Thematic feature - social partner involvement in the 2003 NAP

Download article in original language : GR0310103TEL.DOC

This article examines social partner involvement in the preparation of Greece’s 2003 National Action Plan for employment drawn up in response to the EU Employment Guidelines.

The European Union'sEuropean employment strategy (EES) has been in operation since 1997 (EU9711168F). The strategy enables the coordination of national employment policies at EU level and one of its main components has been the adoption (on the basis of a proposal from theEuropean Commission) by theEuropean Council of a set of annual Employment Guidelines setting out common priorities for Member States' employment policies. The Member States then draw up annual National Action Plans (NAPs) which describe how these Guidelines are being put into practice nationally.

Following a review of the EES undertaken in 2002 after five years of operation (EU0209204F), and proposals for its streamlining, made by the Commission in aCommunication in September 2002 (EU0210206F), the strategy has now been renewed and simplified, with a stronger focus on implementation and a new timetable. In July 2003, the Council adopted the 2003Employment Guidelines (EU0308205F), which had been proposed by the Commission in April 2003. Compared with previous years, the Employment Guidelines have been revised so as to: ensure a stronger link with EU economic policy coordination (through streamlined timetables); lay down fewer guidelines with a broader perspective; provide a medium-term time horizon in order to achieve an increased emphasis on results and outcomes; and strengthen the involvement of the social partners, local authorities and other stakeholders.

The2003 Employment Guidelines to the Member States set out three main objectives:

• full employment;

• improving quality and productivity at work; and

• strengthening social cohesion and inclusion.

While still maintaining the employment targets set at the Lisbon (EU0004241F) and Stockholm (EU0104208F)European Council meetings in 2000 and 2001, in order to achieve these three objectives the Guidelines focus on 10 policy priorities, rather than grouping a range of guidelines into four pillars, as has previously been the practice. These 10 priorities are

1. active and preventative measures for the unemployed and inactive;

2. job creation and entrepreneurship;

3. address change and promote adaptability and mobility in the labour market;

4. promote development of human capital and lifelong learning;

5. increase labour supply and active ageing;

6. gender equality;

7. promote the integration of and combat the discrimination against people at a disadvantage in the labour market;

8. make work pay through incentives to enhance work attractiveness;

9. transform undeclared work into regular employment; and

10. address regional employment disparities.

Under the revised EES, Member States still draw up NAPs setting out how the Employment Guidelines are being implemented. The NAPs present the progress achieved in the Member State over the past 12 months and the measures planned for the coming 12 months, and are thus both reporting and planning documents. The NAPs based on the 2003 Guidelines - which should have a stronger focus on implementation and the medium term - were due to be adopted in October 2003.

While national governments and public labour market authorities are mainly responsible for drawing up and implementing the NAPs, the role and the contribution of the social partners has been progressively emphasised as the EES has developed, acknowledging the fact that many issues addressed in the Employment Guidelines directly concern the social partners, and in many cases the collective bargaining process. The 2003 Guidelines include a section on'good governance and partnership' in their implementation, with Member States requested to ensure the effective implementation of the Guidelines, including at the regional and local level, and involve parliamentary bodies, social partners and other relevant actors. Good governance and partnership are seen as important issues for the implementation of the EES,'while fully respecting national traditions and practices'. With regard to the social partners, they should be invited at national level -'in accordance with their national traditions and practices'- to ensure the effective implementation of the Guidelines and to report on their most significant contributions in all areas under their responsibility, in particular concerning: the management of change and adaptability;'synergy' between flexibility and security;'human capital development'; gender equality; making work pay; active ageing; and health and safety at work. The European-level social partners at intersectoral and sectoral level are invited to contribute to the implementation of the Guidelines and to support efforts undertaken by the national social partners at all levels. As announced in theirjoint work programme for 2003-5 (EU0212206F), the European intersectoral social partners will report annually on their contribution to the implementation of the Guidelines. Furthermore, the European sectoral social partners are invited to report on their respective actions.

In October 2003, the EIRO national centres in each EU Member State, were asked, in response to a questionnaire, to outline how the social partners were involved in the preparation of their country's2003 NAP (a similar exercise was conducted in relation to the 2002 NAPs -GR0206101T). The Greek responses are set out below (along with the questions asked).

Procedural aspects

1) Which organisations did the government consult on the preparation of the 2003 NAP? Were these organisations informed in time? Did they have enough time to react?

2) If the social partners have submitted their views, are these represented in the NAP?

