Thematic feature - social partner involvement in the 2003 NAP

Download article in original language : FR0310106TFR.DOC

This article examines social partner involvement in the preparation of France’s 2003 National Action Plan for employment drawn up in response to the EU Employment Guidelines.

The European Union'sEuropean employment strategy (EES) has been in operation since 1997 (EU9711168F). The strategy enables the coordination of national employment policies at EU level and one of its main components has been the adoption (on the basis of a proposal from theEuropean Commission) by theEuropean Council of a set of annual Employment Guidelines setting out common priorities for Member States' employment policies. The Member States then draw up annual National Action Plans (NAPs) which describe how these Guidelines are being put into practice nationally.

Following a review of the EES undertaken in 2002 after five years of operation (EU0209204F), and proposals for its streamlining, made by the Commission in aCommunication in September 2002 (EU0210206F), the strategy has now been renewed and simplified, with a stronger focus on implementation and a new timetable. In July 2003, the Council adopted the 2003Employment Guidelines (EU0308205F), which had been proposed by the Commission in April 2003. Compared with previous years, the Employment Guidelines have been revised so as to: ensure a stronger link with EU economic policy coordination (through streamlined timetables); lay down fewer guidelines with a broader perspective; provide a medium-term time horizon in order to achieve an increased emphasis on results and outcomes; and strengthen the involvement of the social partners, local authorities and other stakeholders.

The2003 Employment Guidelines to the Member States set out three main objectives:

• full employment;

• improving quality and productivity at work; and

• strengthening social cohesion and inclusion.

While still maintaining the employment targets set at the Lisbon (EU0004241F) and Stockholm (EU0104208F)European Council meetings in 2000 and 2001, in order to achieve these three objectives the Guidelines focus on 10 policy priorities, rather than grouping a range of guidelines into four pillars, as has previously been the practice. These 10 priorities are

1. active and preventative measures for the unemployed and inactive;

2. job creation and entrepreneurship;

3. address change and promote adaptability and mobility in the labour market;

4. promote development of human capital and lifelong learning;

5. increase labour supply and active ageing;

6. gender equality;

7. promote the integration of and combat the discrimination against people at a disadvantage in the labour market;

8. make work pay through incentives to enhance work attractiveness;

9. transform undeclared work into regular employment; and

10. address regional employment disparities.

Under the revised EES, Member States still draw up NAPs setting out how the Employment Guidelines are being implemented. The NAPs present the progress achieved in the Member State over the past 12 months and the measures planned for the coming 12 months, and are thus both reporting and planning documents. The NAPs based on the 2003 Guidelines - which should have a stronger focus on implementation and the medium term - were due to be adopted in October 2003.

While national governments and public labour market authorities are mainly responsible for drawing up and implementing the NAPs, the role and the contribution of the social partners has been progressively emphasised as the EES has developed, acknowledging the fact that many issues addressed in the Employment Guidelines directly concern the social partners, and in many cases the collective bargaining process. The 2003 Guidelines include a section on'good governance and partnership' in their implementation, with Member States requested to ensure the effective implementation of the Guidelines, including at the regional and local level, and involve parliamentary bodies, social partners and other relevant actors. Good governance and partnership are seen as important issues for the implementation of the EES,'while fully respecting national traditions and practices'. With regard to the social partners, they should be invited at national level -'in accordance with their national traditions and practices'- to ensure the effective implementation of the Guidelines and to report on their most significant contributions in all areas under their responsibility, in particular concerning: the management of change and adaptability;'synergy' between flexibility and security;'human capital development'; gender equality; making work pay; active ageing; and health and safety at work. The European-level social partners at intersectoral and sectoral level are invited to contribute to the implementation of the Guidelines and to support efforts undertaken by the national social partners at all levels. As announced in theirjoint work programme for 2003-5 (EU0212206F), the European intersectoral social partners will report annually on their contribution to the implementation of the Guidelines. Furthermore, the European sectoral social partners are invited to report on their respective actions.

In October 2003, the EIRO national centres in each EU Member State, were asked, in response to a questionnaire, to outline how the social partners were involved in the preparation of their country's2003 NAP (a similar exercise was conducted in relation to the 2002 NAPs -FR0206104T). The French responses are set out below (along with the questions asked).

Procedural aspects

1) Which organisations did the government consult on the preparation of the 2003 NAP? Were these organisations informed in time? Did they have enough time to react?

