Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Personal services sector

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Relaciones laborales,
  • Representativeness,
  • Date of Publication: 28 Mayo 2009



About
Author:
Institution:

This report sets out to provide the necessary information for establishing sectoral social dialogue in the personal services sector. The report falls into three main parts: a brief summary of the sector’s economic background; an analysis of the social partner organisations in all EU Member States, with the exception of Malta, with special emphasis on their membership, role in collective bargaining and public policy, and national and European affiliations; and, finally, an overview of the relevant European organisations, in particular membership composition and capacity to negotiate. The aim of the EIRO representativeness studies is to identify the relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in the field of industrial relations in selected sectors. The impetus of these studies arises from the European Commission objective to recognise the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the EC Treaty provisions. Hence, this study is designed to provide the basic information required to establish sectoral social dialogue.

The study was compiled on the basis of individual national reports submitted by the EIRO correspondents. The text of each of these national reports is available below. The national reports were drawn up in response to a questionnaire and should be read in conjunction with it.

Download the full report (254KB PDF)

National contributions may be available


Objectives of study

The aim of this representativeness study is to identify the relevant national and supranational associational actors – that is, the trade unions and employer organisations – in the field of industrial relations in the personal services sector, which encompasses hairdressing and other beauty treatments, and to show how these actors relate to the sector’s European interest associations of labour and business. The impetus for this study, and for similar studies in other sectors, arises from the aim of the European Commission to identify the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the provisions of the EC Treaty. Hence, this study seeks to provide basic information needed to set up sectoral social dialogue. The effectiveness of the European social dialogue depends on whether its participants are sufficiently representative in terms of the sector’s relevant national actors across the EU Member States. Therefore, only European organisations which meet this precondition will be admitted to the European social dialogue.

Against this background, the study will first identify the relevant national social partner organisations in the personal services sector, subsequently analysing the structure of the sector’s relevant European organisations, in particular their membership composition. This involves clarifying the unit of analysis at both the national and European level of interest representation. The study includes only organisations whose membership domain is ‘sector-related’ (see below). At both national and European levels, a multiplicity of associations exist which are not considered as social partner organisations as they do not essentially deal with industrial relations. Thus, there is a need for clear-cut criteria that will enable analysis to differentiate the social partner organisations from other associations.

As regards the national-level associations, classification as a sector-related social partner organisation implies fulfilling one of two criteria: the associations must either be a party to ‘sector-related’ collective bargaining or a member of a ‘sector-related’ European association of business or labour that is on the Commission’s list of European social partner organisations consulted under Article 138 of the EC Treaty, and/or which participates in the sector-related European social dialogue. Affiliation to a European social partner organisation and involvement in national collective bargaining are of utmost importance to the European social dialogue. Following the criteria for national organisations, this study includes those sector-related European organisations that are on the Commission’s list of consultation. In addition, the report considers any other sector-related European association with sector-related national social partner organisations under its umbrella. Thus, the aim to identify the sector-related national and European social partner organisations applies both a ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approach.

Definitions

To ensure the cross-national comparability of the research findings, the study defines the personal services sector in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne, NACE), using the classification NACE 93.02: ‘Hairdressing and other beauty treatment’. (This is equivalent to the new NACE code S96.0.2).

The domains of the trade unions and employer organisations and scope of the relevant collective agreements are likely to vary from this precise NACE demarcation. The study therefore includes all trade unions, employer organisations and multi-employer collective agreements which are ‘sector-related’ in terms of any of the following four aspects or patterns:

  • congruence – the domain of the organisation or scope of the collective agreement must be identical to the NACE demarcation, as specified above;
  • sectionalism – the domain or scope covers only a certain part of the sector, as defined by the aforementioned NACE demarcation, while no group outside the sector is covered;
  • overlap – the domain or scope covers the entire sector along with parts of one or more other sectors. However, it is important to note that the study does not include general associations which do not deal with sector-specific matters;
  • sectional overlap – the domain or scope covers part of the sector as well as parts of one or more other sectors.

At European level, the European Commission established a European Social Dialogue Committee for the personal services sector in 1999. Thus far, the dialogue has been restricted to the trade unions and employer organisations in the hairdressing sector, while the social partner representatives from the cosmetics industry still remain outside. The European Association of Employers’ Organisations in Hairdressing (Coiffure EU), as well as the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa of the global Union Network International (UNI) on the employees’ side, participate in the sector’s European social dialogue. Thus, affiliation to one of these European organisations is a sufficient criterion for classifying a national association as a social partner organisation for the purpose of this study. However, it should be noted that the constituent criterion is one of sector-related membership. This is important in the case of UNI-Europa due to its multi-sectoral domain. Thus, the study will include only the organisations affiliated to UNI-Europa whose domain relates to the personal services sector – that is, members of the Hair and Beauty section of UNI-Europa.

Collection of data

The collection of quantitative data, such as those on membership, is essential for investigating the representativeness of the social partner organisations. Unless cited otherwise, this study draws on the country studies provided by the EIRO national centres. It is often difficult to find precise quantitative data. In such cases, rough estimates are provided rather than leaving a question blank, given the practical and political relevance of this study. However, if there is any doubt over the reliability of an estimate, this will be noted.

In principle, quantitative data may stem from three sources, namely:

  • official statistics and representative survey studies;
  • administrative data, such as membership figures provided by the respective organisations, which are then used for calculating the density rate on the basis of available statistical figures on the potential membership of the organisation;
  • personal estimates made by representatives of the respective organisations.

While the data sources of the economic figures cited in the report are generally statistics, the figures in respect of the organisations are usually either administrative data or estimates. Furthermore, it should be noted that several country studies also present data on trade unions and business associations that do not meet the above definition of a sector-related social partner organisation, in order to give a complete picture of the sector’s associational ‘landscape’. For the above substantive reasons, as well as for methodological reasons of cross-national comparability, such trade unions and business associations will not be considered in this report.

Structure of report

The report consists of three main parts, beginning with a brief summary of the sector’s economic background. The report then analyses the relevant social partner organisations in all EU Member States, with the exception of Malta where the personal services sector is very small and could not be captured in quantitative terms. The study therefore covers 26 European countries in total. The third part of the analysis considers the representative associations at European level. Each section will give a brief introduction explaining the concept of representativeness in greater detail, followed by the study findings. As representativeness is a complex issue, it requires separate consideration at national and European level for two reasons. Firstly, the method applied by national regulations and practices to capture representativeness has to be taken into account. Secondly, the national and European organisations differ in their tasks and scope of activities. The concept of representativeness must therefore be suited to this difference.

Finally, it is important to note the difference between the research and political aspects of this study. While providing data on the representativeness of the organisations under consideration, the report does not reach any definite conclusion on whether the representativeness of the European social partner organisations and their national affiliates is sufficient for admission to the European social dialogue. The reason for this is that defining criteria for adequate representativeness is a matter for political decision rather than an issue of research analysis.


