged 55-64 (total, female and male population) Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
37
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Key indicator: Unemployment
Availability of data Definition Unemployed persons aged 15-64 as a percentage of the labour force (total, female and male unemployed persons). The labour force is the total number of people employed and unemployed. Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
ACTORS dimension
Union density Key indicator: Union density, national European level
Availability of data Definition Union members as the proportion of the labour force in dependent employment (gross/net). Gross density inclusive of unemployed and retired union members. Net density: employed union members only. Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 Statistical background: Potential sources for data on membership: Data on union density can stem from different sources: • information by the organisation on membership • information by LFS • information tax statistics Socio-economic context of union density: Social security benefits in some countries are linked with union membership. Gender breakdown of data on trade union density: National data do not give sufficient genderspecific information to cover diverse developments below the national figures on the sectoral or company level. Due to gender segregation, women and men are allocated differently to sectors. Women are concentrated in sectors where union density is traditionally low. Female membership of trade unions can increase in certain sectors, but this is not reflected in the national data. More easily available than data on union density is data on the national level, which is the number of members in trade unions. EIRO (based on Eurostat LFS – ILO figures) EU-15
Data beyond the national level and an average for the EU are difficult to determine since there is no direct membership in European-level trade union federations.
Sub-indicators ? Union density according to gender ? Sectoral union density ? Company size structure and union density ? Union density according to employment status ? Union density at the European level
38
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Employers’ density Key indicator: Employers’ density
Availability of data Definition Two definitions of employers’ density exist: • the number/percentage of companies organised in an employer association/federation. • the proportion of employees working in companies that are members of employer federations. Statistical source National data, qualitative data and survey data Partially quantitative national data Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Despite missing data or simply fragmented data developed in research, it has to be considered that the peak, or central, organisations do not cover all employer associations nor is there always a direct membership of enterprises in the peak organisations. Differentiation between employer associations and business interest organisations is of increasing importance for membership decision. In countries where membership in employer associations is combined with a binding to (sectoral) collective agreements, it is reported that there is a tendency to leave or not join national-level employer federations. Data on this trend would give information trends in bargaining coverage. No regular database available
Sub-indicators ? Employers’ density at the European level (Commission’s industrial relations reports) ? Sectoral employers’ density ? competition between employer associations Key indicator: Representativeness
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Representativeness criteria Reports on the representativeness of European Social Partner Organisations commissioned by the European Commission (DG EMPL) Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2000 EU-15
Collective agreement coverage Key indicator: Collective agreement coverage
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Coverage of collective agreements No European data available EIRO estimates Only national surveys — not comparable Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Potential sources: ETUC, NAPs, European Structure of Earnings Survey (ESES), to be further developed. In some countries, there is an overlap between collective bargaining coverage and employers’ density since membership in employer associations is linked with binding to existing collective agreements.
39
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Sub-indicators ? proportion of companies bound to collective agreements ? proportion of employees working in companies under collective agreements ? proportion of employees covered by an extension of collective agreements ? sectoral collective bargaining coverage ? inclusion of atypical employment relationships ? type of agreements (pay agreements, agreements of working conditions, etc. as the coverage can differ with regard to the issue of the agreements) ? union recognition requirements, employee representation laws, etc. Company-level employee representation Key indicator: Company-level employee representation
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Representation of employees in employee participation bodies National data, qualitative data Partially quantitative national data Survey data Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Diverse national situation and regulatory framework Example for national quantitative data: German works councils (Betriesbrat): • number of companies with a works council • percentage of employees in companies with a works council • representation of women and men in works councils • women and men as heads of works councils EU-Directive: 2002/14/EC of 11.03.2002 ‘Establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community’. Further source of information: Reports of the Group of Experts on European Systems of Workers Involvement
European works councils (EWCs) Key indicator: European works councils established
Availability of data Definition • European works councils established • Number of companies covered by the EWC Directive • Companies that still have to set up EWCs Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 ETUI — Multinational database EU-15
Sub-indicators ? Sectoral data on EWCs ? Article 6/Article 13 agreements
40
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Incidence of European sectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Incidence of European sectoral social dialogue
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Sectors with established sectoral social dialogue AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15 Time series 2000 Further source: European Commission’s reports on industrial relations
PROCESSES dimension
Industrial disputes/action Key indicator: Strikes
Availability of data Definition • number of working days lost (1,000) • working days lost per 1,000 workers • number of workers involved (1,000) • workers involved per 1,000 workers Statistical source Eurostat: Statistics on industrial disputes Further source: EIRO overview on industrial action Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks EU-15 Annual 2002 The Eurostat data are available for the EU as a whole and by Member State. Tables are available according to ISIC and NACE.
Sub-indicators ? number of industrial disputes (EIRO — partial figures only) ? sectoral industrial actions (Eurostat — NACE/EIRO) ? reasons for industrial action (EIRO — partial data only) ? lock-outs — national data only ? numbers of arbitration, mediation, conciliation (EIRO — partial data for some countries) Collective bargaining Key indicator: Level of collective bargaining
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Level of collective bargaining EIRO EU-15 Annual 2002
41
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Sub-indicators ? Differentiation of level of bargaining with regard to issues ? Impact for SMEs Key indicator: Issues of quantitative collective bargaining
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Further source: ETUI annual collective bargaining reports Issues of quantitative collective bargaining EIRO EU-15
Key indicator: Issues of qualitative collective bargaining
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Further source: ETUI annual collective bargaining reports Issues of qualitative collective bargaining EIRO EU-15
Scope of employee representation Key indicator: Subject areas and powers of employee representation
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Subject areas and powers of employee representation Reports of the Group of Experts on European Systems of Workers Involvement National research and surveys Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2001 Qualitative research Strong impact of labour law
Scope of EWCs Key indicator: Scope of EWCs
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Issues of information and consultation European Works Councils — Multinationals Database European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: EWC — Database Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 EU-15
42
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
European intersectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Negotiations of agreements
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Negotiations of agreements AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15 Time series 2000
European sectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Scope of European sectoral social dialogue
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2000 Further analysis in the European Commission’s reports on industrial relations Scope of European sectoral social dialogue AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15
Negotiations of pacts for employment and competitiveness Key indicator: Enterprise-level pacts for employment and competitiveness
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Enterprise-level pacts for employment and competitiveness Study by European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions National studies Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Qualitative research
Sub-indicators ? Pacts in sectoral agreements ? Social pacts ? Territorial pacts Involvement of national social partners in NAPs Key indicator: Involvement of national social partners in NAPs
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 Involvement of national social partners in NAPs EIRO comparative study
43
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
OUTCOMES dimension
Pay Key indicator: Pay increases — collectively agreed
Availability of data Definition • Average nominal collectively agreed basic pay increases • Real pay increases Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks EIRO EU-15 Annual 2002 Remark regarding gender pay equity: Pay increases themselves do not entail a direct gender dimension that could be measured. However, even the form of pay increases (e.g. in percentage or in an absolute amount) can have a significant impact on the gender gap. In some countries, part of the pay increases is reserved for special application to the lower pay grades or women.
Key indicator: Pay increases — actual pay development
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Collectively agreed and actual pay increases can differ considerably (‘pay drift’). Average increases in earnings are greater than agreed pay increases. Comparisons of pay statistics of collectively agreed pay increases and actual pay increases can be difficult even on the national level since sectoral definitions in official pay statistics are not in line with coverage of collective agreements. Average earnings increases EIRO EU-15, with exceptions Annual
Key indicator: Fixed/variable pay
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Percentage fixed/variable pay components EIRO EU-15 Irregular 2001 Since flexibility and negotiations on flexibility are seen as of crucial importance for the objective of managing change, data on the development of fixed/variable pay (components) should be gathered. A core database would be the European Structure of Earnings Survey (ESES), which offers detailed information of determination of pay at company level. In future, the ESES will be carried out every 4 years; however, the periods are still too long to reflect up-to date information.
44
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Sub-indicators: ? Collectively agreed pay increases by sector (EIRO: available for chemicals, retail, civil service) ? Level of collectively agreed pay ? Level of actual pay ? Monthly minimum wages ? Pay dispersion ? Use of ‘distributive margin’ ? Cross-country wage bargaining coordination ? Pay systems (basic pay differentiation, flexible pay, etc) ? Level of wage bargaining Gender pay equity Key indicator: Gender pay gap — ECHP
Availability of data Definition Average gross hourly earnings of females as percentage of average gross hourly earnings of males = gender pay gap in unadjusted form Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat (ECHP) = Structural indicator on employment EU-15 Annual 1999 (data for 2000 will be available in October 2003) Disadvantage: Covers only net pay (principle of equal pay is related to gross pay). The new Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC) database includes gross earnings; this data will be available in 2005.
Key indicator: Gender pay gap — ESES
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks In future every 4 years 1995 Advantages in comparison with ECHP: • closer link to collective agreements; collective bargaining parties are involved in relating pay grades to statistical classifications (as in Germany); data can be traced back to collective agreements; • detailed information on composition and structure of earnings; • information regarding wage formation within companies. Eurostat: European Structure of Earnings Surveys (ESES)
Disadvantages: • some important branches for women’s employment are excluded; • infrequency; • availability of data.
45
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Key indicator: Gender pay equity in collective agreements
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Provision on gender pay equity in collective agreements EIRO comparative study EU-15 Irregular 2001
Sub-indicators ? 9 qualitative and quantitative indicators — developed during the Belgian EU presidency (European Council, 2001) Working time Key indicator: Average collectively agreed • weekly working hours • annual working hours
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Data on collectively agreed working time: EIRO EU-15 Annual 2002
Key indicator: Actual working hours
Availability of data Definition Actual working hours, full-timers Actual working hours, part-timers Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Data on actual working time: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, OECD EU-15 Annual 2000
Sub-indicators ? sectoral working time (actual, collectively agreed) ? annual (holiday) leave ? flexible working time arrangements ? irregular working time: shift work, night work, weekend work ? reduction of working hours ? reduction of overtime
46
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Employment security (and competitiveness) Key indicator: Job losses/alternative employment
Availability of data Definition Proportion of workers losing their job through redundancies and proportion of those finding alternative employment in a given period Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Labour Force Survey EU-15 Annual 2001 Other source: ECHP
Key indicator: Collective agreements on employment and competitiveness
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Qualitative research Regulations in collective agreements on employment and competitiveness Project by European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Lifelong learning Key indicator: Lifelong learning Inclusion in the Eurostat structural indicators on employment
Availability of data Definition Percentage of the population aged 25-64 participating in education and training over the 4 weeks prior to the survey (available figures: total, females, males) Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat, general statistics, structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Key indicator: Enterprises with agreements about CVT
Availability of data Definition Enterprises with agreements about CVT Enterprises with agreements about CVT with more than 250 employees Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 1999 Eurostat, New Chronos, Theme 3, Domain Training — Continuing Vocational Training Survey CVTS 2 EU-15
47
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Key indicator: Lifelong learning in collective agreements
Availability of data Definition Spread of collective agreement Issues of collective agreements Statistical source Qualitative data — national data EIRO — comparative studies based on EIRO articles Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Influence of bargaining on lifelong learning in relation to the national systems of continuing vocational training
Sub-indicators ? lifelong learning in framework agreement by EU-level social partners, including a monitoring clause Employee financial participation Key indicator: Proportion of workers with financial participation in the employing company
Availability of data Definition Total number of broad-based schemes Percentage of share schemes/profit sharing Total number of business units with broad-based schemes Percentage of employees covered Statistical source CRANET E survey dataset EPOC Workplace Survey National data Some quantitative data in research Quantitative data in surveys Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Financial participation is not subject of official statistics. Regarding the emphasis put on increasing the diffusion of financial participation schemes, a system of more detailed indicators should be developed and a dataset of comparable data established. Most European Union countries Survey data — irregular
Sub-indicators ? other forms of financial participation ? financial participation in SMEs
48
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
New forms of work Key indicator: Telework as (a first) example
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Monitoring of the implementation of the European-level social partners may offer information Teleworking in collective agreements Qualitative (national) research
Gender equality Key indicator: Gender segregation
Availability of data Definition Average national share of employment for women and men applied to employment in each sector/occupation Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Community Labour Force Survey (by NACE/ISCO) EU-15 Annual 2001 Used as indicator in the Joint Employment Report
Key indicator: Gender equality in collective bargaining
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 1999 Collective agreements or provisions on gender equality Project by European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions EU-15
Sub-indicators ? representation within trade unions, employer federations ? members in representative bodies ? gender mainstreaming/gender impact assessment in collective bargaining
49
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Employment/equal treatment of disabled people Key indicator: Employment of people with disabilities Number/percentage of disabled employees employed
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 1995 There are no reliable European-level statistics. Comparisons are complicated due to different collection methods across countries and various legislative definitions. Definition of disabled persons differ in the national context Eurostat estimates drawn from national surveys
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Definition of disabled persons differ in the national context EIRO — some indicative data on level of employment EU-15 Irregular 2001 NAPs (2002) include data on unemployment rates of severely disabled persons for the year 2001
Sub-indicators ? agreements on special promotional actions or structures ? joint texts (2003: Declaration of the social partners for the European year of people with disabilities) ? actions in NAPs Work – life balance Key indicator: Proportion of employees with flexible working arrangements
Availability of data Definition Share of employees with flexible working arrangements (flexible hours, annualised hours contract, on-call work) in total employees, by sex (WT2) Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks LFS ‘Ad Hoc’ Module on Working Time
Key indicator: Flexible working arrangements in collective agreements
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 Qualitative research Flexible working arrangements in collective agreements EIRO
50
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Key indicator: Proportion of female and male employees on parental leave
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Strong impact of legal parental leave or maternity leave regulations Proportion of female and male employees on parental leave National data
Key indicator: Parental leave in collective agreements
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Flexible working arrangements in collective agreements EIRO
Agreements/joint texts of European sectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Agreements/joint texts of European sectoral social dialogue
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Agreements/joint texts of European sectoral social dialogue AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15 Time series 2000 Further analysis in the European Commission’s industrial relations reports
Agreements/joint texts of European intersectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Agreements/joint texts of European intersectoral social dialogue
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2000 Further analysis in the European Commission’s industrial relations reports Agreements/joint texts of European intersectoral social dialogue AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15
51
Bibliography
Baccaro, L., What is dead and what is alive in the theory of corporatism?, International Institute for Labour Studies, DP/143/2002, Geneva, 2002. Benedictus, H., de Boer, R., van der Meer, M., Salverda, W., Visser, J. and Zijl, M., The European social dialogue: Development, sectoral variation and prospects, Report to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies, 2002. Bercusson, B. and Weiler, A., Equal opportunities and collective bargaining in Europe. 3. Innovative Agreements: An Analysis, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1999. Biagi, M. (ed.), Towards a European model of industrial relations? Building on the first report of the European Commission, Kluwer Law Interational, The Hague, 2001. Biagi, M., ‘The “quality” factor in community industrial relations’, in Towards a European model of industrial relations? Building on the first report of the European Commission, M. Biagi (ed.), Kluwer Law Interational, The Hague, 2001, pp. 3-14. Biagi, M., Tiraboschi, M. and Rymkevitch, O., The ‘Europeanisation’ of Industrial Relations: Evaluating the quality of European industrial relations in a global context, A literature review, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Bleijenbergh, I., de Bruijn, J. and Dickens, L., Strengthening and mainstreaming equal opportunities through collective bargaining, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1999 (available on www.eurofound.eu.int/publications/EF9918.htm). Carley, M., Industrial relations developments in Europe 2002, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003 (available on www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/ annualreports.html). Clauwaart, S., Survey on the implementation of the part-time work directive/agreement in the EU Member States and selected applicant countries, European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, 2002. Cockburn, C., ‘Women’s Access to European Industrial Relations’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1995, pp. 171-89. Colgan, F. and Ledwith, S., ‘Sisters Organising: Women and their trade unions’, in Women in Organisations, Challenging Gender Politics, S. Ledwith and F. Colgan (eds.), Macmillan, Houndsmill, 1996, pp. 152-85. Colling, T. and Dickens, L., ‘Gender Equality and Trade Unions: A new basis for mobilisation?’, in Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment, M. Noon and E. Ogbonna (eds.), Palgrave, Houndsmills, 2001, pp. 136-55. Crouch, C. and Traxler, F. (eds.), Organized industrial relations in Europe: What future? Avebury Press, Aldershot, 1995. Dickens, L., ‘Promoting Gender Equality at Work: A potential role for trade union action’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Special Issue: Gender and Workplace Relations, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000, pp. 27-45. Dhondt, S. and Houtman, I., Indicators of working conditions in the European Union, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1997. Dunlop, J.T., Industrial Relations Systems, Henry Holt, New York, 1958 (revised edition: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1993).
53
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Ebbinghaus, B., ‘Trade unions’ changing role: Membership erosion, organisational reform and social partnership in Europe’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2002, pp. 465-83. EIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory), Pay developments – 2002, Comparative study, 2003a (available on www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int). EIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory), Working time developments – 2002, Comparative study, 2003b (available on www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int). EIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory), Workers with disabilities: Law, bargaining and the social partners, Comparative study, 2001 (available on www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int). ETUC/UNICE/UEAPME/CEEP, Work programme of the European social partners 2003-2005, Brussels, 2002 (available on www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2002/dec/ prog_de_travail_comm_en.pdf). ETUC/UNICE/UEAPME/CEEP, Declaration of the social partners for the European year of people with disabilities. Promoting equal opportunities and access to employment for people with disabilities, Brussels, 2003. ETUC/UNICE/CEEP (eds.), Framework of actions for the lifelong development of competencies and qualifications, Brussels, 2002 (available on www.etuc.org/en/dossiers/colbargain/lll.cfm). European Commission, Proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, COM (2003), XXX, European Commission, Brussels, 2003a. European Commission, Scoreboard on implementing the Social Policy Agenda. Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee, and Committee of the Regions, COM (2003), 57 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2003b. European Commission, The European social dialogue: A force for innovation and change. Proposal for a Council decision establishing a Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment, COM (2002), 341 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2002a. European Commission, Report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations and Change in the European Union, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002b. European Commission, Industrial relations in Europe 2002, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002c. European Commission, Communication from the Commission on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy co-ordination cycles, COM (2002), 487 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2002d. European Commission, 2002 Broad economic guidelines, European Economy, No. 4, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002e. European Commission, Taking stock of five years of the European Employment Strategy, Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament, Economic and Social Committee, and Committee of the Regions, COM (2002), 416 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2002f. European Commission, Employment and social policies: A framework for investing in quality, Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee, and Committee of the Regions, COM (2001), 313 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2001a. European Commission, Guidelines for Member States’ employment policies for the year 2002, European Commission, Brussels, 2001b.