In 1998, at the start of the European employment strategy, the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity relaunched the Committee for Social Dialogue on European and International Issues (Comité du dialogue social pour les questions européennes et internationales, CDSEI), giving it a formal structure and operating procedure (FR9812149N). All nationally representative social partner organisations sit on the Committee, as follows:

• the five representative trade union confederations - the General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT), the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT), the General Confederation of Labour-Force ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail-Force ouvrière, CGT-FO), the French Christian Workers' Confederation (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens, CFTC) and the French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff-General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l'encadrement-Confédération générale des cadres, CFE-CGC);

• the main employers' organisations - the Movement of French Enterprises (Mouvement des entreprises de France, MEDEF), the General Confederation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Confédération générale des petites et moyennes entreprises, CGPME), the Craftwork Employers' Association (Union professionnelle artisanale, UPA) and the French section of theEuropean Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP);

• farmers' and agriculture-related associations - the National Federation of Farmers' Unions (Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles, FNSEA) and the National Confederation of Agricultural Mutual Associations, Cooperatives and Credit Bodies (Confédération Nationale de la Mutualité, de la Coopération et du Crédit Agricoles, CNMCCA); and

• the National Union of the Liberal Professions, (Union Nationale des Professions Libérales, UNAPL).

All these organisations were consulted by the government on the development of the 2003 NAP at meetings of the CDSEI. While the social partners concerned consider that they were, as a rule, informed in a timely fashion, the preparatory documents were provided a little too late for the meetings and as a result they had less time to prepare. Moreover, one of the last preparatory meetings scheduled for mid-September 2003, which was to be chaired - exceptionally - by the Minister of Employment, Solidarity and Social Affairs, was cancelled at the last minute.

2) If the social partners have submitted their views, are these represented in the NAP?

Before and during every CDSEI meeting devoted to developing the 2003 NAP, and based on the agenda, trade unions and employers’ organisations were invited to submit their comments to CDSEI officials. These comments were then summarised in the minutes of the meeting. The CDSEI officials and the Ministry of Employment were responsible for working the comments and suggestions into the final document.

3) Does the NAP include a chapter/part written by the social partners? Is the NAP a joint text? Did social partners sign the NAP?

Unlike in 2002 (FR0206104T), the 2003 NAP does not include a specific contribution from certain trade unions and employers’ associations. Both CFDT and CGPME raised the possibility of a submission taking stock of the'back-to-work assistance plan' (Plan d’aide au retour à l’emploi, PARE) and'individualised action plan' (Plan d’action personnalisé, PAP) for unemployed people set up in the wake of difficult social partner negotiations within the National Organisation for Employment in Industry and Trade (Union nationale pour l’emploi dans l’industrie et le commerce, UNEDIC) unemployment insurance system in 2001 (FR0101114F andFR0106161N). However, in the end, no submission of this type was forthcoming.

With the agreement of the unions and employers’ organisation, NAP talks at the CDSEI level were broadened in 2003 to include other agencies responsible for: public employment services - the National Employment Agency (Agence nationale pour l’emploi, ANPE); vocational training - the National Adult Vocational Training Organisation (Association nationale pour la formation professionnelle des adultes, AFPA), unemployment benefits - UNEDIC; and jobs for people with disabilities - the National Association for the Management of the Disabled Employment Fund (Association nationale de gestion du fonds pour l'insertion professionnelle des personnes handicapées, AGEFIPH). Some of these bodies, such as AFPA, UNEDIC and AGEFIPH, are organisations jointly run by trade unions and employers’ organisations.

One particular meeting of the CDSEI during the summer of 2003 looked at the arrangements for the contributions of trade unions and employers’ organisation to the NAP. The majority of social partner organisations were in favour of more'active' involvement in the development of the NAP. Only CGT-FO on the union side and MEDEF on the employers’ side opposed more active participation by the social partners.

4) What was the degree of consultation? Was the consultation important in substance or were social partners asked to say just'yes' or'no'?

As seen above, trade unions and employers’ organisations are widely consulted in the NAP development process and they provide major input. In addition, in the light of the reform of European employment strategy process to give it a three-year cycle, task forces are to be set up, in concert with the social partners, within the CDSEI to provide follow-up and assessment on the results of the major policy areas of the NAP.