Economic background

The personal services industry is a permanently growing business sector in Europe, covering nearly 1.5 million workers in the 27 Members States of the European Union (EU27), according to both figures provided by the European social partners and aggregate information drawn from the country reports. A major part of the sector’s growth is attributable to the increasing incidence of self-employment as well as the various forms of undeclared work. The total number of hairdressing and beauty treatment companies in the EU27 amounts to about half a million such companies. This implies that the average company size in the sector does not exceed three workers. The nature of enterprises in the sector varies significantly from large (international) chains to micro-companies, often consisting of only one operator running its own salon.

Employment in the sector is still characterised by an increasing proportion of female workers, who make up more than 80% of all workers, as well as various forms of atypical work, such as part-time and temporary agency work (ECOTEC, 2000). In line with this, working conditions and pay have remained relatively poor. Moreover, national training standards and provisions differ considerably across the EU27, which translates into a broad variation in the quality of service provisions from one Member State to the other. In order to improve overall service standards in the sector, and to grant upward harmonisation of quality standards across the EU, the European social partners have launched several initiatives to introduce European standard training. The aim is to establish a uniform European hairdressing certificate, which proves that hairdressers have completed the new European hairdressing ‘level B’ training; this would ensure equal quality standards throughout the EU (see relevant social dialogue texts).

In contrast to most other sectors of the economy, the personal services sector has not undergone any substantial innovative or technology-driven restructuring in recent years. Apart from the introduction and application of information technology (IT) in the sector, in particular in relation to marketing and administration, new developments in products and techniques largely revolve around the improved user-friendliness, quality and safety of mass-marketed products for home use, for example colouring products. An increasing trend towards ‘do-it-yourself’ (DIY) has prompted the personal services industry to mainly compete on quality and to diversify new niche markets, by expanding business activities into areas such as health and beauty treatments.

Pressure on the ‘professional’ personal services sector has emerged in relation with two distinct trends. The first trend concerns the growing number of franchise companies, which are often located in large shopping malls and which provide standard services at highly competitive rates. However, the ‘traditional’ industry frequently questions the quality provided by such franchise salons. Secondly, the high incidence of activities in the illegal economy has caused problems for the hairdressing and beauty treatment industry. Undeclared work is often performed by women who, after having children, do not return to regular employment. Due to low rates of pay and unattractive working time schedules in the ‘official’ labour market, these workers often prefer to supplement their household income by providing in-home hairdressing or other services in the illegal economy rather than resuming formal employment. In 2001, the sectoral social partners at European level signed a code of conduct – entitled How to get along – which includes guidelines for hairdressing salons to set up good working relations between the two sides of industry – based on criteria such as fair wages and working conditions, lifelong learning, equal treatment, health and safety and family life; nonetheless, the effectiveness of this code for actual working life has remained questionable.

Due to the nature of the sector – more specifically, the fact that virtually all people need basic personal services such as haircutting – all of the 27 Member States record sector-related business activities. Therefore, this study covers all Member States – with the noticeable exception of Malta, where a small personal services sector does exist, but no information on the sector structure is available. Thus, the study covers all of the Member States excluding Malta. Tables 1 and 2 below give an overview of the sector’s development from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s, presenting a few indicators that are significant to industrial relations and social dialogue. In all of the Member States for which related data are available, excluding Italy, the number of companies has generally increased, reflecting the expansion of the sector. Part of the growth in the number of companies may be attributable to the growing number of self-employed person s without employees in the sector.

Similarly, available data on total employment and the number of employees show the same trend. All of the countries with available data record an increase in overall employment; with the exception of the Czech Republic, the countries also register a rise in the number of employees. Increases in employment within a decade are, in most cases, only gradual, although a relatively dramatic rise in employment is evident in Latvia and Slovakia. In several countries for which comparable data are available, such as Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden, the number of employees remains considerably below the total number in employment. This indicates that the sector is characterised by a high incidence of ‘non-standard’ employment in general and self-employment in particular.

Tables 1 and 2 also show that the sector is clearly dominated by female workers. In most of the countries for which data are available, the level of female employment clearly exceeds male employment levels. The tables also indicate that – despite the sector’s partially significant growth over the last decade – it has remained relatively small. In most of the countries under consideration, the sector’s share of aggregate employment amounts to between 0.4% and 1%, while the number of employees is between 0.1% and 0.7% of all employees. Only Ireland and Poland, where the sector accounts for 1% or more of the country’s employees/employment, record outstandingly high rates. In contrast, in Slovakia, regular employment in the sector is almost non-existent. In general, it should be noted that the employment figures provided in Tables 1–2 do not, of course, reflect the widespread practice of undeclared work, which is supposed to account for approximately 30% of the sector’s total turnover in certain countries.

Table 1: Total employment in personal services sector, 1995 and 2006
  Number of companies Total employment Male employment Female employment
1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006
AT n.a. 8,151a,b n.a. 29,679a n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
BE 5,800c >8,200d n.a. 35,433d n.a. 7,705d n.a. 27,728d
BG n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
CY 1,985f 2,488f,g 2,526 3,357g 663 769g 1,863 2,588g
CZ n.a. n.a. 19,800 31,500d 300 1,300d 19,500 30,200d
DE n.a. 73,342g,h n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
DK 5,848i 6,400 13,104 13,767 1,869 1,496 11,235 12,271
EE n.a. n.a. n.a. 2,979e,t n.a. 40e,t n.a. 2,939e,t
EL n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
ES n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FI 7,368 10,840 12,615 14,269 481 581 12,134 13,688
FR 54,871b,c 65,990b,d 145,000c 162,000d 23,300c 22,700d 121,800c 139,300d
HU 180k,l 203g n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
IE n.a. 3,145m n.a. 21,000d n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
IT 121,711n 118,516a 20,0256n 202,142a 59,909n 60,473a 140,347n 141,669a
LT n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
LU 466 564d 1,615o 2,123d,o n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
LV 324j,p 1,069p 2,780j 5,622 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
NL 13,990 21,965 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PL n.a. 35,000s n.a. 200,000s n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PT n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
RO 2,433q 3,392 16,007q 18,971 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
SE 8,938 13,486 13,312 18,462 1,782 2,179 11,530 16,283
SI 38 138r 4,123 4,923 251 451 3,872 4,472
SK 43 148 3,331 8,409 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
UK n.a. 38,000 n.a. 23,2675 n.a. 30,305 n.a. 202,370

Notes: a = 2001; b = figure refers to establishments rather than employers; c = 1996; d = 2007; e = 2000; f = figure refers to companies rather than employers; g = 2005; h = figure refers to both companies and establishments; i = 1999; j = 1997; k = 2003; l = only employers with at least five employees; m = 2002; n = 1991; o = hairdressing subsector according to NACE 93.02-01 only; p = figure refers to companies, without self-employed persons; q = 2004; r = figure excludes 2,000–3,000 self-employed persons in sector; s = 2008; t = approximate value

