Future role of social partnership under dispute

Since the formation of the new centre-right coalition government in February 2000, the consensual atmosphere in Austria's public policy-making has been greatly disrupted. Social partnership has increasingly lost its function as a platform for 'interest clearing' and its ability to resolve problems. Conflict with the ÖGB trade union confederation appeared to reach a peak in late August 2001, when ÖGB decided to ballot members on further protest actions against new government legislation.

Austria is well known for its 'social partnership' system, which has secured continued political and social stability since 1945 and has remained largely intact even in recent years. By international standards, Austria can be regarded as one of the countries in which 'corporatist' structures are most highly developed. Unique to Austria's social partnership is its dominant role in socio-economic policy-making. Its key actors (ie the social partners) are the Federal Chamber of Labour (Arbeiterkammer, AK), the Austrian Chamber of the Economy (Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, WKÖ), the Austrian Trade Union Federation (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, ÖGB) and the Federation of Austrian Industry (Österreichische Industriellenvereinigung, IV). The fact that social partnership has developed into a permanent and stable element of the Austrian society is, among other factors, due to the close links between the employees' organisations and the Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, SPÖ) on the one hand and analogous links between organised employers and the conservative People's Party (Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) on the other. These links are mainly crystalised in multiple office-holdings (ie one and the same person performing representative functions in both a political party and an employee or employee interest association).

New coalition government challenges corporatist style of policy-making

However, since the new coalition government of the populist Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) and ÖVP took power on 4 February 2000 (AT0002212F), the traditional corporatist process of policy-making has been severely challenged. The political initiatives proposed by the new government met with harsh criticism, mainly from organised labour (AT0007225F). Most recently and dramatically, government legislation on reforming the structure of the central organisation of the public social insurance system (Hauptverband der Sozialversicherungsträger, HSV) provoked outrage among employees' organisations and caused ÖGB to call upon its members to take part in a demonstration against the proposed reform (AT0108225N).

The government eventually pushed through the reform of HSV, which was criticised as impairing the position on the the HSV governing board (Verwaltungsrat) of the Fraktion Sozialdemokratischer Gewerkschafter (FSG) - the trade union grouping affiliated to the SPÖ - to the benefit of the Freiheitliche Arbeitnehmer (FA) - affiliated to the FPÖ. Hence, political tensions between ÖGB and government, especially FPÖ, have reached an new peak of intensity.

ÖGB to hold ballot

On 29 August 2001, the presidium of ÖGB unanimously decided to hold a ballot of its 1.44 million members between 24 September and 25 October 2001, in order to strengthen its political position and to legitimise further protest actions against government legislation. The presidium presented the following six political demands, to be agreed on or rejected by its members:

1. Austrian social partnership should be strengthened. Workers' participation must be extended to all fields of working life;

2. the obligatory system of social insurance (Pflichtversicherung) should be maintained in order to secure healthcare and pensions for all – regardless of their income;

3. wage increases and working time should continue to be regulated through collective bargaining;

4. employees should be entitled to severance pay (AT9811109F

6. ) from the first day of service with their current employer (Betriebszugehörigkeit) – even in the case of termination of contract by the employee and with unrestricted availability by the employee;

7. the government should launch an education initiative to remove any social barriers to education; and

8. high-quality public services should be maintained and the sale of public property (eg companies, electricity, water and forestry) stopped, in order to secure people's basic needs.

The seventh and final question refers to the kind of measures ÖGB should take in order to achieve its demands, asking: Shall ÖGB, if necessary, adopt a policy of confrontation to enforce its demands referring to the future of Austria and its people?

Political reactions

FPÖ heavily attacked ÖGB and dismissed its planned membership ballot as a mere distraction. Hubert Gorbach, the vice-chair of FPÖ, even suggested abolishing trade unions. In the meantime, the other coalition partner, ÖVP, faced internal disruptions over its future strategy vis-à-vis the social partners. Christoph Leitl, both the president of the Chamber of the Economy and a high-level representative of ÖVP, underscored the importance of ÖGB as an indispensable part of Austria's social partnership and democracy. In addition, he requested the government to change its policy in relation to the social partners. The President of the Republic, Thomas Klestil, also intervened in an attempt to settle the dispute and stressed the importance of free trade unions for a democratic political system. Eventually, the Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, took part in the discussion and mentioned the strategic role of the social partners during the annual collective bargaining rounds. He pointed out that, in macroeconomic terms, collective bargaining outweighs the tax reform currently under discussion.

Commentary

Although the current conflict is between the government and the social partners, one cannot rule out the possibility that it will also negatively affect the relationship between the social partners in the long run. This is because the government's policy of limiting social partnership harms ÖGB more than WKÖ, due to the latter's links with ÖVP. Hence, it is primarily ÖGB which actually has to face a loss of influence in public policy. This loss may induce ÖGB to focus all the more on collective bargaining as a means of advancing employee interests, something which may imply tougher union demands in negotiations with the employer side. (Susanne Pernicka, University of Vienna)