Suchergebnisse

This article considers how European sectoral social partners have tackled and promoted the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and to what extent their common actions have given CSR a tangible and practical form. After reviewing sectoral social dialogue and trade unions' attitudes to CSR, the authors report on research into the activities of sectoral social dialogue committees. The research shows that many of the sectoral social dialogue committees, whether they consider themselves to be active or not on CSR, have been grappling with the core issues raised by the concept over a number of years. The development of the European institutional debate on CSR has clearly led to the 'redefinition' of activities carried out in the framework of the sectoral social dialogue, in some cases offering new impetus to common actions and broadening the scope of debate, while in other cases offering 'old wine in new bottles'. This article further analyses the specific activities of the sectoral social dialogue committees in the sugar sector.

The return of social pacts in the context of the current economic crisis, as seen in southern European countries, invites the revival of the discussion about the development of social dialogue practice in its specific context. Based on a longitudinal analysis we examine the agenda of Spanish tripartite social pacts. We do this by assessing their priorities and the actors' strategies for their involvement in social dialogue by taking the overall political, legal and social context into account. The results are then used to discuss the future implications for Spanish social partners. Challenges regarding the future role of the social partners in collective bargaining, their political exchange and their dependence on political allies are observed.

Purpose: To investigate how an adventure-based activity could help facilitate dialogue and enable a safe process where students could engage in a difficult topic such as diversity without feeling threatened. Method: A qualitative study was used in which 89 social work students who took part in diversity training gave permission that their manuscripts be used for documentary analysis. Content analysis was used to analyze the data in order to determine if and how the adventure-based activity contributed to the facilitation of dialogue. Results: It was found that the activity contributed to changing the attitude and knowledge of social work students. It opened up new perspectives and allowed students to discuss diversity without fear. Conclusion: The use of adventure activities is an effective strategy to facilitate dialogue between students.

Training is commonly regarded as essential to the competitiveness of national economies and individual enterprises. It is also seen as a vital means of enhancing the employment security of workers. To that extent, it has been claimed that continuing training may provide fertile ground for the development of social dialogue and joint initiatives by employers and trade unions. Trade unions across Europe have also increasingly sought to have training included on collective bargaining agendas. This article examines recent developments in collective bargaining and social dialogue in respect of continuing training. It explores experiences in a number of Western European economies, in addition to social dialogue at the European level. It is suggested that the prospects for the development of effective social dialogue and consensual approaches to continuing training are more uncertain than is sometimes supposed.

The European sectoral social dialogue is rapidly becoming a pillar of European governance. It enables professional relationships to form in Member States, respecting each country's autonomous rights, in line with the subsidiarity principle. European sectoral social dialogue is created through the initiative of the European social partners, that is, representative groups of employers and employees in the relevant sector. The dialogue materializes through the formation of a sectoral social dialogue committee as an official discussion and negotiation forum. Creating a sectoral social dialogue committee in the sports sector is a difficult process because of the specific characteristics of sport, the involvement of young people, the lack of social dialogue at national level in sport, as well as problems with the representativeness of employers' and employees' organizations and sectoral segmentation.

As pressures grow on Europe's hospitals, lessons must be learned from social dialogue during the pandemic.

EU instruments encouraging social dialogue and collective bargaining are very valuable—but not if employers can walk away.