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Table 2: Total employees in personal services sector, 1995 and 2006
  Total employees Male employees Female employees Total sectoral employment as % of total employment in economy Total sectoral employees as % of total employees in economy
1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006
AT n.a. 22,535a n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.87a n.a. 0.72a
BE 6,276b 15,233c n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.80c n.a. 0.40c
BG 1,413d 3,234 222d 362 1,191d 2,872 n.a. n.a. 0.07d 0.14
CY n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.88 0.96e n.a. n.a.
CZ 9,000 6,800c 300 400c 8,700 6,400c 0.40 0.64c 0.21 0.16c
DE n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
DK 6,185 7,182 489 458 5,696 6,724 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30
EE n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
EL n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
ES n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FI 2,077 2,688 97 142 1,980 2,546 0.70 0.60 0.1 0.1
FR 99,393f 118,552c 13,900f 14,200c 85,500f 104,300c 0.65 0.64 0.50 0.52
HU n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
IE n.a. 21,000c n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.00 n.a. 1.21
IT 56,441g 62,224a 6,152g 6,782a 50,289g 55,442a 0.86g 0.86g 0.34g 0.36a
LT n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
LU 1,227 1,956c 132 223c 1,095 1,733c n.a. n.a. 0.55 0.55c
LV 2,648f 5,567 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.36f 0.58 0.35f 0.58
NL 24,700 33,400 4,300 4,600 20,400 28,800 n.a. n.a. 0.41 0.48
PL n.a. 20,000i n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.2i n.a. 0.13i
PT 7,478d 10,724e n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.24d 0.28e
RO 15,701h 18,542 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.19h 0.22 0.35h 0.40
SE 5,307 5,524 588 560 4,719 4,964 0.35 0.43 0.15 0.14
SI n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.55 0.61 n.a. n.a.
SK 87 93 9 52 78 41 0.16 0.38 0.004 0.005
UK n.a. 138,631 n.a. 11,974 n.a. 126,657 n.a. 0.8 n.a. 0.5

Notes: a = 2001; b = 1996; c = 2007; d = 2000; e = 2005; f = 1997; g = 1991; h = 2004; i = 2008

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008


National level of interest representation

In many of the Member States, statutory regulations explicitly refer to the concept of representativeness when assigning certain rights of interest representation and public governance to trade unions and/or employer organisations. The most important rights addressed by such regulations include: formal recognition as a party to collective bargaining; extension of the scope of a multi-employer collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; and participation in public policy and tripartite bodies of social dialogue. Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally measured by the membership strength of the organisations. For instance, statutory extension provisions usually allow for the extension of collective agreements to unaffiliated employers only when the signatory trade union and employer organisation represent 50% or more of the employees within the agreement’s domain.

As outlined, the representativeness of the national social partner organisations is of interest to this study in terms of the capacity of their European umbrella organisations for participation in European social dialogue. Hence, the role of the national actors in collective bargaining and public policymaking constitutes another important component of representativeness. The effectiveness of European social dialogue tends to increase with the growing ability of the national affiliates of the European organisations to regulate the employment terms and influence national public policies affecting the sector.

A cross-national comparative analysis shows a generally positive correlation between the bargaining role of the social partners and their involvement in public policy (see Traxler, 2004). Social partner organisations that are engaged in multi-employer bargaining are incorporated in state policies to a significantly greater extent than their counterparts in countries where multi-employer bargaining is lacking. This can be attributed to the fact that only multi-employer agreements matter in macroeconomic terms, setting an incentive for governments to persistently seek the cooperation of the social partner organisations. If single-employer bargaining prevails in a country, none of the collective agreements will have a noticeable effect on the economy due to their limited scope. As a result, the basis for generalised tripartite policy concertation will be absent.

In summary, representativeness is a multi-dimensional concept that embraces three basic elements: the membership domain and strength of the social partner organisations; their role in collective bargaining; and their role in public policymaking.

Membership domains and strength

The membership domain of an organisation, as formally established by its constitution or name, distinguishes its potential members from other groups that the organisation does not claim to represent. As already explained, this study considers only organisations whose domain relates to the personal services sector. However, there is insufficient room in this report to delineate the domain demarcations of all the organisations. Instead, the report notes how they relate to the sector by classifying them according to the four patterns of ‘sector relatedness’, as specified earlier. Regarding membership strength, a differentiation exists between strength in terms of the absolute number of members and strength in relative terms. Research usually refers to relative membership strength as the density – in other words, the ratio of actual to potential members.

Furthermore, a difference also arises between trade unions and employer organisations in relation to measuring membership strength. Trade union membership simply means the number of unionised persons. In addition to taking the total membership of a trade union as an indicator of its strength, it is also reasonable to break down this membership total according to gender. However, measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex since they organise collective entities, namely companies that employ employees. In this case, therefore, two possible measures of membership strength may be used – one referring to the companies themselves, and the other to the employees working in the member companies of an employer organisation.

For a sector study such as this, measures of membership strength of both the trade unions and employer organisations also have to consider how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not congruent with the sector demarcation, the organisation’s total density – that is, the density referring to its overall domain – may differ from sector-specific density – that is, the organisation’s density referring to the sector. This report will first present the data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and will then consider those of the employer organisations.

Trade unions

Table 3 presents the trade union data on their domains and membership strength. The table lists all of the trade unions that meet at least one of the two criteria for classification as a sector-related social partner organisation, as defined earlier. Of the 26 countries under consideration, eight do not record any sector-related trade union – namely, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. In the remaining 18 countries, 38 sector-related trade unions could be identified – for one of these, the membership domain could not be clarified. Only four out of the remaining 37 unions (10.8%) have demarcated their domain in a way that is congruent with the sector definition. This underlines the fact that statistical definitions of business activities, in particular in smaller branches of the economy, differ somewhat from the lines along which employees identify common interests and band together in trade unions.

