Opening the black box: Actors and interactions shaping European sectoral social dialogue

Work programmes in the hospital and metalworking SSDCs

Work programmes let SSDC actors know the purpose of meetings, the specific policies to be discussed and desired outcomes to be achieved in a specific time-period. Guidelines for the structure and formal characteristics of work programmes are set out by the European Commission (2015). Work programmes should include realistic topics, the timing of envisaged actions and the pursued outcomes taking into account the EU’s political and strategic orientation and the European Commission’s annual work programme (European Commission, 2015). The rules of procedures of SSDCs set out whether annual, biannual or multiannual work programmes should apply and the Commission supports one plenary meeting and a maximum of three working group meetings annually (European Commission, 2017). Although the European Commission is not directly involved in SSDCs, it facilitates dialogue by providing organizational, financial and policy support.

In accordance with the rules of procedure in the hospital SSDC, work programmes (cf. Supplementary Material for the work programmes analysed) are multiannual and based on policy issues jointly agreed by trade unions and employers. Furthermore, the work programme takes account of the different ways hospital and health care services are provided in the member states (EPSU and HOSPEEM, 2006). The work programmes should be regularly evaluated and updated and implemented in a flexible way to effectively respond to changing situations and policy agendas using ad hoc working groups (EPSU and HOSPEEM, 2006). Usually, the implementation of the work programme is carried out by SSDC actors in two working groups and one plenary meeting with the thematic focus of working groups changing in accordance with the work programme policies to be implemented. Since 2011, the work programmes have defined clear steps and a specific time frame for each of the actions envisaged. Therefore, we consider the design of the work programmes in hospitals as an example of good practice.

In the metalworking SSDC, the rules of procedure state that the SSDC will adopt the biannual work programme in the plenary meeting and implement it in a flexible way by establishing ad hoc working groups if felt necessary by CEEMET and EMF (since 2012 industriAll; CEEMET and EMF, 2008). Furthermore, the social partners will regularly review, evaluate and update their work programmes (CEEMET and EMF, 2008). In practice, however, the work programmes are mostly annual and in contrast to the hospital SSDC, the rules and procedures for the metalworking SSDC do not specify criteria for policy choices, specific timings for envisaged actions or the pursued outcomes. Instead the policies included in the work programmes correspond with the SSDC’s meeting structure. The implementation of the work programme is organized in two working groups (‘Education and Training’ and ‘Competitiveness and Employment’), with specific work programmes and one plenary meeting. The two working groups are of a rather permanent nature and deal with the same or similar topics over time. Consequently, the working group structure promotes interactions among a relatively small group of actors within, but not across, working groups. This is different to the hospital SSDC, where a clear thematic and functional differentiation between meetings and actors does not exist. The plenary meeting in particular in the metalworking sector can be regarded as a high-profile political forum where top-level social partner officers meet to decide on work programmes and policy responses to EU initiatives.

Key issues included in work programmes of the hospital SSDCs for many years have been recruitment and retention of the health workforce; continuous professional development and life-long learning; and occupational health and safety at work. Our interviews confirmed that these topics are considered the most important challenges social partners in the hospital sector face. Interviewees in the metalworking sector considered policies to strengthen the competitiveness of the sector, and address the impact of digitalization on the sector and vocational education and training to be most important. With the exception of the Polish, all interviewees confirmed that topics such as digitalization and skills and training are a high priority for their country. Topics of particular importance to the metalworking SSDC are EU industrial policies to promote competitiveness and economic growth. Another source for policy choices is Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) promoting information and consultation rights, health and safety and equality in the workplace. Long-standing topics such as health and safety are tackled in both the metalworking and the hospital SSDCs together with more recent topics of migration and the integration of migrants into the labour market. Brexit and the future relationship between the EU and the UK, especially in terms of immigration and trade, were also mentioned in interviews, particularly in the UK hospital sector where interviewees referred to difficulties in recruiting and retaining EU health staff. Similarly, in the metalworking SSDC, interviewees from the UK and Germany referred to the major challenge of ensuring highly integrated metal industry supply-chains remain effective post-Brexit.