Matters of policy content

1) To what extent were social partners involved at national (and/or regional/local) level, as mentioned under the'good governance and partnership' part of the Employment Guidelines?

a) Was a comprehensive partnership developed or not, and why? Have there been significant tripartite arrangements in view of implementing some or all of the Employment Guidelines?

b) How have the social partners at various levels implemented the Employment Guidelines - eg through collective bargaining, consultations, joint or unilateral actions etc - notably with regard to those aspects which are identified as their key responsibilities (where appropriate, taking into account the employment policy recommendations addressed by the EU to the Member States)? This should cover the following areas:

• Management of change and adaptability

• Synergy between flexibility and security, work-life balance

• Human capital development

• Gender equality

• Making work pay

• Inclusion and access to the labour market

• Active ageing and increase in labour supply

• Health, safety and well-being at work

The task of governing the Republic of France remains articulated around the central (rather than regional/local) government administration, and employment is no exception. To date, the NAP remains an initiative that has been essentially carried out at a national level. Unions and employers’ organisations have been involved solely at this level. However, the current government of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has launched a major reform programme aimed at strengthening the jurisdiction of regional authorities in the areas of vocational training and access to the labour market (FR0304107F andFR0306103F). Consequently, the 2003 NAP refers to legislation to be tabled in 2004 to formalise this move.

Collective bargaining in France is bipartite and not tripartite. The role of the government and authorities in the process is to provide stimulus and encouragement for representative unions and employers’ organisations to negotiate through official or unofficial meetings, statements and conferences etc, and then to implement the agreements reached either through theextension procedure (TN0212102S) or by means of legislation.

Indirectly, although not necessarily explicitly stated by the social partners, the EU Employment Guidelines influence the issues dealt with and the content of the collective bargaining process. Recently, in addition to the renewal of the UNEDIC agreement in late 2002 (FR0301106F), a major intersectoral on vocational training was signed following an agreement on pensions, which was subsequently formally introduced through appropriate legislation (FR0309103F). The issue of active ageing is being examined by a tripartite conference. Negotiations are underway on equality in the workplace. As to the industrial relations aspects of company restructuring, intersectoral talks are taking place at national level while the number of procedural agreements within companies (FR0307101N andFR0310101N) affected by major restructuring programmes is on the rise.

2. What is the social partners’ assessment of the employment policy of the government?

The various positions of the social partners on the government’s employment policy stand in contrast to one another. Employers’ organisations agree with the main thrust of the government’s initiatives, even though they view current reforms as, at times, too slow and timid. Trade unions are generally critical of the government approach. Developments such as the current government's elimination of the'jobs-for-young-people' programme (FR0208101N andFR0210103N), or government statements hostile to the reduction of working time and the 35-hour week, have provided the unions with ammunition with which to challenge government policies. Beyond its employment initiatives, the unions are taking the government to task over its overall and economic and taxation policy.

3. Are there any gaps or any insufficiencies identified by the social partners in the NAP?

Both trade unions and employers’ organisations on the whole supported the overhaul of the European employment strategy (EES) and its coordination with the EU's Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs). Some trade unions (such as CFDT and CFTC) are now criticising the way the reformed EES has been implemented as well as the way priority has allegedly been given to the BEPGs over the EES's Employment Guidelines. Some social partner organisations (such as CFDT, CGT, CGT-FO and the French section of CEEP) have also criticised what they see as a lack of ambition in the Guidelines themselves. Indeed, several organisations (such as the French section of CEEP, CFDT and CGT-FO) have pointed to the fact that the Guidelines do not mention services of public interest, which play a considerable role in employment and social cohesion. They consider that the French NAP should highlight this fact more clearly.

Overall, MEDEF is satisfied with the 2003 NAP.

Comments

Please add here any other comments on the NAP, its procedures and its implementation.

The overhaul of the EES has significantly changed the annual NAP development process. Furthermore, the 2003 NAP was the first to be entirely designed and developed by the new conservative government that came to power in spring 2002. All these factors have had an impact on the way that the 2003 NAP has been developed.

As in previous years, trade unions and employers’ organisations were closely involved in the development of the NAP, but none of the usual pre-development taskforces were set up this year. In addition, unlike in previous years, the Minister responsible for the NAP process did not attend the CDSEI meetings at which the 2003 NAP was finalised.

It is too early to read any overall policy direction into the government’s actions. However, it should be noted that in addition to the apparent lower-intensity involvement in the EES of the French government and authorities, they have also opted to develop bilateral relations in the areas of employment and the labour market with specific EU Member States, in particular Germany. It remains to be seen whether this development has come to stay and will shape the process in future years.

Lastly, the government has launched a major reform process designed to enhance the jurisdictions of regional authorities (FR0304107F). The 2003 NAP refers to future initiatives on this issue that will change the NAP development process even further over the next few years and will necessarily include input from regional partners. The unions and employers’ organisations will then have to adapt to the new situation and henceforth also work on the NAP through their regional and local branches, thus modifying the distribution of power and jurisdiction within their ranks. (Maurice Braud, IRES)