Abstract
European social dialogue is the first example of non-legislative action. Following its institutional recognition in the Maastricht Social Protocol and first ground-breaking agreements in the second half of the 1990s, the European social dialogue made another qualitative leap forward in 2002: the European cross-industry social partners, ETUC, BUSINESSEUROPE, CEEP and UEAPME, embraced more autonomy in their discussions, consultations and negotiations. They developed a new policy instrument – the so-called autonomous agreements – and thereby brought their national members into the limelight.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This chapter focuses exclusively on the cross-industry level of European social dialogue; it does not take account of developments in the field of sectoral social dialogue. See for the sectoral dimension Léonard (2008), Bossaert & Kaeding (2009) and Müllensiefen (2012).
- 2.
The Icelandic and Norwegian social partners participate in the European cross-industry social dialogue. Therefore, these countries are covered both by the social partners’ and the Commission’s implementation reports.
- 3.
Now Article 155 TFEU.
- 4.
This formulation differs slightly from Treaty Article 155(2) TFEU which reads ‘… and the Member States’ (emphasis added). This wording might have been introduced to accommodate possible concerns to keep national public authorities out of the implementation process as far as possible. It corresponds to Declaration n° 21 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam in which the governments declare that the autonomous implementation process foreseen by Article 155(2) 1st alt. ‘will consist in developing, by collective bargaining according to the rules of each Member State, the content of the agreements, and that consequently this arrangement implies no obligation on the Member States to apply the agreements directly or to work out rules for their transposition, nor any obligation to amend national legislation in force to facilitate their implementation.’ The wording of the Treaty (‘… and the Member States’) should be interpreted in the sense that, while Member States have no direct duty to contribute to the implementation, they have the possibility to do so and should not put obstacles in the way of implementation by social partners.
- 5.
By adopting the autonomous agreements as voting members of the decision-making bodies of the EU organisations, the national organisations have implicitly accepted this duty.
- 6.
The agreement defines telework as ‘a form of organising and/or performing work, using information technology, in the context of an employment contract/relationship, where work, which could also be performed at the employer’s premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular basis’. The social partners intended to avoid that the expansion of telework would result in a new employment status.
- 7.
Years from August to July. In case of social partner agreements, date of adoption. In case of legislation, date of entry into force (except Poland: social partner agreement).
- 8.
In Denmark five agreements were signed: In the private sector two main agreements were struck in the manufacturing industry and the commercial services branches, complemented by another one at cross-industry level. In the public sector, two major agreements were concluded or renewed with a view to implementing the European Agreement.
- 9.
In particular Prosser (2007), Larsen and Andersen (2007) and Deakin and Koukiadaki (2007). Larsen and Andersen (2007), analysing the implementation of the telework agreement in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the UK and Hungary, conclude that the implementation methods often deviated from national regulatory traditions, in particular in countries with a strong tradition of sectoral bargaining; other factors such as the content of the agreement and how relevant it was perceived by national actors as well as power games between trade unions, employers and the state were more influential in determining the outcome of the implementation process. Prosser (2007) considers the impact the telework and stress agreements had in two Member States (Denmark and the UK) as modest and gives two main reasons: the weakness of the ‘procedures and practices’ implementation route which triggered discussions at national level about the correct procedures and practices to use; and the limited relevance of the agreements’ substance matter in the national content.
- 10.
The Social Dialogue Committee, established in 1992, is the main body for cross-industry social dialogue at European level. It meets 3–4 times a year, allowing both sides of industry (employers and trade unions) to exchange views, decide on the launch of negotiations, adopt negotiated texts and plan their joint activities. It is composed of more than 60 members both from the European secretariats and the national social partner organisations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaeding, M. (2013). Implementing Self-Regulations across Member States. In: Towards an Effective European Single Market. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19684-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19684-8_4
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-19683-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-531-19684-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)