Thematic feature - social partner involvement in the 2003 NAP

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

The European Union's European 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 the European Commission) by the European 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 a Communication 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 2003 Employment 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.

The 2003 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 their joint 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's 2003 NAP (a similar exercise was conducted in relation to the 2002 NAPs - NL0206102T). The Dutch 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?

The social partners were consulted at central level concerning the draft 2003 NAP. The draft version was sent to the bipartite Labour Foundation (Stichting van de Arbeid, STAR). Although a working group exists within the STAR that addresses matters related to employment, this procedure was not observed due to the limited amount of time (one week) available to respond to the draft NAP. The STAR forwarded the draft text to the trade unions and employers' organisations, each of which responded separately.

The STAR acknowledges that too little time was available within which to respond adequately. This has been the case for several years. It has repeatedly complained about this to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. Even where it is possible to enter into discussions at STAR level, it is impossible to examine the material in depth and the Foundation's role remains just a marginal check of the text. The Dutch Trade Union Federation (Federatie Nederlandse Vakvereniging, FNV) also expressed its dissatisfaction with the short time within which to respond. FNV regrets that no consultations took place in 2003 within the STAR working group concerning the NAP, because this has always added value in the past. By contrast, the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (Vereniging van Nederlandse Ondernemingen-Nederlands Christelijk Werkgeversverbond, VNO-NCW) shows understanding for the short response time allotted to it (as this arises from deadlines set in Brussels) and is of the opinion that the time allowed is sufficient. This also ties in with VNO-NCW's views on the division of responsibilities in relation to the NAP. Essentially, it believes that the NAP is a government document, with social partners merely playing an advisory role.

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

While VNO-NCW assumes that its comments are largely taken up in the 2003 NAP, FNV believes that its views are only marginally included in the document. In its opinion, the NAP mainly describes the successes in terms of employment policy in the Netherlands over the past year, and does little to raise the position of employment problems on the agenda.

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?

The NAP does not contain a section written by the social partners, it is not a joint government-social partner text and it does not bear the signatures of any of the social partners.

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

The social partners can comment on the draft text of the NAP. The comments can relate to any parts of the text and be as detailed as the partners choose. Because the response time was only a week in 2003, and because this left insufficient time for mutual consultation, the trade unions see their contribution as having been marginal. By contrast, the VNO-NCW employers’ association believes that its substantive contribution was adequate.

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 involvement of the social partners in the implementation of the Employment Guidelines must be viewed within the broader context of the Dutch system of consultation. While no tripartite arrangements have been set in place based on the NAP, the unions and employers have been involved at national level in many relevant aspects of policy through regular discussions with the government, for example through: the independent consultative body of representatives of employers, employees and municipalities, the Council for Work and Income (Raad voor Werk en Inkomen, RWI); the tripartite government advisory body, the Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad, SER); and the consultative body of central employer and trade union organisations, the Labour Foundation (STAR). FNV claims that the social partners have been kept at a greater distance by not having been involved in the direct steering of processes in the labour market, with respect to employment services for example. This leaves only an advisory role, which does cover all matters related to employment policy. Additionally, the unions and employers draw attention to the importance of collective bargaining concerning terms and conditions of employment.

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

As far as the subjects highlighted as the social partners’ key responsibilities in the Employment Guidelines are concerned, the following initiatives can be reported.

• Synergy between flexibility and security, work-life balance. The social partners have at all points been closely involved in harmonising flexibility and security in various new items of labour legislation. The 1999 Flexibility and Security Act (NL9901117F) came into being following a recommendation by the STAR (Nota flexibiliteit en zekerheid, 1996) (NL9706116F). In mid-2002, the government requested the STAR to issue a recommendation related to evaluating the 1999 Act. Furthermore, in the interests of creating a better work-life balance, the government is currently engaged in drafting a 'life-span regulation'- an integrated set of measures aimed at enabling workers to manage their working time and leave over their entire working lives so as to better balance their work and family/care responsibilities, for example by saving leave for training, care or part-time retirement. The social partners are involved in preparing this regulation (NL0304103F).

• Human capital development is another subject being actively addressed by the social partners. In 2002, the SER issued a recommendation on life-long learning ( Het nieuwe leren: advies over een leven lang leren in de kenniseconomie) and the STAR drafted an action plan on the same issue (Actieprogramma voor het Leven Lang ontwikkelingen van competenties en kwalifacaties). Together with the social partners, the government has established a Life-Long Learning (Leven Lang Leren) platform to elaborate policy recommendations. Human capital development and life-long learning form topics of discussion that recur annually in practically all collective agreements, under the heading of 'employability'. Finally, the social partners participate in the national monitoring committee for European Social Fund (ESF) funds for education and training.

• Gender equality. The social partners are involved with respect to government policy directed at combating gender pay inequality (NL0301105F).

• Making work pay. Within the scope of its 2002 recommendation on Socio-economic policy 2002-6, the SER responded to requests for proposals addressing proactive labour market policy and an integrated approach towards averting poverty.

• Active ageing and increase in labour supply. To keep people working for longer, the government intends to make it fiscally disadvantageous for employees to take advantage of early retirement or pre-pension schemes (NL0306101N). It is currently in consultation with the social partners on this topic.

• Health, safety and well-being at work. Based on a joint declaration issued by the cabinet and the STAR in the course of the annual 'autumn consultations' in 1998, a new approach was introduced concerning health and safety agreements. The government and social partners now enter into agreements at sector level to limit certain occupational risks and reduce absence and new benefit claimants under the Occupational Disability Insurance Act (Wet Arbeidsongeschiktheid, WAO). The agreements establish various tasks and obligations. Concrete objectives are set with respect to lifting, workloads, repetitive strain injury (RSI), harmful noise pollution and a number of hazardous substances. Percentages are set for reducing absence and WAO claims. Some 29 high-risk sectors have been selected for which agreements must be established - but sectors can also conclude agreements voluntarily. The government and the STAR propose using such agreements to establish a link with collective agreements related to working conditions in the sector concerned. At the end of 2002, 33 agreements had been concluded, 24 of which covered high-risk sectors. More than 2.4 million employees were covered by such agreements.

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?

Opinions differ among the social partners with respect to the government's employment policy. The largest trade union federation, FNV, is not enthusiastic. In its view, education and training stand to lose from current policy, while employee social insurance policies will be limited even further, and there is no link between policy for older and younger employees (ie a lack of a policy directed at retaining knowledge). FNV finds it unfortunate that it has become more difficult to direct ESF funds to education and training because of problems related to state support. The VNO-NCW employers' association supports the general direction of government policy, with the exception of a number of points of criticism concerning plans for the abolition of pre-pension schemes (seen as too abrupt) and proposals on WAO disability benefit (assigning financial responsibility to employers for the second year of sickness absence is seen as undesirable). It believes that the SER should first issue its recommendation on this second matter. VNO-NCW identifies a gap in the NAP, in that it believes that the government is paying too much attention to the supply of labour in relation to the amount of attention it dedicates to stimulating demand.

Commentary

The differences between trade union and employers' organisations in evaluating both the procedure followed and the policy contents of the 2003 NAP, is based not only on differing views on the policy to be pursued but also on differing perceptions of the division of responsibilities in relation to the NAP. (Marian Schaapman, HSI)