Table 3: Interest representation of trade unions in personal services sector, 2006–2007
Country Type of mem-ber-shipa Domain cover-age Membership Density (%) Collec-tive bargain-ing Consult -ation National and European affiliationsc
Members Members in sector Female member-ship (% of total member-ship) b Dom-ain Sec-tor      
AT                  
GPA-DJP Vol. SO* 249,500 n.a. 43.2% 20% <10% Yes n.a. ÖGB, UNI Europa, Eurocadres, EFFAT, EMCEF, EPSU
vida Vol. SO* 155,712 2,200 33% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes ÖGB, ETF, EFFAT, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
BE                  
ACV/CSC Energie-chimie Vol. SO* 55,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No ACV/CSC, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
ABVV/ FGTB Centrale générale Vol. SO* 300,000 3,000 n.a. n.a. 20% (n.a.) Yes No ABVV/ FGTB, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
SETCa-BBTK Vol. SO* 356,912 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No ABVV/ FGTB, UNI-Europa
ACLVB/ CGSLB) Vol. O* 265,000 680 51% 6% 4.5% Yes No UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
BG                  
ITUFECCTCS Vol. O 5,341 58 85% n.a. 1.8% No n.a. CITUB, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
CY
CZ
DE                  
verdi Vol. O 2,205,145 n.a. 49.8% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes DGB, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
DK                  
DFKF Vol. C* 4,906 4,906 95.9% 85% 85% Yes No LO, NHU UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
KF Vol. O* 92,802 500–1,000 53.8% 5% About 9% Yes No Krifa, Eurofedop
EE
EL                  
ACCE-OIYE Vol. S 400 400 99% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes GSEE, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
ES                  
FES-UGT Vol. O* 120,000 4,000 40% 4% 2% Yes No UGT, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
AADD-CCOO Vol. O* 73,700 4,000 35% 4% 2% Yes No UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
ELA- Zerbitzuak Vol. SO* 22,000 200 n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
FI                  
PAM Vol. O 211,305 2,400 80% 67% 89.3% Yes Yes UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section), EFFAT
FR                  
FdS-CFDT Vol. O* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No CFDT, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
FNECS-CFE-CGC Vol. SO* 2,700 n.a. 40% n.a. n.a. Yes No CFE-CGC
FCSF-CFTC Vol. O* 25,000 n.a. 35% n.a. n.a. Yes No CFTC
FC-CGT Vol. O* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No CGT, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)d
SGC-FGTA-CGT-FO Vol. S* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No CGT-FO, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)d
HU
IE                  
Unite Vol. O* 50,000 90 n.a. n.a. 0.43% Yes Yes ICTU, UNI-Europa
SIPTU Vol. O* 225,000 40 n.a. n.a. 0.19% Yes Yes ICTU, UNI-Europa
IWU Vol. O* 1,500 10 n.a. n.a. 0.04% Yes No
IT                  
FILCAMS Vol. O* 350,000 1,200 62% 21% 1.9% Yes Yes CGIL, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section), EFFAT, ETLC
FISASCAT Vol. O* 200,000 6,220 n.a. 12% 10% Yes Yes CISL, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section), EFFAT
UILTuCS Vol. O* 100,141 n.a. n.a. 6% n.a. Yes Yes UIL, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section), EFFAT
LT                  
LKKPS-LKKDPS Vol. C 100 100 100% n.a. n.a. No n.a. LPSK, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
LU                  
OGB-L Vol. O 61,000 500 33% 19.5% 25.8% No n.a. CGT-L, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
LV
NL                  
FNV Mooi Vol. C* 11,550 11,550 n.a. 34.6% 34.6% Yes No FNV, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
CNV Bedrijven-bond – Hairdressing Section Vol. S* 4,950 4,950 n.a. n.a. 14.8% Yes No CNV
VPP Vol. n.a.* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes n.a.
PL
PT                  
SINDPAB Vol. C* 1,000 1,000 >80% 10% 10% Yes No
CESP Vol. O* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No CGTP-IN
SITESE Vol. O* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. No No FETESE, UGT, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
RO
SE                  
HF Vol. O 150,343 2,000 68% 75%–80% 36% Yes Yes LO, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
SI                  
SODS Vol. O 15,000 n.a. 50% 12% n.a. Yes No ZSSS, UNI-Europad
SK
UK                  
GMB Vol. O* 575,892 <1,000 43% n.a. <1% No Yes TUC, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)
USDAW Vol. O* 368,258 <2,000 58% n.a. About 1% No Yes TUC, UNI-Europa (Hair & Beauty Section)

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

aVol. = voluntary

bAs a percentage of total union membership

cNational affiliations appear in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level, only sectoral associations are listed

dAffiliation via higher-order unit

*Domain overlap

O = Overlap, SO = Sectional overlap, S = Sectionalism, C = Congruence

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Domain demarcations resulting in overlap in relation to the sector prevail in the sector, accounting for 62.2% of cases. Overlap largely arises from two different modes of demarcation. The first mode relates to general or cross-sectoral domains – as seen in the cases of the Luxembourg Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (Onofhängege Gewerkschaftsbond Lëtzebuerg, OGB-L), Unite in Ireland and the GMB general trade union in the United Kingdom (UK). The second and more frequent demarcation mode in the sector relates to various forms of multi-sector domains, covering contiguous sectors, mostly in the broader services segment of the economy – as observed, for example, in the cases of the Independent Trade Union Federation of Employees in Commerce, Cooperatives, Tourism, Credit and Social Services (ITUFECCTCS) in Bulgaria, the United Services Union (Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft, ver.di) in Germany, the National Service Federation of the General Workers’ Confederation (Federación Estatal de Servicios de la Unión General de Trabajadores, FES-UGT) in Spain, the Service Union United (Palvelualojen ammattiliitto, PAM) in Finland, and the French trade unions the Services Federation (FdS-CFDT) of the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT), the Commerce, Services, Sales Staff Federation (FCSF-CFTC) of the French Christian Workers’ Confederation (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens, CFTC) and the Commerce Federation (FC-CGT) of the General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT).

Sectional overlap can be found in 18.9% of the cases and is thus the second most frequent domain demarcation in relation to the sector. This mode usually emanates from domain demarcations that focus on certain categories of employees which are then organised across several or all sectors. Employee categories are specified by various parameters, such as: distinct occupations, for example managers as is the case of France’s National Federation of Commerce and Services Executives (FNECS) affiliated to the French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l’encadrement – Confédération générale des cadres, CFE-CGC); employment status, such as blue-collar workers, as observed in the case of vida in Austria, along with Belgium’s General Christian Trade Union (Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond/Confédération des syndicats chrétiens, ACV/CSC) and the Belgian General Confederation of Labour (Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond/ Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique, ABVV/FGTB), or white-collar employees, as is the case regarding the Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists (Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten, Druck, Journalismus, Papier, GPA-DJP) in Austria; and geographic region, as seen for instance in the case of the employees, technicians, shops and food sector within the Basque Workers’ Solidarity (ELA-Zerbitzuak), which is only active in Basque region of Spain.

Finally, sectionalism represented only three or 8.1% of the cases. This mode ensues from the existence of sector-specific trade unions, which represent and organise only certain categories of employees in the sector, while they do not organise employees outside the personal services sector. In this sector, such employee categories are specified by distinct occupations, such as hairdressers in the case of France’s General Hairdressing Union (SGC-FGTA) affiliated to the General Federation of Agricultural, Food, Tobacco and Allied Services Workers (Fédération Générale des Travailleurs de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, des Tabacs et des Services, FGTA), and the hairdressing section of the Christian Industrial Union (CNV Bedrijvenbond) in the Netherlands, or beauty treatment workers in the case of the Association of Cosmetic Company Employees (ACCE-OIYE) affiliated to the Federation of Private Employees in Greece (OIYE).

As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, so too do their domains with one another in the case of the countries with a pluralist trade union landscape in the sector. Table 3 also gives an insight into these inter-union domain overlaps, which appear to be endemic. In all countries with more than one sector-related trade union, the domain of any of them overlaps with the domain of all or most of the others. Depending on the scale of mutual overlap, this results in competition for members. Noticeable inter-union competition is, for instance, recorded in Denmark, Ireland and, to a lesser extent, the Netherlands.