Up to 2018, the hospital SSDC has produced 14 joint texts and the metalworking SSDC 13 (European Commission, 2020). With regard to objectives or deliverables set out in the work programmes, there is seldom reference to the European Commission’s typology of texts, including agreements in accordance with Article 139(2), process-oriented texts and joint opinions and tools (Weber, 2010: 491). In the available work programmes, only joint statements are mentioned in both SSDCs although some references can be found when follow-up reports or evaluations of existing joint texts are tackled in the hospital SSDC. Overall, the hospital work programmes mention a broader range of other deliverables (e.g. reports), whereas the work programmes in the metalworking SSDC focus on exchange of opinions and the identification of areas of mutual interests to provide input to EU institutions and increase awareness among SSDC actors. The much more ‘flexible’ work programmes in the metalworking SSDC might allow for frequent short-term reaction towards EU policies, whereas the much more detailed and long-term work programmes in the hospital SSDC allow for developing more considered joint action over time. Accordingly, the texts produced by the metalworking SSDC (10 out of 13 texts are joint opinions or declarations, and there are no agreements, frameworks of action, guidelines, or follow-up reports, however two tools) indicate that their work programme policies and activities are to a great extent directed towards gaining access to EU policymakers and their attention. In contrast, the topics and deliverables included in the hospital SSDC work programme are more directed at the national level, national affiliates and long-term programmes. This is reflected in the texts produced (one agreement implemented by Council decision, one framework of actions, two guidelines, three follow-up reports and one tool).

The differences in work programmes are summarized in Table 1. In the next step, we investigate the actors involved, the interactions among SSDC actors and the role of EU-social partner organization officers in work programme setting.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Main characteristics of the joint work programmes (Source: Own compilation).

Work programme	Hospital SSDC	Metalworking SSDC
Structure/formal characteristic	Mainly multiannual work programmes	Mainly annual work programmes
	Concrete timelines and deliverables	No timelines, ‘flexible’
	General work programme	Separate work programmes for the two ‘standing’ working groups
Topics	More framed in terms of Art. 153 TFEU	Less framed in terms of Art. 153 TFEU
	Health and safety, staffing, skills/training	Competitiveness, digitalization, skills/training
Objectives/deliverables	Broad range of deliverables, including joint positions, follow-up reports	Focus on information exchange, joint positions
	Focus on national level/affiliates	Focus on EU policy actors/European Commission

Organizational resources and individual capabilities of SSDC actors

Organizational resources (made) available for EU-level sectoral dialogue differ depending on the size of sectors and sectoral employment. SSDC actors from large countries represent a significant share of European sectoral employment and membership in EU-social partner organizations (Eurofound, 2009b, 2010, 2018). In 2015, the metalworking sector in Germany employed one-third of total sectoral employment in the EU, with France, Italy and the UK together representing a further third, and Central Eastern European countries approximately one-fourth. Sectoral employment in the hospital sector is highest in larger countries, with France, Germany and the UK accounting for two-thirds of total sectoral employment in the EU (cf. Tables 3 and 4 in the Appendix). According to the interviewees, SSDC actors from Germany and the UK are sufficiently resourced to participate in both working group meetings and the plenary meeting. Nordic countries like Sweden pool resources regionally in order to represent their members in SSDCs, while social partners in Italy and Poland report problems in making adequate levels of financial and human resources available for participation. In the hospital sector, the two Italian trade unions (out of 19 unions) affiliated to EPSU employ a rota system to allow for more flexibility with SSDC participation and cost saving. During the period of our study, no trade union in Poland was affiliated to EPSU due to resource constraints.