54
Bibliography
European Commission, Promoting core labour standards and improving social governance in the context of globalisation, Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament and Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, COM (2001), 416 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2001c. European Commission, Social Policy Agenda, COM (2000), 379 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2000a. European Commission, Industrial relations in Europe 2000, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2000b. European Commission, Raising employment levels of people with disabilities: The common challenge, Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC (1998), European Commission, Brussels, 1998. European Council, 2392nd Council meeting, Employment and social policy, Brussels, 3 December 2001. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, European Employment and Industrial Relations Glossaries, EMIRE – database, March 2003 (available on www.eurofound.eu.int/emire/emire.html). European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Towards a qualitative dialogue in industrial relations: Five years of developments in collective bargaining and social dialogue, from the European Industrial Relations Observatory, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Fajertag, Guiseppe (ed.), Collective bargaining in Europe 2001, European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, 2002. Foden, D. and Magnusson, L. (eds.), Five years’ experiences of the Luxembourg Employment Strategy, European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, 2003. Forrest, A., ‘A View from outside the whale: The treatment of women and unions in industrial relations’, in Women challenging unions: Feminism, democracy, and militancy, L. Briskin and P. McDermott (eds.), University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1993, pp. 325-41. Fourage, D., Cost of non-social policy: Towards an economic framework of quality social policies – and the cost of not having them, European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003. Gabaglio, E. and Hoffmann, R. (eds.), European Trade Union Yearbook, European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, 2002. Greenwood, A.M., ‘Gender issues in labour statistics’, in Women, gender and work. What is equality and how do we get there?, Ferherolf Loutfi, Martha (ed.), International Labour Office, Geneva, 2001. Gunnigle, P., Brewster, C. and Morley, M., ‘European industrial relations: Change and continuity’, in Policy and practice in European Human Resource Management. Price Waterhouse Cranfield Survey, C. Brewster and A. Hegewisch (eds.), Routledge, London and New York, 1994, pp. 139-53. Hemerijk, A. and Huiskamp, R., Public sector reform under EMU: A literature review, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Hoffmann, J., Hoffmann, R., Kirton-Darling, J. and Rampeltshammer, L. (eds.), The Europeanisation of industrial relations in a global perspective: A literature review, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Hyman, R., Industrial relations: A Marxist introduction, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1975.
55
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
ILO (International Labour Organization), ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 86th Session, Geneva, June 1998 (available on www.ilo.org/public/english/ standards/decl/declaration/text/index.htm). ILO (International Labour Organization), Labour Statistics Convention, C160, 1985. ILO (International Labour Organization), The promotion of good industrial relations in oil and gas production and oil refining, Report for discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on the Promotion of Good Industrial Relations in Oil and Gas Production and Oil Refining, International Labour Organization, Geneva, 2002. Kauppinen, T., ‘Industrial relations at national level – Comments on the Commission report on industrial relations in Europe 2000’, in Towards a European model of industrial relations?, M. Biagi (ed.), 2001, pp. 49-70. Kauppinen, T., The transformation of Finnish labour relations, Helsinki, 1994. Kochan, T.A., ‘What is distinctive about industrial relations research?’, in Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, K. Whitefield and G. Strauss (eds.), 1998, pp. 31-45. Kochan, T.A. and Lipsky, D.B. (eds.), Negotiations and Change: From the workplace to society, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003. Kochan, T.A. and Lipsky, D.B., ‘Conceptual foundations: Walton and McKersie’s subprocesses of negotiations’, in Negotiations and Change: From the workplace to society, T.A. Kochan and D.B. Lipsky (eds.), ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003, pp. 15-19. Kochan, T.A., Katz, H.C. and McKersie, R.B., The transformation of American industrial relations, Basic Books, New York, 1986. Kochan, T.A., McKersie, R.B. and Cappelli, P., ‘Strategic choice and industrial relations theory’, Industrial Relations, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1984, pp. 16-39. McKersie, R.B. and Walton, R.E., ‘From the behavioural theory to the future of negotiations’, in Negotiations and Change: From the workplace to society, T.A. Kochan and D.B. Lipsky (eds.), ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003, pp. 301-14. Müller-Jentsch, W., Soziologie der industriellen Beziehungen, Eine Einführung (2nd revised and extended edition), Campus, Frankfurt/Mannheim, 1997. Peña Casas, R., Indicators of quality of employment in the EU, Observatoire social eruoéen, Final report, 2002. Pichot, E., Un modèle des représentants du personnel et de leurs attributions économiques, European Commission, Brussels, 2001. Pocock, B., ‘Analysing Work: Arguments for closer links between the study of labour relations and gender’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Special Issue: Gender and Workplace Relations, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000, pp. 10-26. Pocock, B., ‘Gender in the Field of Industrial Relations. What are we Missing?’, in Proceedings of the 11th AIRAANZ Conference, T. Bramble, B. Harley, R. Hall and G. Whitehouse. (eds.), Brisbane, 1997, pp. 525-37. Quality of industrial relations: Some facts and reflections about the costs and benefits of having/of not having social dialogue, Reflection paper on the ‘Costs of not having social policy’, Background note for the conference on the mid-term review of the Social Policy Agenda: Achievements and perspectives, 19-20 March 2003, Brussels (available on www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2003/jan/costofnonsoc_en.pdf). Rossi, I. and Demetriades, S., Lifelong learning and collective bargaining: An analysis of EIRO articles, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Rubery, J. and Grimshaw, D., The Organization of Employment: An international perspective, Palgrave, Houndsmill, 2003.
56
Bibliography
Rubery, J. and Fagan, C., ‘Comparative Industrial Relations Research. Towards Reversing the Gender Bias’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1995, pp. 209-36. Rubery, J., Fagan, C., Grimshaw, D., Figueiredo, H. and Smith, M. (eds.), Indicators on Gender Equality in the European Employment Strategy, European Work and Employment Research Centre, Manchester School of Management – UMIST, 2002 (available on www2.umist.ac.uk/management/ewerc). Sisson, K. and Margison, P., The impact of economic and monetary union on industrial relations: A sectoral and company view, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2000. Strauss, G., ‘Comparative international industrial relations’, in Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, K. Whitefield and G. Strauss (eds.), 1998, pp. 175-92. Strauss, G. and Whitefield, K., ‘Research methods in industrial relations’, in Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, K. Whitefield and G. Strauss (eds.), 1998, pp. 5- 29. Streeck, W., Social institutions and economic performance, Sage, London, 1992. Traxler, F., ‘Two logics of collective action in industrial relations?’ in Organized industrial relations in Europe: What future? C. Crouch and F. Traxler (eds.), Avebury Press, Aldershot, 1995, pp. 23-44. Traxler, F., Blaschke, S. and Kittel, B., National Labour Relations in Internationalized Markets. A Comparative Study of Institutions, Change and Performance, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001. Treu, T., ‘A New Phase of European Social Policy: The EMU and beyond’, International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2001, pp. 461-72. Veenhoven, R., Why social policy needs subjective indicators, Social Science Research Centre Berlin (WZB), Discussion Paper FS III 91 – 404, Berlin, 2001. Visser, J., ‘Why fewer workers join unions in Europe: A social custom explanation of membership trends’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2002, pp. 403-30. Wajcman, J., ‘Feminism facing industrial relations in Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2000, pp. 183-201. Walton, R.E., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J.E. and McKersie, R.B., Strategic Negotiations: A theory of change in labor-management relations, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 2000 (first published 1994). Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B., A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 1991 (2nd edition). Weiler, A., Pacts for employment and competitiveness: Implications for industrial relations and collective bargaining, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin (2002, unpublished). Weitbrecht, H., ‘Der theoretische Blick auf die sich verändernde Wirklichkeit der industriellen Beziehungen – der Theorieansatz Walther Müller-Jentschs und seine Erweiterung’, in Umbrüche und Kontinuitäten, Perspektiven nationaler und internationaler Arbeitsbeziehungen (Festschrift in honour of Walther Müller-Jentsch’s 65th birthday), J. Abel and H.J. Sperling (eds.), Rainer Hampp Verlag, München, 2001, pp. 15-30. Whitefield, K. and Strauss, G. (eds.), Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 1998.
57
Appendix
Participants at the ‘Quality of industrial relations’ workshop
Participants of the workshop Quality of industrial relations organised by the Foundation in Brussels on 12 February 2003: Lucio Baccaro, International Labour Office (ILO); Wilfried Beirnaert, Fédération des Entreprises de Belgique – Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen (VBO-FEB); Reiner Hoffmann, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI); Jens Holscher, Brighton Business School; Christos A. Ioannou, Council of Experts & Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration, Athens; Klaus Kaeding, European Commission; Judith Kirton-Darling, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI); Ramón Peña Casas, Observatoire Social Européen (OSE); Peter Tergeist, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); Marian Whitaker, Brighton Business School. The author wishes to thank Rien Huiskamp who, in the first phase of this report, contributed to the development of a preliminary analytical framework, with reflections on the theoretical impact and with information on qualitative data for some of the proposed indicators.
59
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2004 – VIII, 60 p. – 21 x 29.7 cm ISBN 92-897-0885-9
Venta • Salg • Verkauf • Pvlèseiw • Sales • Vente • Vendita • Verkoop • Venda • Myynti • Försäljninghttp://eur-op.eu.int/general/en/s-ad.htm
BELGIQUE/BELGIË Jean De Lannoy Avenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202 B-1190 Bruxelles/Brussel Tél. (32-2) 538 43 08 Fax (32-2) 538 08 41 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be La librairie européenne/ De Europese Boekhandel Rue de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244 B-1040 Bruxelles/Brussel Tél. (32-2) 295 26 39 Fax (32-2) 735 08 60 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.libeurop.be Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblad Rue de Louvain 40-42/Leuvenseweg 40-42 B-1000 Bruxelles/Brussel Tél. (32-2) 552 22 11 Fax (32-2) 511 01 84 E-mail: [email protected] DANMARK J. H. Schultz Information A/S Herstedvang 12 DK-2620 Albertslund Tlf. (45) 43 63 23 00 Fax (45) 43 63 19 69 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.schultz.dk DEUTSCHLAND Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH Vertriebsabteilung Amsterdamer Straße 192 D-50735 Köln Tel. (49-221) 97 66 80 Fax (49-221) 97 66 82 78 E-Mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.bundesanzeiger.de ELLADA/GREECE G. C. Eleftheroudakis SA International Bookstore Panepistimiou 17 GR-10564 Athina Tel. (30-1) 331 41 80/1/2/3/4/5 Fax (30-1) 325 84 99 E-mail: [email protected] URL: [email protected] ESPAÑA Boletín Oficial del Estado Trafalgar, 27 E-28071 Madrid Tel. (34) 915 38 21 11 (libros) Tel. (34) 913 84 17 15 (suscripción) Fax (34) 915 38 21 21 (libros), Fax (34) 913 84 17 14 (suscripción) E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.boe.es Mundi Prensa Libros, SA Castelló, 37 E-28001 Madrid Tel. (34) 914 36 37 00 Fax (34) 915 75 39 98 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.mundiprensa.com FRANCE Journal officiel Service des publications des CE 26, rue Desaix F-75727 Paris Cedex 15 Tél. (33) 140 58 77 31 Fax (33) 140 58 77 00 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr IRELAND Alan Hanna’s Bookshop 270 Lower Rathmines Road Dublin 6 Tel. (353-1) 496 73 98 Fax (353-1) 496 02 28 E-mail: [email protected] ITALIA Licosa SpA Via Duca di Calabria, 1/1 Casella postale 552 I-50125 Firenze Tel. (39) 055 64 83 1 Fax (39) 055 64 12 57 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.licosa.com LUXEMBOURG Messageries du livre SARL 5, rue Raiffeisen L-2411 Luxembourg Tél. (352) 40 10 20 Fax (352) 49 06 61 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.mdl.lu Eesti Kaubandus-Tööstuskoda (Estonian Chamber of Commerce and Industry) Toom-Kooli 17 EE-10130 Tallinn Tel. (372) 646 02 44 Fax (372) 646 02 45 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.koda.ee NEDERLAND SDU Servicecentrum Uitgevers Christoffel Plantijnstraat 2 Postbus 20014 2500 EA Den Haag Tel. (31-70) 378 98 80 Fax (31-70) 378 97 83 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.sdu.nl PORTUGAL Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld.ª Grupo Bertrand, SA Rua das Terras dos Vales, 4-A Apartado 60037 P-2700 Amadora Tel. (351) 214 95 87 87 Fax (351) 214 96 02 55 E-mail: [email protected] Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, SA Sector de Publicações Oficiais Rua da Escola Politécnica, 135 P-1250-100 Lisboa Codex Tel. (351) 213 94 57 00 Fax (351) 213 94 57 50 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.incm.pt SUOMI/FINLAND Akateeminen Kirjakauppa/ Akademiska Bokhandeln Keskuskatu 1/Centralgatan 1 PL/PB 128 FIN-00101 Helsinki/Helsingfors P./tfn (358-9) 121 44 18 F./fax (358-9) 121 44 35 Sähköposti: [email protected] URL:http://www.akateeminen.com SVERIGE BTJ AB Traktorvägen 11-13 S-221 82 Lund Tlf. (46-46) 18 00 00 Fax (46-46) 30 79 47 E-post: [email protected] URL:http://www.btj.se UNITED KINGDOM The Stationery Office Ltd Customer Services PO Box 29 Norwich NR3 1GN Tel. (44) 870 60 05-522 Fax (44) 870 60 05-533 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.itsofficial.net ÍSLAND Bokabud Larusar Blöndal Skólavördustig, 2 IS-101 Reykjavik Tel. (354) 552 55 40 Fax (354) 552 55 60 E-mail: [email protected] SCHWEIZ/SUISSE/SVIZZERA Euro Info Center Schweiz c/o OSEC Business Network Switzerland Stampfenbachstraße 85 PF 492 CH-8035 Zürich Tel. (41-1) 365 53 15 Fax (41-1) 365 54 11 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.osec.ch/eics B@LGARIJA Europress Euromedia Ltd 59, blvd Vitosha BG-1000 Sofia Tel. (359-2) 980 37 66 Fax (359-2) 980 42 30 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.europress.bg CYPRUS Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry PO Box 21455 CY-1509 Nicosia Tel. (357-2) 88 97 52 Fax (357-2) 66 10 44 E-mail: [email protected] EESTI HRVATSKA Mediatrade Ltd Pavla Hatza 1 HR-10000 Zagreb Tel. (385-1) 481 94 11 Fax (385-1) 481 94 11 MAGYARORSZÁG Euro Info Service Szt. István krt.12 III emelet 1/A PO Box 1039 H-1137 Budapest Tel. (36-1) 329 21 70 Fax (36-1) 349 20 53 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.euroinfo.hu MALTA Miller Distributors Ltd Malta International Airport PO Box 25 Luqa LQA 05 Tel. (356) 66 44 88 Fax (356) 67 67 99 E-mail: [email protected] NORGE Swets Blackwell AS Hans Nielsen Hauges gt. 39 Boks 4901 Nydalen N-0423 Oslo Tel. (47) 23 40 00 00 Fax (47) 23 40 00 01 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.swetsblackwell.com.no POLSKA Ars Polona Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7 Skr. pocztowa 1001 PL-00-950 Warszawa Tel. (48-22) 826 12 01 Fax (48-22) 826 62 40 E-mail: [email protected] ROMÂNIA Euromedia Str.Dionisie Lupu nr. 65, sector 1 RO-70184 Bucuresti Tel. (40-1) 315 44 03 Fax (40-1) 312 96 46 E-mail: [email protected] SLOVAKIA Centrum VTI SR Nám. Slobody, 19 SK-81223 Bratislava Tel. (421-7) 54 41 83 64 Fax (421-7) 54 41 83 64 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.sltk.stuba.sk SLOVENIJA GV Zalozba Dunajska cesta 5 SLO-1000 Ljubljana Tel. (386) 613 09 1804 Fax (386) 613 09 1805 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.gvzalozba.si TÜRKIYE Dünya Infotel AS 100, Yil Mahallessi 34440 TR-80050 Bagcilar-Istanbul Tel. (90-212) 629 46 89 Fax (90-212) 629 46 27 E-mail: [email protected] ARGENTINA World Publications SA Av. Cordoba 1877 C1120 AAA Buenos Aires Tel. (54-11) 48 15 81 56 Fax (54-11) 48 15 81 56 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.wpbooks.com.ar AUSTRALIA Hunter Publications PO Box 404 Abbotsford, Victoria 3067 Tel. (61-3) 94 17 53 61 Fax (61-3) 94 19 71 54 E-mail: [email protected] BRESIL Livraria Camões Rua Bittencourt da Silva, 12 C CEP 20043-900 Rio de Janeiro Tel. (55-21) 262 47 76 Fax (55-21) 262 47 76 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.incm.com.br SRI LANKA EBIC Sri Lanka Trans Asia Hotel 115 Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 2 Tel. (94-1) 074 71 50 78 Fax (94-1) 44 87 79 E-mail: [email protected] T’AI-WAN Tycoon Information Inc PO Box 81-466 105 Taipei Tel. (886-2) 87 12 88 86 Fax (886-2) 87 12 47 47 E-mail: [email protected] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Bernan Associates 4611-F Assembly Drive Lanham MD 20706-4391 Tel. (1-800) 274 44 47 (toll free telephone) Fax (1-800) 865 34 50 (toll free fax) E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.bernan.com ANDERE LÄNDER OTHER COUNTRIES AUTRES PAYS Bitte wenden Sie sich an ein Büro Ihrer Wahl/Please contact the sales office of your choice/Veuillez vous adresser au bureau de vente de votre choix Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2, rue Mercier L-2985 Luxembourg Tel. (352) 29 29-42455 Fax (352) 29 29-42758 E-mail: [email protected] URL: publications.eu.int The European Union Chamber of Commerce in Korea 5th FI, The Shilla Hotel 202, Jangchung-dong 2 Ga, Chung-ku Seoul 100-392 Tel. (82-2) 22 53-5631/4 Fax (82-2) 22 53-5635/6 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.eucck.org CANADA Les éditions La Liberté Inc. 3020, chemin Sainte-Foy Sainte-Foy, Québec G1X 3V6 Tel. (1-418) 658 37 63 Fax (1-800) 567 54 49 E-mail: [email protected] Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd 5369 Chemin Canotek Road, Unit 1 Ottawa, Ontario K1J 9J3 Tel. (1-613) 745 26 65 Fax (1-613) 745 76 60 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.renoufbooks.com EGYPT The Middle East Observer 41 Sherif Street Cairo Tel. (20-2) 392 69 19 Fax (20-2) 393 97 32 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.meobserver.com.eg MALAYSIA EBIC Malaysia Suite 45.02, Level 45 Plaza MBf (Letter Box 45) 8 Jalan Yap Kwan Seng 50450 Kuala Lumpur Tel. (60-3) 21 62 92 98 Fax (60-3) 21 62 61 98 E-mail: [email protected] MÉXICO Mundi Prensa México, SA de CV Río Pánuco, 141 Colonia Cuauhtémoc MX-06500 México, DF Tel. (52-5) 533 56 58 Fax (52-5) 514 67 99 E-mail: [email protected] SOUTH AFRICA Eurochamber of Commerce in South Africa PO Box 781738 2146 Sandton Tel. (27-11) 884 39 52 Fax (27-11) 883 55 73 E-mail: [email protected] SOUTH KOREA
2/2002
EF/04/61/EN
This report explores the concept of quality in industrial relations, set against the background of EU policies and industrial relations theories. The primary aim was to draw up a conceptual framework for comparative indicators, which could serve to assess various aspects of industrial relations in terms of quality. Within today’s rapidly changing economic and social context, this could prove a useful tool for practitioners and policy-makers in accurately interpreting current developments, detecting barriers to improving quality and helping to identify new policy priorities. The report aims to contribute to the debate between the social partners (and governments) on the development of quality in industrial relations and how to manage change.