Looking at the trade union membership data, it becomes apparent that female employees comprise the majority group in most of the unions for which membership figures by gender are available. Nevertheless, in some trade unions, the proportion of male members is close to or even above 50%. At first glance, this finding is quite remarkable, since the sector’s employment is clearly dominated by female employees. However, closer consideration shows that the domain of all trade unions recording a majority of male members overlaps or sectionally overlaps in relation to the sector. Hence, the predominance of male members in these unions is likely to originate in areas of their domains other than the personal services sector. The fact that women clearly prevail in European personal services (see Table 1) is, as far as related data are available, mirrored by female membership rates of above 80% – or in most cases above 95% – in those trade unions whose domain is congruent or sectional in relation to the sector.

Membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all cases in the 26 Member States under consideration. The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from more than 2.2 million to about 100 members. This considerable variation reflects differences in the size of the economy and the comprehensiveness of the membership domain, rather than the ability to attract members. Therefore, density is the measure of membership strength which is more appropriate to a comparative analysis. Domain density is over 50% in the case of only 20% of the trade unions that document figures on density. Only 13.3% of the unions gather 70% or more of the employees covered by their domain. More than half of the trade unions (53.3%) for which data are available organise fewer than 15% of the employees within their domain. The remaining trade unions (26.7%) record a density of between 15% and 50% of their potential members. These results indicate that overall domain density of the sector-related unions is rather low. However, it should also be noted that for only 15 out of the 38 sector-related trade unions, domain density data are recorded.

These findings largely correspond to the trade unions’ density in the personal services sector, although sector density tends to be even lower than domain density. When looking at sector density, it is important to differentiate between the trade unions’ ‘sectoral density’ on the one hand and their ‘sectoral domain density’ on the other. Whereas the former measures the ratio of the total number of members of a trade union in the sector to the number of employees in the sector (as demarcated by the NACE classification), the latter indicates the total number of members of a trade union in the sector in relation to the number of employees who work in that part of the sector as covered by the union domain. This means that the sectoral domain density must be higher than the sectoral density if a trade union organises only a particular part of the sector – that is, where the trade union’s membership domain is either sectionalist or sectionalistically overlapping in relation to the sector. Even when taking the trade unions’ sectoral domain density into account – which tends to be higher than their sectoral density for the reasons outlined above – the trade unions’ density in the personal services sector falls short of the already low density ratio referring to their domain on aggregate. Sectoral domain density is over 50% in the case of only 10.5% of the trade unions for which data are available. Some 73.7% of the trade unions record a sectoral domain density lower than 15%, while 15.8% of them record a sectoral domain density of between 15% and 50%. Again, it should be noted that for about half of the sector-related trade unions, no data on sectoral (domain) density are available. Regarding those trade unions for which figures on both measures are recorded – that is, for sectoral domain density and domain density on aggregate – sectoral (domain) density tends to be lower compared with aggregate density, although a few trade unions also show the reverse relationship between the two densities.

Low unionisation rates in the personal services sector may be attributed to a variety of reasons. First, the sector has a high and still increasing proportion of self-employed persons – or ‘one-person companies’ – who are usually not inclined to join a trade union. The second reason is related to the predominance of female employees in the sector, who are in most countries, except for the Nordic countries, traditionally harder to organise compared with men (TN0103201U). Third, the small size of most establishments – which consequently often do not meet the criteria for setting up workplace representation – as well as the high staff turnover and exit rates constitute significant obstacles for establishing stable ties with trade unions. Lastly, it is possible that most trade unions in the sector may not be strong enough to effectively promote substantial employee interests, in particular in terms of pay and working conditions, in comparison with the employers, such that a core incentive for unionisation may be lacking.

Employer organisations

Table 4 presents the membership data for employer organisations in the personal services sector. For 18 out of the 26 countries under consideration, sector-related employer organisations are documented. In at least one of these countries, a proportion of the listed employer organisations are not a party to collective bargaining. They are classified here as social partner organisations only due to their European-level affiliation to Coiffure EU. At least 14 of the 18 countries have employer organisations engaged in collective bargaining, although more definite figures cannot be provided since no related data are available for some of the organisations. In a number of the countries – namely, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovakia – there is no employer association that meets the definition of a social partner organisation, as outlined earlier. However, this does not mean that business has remained unorganised. Generally, business interest organisations may also deal with interests other than those related to industrial relations. Organisations specialised in matters other than industrial relations are commonly defined as ‘trade associations’ (see TN0311101S). Such sector-related trade associations also exist in the personal services sector.

In terms of their national scope of activities, all of the organisations that are not involved in collective bargaining according to Table 4 either primarily or exclusively act as trade associations in their country. It is only the conceptual decision to include all associational affiliates of Coiffure EU, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, that gives them the status of a social partner organisation within the framework of this study. Of the 40 employer organisations listed in Table 4, at least one organisation belongs to this group. In seven of the 18 countries where employer organisations exist, only one single employer organisation – in the meaning of a social partner organisation as previously defined – has been established. Pluralist associational systems on the employer side are thus – like on the trade union side – prevailing in the sector. Regardless of this, the employer organisations’ domains tend to be narrower than those of the trade unions. Some 21.1% and 13.2% of these organisations rest on overlapping and sectionalistically overlapping domains, respectively. The individual domains of the Christian Employers’ Association (KA) in Denmark, the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation (IBEC) in Ireland and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia (Gospodarska zbornica Slovenije, GZS) are cross-sectoral. Otherwise, most of the domain overlaps ensue from coverage of the broader beauty/wellness sector, often including some kind of basic medical treatment, part of the cosmetics/wigs production industry – as seen in the case of the Federal Association of Hairdressers (BIF) in Austria and the Hellenic Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (PSVAK) in Greece – or the broader artisan sector. Overlaps of the latter kind can especially be found in Italy. Sectionalism or sectionalist overlaps in cases of broader domain demarcation in terms of the sector are mainly caused by domain demarcations that focus on either hairdressing activities or beauty treatment services only. Sectionalism resulting from such specialisation is most common in the personal services sector. Aside from this, sectionalism also arises due to domain demarcations that focus on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as is the case regarding the IBEC-affiliated Small Firms Association (SFA) in Ireland, and particular geographic regions, as seen in relation to the Association of Barbershops and Hairdressers in the District of Braga (ABCDB) in Portugal. A relative majority (47.4%) of the associations are sectionalist with regard to their domain. Some 18.4% of the cases have a domain congruent with the sector definition. The two existing sector-related employer organisations of Austria – namely, BIF and the Federal Association of Beauty Treatment Companies (BIFKM) – along with the Chamber of Craft and Small Businesses of Slovenia (Obrtno-podjetniška zbornica Slovenije, OZS) can rely on obligatory membership. In the case of all three of these organisations, this is due to their public-law status as chambers. Nevertheless, with regard to Slovenia’s OZS, 2006 legislation on chambers of commerce and industry will cease its capacity to conclude collective agreements by May 2009 (SI0809039I).

