Union representativeness under debate

Download article in original language : NL0103127FNL.DOC

In February 2001, the Dutch Minister of Social Affairs and Employment published the findings of a study into the representativeness of trade unions, prompted by parliamentary questions on the issue. The study indicates that while around a quarter of the labour force are union members, 85% are covered by collective agreements, and 85% of non-union members believe that their interests are in good hands with the unions. The debate on the representativeness issue prompted by the parliamentary interest has been fierce and has raised questions about representation on national consultative and negotiating bodies, and on matters such as declaring collective agreements generally binding, how unions can attract more members and the representativeness of employers' organisations.

During 2000, the issue of trade union representativeness was placed on the agenda of parliament by a number of questions posed by Geert Wilders, a member of parliament for the liberal Party for Freedom and Democracy (Vereniging voor Vrijheid en Democratie, VVD), one of the parties in the government coalition. Mr Wilders contended that three-quarters of the Dutch labour force does not belong to a trade union, yet they are in many cases bound by a collective agreement reached by a specific trade union. This fact is highlighted where the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment declares an industry-level collective agreements to be generally binding for every employee within the sector concerned. Mr Wilders also claimed that, while the trade union movement represents employees in national advisory bodies such as the Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad, SER) and the Labour Foundation (Stichting van de Arbeid, STAR), it is questionable whether today's employees, who demonstrate a preference for increasingly tailor-made terms and conditions of employment, are particularly eager for the centrally negotiated recommendations on collective provisions which such bodies produce. According to Mr Wilders, the dynamics of the 21st century economy no longer require so much centralised discussion.

Study findings

The Minister of Social Affairs took the questions raised by Mr Wilders so seriously that he ordered an investigation into the degree of representativeness of trade unions. The results of the study were published in February 2001 and they suggest that over half of the Dutch workforce has confidence in the trade unions. Although only a quarter (27%) are members of a union, 85% of the non-members believe that their interests are in good hands with the unions. Even in the fledgling information and communication technology sector, where only 6% of the employees are members of a union, 64% feel that the trade unions should be involved in collective bargaining. The study did not address the issue that two-thirds of elected works council members are in fact participating on behalf of a trade union.

The degree of union representativeness is arguably not so much the issue; instead, the problem relates to "free riders". Large numbers of unorganised employees profit significantly from the provisions of collective agreements without having trade union membership (85% of the workforce are covered by a collective agreement).

The Christian Trade Union Federation (Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond, CNV) had the harshest reaction to Mr Wilders' allegations, whereas the Dutch Trade Union Federation (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, FNV) suggested that the representativeness of employers' associations must also be investigated in order to achieve a balanced picture. Exactly who do they represent in the SER and STAR and at the negotiating table? The Federation of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses (Midden en Klein Bedrijf, MKB) has stated that only 35% of businesses are currently members of employers' bodies.

CNV reacted by striking back. If the degree of union representativeness persists as a topic of discussion, then the union movement should change its approach and protect only the interests of its own members. In that case, collectively agreed provisions would apply only to members. Furthermore, as the CNV made a point of asking, what would then happen to the Netherlands' much-lauded labour tranquillity and "Polder model" of consensus and consultation? Currently, trade unions generally conclude collective agreements with a sector-level employers' organisation, after which it is approved by the rank and file of employees and employers in the sector. Next, the agreement is presented to the Minister of Social Affairs, who declares it generally binding for the entire sector - ie it also applies to companies which are not affiliated to the employers' association involved. As a result, 85% of Dutch employees are covered by a collective agreement. This system is thought to be an important reason behind the prevailing peace in the Dutch labour market. CNV has now made the first move to shatter this peace by thrusting the system into the spotlight as a topic for discussion.

Employers favour negotiation with unions

The VNO-NCW central employers' organisation has kept noticeably quiet in the midst of the debate. It prefers to negotiate with established trade unions that are committed to upholding agreements reached in the past, rather than deal with impromptu, activist groupings with little perspective about long-term goals. The employers' federation takes this commitment so seriously that it makes a modest financial contribution for each employee bound by a collective agreement. Nor does VNO-NCW see much good for employers in destroying the instrument of declaring collective agreements generally binding. The employers' associations are now being confronted with the same "free rider" effect as the unions, but any change in the system would mean that terms and conditions of employment would become a much greater factor in competition between companies. Employers' representatives would not appreciate this sort of "anarchy".

Despite strong protests from the trade union movement, the question of their representativeness in terms of membership numbers and profiles is indeed a significant issue. Although union membership has not decreased over recent years, its composition remains rather limited. While the number of younger employees is growing and women and part-timers are the most important newcomers to the labour market, the overall picture is of an ageing union membership. More often than not, when union members opt for early retirement (VUT) or retire according to normal schedule, they cancel their membership. Various reorganisations have taken place in unions affiliated to FNV, for example, in order to bring income more into line with spending (NL0006192N). In 2000, the Allied Unions (FNV Bondgenoten) cut 200 jobs. At the same time, unions are attempting to adapt their services to changing circumstances, and as a result the promotion of collective interests seems to be losing ground to individual-oriented provision of services. Allied Unions has opted to help its members in the form of financial consultation services, legal assistance, career coaching and dealing with work-related illnesses. In the future, the union also intends to assist members with issues such as collective agreement options, leave provisions and pension plans.

Commentary

The debate on the degree of representativeness of trade unions has clearly illustrated that representation has different dimensions and cannot be measured solely by membership numbers. After all, this has not applied to political parties, which are also experiencing a decrease in membership. The union movement has already been through this dip. The debate also highlights that regulated discussions on terms and conditions of employment and the entire "social package" available in the Netherlands have many supporters. Although the moves towards individualisation and a "made-to-measure" approach ("collective agreements à la carte") have exponents with widely divergent political convictions, the fact is that more than 80% of employees choose the standard collective agreement when given a choice. Employers' representatives admit that it would be a nightmare if the instruments of collective consultation and bargaining, and declaration of the results thus obtained as generally binding, were to be exchanged for negotiations at micro level. Nor are employers equipped for such a switch. Nevertheless, none of this should detract from the fact that the promotion of interests by the union movement is in need of reassessment. Only time will tell whether offering services proves to be the key to attracting new groups of employees. (Marianne Grünell, HSI)