The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is a tripartite EU body, whose role is to provide key actors in social policymaking with findings, knowledge and advice drawn from comparative research. The Foundation was established in 1975 by Council Regulation EEC No. 1365/75 of 26 May 1975.
ISBN 92-897-0885-9
9 789289 708852
doc_895042679.pdf
Industrial relations is a multidisciplinary field that studies the employment relationship. Industrial relations is increasingly being called employment relations or employee relations because of the importance of non-industrial employment relationships
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Author: Anni Weiler Research institute: AWWW GmbH, ArbeitsWelt — Working World, Göttingen, Germany Foundation project: The quality of industrial relations Research managers: Timo Kauppinen, Stavroula Demetriades, Christian Welz, David Foden
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland - Tel: (+353 1) 204 31 00 - Fax: (+353 1) 282 42 09 / 282 64 56 email: [email protected] - website: www.eurofound.eu.int
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004
ISBN 92-897-0885-9
© European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2004 For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to the Director, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland.
The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is an autonomous body of the European Union, created to assist in the formulation of future policy on social and work-related matters. Further information can be found on the Foundation website at www.eurofound.eu.int.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Wyattville Road Loughlinstown Dublin 18 Ireland Telephone: (+353 1) 204 31 00 Fax: (+353 1) 282 42 09 / 282 64 56 Email: [email protected] www.eurofound.eu.int
Printed in Denmark
The paper used in this book is chlorine-free and comes from managed forests in Northern Europe. For every tree felled, at least one new tree is planted.
Foreword
This report forms part of a body of work by the Foundation dealing with the overall theme of ‘quality’ in industrial relations. From an economic policy perspective, striving for quality in industrial relations means promoting more and better jobs and addressing persistent unemployment, raising labour force participation and employment, as well as strengthening the conditions for high-productivity, sustainable growth. From the European social policy perspective, the quality aspect of industrial relations is underlined in the efforts on the part of social partners at all levels to implement the Lisbon strategy objectives and to achieve the ambitious goals set by the European summits of Nice and Stockholm. Previous Foundation studies explored the issue of quality in industrial relations in the light of Economic and Monetary Union, both in the private and public sectors, and in relation to the impact of globalisation and European integration on industrial relations. The aim of the present study is to develop a draft set of indicators which could be applied to industrial relations in the context of the priorities set out in the European social policy agenda. The report first explores the concept of quality in industrial relations, against a background of EU policies and of industrial relations theories and research. The first task was to draw up a conceptual framework for the establishment of comparative indicators, which could serve as an instrument for assessing various aspects of industrial relations in terms of quality. In the light of the rapidly changing economic and social environment, having a sound set of comparative indicators could be a useful tool for evaluating and monitoring the current state of industrial relations and highlighting the potential for improvement. The policy definition of quality in industrial relations includes the potential of social partners at all levels to deal jointly with both common and conflicting interests based on interrelationships between actors and established or emerging procedures. It is hoped that the report will provide a useful contribution to the debate between the social partners (and governments) on the development of industrial relations quality and how to manage change.
Willy Buschak Acting Director
v
Contents
Foreword Introduction Policy and research context Purpose and outline of study Methodology 1 – Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations 'Quality' concept in EU policy Other perspectives on 'quality' Theoretical approaches of industrial relations Conceptual framework for comparative indicators 2 – Comparative indicators of industrial relations Existing indicators Review of statistical information Draft set of comparative indicators Bibliography Appendix – Participants at the ‘Quality of industrial relations’ workshop v 1 1 1 3 5 5 6 12 23 29 30 33 34 53 59
vii
Introduction
Policy and research context
Social dialogue and the quality of industrial relations occupy a prime position in the European social model (European Commission, 2002a). The social policy agenda of the European Commission (2000a) is one of several policies which emphasises the quality of industrial relations. Promoting quality in industrial relations involves making social dialogue at all levels contribute in an effective way to the challenges identified in the European social policy agenda. Social dialogue is a key tool in the modernisation and further development of the European social model, as well as macro-economic strategy. Quality of industrial relations and social dialogue also occupy a prominent place in the European Employment Strategy. Industrial relations have a major role to play in paving the way towards the development of a social Europe. The process of managing change at EU level must be conducted in such a way as to enhance the quality of industrial relations within a changing economic and social context. Indeed, the quality of industrial relations constitutes an indispensable element for the successful completion of the objectives of the social policy agenda, as highlighted in the European Commission’s Report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations and Change in the European Union (2002b). This report emphasised the role of the social partners and of social dialogue at all levels. An earlier report by the European Commission (2000b) provided an overview of relevant issues of European and national industrial relations. In a series of earlier studies, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (hereafter referred to as the Foundation) investigated the impact of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) on industrial relations in the private and public sectors. The private sector report focused on the social impact of EMU, in particular aspects relating to industrial relations, employment and working conditions (Sisson and Margison, 2000), while the public sector report concentrated on the relationship between EMU and reforms in the public sector in terms of changes in the scope of the public sector, financial and budgetary frameworks, and public sector labour relations (Hemerijk and Huiskamp, 2002). Two further literature reviews on the ‘Europeanisation’ of industrial relations were also carried out by the Foundation. Hoffmann et al (2002) reviewed the literature on the impact of globalisation and European integration on industrial relations, especially within Europe, and discussed the extent to which industrial relations systems are themselves being ‘Europeanised’. Biagi et al (2002) evaluated the quality of European industrial relations in a global context and developed quality criteria in the field of industrial relations. This current study by the Foundation further explores European industrial relations and develops a draft set of indicators applied to industrial relations in the context of the priorities set in the social policy agenda, the ‘Quality’ Communication and other relevant EU policy processes and documents.
Purpose and outline of study
This study looks at the concept of the quality of industrial relations in EU policies and attempts to find explanations and a basis for categorisations in industrial relations theories and research.
1
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
These considerations underpin the conceptual framework and the development of a set of comparative indicators. The overall purpose is to develop an instrument capable of describing and assessing industrial relations in terms of the quality factor. In the light of today’s rapidly changing economic and social contexts, having a sound set of comparative indicators will primarily and at a theoretical level help to gain a better understanding of industrial relations. At a methodological level, it will serve as an essential tool with which to interpret current developments, detect barriers to improving the quality in industrial relations, support further elaboration of targets and identify new policy priorities. An appropriate set of indicators can be used as a monitoring instrument and assist in promoting the quality of industrial relations at all levels. The purpose of comparative indicators is not to rank national industrial relations or sectoral differences, but rather to assess the current stage of industrial relations and monitor developments and progress. Such indicators can also be of assistance in implementing the joint work programme of the European social partners and help to further develop this joint approach. The first phase of this research project involves the elaboration of an analytical framework of industrial relations for the development of a set of comparative indicators on industrial relations. By considering the broader context of society and economy, the purpose of this study is to set the issue of quality of industrial relations in context and to provide a sound basis for the identification and selection of indicators. The rationale of the analytical framework is to detect decisive factors for the construction of a set of comparative indicators. The recently developed concept of ‘quality’ has not yet been taken up in industrial relations theories and the theoretical approaches towards industrial relations do not offer direct explanations in relation to the ‘quality’ concept. Moreover, the theoretical approaches differ considerably in explaining the diversity of industrial relations in the European Union. The industrial relations theories examined in Chapter 1 are discussed primarily for their potential to offer basic elements of a conceptual framework as references for the development of comparative indicators on industrial relations. Additional theoretical reflections beyond the (narrow) assumption of the traditional theories offer further elements for the analytical configuration of a frame of reference. They provide a basis for the consideration of indicators that are not covered by traditional industrial relations theories. This concerns, for example, the attempt to determine an interface between several levels of industrial relations or such questions as work – life balance, or employment of disabled people, that do not receive attention in traditional industrial relations theories. The aim of the analysis is to establish an operational and well-designed instrument to monitor and assess industrial relations and in this way contribute to the promotion of quality based on structured information. In Chapter 2, comparative indicators are developed in parallel with the key dimensions and elements in the conceptual framework, such as actors, processes and outcomes. The link established between the analytical framework and the indicators proposed is of a general nature. The aim is to offer a sound, operational and neutral basis for reflection and monitoring of key issues and developments of industrial relations in the context of the European social model. It is not possible (nor is it the intention) to directly link a certain element in the framework to a certain indicator or sub-indicator proposed.
2
Introduction
The indicators highlight all the interrelated levels of industrial relations. A key issue in the context of an instrument of monitoring is the interface between national and European level, which is an important subject for future research. This combination of indicators at the European, national, interface and company levels reveals diverse components of the overall picture as, for example, in the context of the European Works Council (EWC) Directive.
Methodology
To develop the analytical framework, consideration has been given to the theoretical background, political context and availability of quantitative and qualitative data. These aspects are based on:
? ? ?
the Foundation’s previous research projects; a review of industrial relations literature and theories; and a review of other relevant research on quality indicators.
In addition, consideration of EU policy processes is based on a review of the relevant policy documents and an analysis of the implications for the selection and construction of indicators. Based on the outcome of these analyses and an assessment in terms of the requirement of the availability of statistical data, a draft set of indicators is developed. Important steps of research and conceptualisation, which are clearly related to the policy objectives and standards and to policy instruments, include:
? ? ? ?
developing the conceptual framework; setting up the structure of the system of comparative indicators; selecting/constructing indicators for specified dimensions; assessing the possibility of building comparative time series, etc. on the basis of the best available data; and construction of synthetic, encompassing indices reflecting key information on industrial relations.
?
This multidimensional study approach assists the identification and selection of structural indicators and constitutes the basis for decision-making in the next phase of developing the final coherent set of indicators of industrial relations.
3
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
‘Quality’ concept in EU policy
In the European Commission’s Communication on ‘investing in quality’ (2001a), it is stated that ‘quality reflects the desire not just to defend minimum standards, but to promote rising standards and ensure a more equitable sharing of progress’. This definition prompts several questions on the quality of industrial relations. What does the term ‘minimum standards’ mean? Are ‘rising standards’ implicitly related to endeavours of rising efficiency and productivity? How is the concept of quality of industrial relations related to questions of labour standards? The concept of quality in the social policy agenda is mentioned in the European Commission’s Communication on ‘promoting core labour standards and improving social governance’ (2001c). However, the relationship between labour standards and quality of industrial relations is not discussed. Respect for labour standards is seen as an integral element of the European social model and as a substantial body of Community legislation. It is stressed that the fundamental principles and rights at work identified by the International Labour Organization apply in their entirety to the countries of the European Union (ILO, 1998). The four core labour standards of the 1998 ILO Declaration encompass:
? ? ? ?
1
freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; effective abolition of child labour; and elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
While the concept of quality of industrial relations is focused on rising standards, this is not a constituting element of the concept of labour standards as enshrined in the ILO Declaration and conventions. Labour standards focus primarily on fundamental standards that have to be observed. A further ILO concept is that of ‘decent work’, which includes a strong involvement of social dialogue. The definition of ‘decent work’ is characterised by productive employment, respect of workers’ rights and social protection through social dialogue. Seven forms of security for decent work are enumerated — security of labour market, employment, work, job, skill production, income and representation (Quality of industrial relations, 2003). The definition of the quality of industrial relations in the social policy agenda goes beyond the concept of core labour standards of the ILO Declaration and the understanding of ‘decent work’. It has a different policy perspective. According to the European Commission (2000a): ‘Quality in industrial relations is determined by the capacity to build consensus on both diagnosis and ways and means to take forward the adaptation and modernisation agenda. This also includes coping successfully with industrial change and corporate restructuring.’ This ‘policy’ definition of quality of industrial relations refers to the potential of social partners at all levels to deal jointly with both common and conflicting interests based on various interrelations
5
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
between actors and established or emerging procedures. The emphasis lies on joint identification of appropriate approaches and processes. A key aspect for the determination of quality of industrial relations is the capacity to find consensus. All aspects determining quality of industrial relations are seen in the broader context of managing change. In the follow-up to the social policy agenda, a number of policy processes and documents issued by the European Commission emphasise the significance of industrial relations for accomplishing the European social model. Examples of these include employment guidelines, reports on employment, broad economic guidelines and the report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations and Change in the European Union (2002b), in addition to the Commission’s Communication on ‘Quality’ (2001a).
Other perspectives on ‘quality’
The multidimensional character of the quality issue (European Commission, 2002f) requires consideration of the ways this character can be combined with the multifaceted industrial relations at European, national and company levels. Beyond the general understanding of quality of industrial relations, several different perspectives on the potential contributions of industrial relations are obvious. Some examples of such perspectives, which are interrelated and overlapping, highlight potential perceptions of quality of industrial relations from different angles. Peña Casas (2002) emphasised the double aspect of quality. In this understanding, quality can be good or bad. The examples of perspectives on quality of industrial relations described below implicitly focus on the positive aspect of quality (i.e. the question of how industrial relations do or can contribute to the achievement of policy objectives and improvement of industrial relations). The examples illustrated are structured in three categories:
? ? ?
general context-related EU policy perspectives; content-related outcome perspectives; and core industrial relations perspectives.
General context-related EU policy perspectives Context-related EU policy perspectives on the quality of industrial relations cover social, economic and employment policies. In the light of streamlining policy procedures (European Commission, 2002d), these perspectives are discussed here together. The main objectives emphasised at the spring European Council meeting in Brussels 2003 in the context of raising employment and social cohesion were full employment, higher productivity and better quality in work. Active participation of the social partners at all stages, from designing policies to their implementation, was seen as crucial for achieving the policy objectives. Therefore, the involvement of the social partners should be promoted at national, sectoral, regional, local and enterprise levels (European Commission, 2003a). In a European social policy perspective, quality of industrial relations is first of all seen in the contribution of the social partners at all levels in implementing the Lisbon Strategy and in
6
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
achieving the ambitious goals set by the European summits of Nice and Stockholm. Concrete contributions of the social partners were addressed in the social policy agenda (European Commission, 2000a). Regarding the pillar of employability, agreements on training, increasing work experience and lifelong learning in particular are highlighted. A core area of contribution to the European employment strategy is seen in the adaptability pillar. In promoting adaptability, the role of bargaining parties at all levels is crucial, particularly at sectoral and enterprise levels. Agreements on modernisation of work organisation, finding a balance in flexibility and security on flexible working arrangements are stressed. Regarding the pillar of equal opportunities, the particular responsibility of the social partners is emphasised. Active support of the social partners is also regarded as crucial for progress on further key subjects for the European Employment Strategy, such as lifelong learning or active ageing (European Commission, 2002a). Within the procedure of the Luxembourg Process, the social partners are explicitly invited to contribute to the Employment Strategy. For example, in the Employment Guidelines 2002, in 4 of the 6 horizontal objectives and in 9 of the 18 guidelines, the social partners are explicitly invited to take action. This emphasis on the role and contribution of the social partners has been reinforced on numerous occasions since the launch of the Luxembourg Process. Quality of industrial relations in an economic policy perspective is determined by safeguarding macro-economic stability, promoting more and better jobs, and raising labour force participation and employment, as well as addressing persistent unemployment, strengthening conditions for high-productivity growth and promoting sustainable development (European Commission, 2002e). At European level, the social partners took up the invitation to contribute to the European Employment Strategy. In their joint work programme, they included a number of the objectives. Beyond these EU policy objectives and procedures, a more general perspective focuses on economic aspects of collective bargaining. Wage developments, in particular, are a core — and contested — issue in negotiations of wage agreements. In an economic and labour market performance perspective, the impact of different collective bargaining systems and outcomes of collective bargaining are in the foreground of interest, although it is difficult to determine such impact and there does not seem to be a systematic and significant straightforward relationship (Quality of industrial relations, 2003). Content-related outcome perspectives Examples of content-related outcome perspectives are managing change, quality in work, gender equality, lifelong learning or active ageing. Anticipating and managing change, and adapting to new working environments are central objectives of EU policy. Negotiations between the social partners are seen as the most suitable way forward on questions related to modernisation and management of change (European Commission, 2000a and 2002a). The parties at all levels can contribute considerably to managing change. On the other hand, the process of increased economic integration, of technological and organisational innovation and change, the accelerated restructuring of companies and shifting branch formations, as well as increased interest differentiation of the workforce and of employers — all these are a challenge to industrial relations actors and processes. These reflect in new or
7
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
modified organisational processes as, for example, trade union mergers, foundation of new employer associations, especially in the area of service work, and the regulation of new forms of work, such as temporary agency work. Thus, in a managing change perspective, quality of industrial relations can be seen both in the contributions to the objective of managing change and in the way actors, processes and outcomes of industrial relations are affected by change and adaptation. In an inclusive society and social cohesion perspective, the inclusion of marginalised and/or unemployed groups in social dialogue and reflection in agreements is concerned in order to overcome potential insider-outsider problems. A further challenge to industrial relations are negotiations on regulations of atypical forms of employment. Treu (2001) argued that ‘a decisive testing ground for industrial relations will be their capacity to handle new qualitative issues having to do with both the quality of production, work, organisation, quality of jobs, training, etc. and the quality of life (in and outside workplaces)’. In discussing the relationship between managing change and the quality of industrial relations, the European Commission’s High Level Group on Industrial Relations (2002b) stated: ‘The role of industrial relations in managing change can be enhanced by renewing the content and the instruments available and by strengthening responsibility, responsiveness and representation. A new approach is emerging, based on new practices leading to higher quality industrial relations.’ In general, the perspective of quality in work concerns the entire range of employment conditions and reconciliation of work and non-working life. As stated in the social policy agenda, ‘it implies better employment policies, fair remuneration and an organisation of work adapted to the needs of both companies and individuals. It is based on high skills, fair labour standards and decent levels of occupational health and safety, and includes facilitating occupational and geographical mobility’ (European Commission, 2000a). Negotiations and regulations between trade unions/employee representatives and employers and their federations in relation to these objectives can contribute to achieving quality in work. An improvement of the work – life balance can be supported considerably by agreements at all levels. Activities in this field of reconciliation of work and family have been going on for about ten years now. Besides the framework agreements on parental leave and part-time work achieved at European level, numerous national intersectoral or sectoral agreements, as well as enterprise-level agreements, have been concluded, although with a different intensity and approach across EU Member States (Bercusson and Weiler, 1999). These regulations and measures, based on collective agreements, also have a positive side-effect on other policy targets, such as increasing female participation in the labour market. Thus, quality bargaining in this respect is closely related to equality bargaining. In a lifelong learning perspective, the role of industrial relations in the development of appropriate strategies involves more than guaranteeing workers access to training. It has to be seen in close relation to other policy perspectives, in particular anticipating and managing change. In the February 2002 agreement of the European social partners on a ‘Framework of action for the lifelong
8
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
development of competencies and qualifications’, the parties dealt with training in a broader perspective and policy approach according to Carley (2003), ‘first, by looking at training from the wider angle of learning, both formal and informal; and then by introducing the concept of competencies, which have to be validated and recognised so as to facilitate geographical mobility, by extending the scope to all categories (young people, employees, job-seekers) and all age groups, and by adopting a multilevel approach (national, regional, local and company)’. The active approach of the social partners in implementing the agreement is expressed in the monitoring clause, i.e. drawing up an annual report on the national actions carried out on the four priorities identified in the agreement and evaluating the impact of the agreement on both companies and workers. The target of active ageing, as developed in the European Employment Strategy, is one example of the impact of industrial relations in achieving contradictory objectives. While early retirement is a central element in a number of enterprise-level pacts on employment and competitiveness, or an issue of sectoral collective bargaining in favour of employment of younger groups of employees, these provisions are in contradiction to the aim of active ageing. The policy objective of gender equality is seen as ‘a basic horizontal principle’ in the ‘Quality’ Communication (European Commission, 2001a). Gender gaps in labour market participation and pay need to be progressively eliminated (European Commission, 2003a). In a gender equality perspective, both a gender mainstreaming approach and specific policy actions are required. Bargaining parties at all levels contribute with agreements promoting gender equality (Bercusson and Weiler, 1999; Bleijenbergh et al, 1999). However, more can be done to address underlying factors of the gender gaps in employment and pay in order to achieve targets on the reduction of such gaps. With regard to equality bargaining, Dickens (2000) asks the question if unions are capable of fulfilling their potential role as initiators of innovative agreements. Equal representation of women in trade unions is a precondition for equality bargaining (Cockburn, 1995). New trade union strategies are emerging in the context of a decline in the traditional male dominance in trade unionism and new employment patterns characterised by the increasing participation of women, often part-time (Dickens, 2000). Trade unions increasingly recognise the requirement to recruit and pay attention to previously marginalised groups and incorporate equality demands within collective bargaining (Colling and Dickens, 2001; Dickens, 2000; Colgan and Ledwith, 1996). However, policy approaches attempting to improve gender equality in the context of European industrial relations appear less developed than other areas of industrial relations. Examples include the report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations (European Commission, 2002b) and the multi-annual work programme of the European social partners. The policy objective of gender equality or the instrument of gender mainstreaming is mentioned, but no real action is described or developed, in contrast to other policy objectives where concrete proposals on actions are formulated. Core industrial relations perspectives Biagi et al (2002) consider a higher degree of workers’ involvement as one of the main factors that might determine the quality of an industrial relations system. The High Level Group on Industrial
9
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Relations describes ‘quality of industrial relations’ with the role and activity of the social partners (European Commission, 2002b, p. 7 and 38). Industrial relations take place on several interrelated levels. The interrelations between these levels can be of crucial importance for an improvement in the quality of industrial relations. In this context, the perceptions of what ‘quality’ of industrial relations can imply differ on the various levels. According to the report Quality of industrial relations (2003): ‘In the EU, industrial relations are confronted with a multilevel system of governance where the interaction between the different levels is crucial. Thus, it is not sufficient to choose the right instrument having regard to the content, but it must also respond to the needs of interplay between the different levels. The potential of the existing and emerging instruments must be assessed against this background.’ Quality of industrial relations can be perceived differently by actors from a European, national, sectoral or company perspective. It can be seen as the degree to which actors at ‘lower’ levels contribute to the issues and policy goals set by actors at the ‘higher’ level. It can also be seen in terms of the degree to which rules developed and negotiated by actors at a ‘higher’ level solve the issues and challenges faced by actors at ‘lower’ levels. Sectoral perspectives of quality of industrial relations can also differ. However, more important than the different perspectives of quality of industrial relations is the interplay between actors and processes on the different levels. The different levels of industrial relations are not hierarchical. They have different functions and the actors and processes have different competencies. For example, with regard to the European (often called ‘higher’) level of industrial relations, it has to be taken into account that, according to Article 137 of the Amsterdam Treaty, this level explicitly has no competencies in regulation of pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs. A crucial aspect in a quality perspective regarding the different levels and their interrelations is the question — what is the strategic level for the processes and determination of regulations? In most European countries, the sectoral level is still the dominant level of industrial relations. Central interrelations of industrial relations are principally those between the European and national level, and between the sectoral and company level. In the background note entitled Quality of Industrial Relations (2003), produced for the mid-term conference on the social policy agenda, aspects of the interrelation between sectoral negotiations and company-level industrial relations are discussed. The report states: ‘Fixing wages and certain other working conditions outside the company may enhance social peace within and can thus be a factor contributing to higher productivity and efficiency. Sectoral or area-wide collective agreements act to stabilise the wage-cost level and thus tend to create equal conditions in this respect for companies operating in the same field.’ The report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations lists critical issues that must be addressed in order to improve the role of the European level of industrial relations, including (European Commission 2002b):
? ? ?
