Proposals for new national incomes policy agreement

The current national incomes policy agreement, which lasted two and a half years, is due to expire at the end of September 2007. The social partners have already put forward their expectations about the possibilities of a new centralised agreement on incomes policy. However, although the government and labour market confederations believe the current agreement to be successful, the conclusion of a new national agreement is uncertain. Some trade unions have stated that they would prefer to have negotiations at sectoral level.

On 30 September 2007, the current national incomes policy agreement, which has been running for a historically long period, will expire (FI0501203F). In light of this, the social partners have put forward their initial expectations about the possibilities of the new centralised agreement.

Both sides predict tough negotiations

Both the Confederation of Finnish Industries (Elinkeinoelämän keskusliitto, EK) and the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (Suomen Ammattiliittojen Keskusjärjestö, SAK) expect the upcoming round of negotiations for a new national agreement on incomes policy to be challenging. The Director General of EK, Leif Fagernäs, has not committed the confederation to any particular form of agreement. He stated that EK will aim to promote a more company-specific approach, which could be achieved by means of the centralised national agreement and through sector-specific negotiation rounds. According to Mr Fagernäs, the company-specific issues that should be agreed on include wages, working time and maintaining diversity in employment. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Federation of Finnish Enterprises (Suomen Yrittäjät, SY), Jussi Järventaus, supports the idea of local-level bargaining. According to Mr Järventaus, legislation should define the scope of company-level bargaining. He stated that the possible absence of a centralised agreement would not be a disaster, while also adding that negotiations at sectoral level have always been more expensive for employers.

SAK Director Matti Tukiainen attested that there is obvious pressure to award pay increases: ‘Today, there are clearly more expectations for substantial pay increases than before the previous negotiation rounds among trade unions. As the Finnish economy has developed extremely well recently, the workers like to have payback, too.’ Director Tukiainen is in favour of the centralised national agreement, stating that ‘by agreeing a centralised national accord, objectives concerning the qualitative aspects of working life can be reached in an easier way compared to sectoral negotiations’. Among SAK’s qualitative objectives, the confederation wants to discuss certain issues at the negotiation table such as the use of posted and migrant workers, as well as fixed-term employment contracts.

Employer organisations highlight the restructuring of working life as one of the most important objectives on the government’s agenda. According to Mr Fagernäs, the main goals of employers include ‘improvements of productivity, enhancement of entrepreneurship and tax reductions’. Mr Fagernäs thinks that the unemployment benefit system should be improved so that it is easier to take up a new job.

In recent times, SY has voiced its interest to take part in the negotiations on incomes policy agreements. According to Mr Järventaus, attitudes towards the incomes policy and public opinion on the matter have become more favourable. The CEO of SY believes that the new centre-right government should have a special multi-administrative entrepreneurship programme on its agenda.

Sectoral talks on specific problems

In general, chairpersons of the trade unions are highlighting sector-specific problems before the incomes policy agreement expires, demanding that solutions be reached before any new centralised settlement takes place. The Chair of the Union of Salaried Employees (Toimihenkilöunioni, TU), Antti Rinne, stated that the unions prefer to have certain sectoral problems solved before negotiations continue. He continued by stressing that, for many trade unions, the content of the agreement is more important than the agreement’s actual form. He considers that ‘the system whereby the labour market confederations negotiate the general framework within one and a half months, following which the unions have just two weeks to adopt the framework into their collective agreement, is not possible this time’. According to Mr Rinne, the Federation of Finnish Technology Industries (Teknologiateollisuus) on the employers’ side has said that it does not want to have any general, nationally agreed pay increase, or union and equality increments as part of a new incomes policy agreement. Instead, the federation wants to increase company-level agreements and flexible working time. On the union side, TU considers that minimum provisions have been ensured through collective agreements.

Pertti Jokivuori, Statistics Finland