In those countries with a pluralist structure in relation to employer organisations, these associations have usually managed to achieve non-competing relationships. Their activities complement each other as a result of inter-associational differentiation by either membership demarcation or functions and tasks. However, a few cases of inter-associational rivalry are recorded in Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia.

As the figures on density show (Table 4), membership strength in terms of companies varies widely with regard to both the membership domain in general and the sector-related densities. The same holds true for the densities in terms of employees. Companies’ densities tend to be equal to or, where they differ, lower than employee densities. This indicates a higher propensity of the larger companies to associate, compared with their smaller counterparts. However, overall densities in the sector are rather low. Irrespective of the kind of density referred to, apart from the employer organisations with mandatory membership, only a few associations register a density higher than 50% of the employees – namely, the Hairdressers’ Association (Suomen Hiusyrittäjät) in Finland and the Royal General Dutch Hairdressers’ Organisation (ANKO) in the Netherlands. Most of the voluntary employer organisations record employee densities lower than 30%. This is due to the sector’s company structure, which is characterised by a high proportion of small and micro-enterprises. Traditionally, small companies appear to be less willing to gather in associations. Another negative influence on membership strength and density rates may be found in the high degree of fragmentation of the associational systems in a few countries, such as Belgium, Italy and Spain – particularly regarding the representation of small companies. Overall, little difference emerges between the density of domains and the sector-related densities, and in most cases they tend to be equally low. One can infer from these findings that employers are poorly organised in the personal services sector – particularly very small companies and self-employed persons.

Table 4: Domain coverage, membership and density of employer organisations in personal services sector, 2006–2007
Country Domain cover-age Membership Density
Typea Comp-anies Comp-anies in sector Employ-ees Employ-ees in sector Companies Employees
Domain Sector (sectoral domain) Domain Sector (sectoral domain)
AT                    
BIF SO oblig. 6,500 6,000 18,997 16,000 100% 75% (100%) 100% 70% (100%)
BIFKM SO oblig. 9,058 6,000 24,000 7,000 100% 25% (100%) 100% 30% (100%)
BE                    
RCBH S* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
NVHB S* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
NCBH S* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
UNEB S vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PABC S vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
BG
CY                    
CHF S n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
CZ
DE                    
ZV C vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
DK                    
DF C* vol. 3,500 3,500 5,317 5,317 58% 58% (58%) n.a. n.a.
KA O* vol. 1,000 20 100,000 200 10% <1% (<1%) n.a. n.a.
EE
ELL O vol. 15 11 6,000–7,000 ~4,000 15.8% 55% 48% 60%–70%
EL                    
PSVAK SO vol. 66 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
GFH S vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
ES                    
FEIPPSB C* vol. 7,733 7,733 15,446 15,446 9% 9% (9%) 9% 9% (9%)
ANEPECS C* vol. 27,556 27,556 55,000 55,000 30% 30% (30%) 30% 30% (30%)
FANAE S* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
CEPE C* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FI                    
SH S vol. 1,400 1,400 2,300 2,300 15% 13% (15%) >90% 85.6% (>90%)
FR                    
FNC S* vol. 7,595 7,595 n.a. n.a. n.a. 12% (n.a.) n.a. n.a.
CNEC S* vol. 3,752 3,752 25,000 25,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. 21% (n.a.)
HU                    
MOSZI n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
IE                    
IBEC O* vol. 7,500 7 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.22% (0.22%) n.a. n.a.
SFA-IBEC SO* vol. 8,000 5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.16% (0.16%) n.a. n.a.
IT                    
Confartigianato Estetica SO* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Confartigianato Acconciatori S* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Can Benessere e Sanita O* vol. 28,000 n.a. 12,233 n.a. 19.3% 19.6% (19.6%) 19.3% 19.6% (19.6%)
CLAAI O* vol. 115,976 n.a. 48,749 n.a. 8% 5.7% (5.7%) 8% 5.7% (5.7%)
Casartigiani O* vol. 84,663 n.a. 35,587 n.a. n.a. 3% (3%) n.a. 3.8% (3.8%)
CIA S* n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
LT
LU
LV
NL                    
ANKO S* vol. 6,300 6,300 18,000 18,000 37% 28.7% (37%) 66% 53.9% (66%)
FUSION S* vol. 180 180 n.a. n.a. 1.1% 0.8% (1.1%) 5% 4.5% (n.a.)
PL                    
SFKWP- POLFRYZ n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PT                    
APBCIB C* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
ACP S* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
ABCDB S* vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
RO
SE                    
Frisörföreta-garna S vol. 4,500 4,500 2,700 2,700 About 30% About 30% (30%) 49% 49% (49%)
SI                    
OZS O* oblig. 50,000 3,270 140,000 n.a. 100% 100% (100%) 100% 100% (100%)
ZDOPS O* vol. 2,700 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
GZS O* vol. 18,600 30 n.a. 200 16.7% 1% (1%) 40% n.a.
SK
UK                    
NHF C vol. 7,000 7,000 116,000 116,000 50% 50% (50%) 50% 50% (50%)

Notes: See Annex for full list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

avol. = voluntary, oblig. = obligatory

*Domain overlap

O = Overlap, SO = Sectional overlap, S = Sectionalism, C = Congruence

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Table 5: Collective bargaining, consultation and national/European affiliations of employer organisations in personal services sector, 2006–2007
Country Collective bargaining Consultation National and European affiliationsa
AT      
BIF yes yes WKÖ, Coiffure EU
BIFKM yes yes WKÖ
BE      
RCBH yes no UBK/UCB, UNIZO, UCM, Coiffure EUb
NVHB yes no UBK/UCB, UNIZO, UCM, Coiffure EUb
NCBH yes no UBK/UCB, UNIZO, UCM, Coiffure EUb
UNEB yes no
PABC yes no
BG
CY      
CHF n.a. n.a. Coiffure EU
CZ
DE      
ZV yesc n.a. Coiffure EU
DK      
DF yes no SAMA, DA b, HVR, Coiffure EU
KA yes no HVR
EE
EL      
PSVAK yes yes SEV, COLIPA
GFH n.a. n.a. Coiffure EU
ES      
FEIPPSB yes no CEOE
ANEPECS yes no CEPYME
FANAE yes no CEPEC
CEPE yes no
FI      
SH yes yes SY, Coiffure EU
FR      
FNC yes yes CNAMS, Coiffure EU
CNEC yes yes CGPME
HU      
MOSZI n.a. n.a. Coiffure EU
IE      
IBEC yes yes
SFA-IBEC yes yes IBEC
IT      
Confartigianato Estetica yes yes Confarti-Gianato
Confartigianato Acconciatori yes yes Confarti-Gianato
Can Benessere e Sanita yes yes CAN, CEPEC
CLAAI yes yes
Casartigiani yes yes
CIA n.a. n.a. Coiffure EU
LT
LU
LV
NL      
ANKO yesd no MKB-NL, Coiffure EU
FUSION yes no
PL      
SFKWP-POLFRYZ n.a. n.a. Coiffure EU
PT      
APBCIB yes no CCP
ACP yes no
ABCDB yes no
RO
SE      
Frisörföretagarna yes yes Coiffure EU
SI      
OZS yes no Coiffure EU
ZDOPS yes no
GZS yes no
SK
UK      
NHF no yes Coiffure EU