interaction with national and local level; interaction between bipartite and tripartite processes at European level; and interaction between the sectoral and inter-professional levels.
10
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
An issue beyond the questions ‘how do the social partners take up the EU objectives’ or ‘how far are they actively involved in implementing policies’ is how do the social partners initiate and pursue policies, and what is the interaction between bipartite and tripartite procedures. The multiannual work programme of the European social partners covering the period 2003-05 combines their common objectives and guidelines at the European level with regular national status and progress reports. This work programme is for the first time a programme for autonomous social dialogue, following up their joint declaration to the Laeken European Council in December 2001 (European Commission, 2003b). A number of EU policy objectives are addressed in the multi-annual work programme. Priorities are employment, mobility and enlargement of the EU. Regarding employment, some issues of this work programme are:
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
actions in Member States to implement employment guidelines; lifelong learning; stress at work (in view of negotiating a voluntary agreement); gender equality; restructuring (managing change and its social consequences); disability (update of joint declaration of 1999); racism (update of joint declaration of 1995); ageing workforce (explore possible joint actions); harassment (explore possibility of negotiating a voluntary agreement); telework (monitoring of follow-up to framework agreement); and undeclared work (aiming at a joint opinion).
The achieved agreement on telework in June 2002 is a voluntary agreement to establish a framework at European level to be implemented by the members of the signatory parties. The framework of actions on lifelong learning is also a bipartite process, set at European level. A further perspective on the quality of industrial relations focuses on the interrelations between industrial relations structures and content of negotiations and agreements. While increasingly more issues are subject to collective bargaining, there is at the same time a tendency for a shift from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ regulations. In recent years, so-called ‘proceduralisation’ has affected collective bargaining in the form of a growth in the number of ‘framework agreements’, joint opinions, declarations, resolutions, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, codes of conduct and agreement protocols (Quality of industrial relations, 2003). Table 1 compares the nature and implications of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ regulations. With particular reference to EU policy targets, a further question is — are the objectives in line with each other or are there conflicting objectives? Examples of such contradictions are the objectives of active ageing and the role of early retirement provisions in PECs, or the conflicting goals of increasing financial participation schemes and improving mobility.
11
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Table 1
Comparison of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ regulations
‘Hard’ regulation specific rights and obligations involves standard provisions tends to assume the process is finished relies on sanctions compulsory hard issues, such as pay and working time
‘Soft’ regulation general principles tends to be concerned with minimum provisions provides for further negotiations at lower levels relies on open-ended processes (benchmarking, etc.) permissive soft issues, e.g. equal opportunities, training and development
Source: Quality of Industrial Relations (2003)
The examples outlined above of different perspectives on the quality of industrial relations demonstrate several aspects that have to be considered when developing comparative indicators:
? ? ?
the understanding of what determines quality of industrial relations differs considerably; quality is a ‘normative’ concept and there are no objective criteria for what it is; and quality is a relative concept and has to be seen in context.
Theoretical approaches of industrial relations
Definitions of ‘industrial relations’ There is no agreed definition of ‘industrial relations’ either in the literature or in EU policy documents. The entry ‘industrial relations’ in the EMIRE database (UK) illustrates that the term is not used systematically or rigorously by academics or practitioners (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2003). In the European Commission’s first report on industrial relations in Europe in 2000, no attention was paid to defining the term ‘industrial relations’ nor to outlining an understanding of the concept (European Commission, 2000b). In the Commission’s second report undertaken in 2002, an attempt was made to describe features of industrial relations, albeit in a very general way as follows (European Commission, 2002c): ‘Industrial, labour or employment relations regulate the link between the company and the employee and also, indirectly, between society as a whole and its citizens.’ Most of the definitions of industrial relations found in the traditional literature are generally too restricted, particularly for this study on comparative indicators of the quality of industrial relations. The EMIRE database refers to Hyman’s (1975) preferred definition —’Industrial relations is the study of the processes of control over work relations; and among these processes, those involving collective worker organisation and action are of particular concern.’ A recent attempt to define the term ‘industrial relations’ is made by Hoffmann et al (2002): ‘Industrial relations consist of a web of institutionalised relationships between employees and their representatives (trade unions), employers and their representatives (employers’ association), and the state … The relations exist on different levels and between different actors.’ This definition includes further aspects of industrial relations: the relationships are considered as institutionalised and ongoing on several levels, and the state is mentioned as a third actor.
12
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
Müller-Jentsch (1997) points to regulation of interest in the relation of management and workforce and also between employer federations and trade unions. The concrete issue of industrial relations is the cooperative and conflictual interaction between persons, groups and organisations (actors), as well as the norms, agreements and institutions resulting from such interactions. At the same time, industrial relations involve social, economic, political and cultural relations. In this definition, interactions between actors that can be both cooperative or conflictual, and their outcomes, are emphasised as elements of industrial relations. The interaction with society, economy and culture is considered in this understanding. The report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations also emphasises a comprehensive understanding of industrial relations (European Commission, 2002b), while the definition of the term further stresses the wide diversity of industrial relations practices and processes across EU countries: ‘… the term industrial relations is used in a broad sense, covering not only the relations between workers and management or between the organisations representing them, and involving not only the regulation of wages and employment conditions, but also the relevant legal and institutional frameworks and public policies. There is wide diversity in industrial relations practices and processes across Member States: actors, processes, policies and frameworks operate at different levels: local or regional, national, European, even global and sectoral social dialogue can take place at all these levels.’ These various definitions and understandings of industrial relations do not exclude each other and emphasise different elements, the central ones of which can be identified as follows:
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
processes of control over work relations and regulations of interests; web of institutionalised relationships between actors, organisations and institutions; collective relations; different actors (employees and representatives/employers and representatives) and arenas; different levels of industrial relations and interplay between them; legal and institutional framework and public policies; cooperative and conflictual relationships; industrial relations as social, economic, political and cultural relations; diversity between existing national models; and new supranational industrial relations.
Quality of industrial relations in theory and research In the context of developing a set of indicators of industrial relations against the background of the EU policy concept of ‘quality’, the next steps are:
? ?
to analyse how industrial relations theory and research deal with the concept of quality; and to find theoretical foundations for an analytical framework.
13
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Two limitations have to be taken into account in this analysis. These concern, firstly, the fact that the recently developed concept of ‘quality’ has not been taken up in industrial relations theories and, secondly, the normative foundations of the discipline. Expectations that industrial relations theories can offer objective perspectives on quality in contrast to the normative policy-related perspective of quality of industrial relations turn out to be inappropriate due to the nature of the field of industrial relations. In an overview on the specific characteristics of the discipline, Kochan (1998) describes distinguishing features of industrial relations research:
?
The primary feature that distinguishes industrial relations from other social sciences is its normative foundations. Normative assumptions and perspectives underlie the conceptualisation of industrial relations research. Industrial relations is a multidisciplinary discipline dealing with complex phenomena. An enduring feature of industrial relations research is its problem-centred orientation. The ‘problems’ are generally framed with a societal or public interest perspective.
? ?
The normative assumptions in industrial relations theory concern, firstly, the issue of ‘conflict’. In a pluralist view, the industrial relations parties can be seen, according to Kochan (1998), as ‘tied together in an enduring web of partially conflicting and partially common interests or objectives. From this perspective, the key task of industrial relations theory and research is to contribute to an understanding of how conflicting interests can be resolved periodically and how the parties can expand the frontier of joint problem-solving’. The specific features of industrial relations research reflect in the differing theoretical approaches in the field of industrial relations. Theories on industrial relations do not fit together into an integral theory of industrial relations. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of the different approaches, but the overview given in Table 2 illustrates that there are very different and competing industrial relations theories. Besides different political or ideological perspectives, there is a strong tendency in industrial relations theory to tailor theories to the specific national context (Kochan, 1998). This tendency can explain the lack of a general analytical model. As Kochan (1998) puts it: ‘Each national system carries with it certain historical patterns of development and features that restrict the range of variation on critical variables (such as culture, ideology and institutional structures) that affect how individual actors respond to similar change in their external environments.’ Industrial relations theories can contribute to the development of an analytical framework and a set of comparative indicators in two ways. They can:
? ?
offer an analytical instrument; and help to establish the background for studying the interrelation of the political concept of ‘quality’ and the theoretical debate.
Since the ‘quality’ concept is normative and industrial relations research and theorising tend to be based on normative concepts, it seems to be inappropriate to search for a theoretical foundation
14
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
of the ‘quality’ concept. The theoretical approaches of industrial relations do not offer direct explanations in relation to the ‘quality’ concept or to the concept of managing change. Moreover, the theoretical approaches differ considerably with regard to explaining the diversity of industrial relations in the European Union. They also differ in their explanatory potential regarding European social policy. Table 2 Theoretical approaches of industrial relations
Marxist theories Dunlop: Industrial relations system as analytical subsystem of industrial societies’ core: web of rules. Dunlop’s view: Stability, consensus and integration central to the industrial relations system. Clegg and Flanders: Focus more on power and counter power. Regulations theory Labour process debate (Bravermann) Negotiated order Main approaches: Political economy of industrial relations (Hyman) Institutionalist theories Main approaches: Extended versions of institutionalist theories: arena concept (Müller-Jentsch) Action theories Main approaches: Bargaining theories/ negotiation of order on the level of formal processes of labour negotiations (Walton and • distributive bargaining • integrated bargaining • attitudinal structuring • intra-organisational bargaining Strategic choice (Kochan, Katz and McKersie): Extension of the systems theory by action theories approach of Strauss McKersie) Corporatism as a policy-making process (also known as ‘concertation’ or ‘social partnership’) (Lembruch) Economic approaches Rational choice Transaction costs Corporatist theories Main approaches: Particular structure of interest representation system (Schmitter)
Systems theory
Source: Based on Müller-Jentsch (1997); Baccaro (2002)
The focus of the following illustration and discussion of selected theoretical approaches is on the capability to offer a frame of reference for the analysis. The industrial relations theories will be discussed primarily regarding their potential to offer basic elements of an analytical framework for the development of comparative indicators on industrial relations. This discussion should not be understood as a general review of industrial relations theories. Based on a comparative study of industrial relations systems in different countries, Dunlop (1958) developed the systems theory. He described industrial relations systems as analytical subsystems of industrialised societies. He specified the core elements of industrial relations systems as:
?
the actors (employees, their representatives respectively, their organisations, employers and their organisations, and state institutions concerned with industrial relations); the environment; and an ideology that is the basis for cohesion of the system and that is shared by all actors.
? ?
15
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Dunlop’s analysis focuses on norms and rules of industrial relations. A complex web of substantial and normative rules are the core of the industrial relations system. This systems model applies to different levels of industrial relations, i.e. workplace, company, sector and national level. The normative consensus is required in order to keep the industrial relations system stable. Therefore, Dunlop rejects ‘conflict’ as a dominant structural feature. This systems theory approach was very influential and at the same time triggered critique in many ways. The main criticism of this theoretical approach is directed towards its inability to explain change. According to Kauppinen (1994), the limitation of the systems theory is that it is ‘static and unable to explain changes. It is concerned only with structures, not with processes. It emphasizes the stability of a system and neglects the conflicts it involves. It analyses official rules, but not unofficial ones’. Further aspects are the exclusion of strategies of the actors and the harmonistic underpinnings of the approach that is based on consensus and stable labour relations. However, despite these criticisms, the systems theory approach allows us to break down industrial relations into components for analysis and allows comparisons of the industrial relations systems of different countries (Kauppinen, 1994). Two examples of critical reactions that lead to new theoretical approaches are outlined below. Political economy of industrial relations In the political economy of industrial relations, Hyman (1975) questions in particular the assumption of harmonious industrial relations that characterises the systems theory. He raises the question: ‘If the system of industrial relations is so well integrated, and if the goals and values of the participants are so much in agreement, how is it that industrial conflict occurs at all?’ Furthermore, Hyman argues that the notion of an industrial relations systems ‘is of analytical value only if it incorporates the existence of contradictory processes and forces, and hence treats instability and stability as of equal significance as “system outcomes”. Second, and in consequence, the definition in terms of job regulations must be broadened to take account of the sources as well as the consequences of industrial conflict’. Hyman (1975) also points to the growing awareness that most of the important processes of control over work relations do not flow through official institutionalised channels. Therefore, the limitation of the study of industrial relations on the formal procedures and organisations is inadequate. In his analysis, Hyman emphasises a further central feature of industrial relations — an unceasing power struggle. He argues that conflict and change are inseparable from industrial relations. His concept of ‘processes of control over work relations’ includes informal processes and he points to the fluidity of such processes of control that are continuous and shifting relationships that can never be effectively frozen in a formal rule. Strategic choice approach The central critique of the strategic choice approach concerns the view of the systems theory that a shared ideology perpetuates the system. Kochan et al (1984) see the concept of strategy, or strategic choice, as a more dynamic component to the systems theory framework and not as an alternative, completely new theory. According to Kochan et al (1986), a key premise of the framework is that ‘choices and discretion on the part of labour, management and government affect the course and structure of industrial relations systems’.
16
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
This framework should encourage analysis of the roles that labour, management and government play in each other’s domains and activities. Starting from the tradition of industrial relations theory to identify key variables or institutional forces that determine the outcomes of labour management interactions, the researchers criticised the too-narrow conception of the institutional structure and forces that influence industrial relations, in particular in the American industrial relations literature. The underlying general theoretical approach is based on the assumption that industrial relations take place in the framework of external environments (labour markets, workforce characteristics and values, product markets, technology, public policies), institutional structure of company-level industrial relations and performance/outcome (employers, workers, labour unions, society). The focus of this approach is primarily on the institutional structure of company-level industrial relations, where several levels are distinguished: strategic activities, collective bargaining, personnel functional activities and workplace activities (Kochan et al, 1986). The attempt is to outline the strategic choices not only at the level of collective bargaining, but also at the level of strategic decision-making and at workplace level. There are two preconditions for strategic choices in industrial relations:
? ?
strategic decisions can only occur where the parties have discretion over their decisions; and strategic decisions are those that alter the party’s role or its relationships with other actors in the industrial relations system. It is important to note that the effects of strategic choices may be evident only over the long term, may appear only indirectly and may not even be the result of a consciously articulated or preconceived plan (Kochan et al, 1984).
