Collective bargaining in 1999 assessed

Download article in original language : ES0006193FES.DOC

In mid-2000, the Spanish social partners issued their assessments of collective bargaining in 1999. The trade unions feel that progress has been made in job creation and shorter working hours, but not in maintaining workers' purchasing power or in trade union participation. The employers feel that progress has been made in flexibility, but not enough in wages and functional mobility.

The main Spanish social partner organisations - the Spanish Confederation of Employers' Organisations (Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales, CEOE), the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Commissions (Comisiones Obreras, CC.OO) and the General Workers' Confederation (Unión General de Trabajadores, UGT) - issued their assessments of collective bargaining in 1999 in mid-2000. We summarise the main points below.

Wages

Wage moderation predominated in collective bargaining in 1999 as in previous years (ES9903208F). However, the year saw notable losses of purchasing power due to the large gap between forecast and real inflation. Some 40% of workers are not covered by wage revision clauses to take account of such gaps, while the efficiency of the clauses which do exist varies and they do not always secure the maintenance of purchasing power. On the basis of the provisional data, the average agreed wage increase in 1999 was 2.38% (2.75% if the wage revision clauses are taken into account), whereas real inflation was 2.9%. Trade unions make a very negative assessment of this fact. According to UGT data, 69% of workers lost purchasing power in 1999, 26% maintained it and only 5% of workers has a pay increase above 2.9%.

With regard to wage supplements, the employers claim that most of them are linked to positions rather than to productivity or performance. However, there has been some progress in variable pay (ES0001170N), though it is still not very significant in the total paybill: 15% of company agreements provide for a wage supplement for achieving the general objectives of the company; while 30% provide for supplements for achieving objectives set for particular groups or functional areas. Another positive aspect for the employers is the tendency to remove or freeze seniority supplements. They are pleased with the greater wage variability in collective bargaining at company level but feel that it should be introduced in more companies.

The unions, on the other hand, think that there have been no great changes in this area: variable supplements have affected 27% to 30% of workers since 1994. They do, however, criticise the introduction of this type of supplement outside collective agreements, with little transparency and objectivity, and at times individually.

Working time

The trade unions praise the increase in the number of agreements that reduce working time (25% of all agreements) and the increase in the number of workers affected by the reduction (37%, almost double the proportion 1998) according to CC.OO data. However they consider that this reduction is moderate and has no impact on employment creation, an aspect which UGT particularly emphasises. The unions' objective of the 35-hour week is still remote and the average number of agreed working hours agreed is fairly stable (ES9909150F), due to the parallel increase in the number of workers covered by relatively high working hours. The unions have accepted more flexible working hours in exchange for working time reductions, but are critical of those agreements that do not offer sufficient guarantees on this point and simply increase the discretionary powers of the company. In order to manage flexible working hours, it is considered essential by the unions to agree justified reasons, limits to worker availability and trade union participation.

CEOE, on the other hand, considers that this is the area in which there has been a more positive evolution. The tendency to introduce annual calculation of working hours has continued. The main novelty, however, is that in both sectoral and company agreements there was an increase in 1999 in the irregular distribution of working hours over the year according to fluctuations in business: many agreements include the possibility of varying the working day or the working week, increasing or decreasing it according to the needs of the moment; while the possibility of working on public holidays has also been extended in some cases. This gives a greater margin of manoeuvre for companies to manage their labour needs and avoid paying overtime. In the same line, there has been a change in the treatment of holidays, which now tend to be broken up rather than concentrated in one month. CEOE feels that these developments shows an incipient but highly positive change in the conception of working hours. They also see a tendency towards shorter working hours, but consider that it is moderate and not linked to job creation.

Employment

Both the employers and the trade unions find that employment is gaining importance in collective bargaining (ES0005189F), but they disagree in their assessment of the agreements that have been reached. The unions praise the increase in the number of clauses on job creation, conversion of temporary jobs into permanent ones and the use of temporary agency work. A positive fact in 1999 was that more attention was paid to employment in sectoral agreements, though 36% of national sectoral agreements failed to deal with this subject. The most significant figures, according to CC.OO, are that: job-creation clauses affect 13% of workers covered by company agreements; clauses on conversion of temporary jobs into permanent ones affect 26% of these workers; and 18% of the agreements limit the use of temporary agency work. The unions feel that this tendency must be consolidated in the future. However they claim that the content of the clauses must be more precise in order for them to have greater legal effect. They also consider that more much attention should be paid to limiting temporary recruitment: though some progress has been made in the establishment of quantitative limits to temporary recruitment and its justification, the unions feel that more attention should be paid to this point in order to prevent the abuse of this form of employment. Another important aspect for the unions is the fact that little attention is paid to subcontracting and outsourcing, phenomena that are not dealt with in collective bargaining and in many cases distort commitments made on employment.

The assessment of CEOE is more neutral and distant. It mentions the increase in the number of commitments on employment, especially on converting temporary jobs into permanent ones in company agreements, which affect 36% of workers. However, it points out that the limiting of temporary recruitment and temporary agency work affects only 7% of the agreements and is fairly ineffective. The aspects that it criticises include the fact that only 35% of sectoral agreements refer to the 1997 intersectoral agreement on employment stability (ES9706211F), thus placing a limitation on the incentives to convert temporary jobs into permanent ones. Another aspect criticised by CEOE is the lack of regulation of part-time contracts, though it claims that this is to be expected because the prevailing regulations leave little margin for companies to adapt such contracts to their needs.

Other aspects

The employers feel that one of the most negative points in current agreements is that occupational classification and functional mobility rules are applied too strictly. They feel that the culture of occupational categories tied to jobs still prevails over models based on skills development. The treatment of functional mobility is also seen as excessively rigid and bureaucratic. In 1999, there were no substantial changes in this area.

As in previous years, the trade unions criticise the lack of participation of workers' representatives in work organisation. According to CC.OO data, only 13% of agreements deal with this question and most merely establish non-binding rights to information and consultation. The unions consider it essential to increase participation in this area.

Both employers and unions agree that the treatment of health and safety stagnated in 1999. The employers stress that the agreements that deal with this question are a minority. The unions criticise the decrease in the number of health and safety committees and clauses on prevention and training programmes. On the other hand, both parties are pleased with the general presence of commitments on training.

Finally, all parties criticise the excessive atomisation of collective bargaining, though from different viewpoints. CEOE criticises the fact that the contents of agreements tend to overlap, rather than being articulated, claiming that 85% of agreements do not refer to other agreements and that only 40% take full advantage of bargaining at lower levels. The trade unions mention the need for more structured bargaining at levels higher than the company and are pleased with the increase in the number of national sectoral agreements.

Commentary

In 1999, collective bargaining followed the pattern of previous years. Naturally, the trade unions stress the progress in employment and shorter working hours, whereas the employers stress the introduction of greater flexibility in the treatment of wages and working time, though they consider that it is still insufficient. In a context in which wage moderation is still predominant, there is a continuing tendency to exchange employment stability and shorter working hours for greater internal flexibility in labour management, especially through the irregular distribution of working hours. However, in this process there are two critical aspects. First, in companies that have agreements covering these points, employers are often reluctant to allow trade unions to participate more fully in managing flexibility. Second, the excessive atomisation of collective bargaining gives companies greater discretionary powers and leads to the deregulation of working conditions in companies and sectors that are outside this "virtuous circle" (Maria Caprile, CIREM Foundation).