Notes: See Annex for full list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

aNational affiliations appear in italics; only affiliations to sectoral European associations are listed

bAffiliation via higher-order unit

cCollective bargaining involvement via lower-order units at regional level

dCollective bargaining involvement via higher-order unit (i.e. MKB-NL)

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Collective bargaining and its actors

Table 3 lists all of the trade unions engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. Despite numerous cases of inter-union domain overlap and of unclear domain demarcation, only a few cases of inter-union rivalry and competition for bargaining rights have been identified (see above). Such competition for members and/or bargaining rights is reported in Denmark – more specifically, in the case of the Danish Hairdressing and Cosmetics Union (Dansk Frisør og Kosmetiker Forbund, DFKF) and the Christian Trade Union (Kristelig Fagforening, KF), both of which claim to organise employees in the personal services sector. In Ireland, inter-union rivalries occur in particular between trade unions affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and the non-affiliated Independent Workers’ Union (IWU).

With regard to the sector-related employer organisations, apart from a few cases of inter-associational rivalry for members and consultation rights in Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia (see above), only one case of competition over collective bargaining rights is documented in Ireland. In this case, the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (ISME), which split off from the SFA affiliated to the IBEC umbrella association, claims to have a more prominent role in the national bargaining process.

The data presented in Table 6 provide an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 26 countries under consideration. The importance of collective bargaining as a means of employment regulation is measured by calculating the total number of employees covered by collective bargaining as a proportion of the total number of employees within a certain segment of the economy (see Traxler, Blaschke and Kittel, 2001). Accordingly, the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage is defined as the ratio of the number of employees covered by any kind of collective agreement to the total number of employees in the sector.

To delineate the bargaining system, two further indicators are used. The first indicator refers to the relevance of multi-employer bargaining, compared with single-employer bargaining. Multi-employer bargaining is defined as being conducted by an employer organisation on behalf of the employer side. In the case of single-employer bargaining, the company or its divisions is party to the agreement. This includes cases where two or more companies jointly negotiate an agreement. The relative importance of multi-employer bargaining, measured as a percentage of the total number of employees covered by a collective agreement, therefore provides an indication of the impact of the employer organisations on the overall collective bargaining process.

The second indicator considers whether statutory extension schemes have been applied to the sector. For reasons of brevity, this analysis is confined to extension schemes that widen the scope of a collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; extension regulations targeting the employees are therefore not included in the research. Regulations concerning the employees are not significant to this analysis for two reasons. On the one hand, extending a collective agreement to the employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is a standard of the International Labour Organization (ILO), aside from any national legislation. Secondly, employers have good reason to extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when they are not formally obliged to do so; otherwise, they would set an incentive for their workforce to unionise.

In comparison with employee-related extension procedures, schemes that target the employers are far more significant for the strength of collective bargaining in general and multi-employer bargaining in particular. This is because the employers are capable of refraining from both joining an employer organisation and entering single-employer bargaining in the context of a purely voluntaristic system. Therefore, employer-related extension practices increase the coverage of multi-employer bargaining. Moreover, when it is pervasive, an extension agreement may encourage more employers to join the controlling employer organisation; such a move then enables them to participate in the bargaining process and to benefit from the organisation’s related services in a situation where the collective agreement in question will bind them in any case (see Traxler, Blaschke and Kittel, 2001).

Table 6: System of sectoral collective bargaining in personal services sector, 2006–2007
Country Collective bargaining coverage (CBC) Proportion of multi-employer bargaining (MEB) as % of total CBC Extension practices*
AT 70% 100% (Limited/exceptional)
BE 100% MEB prevailing 2
BG 0% n/a n/a
CY 0% n/a n/a
CZ 0% n/a n/a
DE n.a. MEB prevailing Pervasive
DK 85% MEB prevailing No practice
EE 0% n/a n/a
EL n.a. 100% No practice
ES 100% 100% Pervasive
FI 100% 100% Pervasive
FR 100% 100% No practice
HU 0% n/a n/a
IE n.a. MEB prevailing No practice
IT 100% 100% (Pervasive)
LT 0% n/a n/a
LU 0% n/a n/a
LV 0% n/a n/a
NL >80% MEB prevailing Pervasive
PL 0% n/a n/a
PT Almost 100% 100% Pervasive
RO 0% n.a. n.a.
SE 60% 80% Limited/exceptional
SI 100% >95% (Pervasive)
SK 0% n/a n/a
UK 0% n/a n/a

Notes: Collective bargaining coverage = employees covered as a percentage of the total number of employees in the sector

MEB = multi-employer bargaining relative to single-employer bargaining

* Extension practices include functional equivalents to extension provisions, i.e. obligatory membership and labour court rulings; cases of functional equivalents appear in parentheses.

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Collective bargaining coverage

In terms of the sector’s collective bargaining coverage, nine of the 23 countries for which related data are available record a very high coverage rate of 80% or more. Conversely, there are as many as 12 countries – in other words, almost half of all countries with available data – where collective bargaining is completely absent. Overall, Table 6 provides for a rather polarised picture in this respect. In those countries where sector-related collective bargaining takes place, bargaining coverage tends to be very high, with rates all exceeding 60% and often coming close to 100%. On the other hand, as already stated, collective bargaining is completely absent in about half of the countries. One can infer from these findings that in about half of the EU Member States, the personal services sector’s industrial relations structures are well-established, while they appear to be underdeveloped in the remaining half.

Closer consideration regarding the different countries reveals that collective bargaining coverage rates tend to be high in the ‘older’ 15 EU Member States (EU15), with the notable exceptions of Luxembourg and the UK. In contrast, sectoral bargaining is lacking in all of the newer Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, with the exception of Slovenia. This is because most of the central and east European countries had no well-performing industrial relations structures in place in the sector, which is clearly manifested in the lack of sector-related representative social partner organisations in these countries (see Tables 2 and 3). Organising members is equally difficult for both trade unions and employer organisations, due to the small size of most enterprises and the high incidence of, often illegally operating, self-employed persons instead of regular employees.

In the EU15, excluding Luxembourg and the UK, several factors which sometimes interact with each other account for the high coverage rates – at least in those countries for which related data are available. Such factors include the following: the predominance of multi-employer bargaining; the partially high density rates of the trade unions and/or employer organisations, as seen for example in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden; the existence of pervasive extension practices, as observed in countries such as in Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. In the case of Austria (as well as Slovenia), obligatory membership in the employer organisations works as a functional equivalent to pervasive extension. Nevertheless, in Austria, the entire beauty treatment industry is not covered by any collective agreement, since the former, regionally differentiated agreements applying to this subsector were ceased a few years ago. While coverage in countries with prevalent multi-employer bargaining is generally high, single-employer bargaining arrangements are rare in the sector. Strikingly, it was not possible to identify one single country with prevalent single-employer bargaining. Instead, countries without working multi-employer arrangements generally do not have any bargaining structures at all.