3) Does the NAP include a chapter/part written by the social partners? Is the NAP a joint text? Did social partners sign the NAP?

4) What was the degree of consultation? Was the consultation important in substance or were social partners asked to say just'yes' or'no'?

On 23 July 2003, the Minister of Labour and Social Security made public the guidelines for the 2003 NAP and invited the social partners who take part in the newNational Employment Council to a meeting a week later. Invited to attend the meeting, which took place on 30 July 2003, were: representatives of employers' organisations - theGeneral Confederation of Greek Small Businesses and Trades (GSEVEE),National Confederation of Greek Traders (ESEE) andFederation of Greek Industries (SEV); representatives of trade unions - theGreek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE); and the general secretaries of various Ministries, representatives of the regions and other relevant public organisations. The National Employment Council was set up earlier in 2003 by Law 3144/2003 on'social dialogue for the promotion of employment and social protection and other provisions' (GR0304102F). The purpose of the Council is to: promote social dialogue in forming policies aimed at boosting employment and combating unemployment; deliver opinions on policy-making; and monitor and evaluate the NAP on employment and general policies regarding labour market and labour law issues (Article 1, paragraph 3 of Law 3144/2003).

During the first meeting, views were exchanged regarding the content of the 2003 NAP and the social partners were asked to forward their observations on the draft presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. Then the Ministry convened a meeting of the National Employment Council on the subject of the contribution of the social partners and the finalisation and approval of the final working text of the 2003 NAP. This meeting was held on 22 September, although the employers' organisations and the trade unions had sent their proposals and positions on the NAP at the beginning of the month.

The 2003 NAP, like those of the five preceding years, does not include any section or chapter signed by the social partners. In fact, the positions of the social partners do not appear in the final text (even in the form of an annex). Nevertheless important points of convergence with the views of the social partners can be detected in the new NAP, on the level of general principles at least, mainly as regards the identification of the Greek labour market’s negative features (but not their causes), the need to adhere to the EU's Lisbon employment targets, and the need to boost entrepreneurship, assist small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and improve the system of education and vocational training.

Matters of policy content

1) To what extent were social partners involved at national (and/or regional/local) level, as mentioned under the'good governance and partnership' part of the Employment Guidelines?

a) Was a comprehensive partnership developed or not, and why? Have there been significant tripartite arrangements in view of implementing some or all of the Employment Guidelines?

The process of designing the 2003 NAP is not seen by the social partners as satisfactory, due to a perceived lack of meaningful collaboration and involvement of the partners at the national and particularly the regional level (GR0201114F). The social partners had also voiced criticism of the manner in which labour market policies were formed during the formulation of previous NAPs (GR9812108F,GR9906133F,GR9906134F,GR0012196F andGR0101197F). The lack of influence of the social partners is illustrated by the fact that the content of the final text of the 2003 NAP - although numerous tables, diagrams and annexes were added - is not substantially different from the first draft submitted to the social partners in late July.

However, it is worth noting that the 2003 NAP appears to recognise that the social partners were correct in criticising certain political interventions over past years (for example criticism of Law 2874/2000'on employment and other provisions'- which dealt with matters such as overtime (GR0104104N) - is expressed at various points in the 2003 NAP). Furthermore, the NAP for employment is being more closely linked with the NAP for social inclusion (based on a similar EU-level coordination process -EU0111101N). This is because both were drawn up at the same time and were prepared in the framework of the operation of the newly formed Employment Council andSocial Protection Council. This fact, in conjunction with a number of recently concluded'institutionalised' agreements (see next point), undoubtedly reinforce the consensual climate of dialogue and cooperation between the social partners and the state which has been cultivated over the last decade, counter to the traditional climate of antagonism and confrontation.

b) How have the social partners at various levels implemented the Employment Guidelines - eg through collective bargaining, consultations, joint or unilateral actions etc - notably with regard to those aspects which are identified as their key responsibilities (where appropriate, taking into account the employment policy recommendations addressed by the EU to the Member States)? This should cover the following areas:

• Management of change and adaptability

• Synergy between flexibility and security, work-life balance

• Human capital development

• Gender equality

• Making work pay

• Inclusion and access to the labour market

• Active ageing and increase in labour supply

• Health, safety and well-being at work

Examples of agreements and actions recently taken by the state with the direct/indirect involvement of the social partners and in the framework of incorporating the EU Employment Guidelines include the following:

• human resources development- a recent draft law deals with a national system for linking vocational education and training with employment (known as ESSEEKA);