Tables 3 and 4 in the Appendix show that not all national sectoral social partner organizations are affiliated to EU-social partner organizations, with employer organizations even less likely to be affiliated, and that not all SSDC actors actively and frequently participate in SSDCs. Generally, resourceful actors from countries representing a significant share of sectoral employment are affiliated to EU-social partner organizations and do participate in SSDCs. In contrast, actors from countries representing a low proportion of relative sectoral employment are missing because they either are not affiliated to EU-social partner organizations (e.g. employer organizations) or are absent from meetings in Brussels (e.g. trade unions). According to our data, trade unions in the hospital sector participate more in SSDCs than those in the metalworking sector, but on the employer side there are no significant differences (Eurofound, 2009b, 2010, 2018). Interviewees also highlighted the importance of both trade unions and employer organizations from one country participating in SSDCs since this facilitated joint discussions and a commitment to follow-up on policies at the national level. In both sectors, no Polish employer organizations are affiliated to EU-social partner organizations. The absence of a national counterpart in social dialogue is another possible factor explaining disengagement in SSDCs (e.g. Poland).

Our analysis revealed that persons representing social partner organizations in SSDCs differ in their individual capability and with regard to their functional role and influence inside their organization. Interviewees drew attention to the fact that not all SSDC actors are equipped with a mandate or are ‘senior’ enough to take decisions in the SSDC. Based on our interview data, social partner representatives are, for example, trade union/employer organization officers who are in some cases involved in sectoral bargaining at the national level, international officers responsible for the representation of an organization at the European level in several sectors, or experts on specific issues within an organization (e.g. health and safety experts). Depending on their role, they more or less frequently participate in SSDC meetings and differ in their capacity to influence policy choices. Both working group and plenary meetings represent formal opportunities to interact and to build relationships with SSDC actors from different countries. Trade union/employer organization officers and international officers tend to participate in both working group and plenary meetings, while experts usually join working group meetings on specific topics. Well-resourced social partner organizations are often able to utilize the knowledge and experience of multiple actors by sending their officers and experts to meetings to further the interests of their members. Different to the hospital SSDC, the plenary meeting of the metalworking SSDC is more ‘political’ insofar as senior officials represent participating organizations. However, as the representation varies across meetings, interactions and relationship building among the SSDC actors are undermined.

The ability to effectively understand and communicate in the English language is another factor identified as important for interaction in SSDCs (Eurofound, 2007). Lack of sufficient language skills were more frequently reported for trade union officers than international officers and experts participating in SSDCs. To overcome language barriers, the European Commission provides interpreter services to enable engagement in SSDCs. Language is less of a barrier for participation in northern European countries than in southern European and Central Eastern European countries. This factor may be explained by the practice of organizations in these countries to send senior officers who may not speak English to European-level meetings. Continuity of participation and overcoming language barriers are prerequisites for SSDC actors to become familiar at first hand with distinct foreign industrial relations systems (Gollbach and Schulten, 2000). Interviewees emphasized the importance of these factors for interaction and to establish relationships among actors. Overall, variations in the capabilities of SSDC actors are explained by their role within an organization, frequency of participation, knowledge about foreign industrial relations and dialogue styles and ability to communicate in English.

Core actors are SSDC actors representing a significant share of European sectoral employment that are also well-resourced allowing them to frequently participate in SSDCs. They contribute with their resources to the work of SSDCs by preparing sector/industry reports, writing up reports in English, conducting surveys, and sharing expertise and examples of good practice (e.g. Germany, Sweden and the UK). Core actors usually hold representative functions in EU-social partner organizations. Such functions ensure greater influence through privileged access to information and involvement in the selection of policies for work programmes. Trade union interviewees in particular referred to Germany, the UK and Scandinavia as influential in steering the debate. On the employer side in the metalworking sector, SSDC actors, such as France, Germany, Italy and the UK were seen as vital in setting work programmes for social dialogue. Our interviews highlight that core actors more likely get noticed in meetings than actors at the ‘periphery of committees’ (Eurofound, 2009a: 48).

Generally, actors who cannot afford or prefer not to be actively engaged in working group and plenary meetings participate via the respective EU-social partner officer. This form of indirect participation in SSDCs is based on interactions between EU-social partner officers and the actors at the national level. The EU-social partner officers act as a bridge between the SSDC and national level to facilitate and coordinate interactions between the core groups and less well integrated members.

Interactions among actors in work programme setting