The increasing presence of the private sector in public health care systems has made social partners question the effectiveness of existing national social dialogue arrangements. The emergence of issues such as patient mobility, workers' mobility and cross-border health care, which all required action at European level, led social partners at European level to build an informal process of social dialogue. This article examines the process of developing an informal sectoral social dialogue committee for the hospital sector at EU level, from 2000 until 2006, drawing on an analysis of documents, key informant interviews and participant-observer reflections. The findings show that developing the content of social dialogue is as important as the process itself and adequate representation is central to success. The most outstanding achievement of the informal process of social dialogue was that partners became more articulate about developing shared positions and gradually gained access to European institutions. La présence grandissante du secteur privé dans les systèmes publics de soins de santé a conduit les partenaires sociaux à s'interroger sur l'efficacité des accords de dialogue social existant au niveau national. L'émergence de questions telles que la mobilité des patients, la mobilité des travailleurs et les soins de santé transfrontaliers, qui toutes exigent une action au niveau européen, a conduit les partenaires sociaux à construire un processus informel de dialogue social au niveau européen. Cet article examine le processus de développement, entre 2000 et 2006, d'un comité sectoriel informel pour le dialogue social dans le secteur hospitalier au niveau de l'UE. Il se base sur une analyse des documents, des entretiens avec des informateurs clés et des réflexions en tant que participant/observateur. Il montre que le développement du contenu du dialogue social est aussi important que le processus lui-même, et qu'une représentation adéquate est un facteur clé de succès. Le résultat le plus frappant de ce processus informel de dialogue social est que les partenaires sont devenus plus enclins à développer des positions communes et qu'ils ont obtenu progressivement accès aux institutions européennes. Angesichts der zunehmenden Präsenz privater Leistungsanbieter in den öffentlichen Gesund-heitsversorgungssystemen haben die Sozialpartner die Wirksamkeit der bestehenden Regelungen für den sozialen Dialog auf nationaler Ebene hinterfragt. Das Aufkommen von Themen wie Patientenmobilität, Arbeitnehmermobilität und grenzüberschreitende Gesundheitsversorgung, die auf europäischer Ebene angegangen werden mussten, brachte die Sozialpartner dazu, auf europäischer Ebene einen informellen Prozess für den sozialen Dialog einzurichten. Dieser Beitrag untersucht anhand von Dokumenten, Interviews und Beobachtungen von Teilnehmern, wie der Ausschuss für den informellen sozialen Dialog im Krankenhaussektor auf europäischer Ebene im Zeitraum 2000 bis 2006 aufgebaut und entwickelt wurde. Diese Untersuchung zeigt, dass die inhaltliche Entwicklung des sozialen Dialogs ebenso wichtig ist wie der Aufbauprozess selbst und dass die Frage der angemessenen Interessensvertretung eine maßgebliche Rolle für den Erfolg dieses Dialogs spielt. Die wichtigste Errungenschaft des informellen sozialen Dialogs besteht darin, dass die Partner sich deutlicher für die Entwicklung gemeinsamer Positionen eingesetzt und schrittweise Zugang zu den europäischen Institutionen erlangt haben.

The industrial relations models among the EU/EES countries vary widely. The Nordic model of self-regulation contrasts sharply to French state extension of collective agreements and minimum wage set by the state. While social dialogue often refers to tripartite negotiations, bipartite collective bargaining is characteristic of self-regulation. Swedish self-regulation is the most far-reaching among the Nordic countries, as state intervention is less common than in Denmark, Finland and Norway. In most EU/EES countries, in particular the new Central and Eastern European member states and Greece, union power is undermined by declining union density and shrinking coverage of collective agreements. In many cases, international organisations pushed through "structural reforms" weakening trade unions. The result is decreased bargaining capacity at industry level and difficulties in avoiding downwards derogations at company level. Even in some core eurozone countries governments have carried through "internal devaluation" to restore competitiveness. High union density (Finland) or high union mobilisation capacity (France) could not prevent this development. The economic performance of a country and degree of globalisation, including the absence of a national currency, appear more important. Swedish union density is still among the highest in the world but has declined considerably in the last twenty years. As a strongly export-dependent country dominated by large transnational groups, is Sweden very exposed to globalisation. This has shifted the balance of power to the advantage of transnational companies, and by that circumscribed the unions' efforts to achieve developing jobs and improved working environment.

ABSTRACTThe European social dialogue provides for the signing of collective agreements between employers' associations and trade unions organised at the European level. Effectiveness to a great extent depends on the shadow of hierarchy, which is cast by the threat of legislative action and by ensuring implementation of collective agreements through public intervention. The need for the shadow is illustrated by the initial priority given to statutory agreements and the problems of implementation of more recent non-statutory agreements. While the shadow of hierarchy is important to ensure the effectiveness of social dialogue, social dialogue procedures are not characterised by strong principal-agent relationships. In particular, non-statutory agreements stem from a bottom-up private sector-inspired tradition of industrial relations. Even in the case of statutory agreements, the European Commission, as principal, does not appoint the agent and the delegation is implicit rather than explicit. Moreover, successful delegation entirely depends on whether the agents reach agreement between themselves. While the Commission could revoke delegation if Community objectives are not realised and by setting statutory criteria for implementing an agreement, its room for manoeuvre is limited for reasons of political pragmatism.

This article analyzes the characteristic features of social dialogue in the Baltic states. The methodology of the current research is based on an intensive analysis of literature and statistical data. The aim of the present research is to address some gaps that were identified during the literature review. Firstly, why does the social dialogue develop so slowly in the Baltic states? Secondly, what was the role of social partners in that process? We find that the main achievement in social dialogue have been reached by social partners on the national level and, despite the painful austerity measures, the Baltic states showed the benchmark of advanced crisis management.