• gender equality and measures to reconcile work and family obligations- Articles 6 and 7 of the National General Collective Agreement (EGSSE) for 2002-3 provide for more favourable conditions for single-parent families to obtain childcare leave and annual paid leave (GR0204109F). Alongside this, Article 10 of the 2002-3 EGSSE forbids dismissals of addicts for reasons of their addiction, for four months after they join a rehabilitation programme (on one occasion only);

• facilitation of entry into the labour market- the process of reorganisation and modernisation of theLabour Force Employment Organisation (OAED) is continuing, along with attempts to reinforce the programmes for individualised intervention among unemployed people and vulnerable social groups; and

• extension of working life and increased supply of labour- measures relevant to this issue include a recent reform of the social security system (Law 3029/2002) and Article 11 of the 2002-3 EGSSE.

However, no recent agreements or initiatives are reported relating to issues such as the_quality or adaptability/flexibility of labour_.

2. What is the social partners’ assessment of the employment policy of the government?

3. Are there any gaps or any insufficiencies identified by the social partners in the NAP?

The trade unions believe that the labour policies being pursued should not be limited solely to those which act unilaterally on the labour supply. In other words, transferring the'centre of gravity' to active policies (new job subsidies, vocational training programmes etc) is not a panacea for combating unemployment, because integrated interventions are required to modernise enterprises, increase investments (public and private) at the national and regional levels and improve the quality of labour relations. Thus, the unions propose measures such as: greater regulation of labour relations and reinforced mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of labour legislation; reduction of working time without loss of pay; an increase in unemployment benefits to 80% of former pay and a longer period of receiving benefits; the creation of'counter-incentives' to dismissal, with the aim of saving jobs at risk; improvements in the way that resources from theAccount for Employment and Vocational Training (LAEK) are utilised; improvements in the operation of the OAED; and a strengthened role for collective bargaining in matters of employment, training and modernisation of work organisation.

Similarly, for the SEV employers' organisation, development may provide an answer to the problem of unemployment, and here an important part is played by the creation of an environment where entrepreneurial initiative and the spirit of innovation can flourish. Necessary steps in this direction are: the simplification of the regulatory framework and company start-up procedures; the provision of better-quality training services; and more opportunities for lifelong learning. In SEV’s view, the government’s commitment to reduce the steps necessary for starting up a company to 15 (from the current 28) within the current year may be a serious challenge for the 2003 NAP. In parallel, SEV stresses that the current regulations on overtime and overtime exceeding maximum working hours are inappropriate and inflexible, and proposes that Law 2874/2000 be revised since - as stated in the final text of the 2003 NAP - these provisions have failed to make any substantial contribution to boosting employment. Furthermore, the reorganisation of OAED should be completed with a view to turning it into a client-centred organisation. Finally, SEV points out a need to do away with the phenomenon of undeclared employment.

On the trade union side, GSEE’s proposals include an evaluation of the policies applied to the labour market and employment on an annual basis, with the upgraded and active participation of the social partners. In this context, for GSEE inadequacies in identifying the needs of the labour market and linking them to the labour supply must be addressed, along with inadequacies in providing a real picture of the labour market, particularly on the local level. At the same time, the trade unions stress the necessity of increasing the resources and expenditure available for employment and social protection in direct conjunction with the attempt to create an environment of macroeconomic stability and development. The persistently high levels of unemployment cause serious concern with regard to the appropriateness of the employment policies that were implemented in previous NAPs. GSEE points to data indicating that the recent fall in unemployment is to some extent a result of a decrease in the labour force (GR0309104F). Finally, a gradual decrease in the working week to 35 hours is seen by the unions as helping substantially to boost employment. Like its predecessors, the 2003 NAP for employment makes no reference to the possibility of reducing working time limits.

Comments

Please add here any other comments on the NAP, its procedures and its implementation.

To date, five NAPs for employment have been implemented in Greece, but their results have not been adequately evaluated. Arguably, this adversely affects the content of the social dialogue between the government and the social partners. Nevertheless, the 2003 NAP, although it fails fully and substantially to incorporate the views of the social partners, is different from the previous NAPs in that a greater effort is being made to link more closely the objectives sought with the pivotal features of social and economic policy. This development in no way implies the existence of a broader consensus on labour relations and labour market issues, since a different philosophy continues to be observed in the orientations on employment and the manner of intervening in the labour market. Furthermore, important issues such as decreasing working time, facilitating the use of working time exceeding maximum working hours and regulating flexible forms of work remain open areas for bargaining. (Lefteris Kretsos, INE/GSEE-ADEDY)