Social dialogue renewed

Download article in original language : ES0006194FES.DOC

In June 2000, the dialogue between the social partners in Spain was resumed through bilateral meetings between the government and trade unions and employers. The government's main objective is to foster a new labour reform.

The social dialogue between trade unions, employers and the government was resumed on 1 June 2000 with two bilateral meetings held by the Prime Minister José María Aznar: one with the Spanish Confederation of Employers' Organisations (Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales, CEOE); and one with the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Commissions (Comisiones Obreras, CC.OO) and the General Workers' Confederation (Unión General de Trabajadores, UGT) . With these meetings, the new conservative People's Party (Partido Popular, PP) government brought the social partners back to the negotiating table with a clear objective: to seek a consensus for a new labour reform during its term of office (ES0004180N). Another aim is to obtain the support of the social partners for the reform of the pensions system.

The government wants the trade unions and employers to follow the pattern of the April 1997 intersectoral agreements (ES9706211F), whereby the social partners reached pacts that were later supported by government legislation. The intention of the government is to respect the autonomy of the social partners and not to participate directly in these meetings, though the Prime Minister has made a personal commitment to intervene when necessary to smooth out difficulties and foster agreements. At the same time, the government, the employers and the unions will set up a bargaining table to deal with pensions reform and vocational training and to seek mechanisms to reduce the high industrial accident rate in Spain.

The trade unions and employers have agreed to start bilateral negotiations, and the first meeting will be held in the next few months to set the agenda and the schedule. CEOE, however, will attend this meeting with a certain scepticism, because it feels that the government should accept its responsibilities on employment with or without an agreement between the social partners. In fact, serious differences of opinion have appeared in this first round of consultations. Though there seems to be a consensus on general objectives (taking advantage of the current economic growth to create employment, increase job stability and reduce the accident rate), there are great differences of opinion on the measures to be taken.

Employment and social protection

It seems clear that moving towards "full employment", or perhaps simply fostering job creation, is a core objective. For some time, CEOE has claimed that excessive non-wage labour costs hinder job creation. On this occasion, it clearly wishes to achieve a general reduction in social security contributions. The government seems to be in favour of such a measure, but the trade unions reject it.

As is clear, the disagreement on this subject involves not only employment, but also the social security system. The employers and the unions agree on accelerating the separation of sources of social security funding, but for different reasons. The employers wish to use the surplus of the contributions system to fund a reduction in contributions. The unions, on the other hand, feel that it should be used to increase minimum pensions and improve unemployment cover (ES9910158F). They feel that a reduction in contributions should be used selectively to foster employment in the most problematic groups, and that job creation should not be to the detriment of the social security system.

CC.OO and UGT claim that moving towards full employment requires high economic growth and a reduction in working hours, as has been achieved in France with good results (FR0001137F). However, this approach is firmly rejected by the employers and the government, which are not prepared to introduce a general reduction in working hours by law and consider that this question must be negotiated in each collective agreement.

Temporary employment and the accident rate

For the trade unions, the two main priorities in the area of employment are limiting temporary recruitment and reducing the industrial accident rate: "safe and stable employment" was the slogan of the trade unions on 1 May. CC.OO and UGT criticise the results of the reform brought about by the 1997 intersectoral agreements: permanent recruitment has increased, but the rate of temporary employment in Spain has only fallen by just over 1%. One in every three workers is employed on a temporary basis and there is high labour turnover. An aspect that is considered particularly serious is that since 1997 temporary employment has risen in the public administration, due to budget restrictions. The unions think that the increase in the number of industrial accidents (ES9904215F) is closely related to precariousness in employment. Accidents affect the most precarious workers with the least security and are concentrated in certain types of companies and sectors that use a large number of temporary workers or temporary agency workers for jobs that require more experience and training in order to be safe. They consider that a "shock plan" is necessary for the 30,000 companies which account for 80% of industrial accidents.

The government seems prepared to take more serious measures to reduce the accident rate, but has been making declarations to this effect for some time. Furthermore, it is not clear to what extent the employers will cooperate actively in this area. With regard to temporary employment, there is still no official assessment by the social partners and the government of the impact of the 1997 reform, but it seems clear that the results have been limited and further action must be taken in this area. The differences lie in how this should be done.

Whereas the unions are promoting several formulae for penalising the abuse of temporary recruitment, CEOE has once again put forward a proposal to make it cheaper to dismiss workers on open-ended contracts. It appears that this is above all a question of principle. From the declarations of the employers, it can be seen that their main interest at present is to reach a pact with the trade unions on flexible working hours, wages and functional mobility, giving greater discretionary powers to companies in the management of labour. On the question of dismissal, the employers could accept an intermediate formula such as that the government has proposed to the social partners in an unofficial way: a new type of permanent contract for those aged under 25 years, with cheaper dismissal without the need for justification.

Furthermore, the employers and the government agree that it is necessary to reform the permanent part-time contract again in order to make it more attractive to employers, contrary to the reform that was agreed by the government and the trade unions in November 1998 (ES9811289F).

Commentary

Though its direct effects were limited, it seems that the 1997 reform had one very positive consequence: it established the quality of employment as a priority in the social dialogue. Thus, limiting temporary employment and reducing the industrial accident rate are now commonly accepted objectives of all the social partners. The trade unions and employers should make a thorough study to determine the most suitable regulatory, economic and administrative instruments for increasing the quality of employment. It is probably now time to reopen the debate on questions that were left aside three years ago, such as reorganising the various types of temporary recruitment and penalising improper use of them. It is also an opportunity to consider what the government should do to reduce the industrial accident rate. Unions and employers should make a critical consideration of their respective roles and of collective bargaining in this area, and take appropriate measures. It is to be hoped that there will also be a greater degree of consensus and cooperation on this point at a sectoral and company level, even if there is no agreement on other questions such as shorter working hours and social protection (Maria Caprile, CIREM Foundation).