Social partner involvement in the 2002 NAP

Download article in original language : GR0206101TEL.DOC

This feature examines social partner involvement in Greece's 2002 National Action Plan (NAP) for employment. It is one of a set of similar features for all the EU Member States, written in response to a questionnaire..

This feature outlines how Greek social partner organisations have been involved in Greece's 2002 National Action Plan (NAP) on employmentPDF. Under the European employment strategy, each year the EU Member States draw up NAPs in response to the annual Employment GuidelinesPDF.

Similar features on social partner involvement in the 2002 NAPs have been drawn up by the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO) national centres in all the EU Member States, in response to a questionnaire. Details on the background to this exercise, and the questionnaire used, can be found at TN0206102F. Readers are advised to refer to the questionnaire in conjunction with this feature.

Procedural aspects

On 29 March 2002, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security sent out an invitation to participate in a working group, with the aim of providing for information and an exchange of views among all the parties involved regarding the content of the first draft of the Greek 2002 NAP, as well as the interventions and contributions to the NAP by the European Social Fund (ESF). Invited to participate at the meeting, which was held on 8 April, were representatives of the employers' organisations - the National Confederation of Greek Traders (ESEE), General Confederation of Greek Small Businesses and Trades (GSEVEE) and Federation of Greek Industries (SEV) - and the General Confederation of Greek Labour (GSEE), as well as the general secretaries of the country's 13 administrative regions. From the government side, representatives of all the competent ministries and of the General Secretariat for Equality and Research Centre for Equality Issues (KETHI) also took part.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security addressed to the employers' organisations and trade unions an invitation to meet with the members of its NAP committee to discuss their contribution to the NAP working paper for 2002. Both the employers' organisations and the unions accepted the government's invitation and took part in the meeting on 18 April 2002 with well-worked-out positions and proposals covering all the points on the agenda.

However, due to the timeframe of the procedure that was followed and to the fact that the deadline for submitting the 2002 NAP was 1 May 2002, the parties involved were reportedly not informed on time, and the time they had to prepare themselves and make an effective contribution was extremely limited.

It should be noted that the 2002 NAP, like those before it, contains no section or chapter signed by the social partners. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security bears sole responsibility for the final document and therefore the social partners do not add their signature to it. However, with regard to some matters, and specifically as far as lifelong learning and improvement of the quality of the system of education and vocational training are concerned, the 2002 NAP takes into account some of the positions and proposals of the social partners, at least initially and despite the fact that delays in promoting the relevant measures have been noted. A provision in the NAP to set up a permanent 'national forum on employment' is seen as particularly significant. The establishment of such a forum is a joint initiative by the government, the employers' organisations and the unions, and meets a demand made by GSEE some time ago. Included in the framework of this forum will be discussion on the modernisation of work organisation, the main aim being for any relevant initiatives to be subject to consultation with the social partners in the future.

Matters of policy content

On both the national and the regional levels, the collaboration of the social partners with regard to the 2002 NAP is not considered to be satisfactory (GR0201114F). Overall, as was the case in previous years (GR9812108F, GR9906133F, GR9906134F, GR9912160F, GR0012196F and GR0104107F) in 2002 the main criticism levelled at the NAP by both the employers' organisations and the trade unions relates to the limited participation of the social partners at both the planning and the implementation stage.

In comparison with the 2001 NAP (GR0201114F), the 2002 NAP has achieved some progress with regard to the monitoring of the policies being implemented and the ability to evaluate the results to date. However, there has reportedly been serious backward movement in comparison with the dialogue process attempted by the government during 2001. As a result, both the employers' organisations and the unions believe that the 2002 NAP still contains, almost exclusively, government policy on employment and has failed to adopt many of the positions and proposals submitted by the social partners (though these sometimes contradict each other in many aspects). The employers' side sees the NAP as a scheme for intervention in the modus operandi of the labour market, that should work toward the goals of reducing labour costs and increasing competitiveness. By contrast, the unions believe that the changes attempted through the NAP should not undermine terms and conditions of employment or weaken the institutional framework for the protection of workers.