One outcome of the approach is to point to the impact of strategies or strategic choices by the industrial relations actors. Despite the emphasis on strategic choices of the management in the later empirical research, the original theoretical framework covers all actors (Kochan et al, 1984). The authors of the approach state that they developed the theoretical framework using American industrial relations in a specific historical period and applied the model in this national context, therefore stressing the managerial strategies, ‘but under different environmental conditions, either union or government strategies could serve as the catalyst for change’ (Kochan et al, 1984). They emphasise that in other historical phases or national contexts, the application of the theoretical approach and the explanation would differ considerably, notably with regard to the role and power of trade unions. They explicitly do not exclude other permutations. In comparing the American situation with the European one with regard to the top tier strategic decision-making, they point to the fact that choices at this global level are ‘more common in European systems where … tripartite negotiations between the government and union and employer associations frequently occur’. The contribution of the strategic choice approach is to lead away from the deterministic systems model and to emphasise the impact of strategies of actors on various levels and in various arenas in industrial relations processes. Taking the definition of the social policy agenda— that quality of industrial relations is determined by the capacity to build consensus between the social partners and coping successfully with industrial change and corporate restructuring — the negotiation theories developed by Walton and
17
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
McKersie (1991) can offer a further frame of reference as far as formal negotiations are concerned. This model has been developed against the background of industrial relations in the USA. Nonetheless, on a general level, the theoretical concept offers a model of bargaining processes beyond the core negotiation processes of collective bargaining. Walton and McKersie distinguished four sub-processes of negotiation (Kochan and Lipsky, 2003):
?
Distributive bargaining refers to resolution of situations in which the interests or positions of the negotiators are in conflict. The assumption is that the negotiators start bargaining with a gap between their positions and have to find a compromise on a continuum somewhere in between. The offers and counter-offers are influenced by some target point and some resistance point that bargainers have in mind. Integrative bargaining is described as a process of achieving an agreement in a problem-solving model. The most common type of integrative bargaining is a mixed-motive situation in which there are mostly both shared interests and conflicting interests. The task for the negotiators is to look for trade-offs across the issues that improve the situation for both parties. This situation is often described as ‘win-win’ bargaining. Intra-organisational bargaining refers to potentially diverse interests within organisations. It is required to reconcile differences and unite negotiating efforts. Attitudinal structuring refers to the observations that negotiations also produce relationship outcomes beyond the substantive terms of the agreements achieved.
?
?
?
The distinction between ‘distributive’ and ‘integrative’ bargaining, in particular, has gained attention in the industrial relations literature. In a further analysis of this theoretical approach in the context of economic and technological change, Walton et al (2000) formulated this distinction in an even more pronounced way. The sub-process of distributive bargaining is focused on resolving pure conflicts of interest. This approach serves to allocate fixed sums of resources (‘dividing the pie’) and for this reason often has a ‘win-lose’ quality. Integrative bargaining aims at finding common or complementary interests and solving problems confronting both partners. In trying to optimise the potential for joint gains (‘expanding the pie’), this approach often has a ‘win-win’ quality. Transferred to the debate of quality of industrial relations, there is a temptation to consider only ‘win-win’ situations as (good) quality of industrial relations, ignoring conflict and differing interests within and between organisations. Indeed, such an interpretation of the theoretical approach is widespread. In a more recent publication, the authors themselves stated that such a view is inadequate, in particular with regard to recent economic and technological developments and in the context of processes of change and restructuring (McKersie and Walton, 2003). McKersie and Walton (2003) emphasise that all change involves interests, power and tension, and they discuss the intersection between integrative and distributive bargaining, and tensions between these sub-processes. Firstly, they question the simple equation of ‘win-win’ situations with an ideal outcome of negotiations: ‘Such an image of the process is not faithful to the reality of most situations. Major conflicts of interest do exist, deadlocks do develop, and the parties are often prone to utilise coercive forms of power. Anyone familiar with collective bargaining understands
18
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
these realities, but at the same time there is a recognition that conflict can sometimes set the stage for a transformation of the relationship. The point is that a more nuanced view of the process is necessary and that the mixed-motive nature of the engagement holds the potential for breakdowns as well as breakthroughs.’ Analytically, negotiating processes are distinct. Nevertheless, they are highly interrelated in practice (Walton et al, 2000). In reality, collective bargaining includes a mixture of distributive and integrative bargaining. In the application of these principles to negotiating change, the importance of mixing distributive and integrative processes is emphasised: ‘The point is, going too far in either distributive or integrative directions in an era of significant change can blind parties to the need to balance short- and long-run pressures’ (McKersie and Walton, 2003). The approach of integrative bargaining has further limitations. It can diminish management’s independent prerogative and, on the other hand, can generate political and practical dilemmas for a trade union (Walton et al, 2000). However, not only labour relations have changed. More complex internal differences are also evident within labour and management. Therefore, more emphasis is put on the other sub-processes of intra-organisational bargaining and of attitudinal structuring, and the way in which all four, analytically distinct sub-processes interact. McKersie and Walton (2003) argue that intra-organisational bargaining has become increasingly demanding and complex as a result of a number of new developments, both on the side of the employees as well as on the side of the employers. The authors further expound that in the original ‘behavioural theory’, they used the term ‘attitudinal structuring’ for the fourth sub-process. This process was primarily understood as a companion activity to either distributive bargaining or integrative bargaining. In the meantime, they put more emphasis on the importance of the relationship dimension of negotiations and argue that the ‘social contract’ should be viewed as a distinct outcome of the process of negotiations between labour and management which is separate but related to the substantive contract. As McKersie and Walton (2003) state: ‘Another way of making the point is that in many situations today the character of the labour-management relationship is as important as the substantive agenda … The quality of the relationship shapes the ability of the parties to work together over the long run to find solutions to their conflicting, as well as common, interests.’ McKersie and Walton (2003) stress the importance of long-term productive relationships between labour and management, and see this recognition as the main lesson to be learnt from all these efforts that seek to identify common interests and to work collaboratively. Kochan and Lipsky (2003) underline this argumentation: ‘Parties may increase or decrease their trust in each other as a result of how they are treated by the other party in negotiations. In turn, these perceptions will shape the context for future interactions or rounds of negotiations the parties have with each other.’ In relation to quality of industrial relations and managing change, this theoretical approach offers a frame of reference. The approach focuses on negotiation mechanisms and processes. In this context, the theoretical approach is a helpful tool. One limitation is that it does not touch on other spheres of industrial relations. As Kochan and Lipsky (2003) stress, ‘all the dynamics and the ultimate outcome of negotiations are influenced by the relative power of the parties’.
19
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
It must also be taken into account that the approach of the bargaining theories is primarily tailored for bilateral bargaining situations, typical of those that predominant in American industrial relations. In most EU countries and on the European level, the state is also involved in the process of bargaining. This leads us on to the field of corporatist theories of industrial relations. Corporatist theories in the context of a policy-making process have the potential to explain developments in some of the EU countries and at European level (Baccaro, 2002). Unfortunately, space does not permit a detailed discussion of corporatism; only the underlying concept is reviewed here. But corporatism on all levels, and across levels, is an important aspect of achieving quality of industrial relations. A central question of corporatist theories is how organisations form and coordinate interests within the associations and in tripartite processes between trade unions, employer associations and the state. Baccaro (2002) distinguishes between ‘corporatism as a particular structure of the interest representation system’ and ‘corporatism as a particular policy-making process, also known as concertation or social partnership’. He argues that the latter form captures much of what is going on in various countries today, in particular European ones. According to Kauppinen (1994), corporatism in the context of a policy-making process ‘denotes interactions between the government and labour market partners. It means that the government and these organizations agree trilaterally on economic, social and labour-policy targets’. In a study on the development of national labour relations in internationalised markets, Traxler et al (2001) developed an analytical framework that addresses several aspects of intra- and interorganisational cohesion and coordination. They ‘differentiate between the organisation of interests (i.e. the unions and employer associations) and the bargaining system as a core institutional arrangement in labour relations’. In addition, they consider three structural properties for both the organisations and the bargaining system:
?
Domains demarcate certain areas of common interests as defined by the actors. This refers to the representational domain in the case of organisations. Levels of bargaining and the degree of coordination across established bargaining units are the corresponding structures in the case of bargaining. The second issue is the governance capacity. This refers to the extent of compliance of individual actors with common goals. The degree of centralisation of union and employer organisations influences their capacity to achieve this compliance. Substantive and/or procedural state regulation are important for the capacity of bargaining systems. Thirdly, there is the power dimension of labour relations. The strength of organisations is based on the institutional and membership support. The power of bargaining derives from the relative importance of collective bargaining.
?
?
Beyond these theories on industrial relations, the development of comparative indicators of industrial relations demands further theoretical and methodological considerations. Investigation into European industrial relations has to consider that there is a dominance of Anglo-Saxon influences in industrial relations theory and corresponding analytical frameworks for industrial relations are partially inadequate because they fail to capture characteristic features, issues and developments of most European models of industrial relations.
20
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
The term ‘model’ of industrial relations used in this study is a broader term than, for example, ‘system’ or ‘regime’, which are more common in the literature. The connotation of the term ‘model’ inherently implies a potential future change and underlying processes, while the other terms stress more the (national) status quo. Secondly, the term ‘model’ implicitly covers the potential of considering supranational bodies, like those in the European Union. Thus, the term ‘model’ is more appropriate with regard to constructing comparative indicators of industrial relations and future monitoring of the evolution of national and European industrial relations. It offers a wider frame for developing future research, as well as considerations on political tools in EU and national policies. Impact of ‘Europeanisation’ of industrial relations An analysis of industrial relations research relevant for the development of comparative indicators of industrial relations has to take account of the impact of a ‘Europeanisation’ of industrial relations and the traditional focus of much of the research and literature. Europeanisation of industrial relations involves a considerable widening of the scope of industrial relations theorising and research. Comparative indicators focus across national and European levels of industrial relations. A multidimensional concept of industrial relations indicators has to consider that national industrial relations can be completely different, but equally effective approaches in the countries’ context. The distinction between European and national-level industrial relations is questionable. However, most of the theoretical debate and empirical research sees national and European industrial relations on two levels, disregarding the intertwined interrelations and a dynamic between the levels. Much of the contemporary (national and comparative) industrial relations literature concentrates on the national analytical perspective. A result of this focus is that these approaches consider changes effected by Europeanisation as happening outside the national boundaries and attempt to understand their consequences within the national systems of industrial relations. Thus, it is necessary to develop an industrial relations analysis that considers European impacts as internal factors and not simply as external elements, located on another level. EU-level industrial relations are unique with regard to the procedures and institutions implemented on a supranational level. Limitations of conventional nation-state categories are evident. Besides categories like transnational, national, sectoral and local, a conceptualisation of ‘regions’ within Europe as a further category is imperative. For example, business strategies within the Eurozone increasingly have a focus on regions across countries rather than strictly on national boundaries. Another example of a Euro-regional focus is that of transnational wage leadership or attempts at wage coordination across countries. In principle, this approach should allow more perspectives than just a national or European view with regard to the core objective of managing change and in order to capture the processes taking place. This encompasses several aspects:
? ?
national differences in employment and industrial relations; ‘shifting frontiers’ of national and European industrial relations, their interrelationship and dynamics resulting from a synergy of these processes;
21
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
? ?
cross-country perspective (especially regarding European sectoral social dialogue); and cross-border industrial relations in European regions.
For the selection and construction of indicators, this implies not only that European industrial relations models on the national level of labour regulation encompass a variety of models, but the complex interrelations between the various levels. A further aspect that still requires conceptualisation is the impact of multinational companies and the relationship to national and sectoral industrial relations. In the context of the debate on a decentralisation of industrial relations, Traxler (1995) developed a theoretical concept that captured the interrelations and dynamics between levels of industrial relations — at least on the national level. He emphasised that attention should be paid not only to the level of bargaining, but also to the degree of its coordination. Secondly, an increase in importance of one bargaining level does not inevitably mean that it takes place at the cost of other levels. This applies especially to countries where an ‘organised decentralisation’ takes place. Traditional focus of industrial relations research and theory Considerations on the construction of comparative indicators of industrial relations also require a rethinking of industrial relations research at national levels. The narrow focus of much of the research on traditional core areas of industry, on certain occupational groups or forms of employment relationships, and on issues of regulation is not appropriate to cover all dimensions of industrial relations and to formulate general conclusions. Referring to existing, traditionally used key features in the description of determinants of industrial relations can be problematic for the development of comparative indicators of industrial relations. In particular, the ‘gender blindness’ of industrial relations theory and research is increasingly discussed (Pocock, 1997, 2000; Rubery and Fagan, 1995; Dickens, 2000; Cockburn, 1995; Colling and Dickens, 2001; Colgan and Ledwith, 1996; Forrest, 1993; Wajcman, 2000). Gender represents an important category of analysis in any thorough conceptualisation of workplace and industrial relations, and is essential for any accurate understanding of the institutions (Pocock, 1997). The traditional orientation of industrial relations research limits the implications that are drawn for other aspects of industrial relations and affects the adequacy of theoretical concepts. The concern is not just the neglect of gender divisions, but also the neglect of the dominant area of European employment, i.e. work in the service sectors. Discussions of the quality and form of collective bargaining often still relate primarily to the industrial and manual workforce. Rubery and Fagan (1995) outline the need for a new focus of comparative industrial relations research to overcome the inadequate and incomplete description of differences in industrial relations regimes with regard to their implications for different groups of employees. A further complex issue of conceptualisation for the development of comparative indicators is the diversity within the industrial relations actors, which is also reflected in related processes and outcomes of industrial relations. Some of these developments have to be seen in the context of EMU, intensification of competitive pressures, shifting branch formation or accelerated restructuring of companies. Some examples are:
? ?
trade union mergers; emergence of new trade unions and employer organisations;
22
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
? ?
conflicts within and between trade unions; and conflicts within and between employer organisations.
Conceptual framework for comparative indicators
Based on the analyses of different perspectives on quality of industrial relations and different theoretical approaches, an attempt to find an integrated frame of reference for the conceptual analysis is presented below. This analytical concept should be understood as a framework in the endeavour to develop comparative indicators, and not as an explanation of industrial relations. Figure 1 highlights the key dimensions of industrial relations. They are interrelated and only distinct from each other for analytical purposes. They are differentiated as follows:
? ? ? ?
Regulatory framework — labour law, litigation, etc. Actors — state, trade unions, employers, employee representatives, EWCs, etc. Processes — collective bargaining, social dialogue, etc. Outcomes — collective agreements, joint declaration, social pacts, etc. Analytical framework of industrial relations models
Context
Figure 1
Level: European National Sectoral Regional Local/company Regulatory framework Actors Processes Outcomes
Level: European National Sectoral Regional Local/company
Impact
Source: Based on Kauppinen (1994)
The ‘context’ category encompasses the political and socio-economic environment, national cultures and values, history, etc. It also includes the nature of the industrial relations, which can be consensual or conflictual, and considers power as an inherent element of industrial relations. This diagrammatic model of dimensions and elements of industrial relations should not be understood as static, unhistorical or apolitical. In the attempt to develop indicators of industrial relations against the background of theories and EU policies, the context of the key dimensions and key indicators is a crucial element of the model. Industrial relations are interwoven on various levels. The main levels are the European level, a new emerging interface between the European and national level, the national level, the regional level
23
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
within countries and cross-country, and the local level. These levels are not isolated from each other, but are closely interlinked in various ways. The nature of these interrelations applies in particular to the sectoral and company level. All levels could be portrayed in various overlapping intersections. Figure 2 illustrates the complexity of interrelations between several levels and arenas of industrial relations. Figure 2 Complexity of levels and interrelations of industrial relations
European
Interface EU/countries
Companies
Sectoral
National
Regional/Cross-country
Local
Only a differentiated view on the diverse arenas of industrial relations and the interactions between these arenas is capable of including the aspect of change into the framework. This analytical framework model offers a number of options in relation to developing comparative indicators of industrial relations. The analysis along the key dimensions of industrial relations (regulatory frameworks, actors, processes and outcomes), considering the different levels and interactions as well as the context, can:
? ?
reflect the complexity of industrial relations on all levels and their interactions; assess quality of industrial relations in a structured approach without diluting national diversity; offer the chance to consider similar patterns of outcomes of diverse national industrial relations.
?
A further ‘layer’ over this basic analytical framework reflects diversity within the key dimensions:
?
Key dimension ‘Regulatory framework’: EU-level and national-level regulatory frameworks can be meshed with each other, complement each other or they can differ considerably or even be contradictory to each other. This relationship can differ with regard to different issues of regulation. Key dimension ‘Actors’: A diversity within the main actors/organisations and within their member groups is increasingly observable.
?
24
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
?
Key dimension ‘Processes’: Processes at different levels and different issues can mesh with each other, complement each other or compete with each other. Key dimension ‘Outcomes’: Core factors regarding outcomes are the nature of legal binding of agreements, the range of issues and the results of both quantitative and qualitative bargaining. Key dimension ‘Impact’: The impact of outcomes of industrial relations processes can differ for groups of employees, for companies, in the national or sectoral situation, etc.
?
?
Table 3 illustrates how collective bargaining is related to the key dimensions of the analytical framework. Table 3 Collective bargaining at national level in the analytical framework
Key dimension Regulatory framework Union recognition Collective bargaining autonomy, etc. Actors Predominantly sectoral and company level: unions, employer federation Actors on the company level Processes Negotiations Achieving agreements Strikes Outcomes Impacts Regulations in collective agreements Application of collective agreements on the company level can differ for groups of employees and for companies (in the range of MNC – SME) Compliance with collective agreements
Indicators are developed within the key dimensions. The indicators for the dimension ‘actors’ (social partners) cover indicators such as union density and employers’ density. In this category, the European actors beyond the national level data on union and employers’ density are also integrated. These are the actors on the intersectoral and sectoral levels and EWCs. On the company level, the indicator is employee participation in the different national contexts. Quality of industrial relations in the context of negotiations has several aspects, the most important of which are:
? ? ? ? ?
character of processes of negotiations in a formal or informal way; outcome regarding content of regulations, agreements, etc.; relationship between the main parties of industrial relations; internal voice and processes of formulation of political demands and objectives; and duration of consensus achieved.
In applying negotiation theories to the concept of quality of industrial relations, all four subprocesses are relevant. Integrative bargaining is closely related to finding consensus between the industrial relations actors. However, the other sub-processes and the way they interact play an important role, as illustrated in Figure 3.
25
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Figure 3
Quality of industrial relations and bargaining theories
Integrative bargaining
Intra-organisational bargaining
QUALITY OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Attitudinal structuring (Social contracts)
Distributive bargaining
Regarding integrative bargaining and distributive bargaining, a distinction between the outcome and the process is useful. The outcome of integrative bargaining is a consensus on one or a mixture of issues; the process can be both cooperative and conflictual in certain phases of the process of negotiations. In the case of distributive bargaining, the outcome has more the character of a compromise and the process involves a latent tendency of conflictual relations. The degree of internal agreement that can be achieved as a result of intra-organisational bargaining is fundamental for the bargaining position for the sub-processes of integrative and of distributive bargaining. The sub-process of attitudinal structuring is important for both integrative and distributive bargaining. In the long term, it is fundamental in particular for integrative bargaining. Criteria for selection and development of indicators Further considerations are required for the monitoring and assessment of the prospective advancement of industrial relations and an identification of the factors for improvement of their quality and success in a changing environment in the European and global context. The analytical framework described above highlights potential dimensions of industrial relations. Following on from this, the next step in the analysis is the elaboration of principles and criteria for the selection of potential comparative indicators. These principles and criteria have to reflect and capture the multidimensional complexity of industrial relations and of the concept of quality. The selection of comparative indicators of the quality of industrial relations cannot be dictated by practical considerations alone. The context of indicators and their role should be recorded in order to avoid a comparison of ‘apples’ with ‘oranges’. Indicators can have a different meaning in different contexts and so it is essential to clearly define the role of an indicator as, for example, certain institutional arrangements or certain issues of collective bargaining. The concept of the theoretical framework is considered as dynamic. ‘Dynamic’ means to incorporate and reflect change. It also means to leave space for new issues as indicators. For example, in the context of EU social dialogue, the focus is not only the quantity, or number, of
26
Analytical framework for quality in industrial relations
agreements, but also their ‘quality’ (i.e. the development of the contents and characteristics of the outcome of the agreements). In a broader sense, the interrelation between managing change and quality of industrial relations is determined by the way the social partners contribute to economic and social progress. Examples of indicators for modernising contractual relations are:
?
progress of issues — joint attempts to improve the quality in work (more and better jobs) or negotiated flexibility and the competitiveness of companies; regulation of new types of employment relations — temporary agency work, teleworking, etc.; implementing new procedures and bodies — an example on the company level would be joint committees in the context of PECs (Weiler, 2002) or joint committees in the context of monitoring the implementation of innovative agreements on equal opportunities (Bercusson and Weiler, 1999); or joint annual reports and monitoring of the impact of framework agreements.
