CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AGREEMENTS: An ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cross-border social dialogue and agreements on the usefulness of pursuing research and exchange of experience on the subject. The Commission announced a communication — to be drafted in consultation with the social partners — to take stock of progress so far and to be the basis of further activities. Views of European social partners European social partners reacted very differently to the Commission’s initiative for a European framework for transnational collective bargaining: employers firmly opposed the proposal, while the ETUC offered conditional support. Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe From 2004, the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE), known since 23 January 2007 as BusinessEurope, repeatedly stressed its objections. Its arguments have evolved from denying the trend towards the development of transnational collective bargaining to disputing the need for a framework for transnational collective bargaining, stressing the risk for social dialogue at European level as a whole. In a position paper, UNICE argued that the Commission’s proposal for a European framework for transnational collective bargaining would get in the way of developing social dialogue in Europe: “the suggestion regarding [the] establishment of a more extensive framework for the European social dialogue to be seen as a Community framework for transnational collective bargaining” is “bound to hamper rather than facilitate the development of social partnership in Europe” (UNICE, 2004, p. 2). This view is explained further below, in a list of six reasons given by UNICE. UNICE also disputed any claim that the Commission’s proposal might complement the existing framework for European social dialogue, stating that it “does not believe that devising a more extensive framework for the European social dialogue is necessary and would have the strongest objections to the Commission preparing such a framework itself” (UNICE, 2004, p. 4). Furthermore, UNICE appeared to have understood that the Commission’s initiative would apply to the whole European social dialogue, as it protested that presenting this framework 228
A report on the European Commission for a European framework – Bé as “a Community framework for transnational collective bargaining” was “unacceptable and misleading as European negotiations and the resulting framework agreements which establish broad principles are fundamentally different from collective agreements resulting from bargaining on wages and working conditions in the Member States” (UNICE, 2004, p. 4). The initial objections of UNICE therefore concerned the status and appropriateness of the new initiative in the context of the existing framework of the European social dialogue as well as the risk of strengthening that existing framework. UNICE reiterated its opposition to an optional EU framework for collective bargaining in its reaction to the Social Agenda, stressing that “there is no need for an additional layer of EU collective bargaining over and above the national, sectoral, regional or company level, and the current Treaty provisions on EU social dialogue provide the right basis for the development of EU social dialogue” (UNICE, 2005). UNICE confirmed its hostility by focusing on the lack of added value of the Commission’s initiative in the context of the existing EU framework for social dialogue. Following the first (17 May 2006) seminar, UNICE repeated its strong opposition while slightly modifying its arguments. Rather than criticizing the proposed framework as an ineffective solution, it denied the very existence of any problem, emphasizing that “the claimed existence of a trend towards the development of transnational collective bargaining at EU level was not based on sound analysis” (UNICE, 2006a). UNICE’s objections to the European framework on transnational collective bargaining were repeated once more after a UNICE seminar of 26 September 2006, which involved “representatives of multinational companies which have signed agreements with workers representatives at international level as well as enterprises which have not”. UNICE questioned the need for a European framework for transnational collective bargaining as it stated that “companies having adopted international framework agreements did not encounter legal obstacles and that the nature of these texts could not be compared with collective agreements” (UNICE, 2006b). Subsequent to the second (27 November 2006) seminar, UNICE confirmed its opposition to the creation of an EU optional framework for transnational collective bargaining in an unpublished position paper of 11 December 2006, in which it gave several reasons. 229
Page 1 and 2:
CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AG
Page 3 and 4:
Published by the International Inst
Page 5 and 6:
Cross-border social dialogue and ag
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Contributors Dominique Bé, an econ
Page 15 and 16:
Contributors Nathan Lillie is Assis
Page 17 and 18:
Acronyms BWI Building and Wood Work
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction Konstantinos Papadakis
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction - Papadakis each with
Page 23 and 24:
Introduction - Papadakis above. Thi
Page 25 and 26:
Introduction - Papadakis tices unde
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction - Papadakis role of co
Page 29 and 30:
Introduction - Papadakis veaux enje
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 1 International framework a
Page 33 and 34:
International framework agreements:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Chapter 3 International framework a
Page 83 and 84:
International framework agreements
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Part 3 Legal dimensions 113
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Part 4 Varieties of dialogue and re
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184: Cross-border social dialogue and ag
Page 199 and 200: Chapter 8 The ILO Maritime Labour C
Page 201 and 202: The ILO Maritime Labour Convention,
Page 227 and 228: Chapter 9 A report on the European
Page 229 and 230: A report on the European Commission
Page 233: A report on the European Commission
Page 269 and 270: Appendix
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291:
show all

CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AGREEMENTS: An ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?