Bargaining

The 2002 Employment Guidelines promote collective bargaining in the areas of:

• improving the quality of work and employment (in general);

• modernising work organisation (guideline 13);

• lifelong learning in the context of competence and skill development in enterprises (guideline 15);

• 'active ageing' (guideline 3);

• strengthening equal opportunities for men and women (tackling the gender pay gap, desegregating the labour market, reconciling work and family/private life etc) (guidelines 16,17 and 18); and

• social integration by way of better access to the labour market for groups and individuals at risk or at a disadvantage, such as people from ethnic minorities, migrant workers, long-term unemployed people and people with disabilities (guideline 7).

From November 2001 (when the 2002 Employment Guidelines were sent to the Member States) to date, the only relevant initiatives in collective bargaining and collective agreements have been on the national intersectoral level and in the banking sector. However, the agreements which have been concluded, although they undoubtedly contribute to the objectives set by the 2002 NAP, do not form a direct part of the framework of overall employment policy (in terms of the Employment Guidelines' 'pillars' of gender equality, employability, entrepreneurship and adaptability) but rather constitute isolated initiatives of the social partners. The main examples are as follows.

• With regard to the modernisation of work organisation, the only recent agreement pertains to the banking sector, where a new 2002-3 collective agreement was signed on 23 May 2002 by the Greek Federation of Bank Employee Unions (OTOE) and the banking employers (GR0206102N). OTOE (which had sought a 35-hour week) accepted the banks' counter-offer to reduce the working week to 37 hours (from the 38 hours and 20 minutes currently in force), but increase banking hours to 32 per week (from the current 29 hours and 30 minutes). The measure will take effect from 1 September 2002.

• Regarding 'active ageing', article 11 (on 'protection of employment of older workers – unemployed people') of the new National General Collective Agreement for 2002-3, signed in April 2002 (GR0204109F), promotes the inclusion of older workers by giving them precedence in all in-company training and retraining programmes. In addition, initiatives are being promoted to include them in new recruitment programmes (when they have been dismissed) and in programmes to address long-term unemployment. In article 12 of the same agreement, which refers to the Account for Employment and Vocational Training (LAEK), the social partners decided to investigate the possibility that the LAEK could cover the social insurance contributions of long-term unemployed people aged over 65 who still need insurance stamps in order to be eligible for full pensions, since due to their age it is very difficult for them to find jobs.

• With regard to gender policy, most collectively agreed regulations at both national and sectoral level concern the reconciliation of work and family life. In particular, article 6 of the new National General Collective Agreement, which concerns childcare leave, entitles a mother or father to arrive at work an hour later or leave an hour earlier in order to care for a child for a period of 30 months (instead of the 24 months previously in force) after maternity leave has ended. Alternatively, after agreement with the employer, the working day may be shortened by two hours during the first 12 months and by one hour for another six months (instead of the previous two hours a day for 12 months). Furthermore, article 7 regarding lone-parent families provides six additional days of annual leave for widowed parents or unmarried parents who have custody of a child up to 12 years of age. The extra days of leave for lone-parent families should not coincide with the beginning or the end of regular annual leave. For parents of three or more children, eight extra days of leave are granted. On the sectoral level, articles 7, 8 and 9 of the new banking collective agreement increase childcare allowances for daycare centres and childbirth.

• Article 10 of the new National General Collective Agreement regarding 'protection of the employment of substance abusers during detoxification' could be included in the framework of initiatives to combat discrimination and promote social inclusion by way of better access to employment, mainly for vulnerable social groups. Specifically, article 10 forbids the dismissal of substance abusers because of their substance abuse for a period of four months from the time they join a detoxification programme; however, this applies on one occasion only.

• With regard to the quality of work and employment, and lifelong learning in the context of competence and skill development on the enterprise level, no relevant agreements have been reached between November 2001 and the present.

(Eva Soumeli, INE/GSEE-ADEDY)