? ?
?
Potential indicators for interaction between European and national levels It is difficult to develop indicators on the interface between European and national-level industrial relations, but it seems to be essential to cover the dynamic and potential synergy effects resulting from the processes of European integration or the obstacles for successful interaction. The synergy of the interactions between industrial relations on the level of the EU and nation states is an expression of change itself. The interface between the two levels is seen as the weakest link of current industrial relations by the High Level Group on Industrial Relations (European Commission, 2002b). The Industrial Relations in Europe 2002 report regards the close link between the European and national levels, as well as the regional and local levels, as a key to success of the social partners’ contribution to the employment strategy and the inclusion strategy (European Commission, 2002c). A further conceptual problem of a simple differentiation between European and national-level industrial relations is the question of where, for example, EWCs or EU Directive will be placed. Examples for indicators on the interrelation/interaction between European and national-level industrial relations are:
? ? ?
involvement of the national social partners in the NAPs; territorial pacts; or coordination of collective bargaining.
Role of comparative indicators As Figure 4 illustrates, a double strategy of looking at industrial relations in an holistic perspective and with an analytical focus on key dimensions and key indicators is the basis for identifying the set of indicators. A well-founded set of comparative indicators on industrial relations can help to achieve a better understanding of industrial relations. Comparative indicators of industrial relations related to the
27
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
concept of ‘quality’ have a clear political reference and can be used to evaluate and monitor the current state of industrial relations and the potential for improvement. Such a set of comparative indicators facilitates the assessment of the implementation and impact of the ‘quality’ concept. Supporting statistical databases and qualitative data enables progress to be measured in the actions taken. A clear picture and accurate information on industrial relations can assist the debate between the social partners (and governments) on the development of the quality of industrial relations and the contribution to managing change. Within a changing economic and social context, a set of comparative indicators on industrial relations assists practitioners and policy-makers in accurately interpreting current developments, enabling barriers to be detected for an improvement of quality, supporting further elaboration on targets and helping to identify new priorities of policies. If the actors of industrial relations have a well-grounded understanding of their environment and how it is changing, this will facilitate the process of negotiations and the finding of consensus and agreement. Furthermore, comparative indicators can assist in implementing the joint work programme of the European social partners and other joint initiatives. Figure 4 Indicators of the quality of industrial relations
Purpose of the indicators: high quality industrial relations on all levels
Holistic view of the industrial relations context
Dimensions of industrial relations: regulatory framework, actors, processes, outcomes
Determination of key indicators related to key dimensions
Determination of contextual factors
Time axis Development of industrial relations
current stage
short-termed
long-termed
28
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
The European Commission’s Communication on ‘Quality’ (2001a) emphasises that in order to address quality in full, it is necessary to develop indicators in a coherent and structured manner and establish an appropriate set of indicators within a framework. This approach combines existing indicators with indicators to be (further) developed. A theoretically and methodologically sound set of comparative indicators has to meet certain requirements, in particular:
? ? ? ?
2
coverage of relevant dimensions of quality in industrial relations; informative power; reflection of development and change; options for incorporating new dimensions/categories and continuous improvement of the set of indicators; use of the best available databases; consider cross-national and cross-cultural comparability of indicators; and include a gender breakdown as a standard horizontal element across all indicators.
? ? ?
The analytical framework focuses on the identification of clear policy objectives and standards, and the development of an appropriate set of indicators for the measurement of these objectives. A clear idea of the purpose of an indicator has to be the guiding principle. Furthermore, the understanding of what a ‘comparative indicator’ is has to be clarified. An ‘indicator’ can be understood as a feature that serves as a (conclusive) sign or reference regarding other circumstances and conditions. The term ‘comparative’ can be defined as principles that apply everywhere, not just in one country (Strauss, 1998). On the one hand, comparative indicators on industrial relations require a high level of abstraction. On the other, they have to be suitable to serve policy purposes. Further considerations regarding the development of comparative indicators on industrial relations are:
? ?
cultural boundaries do not always correspond with national boundaries (Strauss, 1998); industrial relations within a country are not similar across the sectors and branches, and for MNCs and SMEs.
Attempts to approach industrial relations with a focus on topics rather than country-by-country are more appropriate for the purpose of developing a set of indicators. Different perspectives on comparative research can have different theoretical implications. Rubery and Grimshaw (2003) describe three main schools of comparative research on employment (universalists, culturalists and institutionalists), whose perspectives lead to different frameworks for comparative research. The authors propose the adoption of a modified and more dynamic institutionalist perspective. Regarding the societal effect theory, they discuss in particular if the nation state is the appropriate level of analysis and if the societal effect approach leads to an
29
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
overemphasis on coherence and consensus, failing to recognise sources of conflict and inconsistency. They point to supranational influences and the example of the pan-European effect. They advocate a more dynamic framework and see a crucial test for an appropriate theoretical framework in its ‘ability to deal with and explain processes of change. This poses particular problems for comparative analysis since a natural tendency is to focus on differences. Moreover, there is a temptation to regard such differences as static and unchanging characteristics of particular economies’ (Rubery and Grimshaw, 2003). It is necessary to examine the political, social and economic context of industrial relations models in order to avoid oversimplification and fallacies based on certain (more or less isolated) figures and related indicators. Drawing conclusions from certain indicators can be critical; for example, union density can be viewed as a measure of the strength of a trade union in one country, but can be misleading in others. Due to a lack of a common language and terminology in industrial relations (even in the AngloSaxon countries), a careful use and application of terms is inevitable. In developing comparative indicators of industrial relations, it has to be considered that the same terms can have different meanings or vice versa: different terms can have an equivalent meaning among the industrial relations models and national contexts. Categories like ‘union density’, ‘strikes’ and ‘industrial relations institution’ can have different meanings and functions in various countries. Being a union member in France or Spain, for example, may have a different meaning in Sweden or in other countries where union membership is closely linked with social security benefits. Strikes can have a different meaning or impact in countries depending on the industrial relations system and national cultures. The term ‘trade union’ can be applied to an organisation with more than 3 million members (as, for example, Ver.di — the German unified service sector union) or to a company-level crafts trade union with a small number of members (as in the UK). Therefore, a careful use of terms and definitions is fundamental in the development of comparative indicators.
Existing indicators
A review of existing indicators related to industrial relations encompasses several aspects:
? ? ?
systematic overview of existing indicators; analysis of the methodology of existing indicators; and analysis of potential problems or shortcomings of existing indicators.
A reference to existing indicators on industrial relations reveals a number of different approaches of comparisons:
? ? ? ?
traditional comparative industrial relations; content-related comparisons across countries; related indicators in adjoining fields; and policy-based indicators of industrial relations.
30
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
This study aims to avoid an overlap and at the same time to create links with work in progress on indicators in adjoining fields, such as quality in work and employment. This effort is realised, firstly, by defining indicators that are specific to industrial relations and, secondly, by defining indicators that measure the degree to which procedures and structures for information, consultation, coordination and negotiation contribute to appropriate and workable solutions in adjoining fields. In referring to existing indicators traditionally employed in industrial relations research, the different focus and purposes of the indicators have to be considered. Traditional indicators applied in (comparative) industrial relations research predominantly focus on national data and not on a content perspective across countries. The European-level industrial relations are separated from the national data and analysis. For monitoring purposes, the traditional perspective is insufficient. The development of comparative indicators of industrial relations has to go beyond traditional comparative industrial relations research and simple national statistical data. In contrast to these approaches, indicators of industrial relations related to the concept of ‘quality’ have a clear political reference and can be used to evaluate and monitor the current state of industrial relations and the potential for improvement. This is a different perspective. Some basic labour statistics are the subject of the ILO’s Labour Statistics Convention (C160, 1985). This convention is an international guideline for labour statistics. The convention is ratified by 12 EU Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and some of the acceding countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania). These basic labour statistics refer primarily to the ‘context’ dimension, some to ‘outcomes’ and one to ‘processes’ of industrial relations (see Table 4). Table 4 Basic labour statistics according to Labour Statistics Convention (ILO)
Basic labour statistics
Dimensions of the analytical framework Context
• economically active population • employment • unemployment • (where visible) underemployment Structure and distribution of the economically active population (for detailed analysis and to serve as benchmark data) • labour cost • consumer price indices • household expenditure
Actors Processes Outcomes industrial disputes • average earning and hours of work • wage structure and distribution • occupational injuries • occupational diseases
Source: ILO, Labour Statistics Convention (C160, 1985)
31
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
One example of a policy-based proposal of indicators or criteria for the development of indicators of industrial relations is the proposed list of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations (see Table 5). The criteria are suggested in relation to the European Employment Strategy. These criteria are not systematically related to key indicators in industrial relations research. The list of 14 criteria appears unsystematic. In relation to the European Employment Strategy, it is incomplete since the employment guidelines (for the year 2002) are more encompassing. Some targets and clear invitations towards the social partners are not taken up. This concerns, for example, e-learning, tackling gender gaps and reconciling work and family life. Modernisation of work organisation is only considered in the context of a review of the regulatory framework. Some criteria, especially ‘mainstreaming of gender’, are simply mentioned as policy targets without any further proposals on actions. Table 5 Proposed criteria by the High Level Group on Industrial Relations for developing appropriate indicators
Role of social partners Contribution Overarching objective Instruments/tool
Policy objective 1 2 Social cohesion, competitiveness, socially sustainable economic growth Full employment and fair and decent terms and conditions of employment for all workers 3 Creation of quality employment
• fostering employability • change organisation of work • modernisation of the regulatory framework
4 5 6 7
Active ageing Access to lifelong-learning (including those with atypical contracts) Preventing skill shortages Social inclusion
Promotion Facilitation Contribution
Enhancing capacity of and incentives for older workers to remain in the labour force
Promotion of occupational and geographical mobility Effective preventive and active policy measures to promote integration into the labour market of groups or individuals at risk or with a disadvantage
8
Integration into the labour market of workers with disabilities, ethnic minorities and migrant workers
‘Appropriate’ measures
9
Improvement of OHS at the workplace
• better application of legislation • more training and promoting measures for the reduction of occupational accidents and diseases (emphasis on traditionally high-risk sectors)
10 11 12
Mainstreaming of gender High representativeness of social partners Wide coverage of collective bargaining (including all forms of atypical employment)
13 14
Improving ways of preventing and/or settling labour disputes Employees’ participation in decisionmaking, including financial participation
In both collective and individual cases: nonjudicial mechanisms, conciliation, arbitration
Source: European Commission (2002b)
32
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Review of statistical information
The approach of the study is to clearly link key policy objectives and policy instruments, key indicators and a review of the availability and suitability of statistical data, and to outline potential barriers and gaps. The availability of existing data in this respect demands further consideration. Firstly, indicators can range from quantitative to qualitative in nature. Examples are the categories for quality indicators in the area of social dialogue and worker involvement highlighted in the report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations (European Commission, 2002b) and along similar lines in the Commission’s Communication on quality in employment and social policies (European Commission, 2001a). In contrast to the long-established social indicator research that is based on quantitative social statistics, the strong impact of different national framework and legal foundations in industrial relations recommends qualitative data to be considered besides pure quantitative data. Integrated encompassing general statistics on industrial relations are not established. The issue of industrial disputes is one of the rare available datasets provided by Eurostat that is directly linked to industrial relations. Secondly, a set of indicators can be seen as a catalyst for the improvement of policy procedures and of statistics. One example for an improvement of statistical data is the development of nine qualitative and quantitative indicators on the gender pay gap and ways to reduce it during the Belgian EU presidency. The analysis for the development of these indicators demonstrated insufficiencies in the different databases. The Council encouraged the Commission and Member States to consider reviewing their existing data collection and processing systems in order to improve them and made concrete proposals for adjustments (European Council, 2001). The potential of such an application of the comparative indicators of industrial relations is considered in the concept and the development of indicators. Quantifying qualitative elements of industrial relations and linking them with statistical figures/data sources may require going beyond existing official statistics. Besides a review of potential statistical sources and survey data, possible indicators developed by the social partners are taken into account. In the horizontal objective F of the European Employment Strategy laid down in the employment guidelines for 2002, the social partners are explicitly invited to develop appropriate indicators, benchmarks and supporting statistical databases to measure progress in the actions for which they are responsible (European Commission, 2001b). In the assessment of the sources for statistical data with regard to availability, it is advisable to differentiate between the level of availability according to the following stages:
? ? ? ?
available statistical data for comparative indicators; data that could be made available in a short-term period; data that could be made available in a long-term period; data that is available but should be adapted to be useful for monitoring/assessment needs;
33
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
?
data that could potentially be combined from different sources and be fruitful in such a combination.
The availability of statistical quantitative data and of qualitative data differs considerably between countries. While some countries, like the UK, have encompassing Workplace Employee Relations Surveys (WERS), others (such as Germany) can refer to encompassing collective agreement archives and substantial analysis of the collective agreements between employer associations or single employers and trade unions. In further phases of this research project, a key element, which particularly concerns the outcome indicators, will be to select quantitative data on collectively agreed pay and working conditions or data on actual pay, working time. etc. in official statistics or a combination of both data sources. This is because there can be a gap between collectively agreed conditions and effective pay and working time, especially in countries with a dual system of employees’ representation and collective bargaining. The core focus in developing comparative indicators is on the proposal for a set of indicators, not on individual indicators. Further aspects of the construction of a set of indicators are horizontal characteristics across the indicators — for example, a gender breakdown as a standard feature of indicators or including a sectoral perspective as far as possible. The European Commission’s ‘Quality’ Communication (2001a) explicitly demands a gender breakdown of data. Considerations on how this policy and statistical objective can be achieved lead to more general considerations on the quality and use of databases. However, incorporating the gender dimension in the datasets means more than just including the categories ‘female’ and ‘male’ in tables and determining whether relevant data is available or can be made available. The role played by definitions and classifications is critical in the production of relevant statistics. According to Greenwood (2001), ‘definitions and classifications determine what is to be covered and in how much detail, and are the basis for the whole data production process’. Further factors include the level of aggregation, coverage of data and the method of data collection and measurement. The solution is not simply to list data according to gender if available. Several considerations are required in order to fulfil the gender mainstreaming approach laid down in the Amsterdam Treaty. One (quality) side-effect of these considerations is to achieve a more appropriate reflection of reality in statistical databases, indicator development and monitoring.
Draft set of comparative indicators
A draft set of comparative indicators based on the analytical framework has been developed according to the specified key dimensions of industrial relations, namely:
? ? ? ?
context actors processes outcomes
34
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
The indicators are presented according to the key dimensions of industrial relations independent of the level or arena of industrial relations. For each of the dimensions of industrial relations, key indicators are suggested. The selected key indicators will be presented in terms of the following frame structure:
? ? ? ?
key indicator(s) availability of quantitative/qualitative statistical data limitations/remarks sub-indicators
Overview on the draft set of indicators on industrial relations (see following pages for details)
Dimension Context Key indicators • Labour productivity • Unit labour costs • Inflation rate • Unemployment rates • Employment growth • Employment rates Actors • Union density • Employers’ density • Collective agreement coverage • Company employee participation • European works councils • Representativeness of European social partners • Incidence of sectoral social dialogue Processes • Industrial disputes/action • Collective bargaining • Scope of employee representation • Scope of EWCs • European intersectoral social dialogue • European sectoral social dialogue • Negotiating PECs/social pacts • Involvement of national social partners in NAPs Outcomes • Pay • Gender pay equity • Working time • Employment security/competitiveness • Lifelong learning • Employee financial participation • New forms of work • Gender equality • Employment/equal treatment of disabled people • Work – life balance • Agreements/joints texts of European sectoral social dialogue • Agreements/joint texts of European intersectoral social dialogue
35
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Regarding the availability of data, each key indicator is analysed according to statistical definition, statistical source, geographical coverage, periodicity, latest update and availability. The gender dimension is considered in the sense of the gender mainstreaming approach in accordance with the ‘Quality’ Communication across all indicators as a horizontal aspect. Whereas for the key indicators the availability of data is analysed, this is the case only for some of the sub-indicators for which data is easily accessible. This compromise of presentation of data availability shall guarantee a basis for a set of indicators covering the key factors of industrial relations. A more in-depth analysis will focus on the development of context and sub-indicators in the next phase of the project.
CONTEXT dimension
A number of economic and employment indicators are already established in the system of European monitoring of socio-economic development as Eurostat structural indicators. At this stage of the project, a reference to these existing and easily accessible indicators is sufficient. Later, it could be decided if further or more detailed sub-indicators would be required on industrial relations or if a composition of these indicators should be applied to monitor the development and progress of industrial relations. Labour productivity Key indicator: Labour productivity
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Labour productivity (per person employed and per hour worked) Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Unit labour costs Key indicator: Unit labour costs growth
Availability of data Definition Growth rate of the ratio: compensation per employee in current prices divided by GDP (in current prices) per total employment Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
36
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Inflation rate Key indicator: Inflation rate
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Annual average rate of change in Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices (HICPs) Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Employment growth Key indicator: Employment growth
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Annual percentage change in the total employed population (total, female and male population) Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Employment rates Key indicator: Employment rates
Availability of data Definition Employed persons aged 15-64 as a share of the total population aged 15-64 (total, female and male population) Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Key indicator: Employment rates of older workers
Availability of data Definition Employed persons aged 55-64 as a share of the total population aged 55-64 (total, female and male population) Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
37
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Key indicator: Unemployment
Availability of data Definition Unemployed persons aged 15-64 as a percentage of the labour force (total, female and male unemployed persons). The labour force is the total number of people employed and unemployed. Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat — Structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
ACTORS dimension
Union density Key indicator: Union density, national European level
Availability of data Definition Union members as the proportion of the labour force in dependent employment (gross/net). Gross density inclusive of unemployed and retired union members. Net density: employed union members only. Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 Statistical background: Potential sources for data on membership: Data on union density can stem from different sources: • information by the organisation on membership • information by LFS • information tax statistics Socio-economic context of union density: Social security benefits in some countries are linked with union membership. Gender breakdown of data on trade union density: National data do not give sufficient genderspecific information to cover diverse developments below the national figures on the sectoral or company level. Due to gender segregation, women and men are allocated differently to sectors. Women are concentrated in sectors where union density is traditionally low. Female membership of trade unions can increase in certain sectors, but this is not reflected in the national data. More easily available than data on union density is data on the national level, which is the number of members in trade unions. EIRO (based on Eurostat LFS – ILO figures) EU-15
Data beyond the national level and an average for the EU are difficult to determine since there is no direct membership in European-level trade union federations.
Sub-indicators ? Union density according to gender ? Sectoral union density ? Company size structure and union density ? Union density according to employment status ? Union density at the European level
38
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Employers’ density Key indicator: Employers’ density
Availability of data Definition Two definitions of employers’ density exist: • the number/percentage of companies organised in an employer association/federation. • the proportion of employees working in companies that are members of employer federations. Statistical source National data, qualitative data and survey data Partially quantitative national data Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Despite missing data or simply fragmented data developed in research, it has to be considered that the peak, or central, organisations do not cover all employer associations nor is there always a direct membership of enterprises in the peak organisations. Differentiation between employer associations and business interest organisations is of increasing importance for membership decision. In countries where membership in employer associations is combined with a binding to (sectoral) collective agreements, it is reported that there is a tendency to leave or not join national-level employer federations. Data on this trend would give information trends in bargaining coverage. No regular database available
Sub-indicators ? Employers’ density at the European level (Commission’s industrial relations reports) ? Sectoral employers’ density ? competition between employer associations Key indicator: Representativeness
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Representativeness criteria Reports on the representativeness of European Social Partner Organisations commissioned by the European Commission (DG EMPL) Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2000 EU-15
Collective agreement coverage Key indicator: Collective agreement coverage
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Coverage of collective agreements No European data available EIRO estimates Only national surveys — not comparable Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Potential sources: ETUC, NAPs, European Structure of Earnings Survey (ESES), to be further developed. In some countries, there is an overlap between collective bargaining coverage and employers’ density since membership in employer associations is linked with binding to existing collective agreements.
39
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Sub-indicators ? proportion of companies bound to collective agreements ? proportion of employees working in companies under collective agreements ? proportion of employees covered by an extension of collective agreements ? sectoral collective bargaining coverage ? inclusion of atypical employment relationships ? type of agreements (pay agreements, agreements of working conditions, etc. as the coverage can differ with regard to the issue of the agreements) ? union recognition requirements, employee representation laws, etc. Company-level employee representation Key indicator: Company-level employee representation
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Representation of employees in employee participation bodies National data, qualitative data Partially quantitative national data Survey data Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Diverse national situation and regulatory framework Example for national quantitative data: German works councils (Betriesbrat): • number of companies with a works council • percentage of employees in companies with a works council • representation of women and men in works councils • women and men as heads of works councils EU-Directive: 2002/14/EC of 11.03.2002 ‘Establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community’. Further source of information: Reports of the Group of Experts on European Systems of Workers Involvement
European works councils (EWCs) Key indicator: European works councils established
Availability of data Definition • European works councils established • Number of companies covered by the EWC Directive • Companies that still have to set up EWCs Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 ETUI — Multinational database EU-15
Sub-indicators ? Sectoral data on EWCs ? Article 6/Article 13 agreements
40
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Incidence of European sectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Incidence of European sectoral social dialogue
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Sectors with established sectoral social dialogue AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15 Time series 2000 Further source: European Commission’s reports on industrial relations
PROCESSES dimension
Industrial disputes/action Key indicator: Strikes
Availability of data Definition • number of working days lost (1,000) • working days lost per 1,000 workers • number of workers involved (1,000) • workers involved per 1,000 workers Statistical source Eurostat: Statistics on industrial disputes Further source: EIRO overview on industrial action Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks EU-15 Annual 2002 The Eurostat data are available for the EU as a whole and by Member State. Tables are available according to ISIC and NACE.
Sub-indicators ? number of industrial disputes (EIRO — partial figures only) ? sectoral industrial actions (Eurostat — NACE/EIRO) ? reasons for industrial action (EIRO — partial data only) ? lock-outs — national data only ? numbers of arbitration, mediation, conciliation (EIRO — partial data for some countries) Collective bargaining Key indicator: Level of collective bargaining
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Level of collective bargaining EIRO EU-15 Annual 2002
41
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Sub-indicators ? Differentiation of level of bargaining with regard to issues ? Impact for SMEs Key indicator: Issues of quantitative collective bargaining
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Further source: ETUI annual collective bargaining reports Issues of quantitative collective bargaining EIRO EU-15
Key indicator: Issues of qualitative collective bargaining
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Further source: ETUI annual collective bargaining reports Issues of qualitative collective bargaining EIRO EU-15
Scope of employee representation Key indicator: Subject areas and powers of employee representation
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Subject areas and powers of employee representation Reports of the Group of Experts on European Systems of Workers Involvement National research and surveys Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2001 Qualitative research Strong impact of labour law
Scope of EWCs Key indicator: Scope of EWCs
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Issues of information and consultation European Works Councils — Multinationals Database European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: EWC — Database Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 EU-15
42
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
European intersectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Negotiations of agreements
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Negotiations of agreements AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15 Time series 2000
European sectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Scope of European sectoral social dialogue
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2000 Further analysis in the European Commission’s reports on industrial relations Scope of European sectoral social dialogue AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15
Negotiations of pacts for employment and competitiveness Key indicator: Enterprise-level pacts for employment and competitiveness
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Enterprise-level pacts for employment and competitiveness Study by European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions National studies Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Qualitative research
Sub-indicators ? Pacts in sectoral agreements ? Social pacts ? Territorial pacts Involvement of national social partners in NAPs Key indicator: Involvement of national social partners in NAPs
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 Involvement of national social partners in NAPs EIRO comparative study
43
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
OUTCOMES dimension
Pay Key indicator: Pay increases — collectively agreed
Availability of data Definition • Average nominal collectively agreed basic pay increases • Real pay increases Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks EIRO EU-15 Annual 2002 Remark regarding gender pay equity: Pay increases themselves do not entail a direct gender dimension that could be measured. However, even the form of pay increases (e.g. in percentage or in an absolute amount) can have a significant impact on the gender gap. In some countries, part of the pay increases is reserved for special application to the lower pay grades or women.
Key indicator: Pay increases — actual pay development
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Collectively agreed and actual pay increases can differ considerably (‘pay drift’). Average increases in earnings are greater than agreed pay increases. Comparisons of pay statistics of collectively agreed pay increases and actual pay increases can be difficult even on the national level since sectoral definitions in official pay statistics are not in line with coverage of collective agreements. Average earnings increases EIRO EU-15, with exceptions Annual
Key indicator: Fixed/variable pay
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Percentage fixed/variable pay components EIRO EU-15 Irregular 2001 Since flexibility and negotiations on flexibility are seen as of crucial importance for the objective of managing change, data on the development of fixed/variable pay (components) should be gathered. A core database would be the European Structure of Earnings Survey (ESES), which offers detailed information of determination of pay at company level. In future, the ESES will be carried out every 4 years; however, the periods are still too long to reflect up-to date information.
44
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Sub-indicators: ? Collectively agreed pay increases by sector (EIRO: available for chemicals, retail, civil service) ? Level of collectively agreed pay ? Level of actual pay ? Monthly minimum wages ? Pay dispersion ? Use of ‘distributive margin’ ? Cross-country wage bargaining coordination ? Pay systems (basic pay differentiation, flexible pay, etc) ? Level of wage bargaining Gender pay equity Key indicator: Gender pay gap — ECHP
Availability of data Definition Average gross hourly earnings of females as percentage of average gross hourly earnings of males = gender pay gap in unadjusted form Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat (ECHP) = Structural indicator on employment EU-15 Annual 1999 (data for 2000 will be available in October 2003) Disadvantage: Covers only net pay (principle of equal pay is related to gross pay). The new Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC) database includes gross earnings; this data will be available in 2005.
Key indicator: Gender pay gap — ESES
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks In future every 4 years 1995 Advantages in comparison with ECHP: • closer link to collective agreements; collective bargaining parties are involved in relating pay grades to statistical classifications (as in Germany); data can be traced back to collective agreements; • detailed information on composition and structure of earnings; • information regarding wage formation within companies. Eurostat: European Structure of Earnings Surveys (ESES)
Disadvantages: • some important branches for women’s employment are excluded; • infrequency; • availability of data.
45
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Key indicator: Gender pay equity in collective agreements
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Provision on gender pay equity in collective agreements EIRO comparative study EU-15 Irregular 2001
Sub-indicators ? 9 qualitative and quantitative indicators — developed during the Belgian EU presidency (European Council, 2001) Working time Key indicator: Average collectively agreed • weekly working hours • annual working hours
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Data on collectively agreed working time: EIRO EU-15 Annual 2002
Key indicator: Actual working hours
Availability of data Definition Actual working hours, full-timers Actual working hours, part-timers Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Data on actual working time: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, OECD EU-15 Annual 2000
Sub-indicators ? sectoral working time (actual, collectively agreed) ? annual (holiday) leave ? flexible working time arrangements ? irregular working time: shift work, night work, weekend work ? reduction of working hours ? reduction of overtime
46
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Employment security (and competitiveness) Key indicator: Job losses/alternative employment
Availability of data Definition Proportion of workers losing their job through redundancies and proportion of those finding alternative employment in a given period Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Labour Force Survey EU-15 Annual 2001 Other source: ECHP
Key indicator: Collective agreements on employment and competitiveness
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Qualitative research Regulations in collective agreements on employment and competitiveness Project by European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Lifelong learning Key indicator: Lifelong learning Inclusion in the Eurostat structural indicators on employment
Availability of data Definition Percentage of the population aged 25-64 participating in education and training over the 4 weeks prior to the survey (available figures: total, females, males) Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Eurostat, general statistics, structural indicators EU-15 Annual 2002
Key indicator: Enterprises with agreements about CVT
Availability of data Definition Enterprises with agreements about CVT Enterprises with agreements about CVT with more than 250 employees Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 1999 Eurostat, New Chronos, Theme 3, Domain Training — Continuing Vocational Training Survey CVTS 2 EU-15
47
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Key indicator: Lifelong learning in collective agreements
Availability of data Definition Spread of collective agreement Issues of collective agreements Statistical source Qualitative data — national data EIRO — comparative studies based on EIRO articles Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Influence of bargaining on lifelong learning in relation to the national systems of continuing vocational training
Sub-indicators ? lifelong learning in framework agreement by EU-level social partners, including a monitoring clause Employee financial participation Key indicator: Proportion of workers with financial participation in the employing company
Availability of data Definition Total number of broad-based schemes Percentage of share schemes/profit sharing Total number of business units with broad-based schemes Percentage of employees covered Statistical source CRANET E survey dataset EPOC Workplace Survey National data Some quantitative data in research Quantitative data in surveys Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Financial participation is not subject of official statistics. Regarding the emphasis put on increasing the diffusion of financial participation schemes, a system of more detailed indicators should be developed and a dataset of comparable data established. Most European Union countries Survey data — irregular
Sub-indicators ? other forms of financial participation ? financial participation in SMEs
48
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
New forms of work Key indicator: Telework as (a first) example
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Monitoring of the implementation of the European-level social partners may offer information Teleworking in collective agreements Qualitative (national) research
Gender equality Key indicator: Gender segregation
Availability of data Definition Average national share of employment for women and men applied to employment in each sector/occupation Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Community Labour Force Survey (by NACE/ISCO) EU-15 Annual 2001 Used as indicator in the Joint Employment Report
Key indicator: Gender equality in collective bargaining
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 1999 Collective agreements or provisions on gender equality Project by European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions EU-15
Sub-indicators ? representation within trade unions, employer federations ? members in representative bodies ? gender mainstreaming/gender impact assessment in collective bargaining
49
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Employment/equal treatment of disabled people Key indicator: Employment of people with disabilities Number/percentage of disabled employees employed
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 1995 There are no reliable European-level statistics. Comparisons are complicated due to different collection methods across countries and various legislative definitions. Definition of disabled persons differ in the national context Eurostat estimates drawn from national surveys
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Definition of disabled persons differ in the national context EIRO — some indicative data on level of employment EU-15 Irregular 2001 NAPs (2002) include data on unemployment rates of severely disabled persons for the year 2001
Sub-indicators ? agreements on special promotional actions or structures ? joint texts (2003: Declaration of the social partners for the European year of people with disabilities) ? actions in NAPs Work – life balance Key indicator: Proportion of employees with flexible working arrangements
Availability of data Definition Share of employees with flexible working arrangements (flexible hours, annualised hours contract, on-call work) in total employees, by sex (WT2) Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks LFS ‘Ad Hoc’ Module on Working Time
Key indicator: Flexible working arrangements in collective agreements
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2002 Qualitative research Flexible working arrangements in collective agreements EIRO
50
Comparative indicators of industrial relations
Key indicator: Proportion of female and male employees on parental leave
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Strong impact of legal parental leave or maternity leave regulations Proportion of female and male employees on parental leave National data
Key indicator: Parental leave in collective agreements
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Flexible working arrangements in collective agreements EIRO
Agreements/joint texts of European sectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Agreements/joint texts of European sectoral social dialogue
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks Agreements/joint texts of European sectoral social dialogue AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15 Time series 2000 Further analysis in the European Commission’s industrial relations reports
Agreements/joint texts of European intersectoral social dialogue Key indicator: Agreements/joint texts of European intersectoral social dialogue
Availability of data Definition Statistical source Geographical coverage Periodicity Latest update Limitations/remarks 2000 Further analysis in the European Commission’s industrial relations reports Agreements/joint texts of European intersectoral social dialogue AIAS European Social Dialogue database EU-15
51
Bibliography
Baccaro, L., What is dead and what is alive in the theory of corporatism?, International Institute for Labour Studies, DP/143/2002, Geneva, 2002. Benedictus, H., de Boer, R., van der Meer, M., Salverda, W., Visser, J. and Zijl, M., The European social dialogue: Development, sectoral variation and prospects, Report to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies, 2002. Bercusson, B. and Weiler, A., Equal opportunities and collective bargaining in Europe. 3. Innovative Agreements: An Analysis, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1999. Biagi, M. (ed.), Towards a European model of industrial relations? Building on the first report of the European Commission, Kluwer Law Interational, The Hague, 2001. Biagi, M., ‘The “quality” factor in community industrial relations’, in Towards a European model of industrial relations? Building on the first report of the European Commission, M. Biagi (ed.), Kluwer Law Interational, The Hague, 2001, pp. 3-14. Biagi, M., Tiraboschi, M. and Rymkevitch, O., The ‘Europeanisation’ of Industrial Relations: Evaluating the quality of European industrial relations in a global context, A literature review, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Bleijenbergh, I., de Bruijn, J. and Dickens, L., Strengthening and mainstreaming equal opportunities through collective bargaining, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1999 (available on www.eurofound.eu.int/publications/EF9918.htm). Carley, M., Industrial relations developments in Europe 2002, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003 (available on www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/ annualreports.html). Clauwaart, S., Survey on the implementation of the part-time work directive/agreement in the EU Member States and selected applicant countries, European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, 2002. Cockburn, C., ‘Women’s Access to European Industrial Relations’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1995, pp. 171-89. Colgan, F. and Ledwith, S., ‘Sisters Organising: Women and their trade unions’, in Women in Organisations, Challenging Gender Politics, S. Ledwith and F. Colgan (eds.), Macmillan, Houndsmill, 1996, pp. 152-85. Colling, T. and Dickens, L., ‘Gender Equality and Trade Unions: A new basis for mobilisation?’, in Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment, M. Noon and E. Ogbonna (eds.), Palgrave, Houndsmills, 2001, pp. 136-55. Crouch, C. and Traxler, F. (eds.), Organized industrial relations in Europe: What future? Avebury Press, Aldershot, 1995. Dickens, L., ‘Promoting Gender Equality at Work: A potential role for trade union action’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Special Issue: Gender and Workplace Relations, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000, pp. 27-45. Dhondt, S. and Houtman, I., Indicators of working conditions in the European Union, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1997. Dunlop, J.T., Industrial Relations Systems, Henry Holt, New York, 1958 (revised edition: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1993).
53
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
Ebbinghaus, B., ‘Trade unions’ changing role: Membership erosion, organisational reform and social partnership in Europe’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2002, pp. 465-83. EIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory), Pay developments – 2002, Comparative study, 2003a (available on www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int). EIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory), Working time developments – 2002, Comparative study, 2003b (available on www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int). EIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory), Workers with disabilities: Law, bargaining and the social partners, Comparative study, 2001 (available on www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int). ETUC/UNICE/UEAPME/CEEP, Work programme of the European social partners 2003-2005, Brussels, 2002 (available on www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2002/dec/ prog_de_travail_comm_en.pdf). ETUC/UNICE/UEAPME/CEEP, Declaration of the social partners for the European year of people with disabilities. Promoting equal opportunities and access to employment for people with disabilities, Brussels, 2003. ETUC/UNICE/CEEP (eds.), Framework of actions for the lifelong development of competencies and qualifications, Brussels, 2002 (available on www.etuc.org/en/dossiers/colbargain/lll.cfm). European Commission, Proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, COM (2003), XXX, European Commission, Brussels, 2003a. European Commission, Scoreboard on implementing the Social Policy Agenda. Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee, and Committee of the Regions, COM (2003), 57 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2003b. European Commission, The European social dialogue: A force for innovation and change. Proposal for a Council decision establishing a Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment, COM (2002), 341 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2002a. European Commission, Report of the High Level Group on Industrial Relations and Change in the European Union, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002b. European Commission, Industrial relations in Europe 2002, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002c. European Commission, Communication from the Commission on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy co-ordination cycles, COM (2002), 487 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2002d. European Commission, 2002 Broad economic guidelines, European Economy, No. 4, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002e. European Commission, Taking stock of five years of the European Employment Strategy, Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament, Economic and Social Committee, and Committee of the Regions, COM (2002), 416 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2002f. European Commission, Employment and social policies: A framework for investing in quality, Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee, and Committee of the Regions, COM (2001), 313 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2001a. European Commission, Guidelines for Member States’ employment policies for the year 2002, European Commission, Brussels, 2001b.
54
Bibliography
European Commission, Promoting core labour standards and improving social governance in the context of globalisation, Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament and Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, COM (2001), 416 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2001c. European Commission, Social Policy Agenda, COM (2000), 379 Final, European Commission, Brussels, 2000a. European Commission, Industrial relations in Europe 2000, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2000b. European Commission, Raising employment levels of people with disabilities: The common challenge, Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC (1998), European Commission, Brussels, 1998. European Council, 2392nd Council meeting, Employment and social policy, Brussels, 3 December 2001. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, European Employment and Industrial Relations Glossaries, EMIRE – database, March 2003 (available on www.eurofound.eu.int/emire/emire.html). European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Towards a qualitative dialogue in industrial relations: Five years of developments in collective bargaining and social dialogue, from the European Industrial Relations Observatory, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Fajertag, Guiseppe (ed.), Collective bargaining in Europe 2001, European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, 2002. Foden, D. and Magnusson, L. (eds.), Five years’ experiences of the Luxembourg Employment Strategy, European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, 2003. Forrest, A., ‘A View from outside the whale: The treatment of women and unions in industrial relations’, in Women challenging unions: Feminism, democracy, and militancy, L. Briskin and P. McDermott (eds.), University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1993, pp. 325-41. Fourage, D., Cost of non-social policy: Towards an economic framework of quality social policies – and the cost of not having them, European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003. Gabaglio, E. and Hoffmann, R. (eds.), European Trade Union Yearbook, European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, 2002. Greenwood, A.M., ‘Gender issues in labour statistics’, in Women, gender and work. What is equality and how do we get there?, Ferherolf Loutfi, Martha (ed.), International Labour Office, Geneva, 2001. Gunnigle, P., Brewster, C. and Morley, M., ‘European industrial relations: Change and continuity’, in Policy and practice in European Human Resource Management. Price Waterhouse Cranfield Survey, C. Brewster and A. Hegewisch (eds.), Routledge, London and New York, 1994, pp. 139-53. Hemerijk, A. and Huiskamp, R., Public sector reform under EMU: A literature review, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Hoffmann, J., Hoffmann, R., Kirton-Darling, J. and Rampeltshammer, L. (eds.), The Europeanisation of industrial relations in a global perspective: A literature review, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Hyman, R., Industrial relations: A Marxist introduction, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1975.
55
Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators
ILO (International Labour Organization), ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 86th Session, Geneva, June 1998 (available on www.ilo.org/public/english/ standards/decl/declaration/text/index.htm). ILO (International Labour Organization), Labour Statistics Convention, C160, 1985. ILO (International Labour Organization), The promotion of good industrial relations in oil and gas production and oil refining, Report for discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on the Promotion of Good Industrial Relations in Oil and Gas Production and Oil Refining, International Labour Organization, Geneva, 2002. Kauppinen, T., ‘Industrial relations at national level – Comments on the Commission report on industrial relations in Europe 2000’, in Towards a European model of industrial relations?, M. Biagi (ed.), 2001, pp. 49-70. Kauppinen, T., The transformation of Finnish labour relations, Helsinki, 1994. Kochan, T.A., ‘What is distinctive about industrial relations research?’, in Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, K. Whitefield and G. Strauss (eds.), 1998, pp. 31-45. Kochan, T.A. and Lipsky, D.B. (eds.), Negotiations and Change: From the workplace to society, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003. Kochan, T.A. and Lipsky, D.B., ‘Conceptual foundations: Walton and McKersie’s subprocesses of negotiations’, in Negotiations and Change: From the workplace to society, T.A. Kochan and D.B. Lipsky (eds.), ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003, pp. 15-19. Kochan, T.A., Katz, H.C. and McKersie, R.B., The transformation of American industrial relations, Basic Books, New York, 1986. Kochan, T.A., McKersie, R.B. and Cappelli, P., ‘Strategic choice and industrial relations theory’, Industrial Relations, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1984, pp. 16-39. McKersie, R.B. and Walton, R.E., ‘From the behavioural theory to the future of negotiations’, in Negotiations and Change: From the workplace to society, T.A. Kochan and D.B. Lipsky (eds.), ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003, pp. 301-14. Müller-Jentsch, W., Soziologie der industriellen Beziehungen, Eine Einführung (2nd revised and extended edition), Campus, Frankfurt/Mannheim, 1997. Peña Casas, R., Indicators of quality of employment in the EU, Observatoire social eruoéen, Final report, 2002. Pichot, E., Un modèle des représentants du personnel et de leurs attributions économiques, European Commission, Brussels, 2001. Pocock, B., ‘Analysing Work: Arguments for closer links between the study of labour relations and gender’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Special Issue: Gender and Workplace Relations, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000, pp. 10-26. Pocock, B., ‘Gender in the Field of Industrial Relations. What are we Missing?’, in Proceedings of the 11th AIRAANZ Conference, T. Bramble, B. Harley, R. Hall and G. Whitehouse. (eds.), Brisbane, 1997, pp. 525-37. Quality of industrial relations: Some facts and reflections about the costs and benefits of having/of not having social dialogue, Reflection paper on the ‘Costs of not having social policy’, Background note for the conference on the mid-term review of the Social Policy Agenda: Achievements and perspectives, 19-20 March 2003, Brussels (available on www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2003/jan/costofnonsoc_en.pdf). Rossi, I. and Demetriades, S., Lifelong learning and collective bargaining: An analysis of EIRO articles, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002. Rubery, J. and Grimshaw, D., The Organization of Employment: An international perspective, Palgrave, Houndsmill, 2003.
56
Bibliography
Rubery, J. and Fagan, C., ‘Comparative Industrial Relations Research. Towards Reversing the Gender Bias’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1995, pp. 209-36. Rubery, J., Fagan, C., Grimshaw, D., Figueiredo, H. and Smith, M. (eds.), Indicators on Gender Equality in the European Employment Strategy, European Work and Employment Research Centre, Manchester School of Management – UMIST, 2002 (available on www2.umist.ac.uk/management/ewerc). Sisson, K. and Margison, P., The impact of economic and monetary union on industrial relations: A sectoral and company view, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2000. Strauss, G., ‘Comparative international industrial relations’, in Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, K. Whitefield and G. Strauss (eds.), 1998, pp. 175-92. Strauss, G. and Whitefield, K., ‘Research methods in industrial relations’, in Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, K. Whitefield and G. Strauss (eds.), 1998, pp. 5- 29. Streeck, W., Social institutions and economic performance, Sage, London, 1992. Traxler, F., ‘Two logics of collective action in industrial relations?’ in Organized industrial relations in Europe: What future? C. Crouch and F. Traxler (eds.), Avebury Press, Aldershot, 1995, pp. 23-44. Traxler, F., Blaschke, S. and Kittel, B., National Labour Relations in Internationalized Markets. A Comparative Study of Institutions, Change and Performance, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001. Treu, T., ‘A New Phase of European Social Policy: The EMU and beyond’, International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2001, pp. 461-72. Veenhoven, R., Why social policy needs subjective indicators, Social Science Research Centre Berlin (WZB), Discussion Paper FS III 91 – 404, Berlin, 2001. Visser, J., ‘Why fewer workers join unions in Europe: A social custom explanation of membership trends’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2002, pp. 403-30. Wajcman, J., ‘Feminism facing industrial relations in Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2000, pp. 183-201. Walton, R.E., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J.E. and McKersie, R.B., Strategic Negotiations: A theory of change in labor-management relations, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 2000 (first published 1994). Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B., A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 1991 (2nd edition). Weiler, A., Pacts for employment and competitiveness: Implications for industrial relations and collective bargaining, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin (2002, unpublished). Weitbrecht, H., ‘Der theoretische Blick auf die sich verändernde Wirklichkeit der industriellen Beziehungen – der Theorieansatz Walther Müller-Jentschs und seine Erweiterung’, in Umbrüche und Kontinuitäten, Perspektiven nationaler und internationaler Arbeitsbeziehungen (Festschrift in honour of Walther Müller-Jentsch’s 65th birthday), J. Abel and H.J. Sperling (eds.), Rainer Hampp Verlag, München, 2001, pp. 15-30. Whitefield, K. and Strauss, G. (eds.), Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York, 1998.
57
Appendix
Participants at the ‘Quality of industrial relations’ workshop
Participants of the workshop Quality of industrial relations organised by the Foundation in Brussels on 12 February 2003: Lucio Baccaro, International Labour Office (ILO); Wilfried Beirnaert, Fédération des Entreprises de Belgique – Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen (VBO-FEB); Reiner Hoffmann, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI); Jens Holscher, Brighton Business School; Christos A. Ioannou, Council of Experts & Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration, Athens; Klaus Kaeding, European Commission; Judith Kirton-Darling, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI); Ramón Peña Casas, Observatoire Social Européen (OSE); Peter Tergeist, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); Marian Whitaker, Brighton Business School. The author wishes to thank Rien Huiskamp who, in the first phase of this report, contributed to the development of a preliminary analytical framework, with reflections on the theoretical impact and with information on qualitative data for some of the proposed indicators.
59
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Quality in industrial relations: Comparative indicators Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2004 – VIII, 60 p. – 21 x 29.7 cm ISBN 92-897-0885-9
Venta • Salg • Verkauf • Pvlèseiw • Sales • Vente • Vendita • Verkoop • Venda • Myynti • Försäljninghttp://eur-op.eu.int/general/en/s-ad.htm
BELGIQUE/BELGIË Jean De Lannoy Avenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202 B-1190 Bruxelles/Brussel Tél. (32-2) 538 43 08 Fax (32-2) 538 08 41 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be La librairie européenne/ De Europese Boekhandel Rue de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244 B-1040 Bruxelles/Brussel Tél. (32-2) 295 26 39 Fax (32-2) 735 08 60 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.libeurop.be Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblad Rue de Louvain 40-42/Leuvenseweg 40-42 B-1000 Bruxelles/Brussel Tél. (32-2) 552 22 11 Fax (32-2) 511 01 84 E-mail: [email protected] DANMARK J. H. Schultz Information A/S Herstedvang 12 DK-2620 Albertslund Tlf. (45) 43 63 23 00 Fax (45) 43 63 19 69 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.schultz.dk DEUTSCHLAND Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH Vertriebsabteilung Amsterdamer Straße 192 D-50735 Köln Tel. (49-221) 97 66 80 Fax (49-221) 97 66 82 78 E-Mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.bundesanzeiger.de ELLADA/GREECE G. C. Eleftheroudakis SA International Bookstore Panepistimiou 17 GR-10564 Athina Tel. (30-1) 331 41 80/1/2/3/4/5 Fax (30-1) 325 84 99 E-mail: [email protected] URL: [email protected] ESPAÑA Boletín Oficial del Estado Trafalgar, 27 E-28071 Madrid Tel. (34) 915 38 21 11 (libros) Tel. (34) 913 84 17 15 (suscripción) Fax (34) 915 38 21 21 (libros), Fax (34) 913 84 17 14 (suscripción) E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.boe.es Mundi Prensa Libros, SA Castelló, 37 E-28001 Madrid Tel. (34) 914 36 37 00 Fax (34) 915 75 39 98 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.mundiprensa.com FRANCE Journal officiel Service des publications des CE 26, rue Desaix F-75727 Paris Cedex 15 Tél. (33) 140 58 77 31 Fax (33) 140 58 77 00 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr IRELAND Alan Hanna’s Bookshop 270 Lower Rathmines Road Dublin 6 Tel. (353-1) 496 73 98 Fax (353-1) 496 02 28 E-mail: [email protected] ITALIA Licosa SpA Via Duca di Calabria, 1/1 Casella postale 552 I-50125 Firenze Tel. (39) 055 64 83 1 Fax (39) 055 64 12 57 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.licosa.com LUXEMBOURG Messageries du livre SARL 5, rue Raiffeisen L-2411 Luxembourg Tél. (352) 40 10 20 Fax (352) 49 06 61 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.mdl.lu Eesti Kaubandus-Tööstuskoda (Estonian Chamber of Commerce and Industry) Toom-Kooli 17 EE-10130 Tallinn Tel. (372) 646 02 44 Fax (372) 646 02 45 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.koda.ee NEDERLAND SDU Servicecentrum Uitgevers Christoffel Plantijnstraat 2 Postbus 20014 2500 EA Den Haag Tel. (31-70) 378 98 80 Fax (31-70) 378 97 83 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.sdu.nl PORTUGAL Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld.ª Grupo Bertrand, SA Rua das Terras dos Vales, 4-A Apartado 60037 P-2700 Amadora Tel. (351) 214 95 87 87 Fax (351) 214 96 02 55 E-mail: [email protected] Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, SA Sector de Publicações Oficiais Rua da Escola Politécnica, 135 P-1250-100 Lisboa Codex Tel. (351) 213 94 57 00 Fax (351) 213 94 57 50 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.incm.pt SUOMI/FINLAND Akateeminen Kirjakauppa/ Akademiska Bokhandeln Keskuskatu 1/Centralgatan 1 PL/PB 128 FIN-00101 Helsinki/Helsingfors P./tfn (358-9) 121 44 18 F./fax (358-9) 121 44 35 Sähköposti: [email protected] URL:http://www.akateeminen.com SVERIGE BTJ AB Traktorvägen 11-13 S-221 82 Lund Tlf. (46-46) 18 00 00 Fax (46-46) 30 79 47 E-post: [email protected] URL:http://www.btj.se UNITED KINGDOM The Stationery Office Ltd Customer Services PO Box 29 Norwich NR3 1GN Tel. (44) 870 60 05-522 Fax (44) 870 60 05-533 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.itsofficial.net ÍSLAND Bokabud Larusar Blöndal Skólavördustig, 2 IS-101 Reykjavik Tel. (354) 552 55 40 Fax (354) 552 55 60 E-mail: [email protected] SCHWEIZ/SUISSE/SVIZZERA Euro Info Center Schweiz c/o OSEC Business Network Switzerland Stampfenbachstraße 85 PF 492 CH-8035 Zürich Tel. (41-1) 365 53 15 Fax (41-1) 365 54 11 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.osec.ch/eics B@LGARIJA Europress Euromedia Ltd 59, blvd Vitosha BG-1000 Sofia Tel. (359-2) 980 37 66 Fax (359-2) 980 42 30 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.europress.bg CYPRUS Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry PO Box 21455 CY-1509 Nicosia Tel. (357-2) 88 97 52 Fax (357-2) 66 10 44 E-mail: [email protected] EESTI HRVATSKA Mediatrade Ltd Pavla Hatza 1 HR-10000 Zagreb Tel. (385-1) 481 94 11 Fax (385-1) 481 94 11 MAGYARORSZÁG Euro Info Service Szt. István krt.12 III emelet 1/A PO Box 1039 H-1137 Budapest Tel. (36-1) 329 21 70 Fax (36-1) 349 20 53 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.euroinfo.hu MALTA Miller Distributors Ltd Malta International Airport PO Box 25 Luqa LQA 05 Tel. (356) 66 44 88 Fax (356) 67 67 99 E-mail: [email protected] NORGE Swets Blackwell AS Hans Nielsen Hauges gt. 39 Boks 4901 Nydalen N-0423 Oslo Tel. (47) 23 40 00 00 Fax (47) 23 40 00 01 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.swetsblackwell.com.no POLSKA Ars Polona Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7 Skr. pocztowa 1001 PL-00-950 Warszawa Tel. (48-22) 826 12 01 Fax (48-22) 826 62 40 E-mail: [email protected] ROMÂNIA Euromedia Str.Dionisie Lupu nr. 65, sector 1 RO-70184 Bucuresti Tel. (40-1) 315 44 03 Fax (40-1) 312 96 46 E-mail: [email protected] SLOVAKIA Centrum VTI SR Nám. Slobody, 19 SK-81223 Bratislava Tel. (421-7) 54 41 83 64 Fax (421-7) 54 41 83 64 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.sltk.stuba.sk SLOVENIJA GV Zalozba Dunajska cesta 5 SLO-1000 Ljubljana Tel. (386) 613 09 1804 Fax (386) 613 09 1805 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.gvzalozba.si TÜRKIYE Dünya Infotel AS 100, Yil Mahallessi 34440 TR-80050 Bagcilar-Istanbul Tel. (90-212) 629 46 89 Fax (90-212) 629 46 27 E-mail: [email protected] ARGENTINA World Publications SA Av. Cordoba 1877 C1120 AAA Buenos Aires Tel. (54-11) 48 15 81 56 Fax (54-11) 48 15 81 56 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.wpbooks.com.ar AUSTRALIA Hunter Publications PO Box 404 Abbotsford, Victoria 3067 Tel. (61-3) 94 17 53 61 Fax (61-3) 94 19 71 54 E-mail: [email protected] BRESIL Livraria Camões Rua Bittencourt da Silva, 12 C CEP 20043-900 Rio de Janeiro Tel. (55-21) 262 47 76 Fax (55-21) 262 47 76 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.incm.com.br SRI LANKA EBIC Sri Lanka Trans Asia Hotel 115 Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 2 Tel. (94-1) 074 71 50 78 Fax (94-1) 44 87 79 E-mail: [email protected] T’AI-WAN Tycoon Information Inc PO Box 81-466 105 Taipei Tel. (886-2) 87 12 88 86 Fax (886-2) 87 12 47 47 E-mail: [email protected] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Bernan Associates 4611-F Assembly Drive Lanham MD 20706-4391 Tel. (1-800) 274 44 47 (toll free telephone) Fax (1-800) 865 34 50 (toll free fax) E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.bernan.com ANDERE LÄNDER OTHER COUNTRIES AUTRES PAYS Bitte wenden Sie sich an ein Büro Ihrer Wahl/Please contact the sales office of your choice/Veuillez vous adresser au bureau de vente de votre choix Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2, rue Mercier L-2985 Luxembourg Tel. (352) 29 29-42455 Fax (352) 29 29-42758 E-mail: [email protected] URL: publications.eu.int The European Union Chamber of Commerce in Korea 5th FI, The Shilla Hotel 202, Jangchung-dong 2 Ga, Chung-ku Seoul 100-392 Tel. (82-2) 22 53-5631/4 Fax (82-2) 22 53-5635/6 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.eucck.org CANADA Les éditions La Liberté Inc. 3020, chemin Sainte-Foy Sainte-Foy, Québec G1X 3V6 Tel. (1-418) 658 37 63 Fax (1-800) 567 54 49 E-mail: [email protected] Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd 5369 Chemin Canotek Road, Unit 1 Ottawa, Ontario K1J 9J3 Tel. (1-613) 745 26 65 Fax (1-613) 745 76 60 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.renoufbooks.com EGYPT The Middle East Observer 41 Sherif Street Cairo Tel. (20-2) 392 69 19 Fax (20-2) 393 97 32 E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://www.meobserver.com.eg MALAYSIA EBIC Malaysia Suite 45.02, Level 45 Plaza MBf (Letter Box 45) 8 Jalan Yap Kwan Seng 50450 Kuala Lumpur Tel. (60-3) 21 62 92 98 Fax (60-3) 21 62 61 98 E-mail: [email protected] MÉXICO Mundi Prensa México, SA de CV Río Pánuco, 141 Colonia Cuauhtémoc MX-06500 México, DF Tel. (52-5) 533 56 58 Fax (52-5) 514 67 99 E-mail: [email protected] SOUTH AFRICA Eurochamber of Commerce in South Africa PO Box 781738 2146 Sandton Tel. (27-11) 884 39 52 Fax (27-11) 883 55 73 E-mail: [email protected] SOUTH KOREA
2/2002
EF/04/61/EN
This report explores the concept of quality in industrial relations, set against the background of EU policies and industrial relations theories. The primary aim was to draw up a conceptual framework for comparative indicators, which could serve to assess various aspects of industrial relations in terms of quality. Within today’s rapidly changing economic and social context, this could prove a useful tool for practitioners and policy-makers in accurately interpreting current developments, detecting barriers to improving quality and helping to identify new policy priorities. The report aims to contribute to the debate between the social partners (and governments) on the development of quality in industrial relations and how to manage change.
The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is a tripartite EU body, whose role is to provide key actors in social policymaking with findings, knowledge and advice drawn from comparative research. The Foundation was established in 1975 by Council Regulation EEC No. 1365/75 of 26 May 1975.
ISBN 92-897-0885-9
9 789289 708852
doc_895042679.pdf