The fact that multi-employer bargaining is the dominant – if not exclusive – form of bargaining in all countries where sector-related collective agreements are concluded does not imply sector-level bargaining in all these cases. In Ireland, for instance, national-level multi-employer wage agreements cover the whole unionised sector in the country, including unionised employees in the hairdressing and beauty industry. This primary level of central cross-sectoral multi-employer bargaining in Ireland may be supplemented by company bargaining, which takes place quite rarely in the personal services sector, while sector-level bargaining does not exist. Likewise, sectoral-level bargaining is absent in Slovenia. Instead, all of the sector’s employees are covered by collective agreements concluded by OZS, with obligatory membership for all companies and self-employed persons operating in the crafts industry. In addition, one company agreement has been signed by a medium-sized hairdressing company in Slovenia’s capital city of Ljubljana.

Due to the clear prevalence of multi-employer settlements in the sector, the use of extension practices is significant. Pervasive extension practices in the personal services sector are reported for Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. In Sweden, extension practices are limited to the hairdressing industry. Referring to the aim of extension provisions – that is, making multi-employer agreements generally binding – the provisions for obligatory membership in the chamber systems of Austria and Slovenia should also be noted. Obligatory membership creates an extension effect, since the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, WKÖ) as well as Slovenia’s OZS, and their respective subunits, are parties to multi-employer bargaining. However, since no collective agreement is currently in force in Austria’s beauty treatment industry, there is no extension practice in effect with regard to this subsector either. Another functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes can be found in Italy. Under the country’s constitution, minimum conditions of employment must apply to all employees. The country’s labour court rulings relate this principle to the multi-employer agreements, to the extent that they are regarded as generally binding.

Participation in public policymaking

Interest associations can partake in public policy in two basic ways. Firstly, they may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members; or secondly, they may be represented on ‘corporatist’, in other words tripartite, committees and boards of policy concertation. This study only considers cases of consultation and corporatist participation that explicitly relate to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes are not necessarily institutionalised and, therefore, the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues to be addressed and also over time, depending on changes in government. Moreover, the authorities may initiate a consultation process on an occasional rather than a regular basis. Given this variability, Tables 3 and 4 only feature those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations that are usually consulted.

Trade unions

The trade unions are regularly consulted by the authorities only in eight of the 18 countries where sector-related trade unions are recorded. About half of the countries cite a lack of regular consultation, whereas no information on consultation practices is available for the trade unions of Bulgaria, Lithuania and Luxembourg. Since a multi-union system has been established in 10 of the 18 countries with sector-related trade unions, one cannot rule out the possibility that the authorities favour certain trade unions over others or that the unions compete for participation rights. However, in the majority of countries where a noticeable practice of consultation is observed, any of the existing trade unions may take part in the consultation process. Ireland appears to be the only exception in this respect. As a result, inter-union conflicts over participation in public policy matters do not figure prominently.

Employer organisations

Similarly, about half of the sector-related employer organisations in those countries where they exist are involved in consultation procedures. In countries with multi-organisation systems, conflicts over participation rights of employer organisations are only rarely reported. In the multi-organisation system of Austria, France and Ireland, where related data for all employer organisations are available, all of the sector’s organisations are consulted. Conversely, in the pluralist systems of six countries – namely, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain – none of the various employer organisations are regularly consulted. None of the countries records the co-existence of organisations that are consulted and those that are not. In all of the countries where employer organisations co-exist with trade unions, excluding France, consultation rights are symmetrically attributed to the two sides of industry, in that at least one organisation on each side is consulted. This means that in all but one of the 14 countries, for which information on consultation is reported for organised business and labour, representatives of both sides are consulted. In those countries where an employer association in the context of the aforementioned definition of a social partner organisation does not exist – namely, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovakia – business is not necessarily excluded from consultation procedures. Under these circumstances, sectoral trade associations may be consulted.

Tripartite participation

Turning from consultation to tripartite participation, the findings reveal that genuinely sector-specific tripartite bodies have been established in only four of the 26 countries under consideration. This is mainly due to the relatively small size of the personal services sector and its relative underdevelopment in terms of labour market regulation. Table 7 lists a total of four bodies of this kind. One of them is based on a bipartite agreement of the social partners, while three are based on statutes. Two of them primarily deal with education and training issues, while one each focuses on pay and working conditions, on the one hand, and tackling illicit work and tax fraud in the sector, on the other hand. This reflects the need in virtually all countries to regulate and improve the sector’s employment conditions as well as its vocational training standards, since in both respects the situation across the EU is characterised by a lack of quality, at least in some of the countries, as well as coherence.

Table 7: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy in personal services sector, 2006–2007
Country Name of body and scope of activity Origin Participants
Trade unions Business associations
FI Sectoral Subunit of Finnish National Board of Education (Opetushallitus, OPH) Agreement PAM SH, SY
IE Joint Labour Committee regulating minimum pay and conditions for hairdressers and beauticians Statutory Unite, SIPTU IBEC/SFA, IHF, ISME
PT Special Technical Committee for occupational training Statutory CESP, SINDPAB CCP, CIP
SE Taxation Fraud Committee – aimed at tackling illicit work and tax fraud Statutory HF Frisörföretagarna

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008


European level of interest representation

At European level, eligibility for consultation and participation in the social dialogue is linked to three criteria, as defined by the European Commission. Accordingly, a social partner organisation must have the following attributes:

  • be cross-industry or relate to specific sectors or categories, and be organised at European level;
  • consist of organisations that are themselves an integral and recognised part of Member States’ social partner structures and that have the capacity to negotiate agreements, as well as being representative of all Member States, as far as possible;
  • have adequate structures to ensure their effective participation in the consultation process.

Regarding social dialogue, the constituent feature is the ability of such organisations to negotiate on behalf of their members and to conclude binding agreements. Against this background, this section on European associations of the personal services sector will analyse these organisations’ membership domain, the composition of their membership and their ability to negotiate.

As outlined in greater detail below, one sector-related European association on the employee side – namely, the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa – and one on the employer side – namely, Coiffure EU – are particularly significant in the personal services sector: both of them are listed by the European Commission as a social partner organisation consulted under Article 138 of the EC Treaty. Hence, the following analysis will concentrate on these two organisations, while providing supplementary information on other associations that are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Membership domain

Since the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa, which is affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), organises both the hairdressing and the beauty treatment segment of the economy, its membership domain largely coincides with the personal services sector. By contrast, Coiffure EU only represents the hairdressing industry. Hence, Coiffure EU’s domain is sectional in relation to the sector under consideration; the organisation only organises business/employer organisations rather than individual companies.

Membership composition

In terms of membership composition, it should be noted that the countries covered by the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa and Coiffure EU extend beyond the 26 countries examined in this study. However, the report will only consider the members of these 26 countries. Table 8 documents the membership list of the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa, as provided by a UNI-Europa representative. Accordingly, at least one affiliation in each country under consideration is recorded – except for Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. In some countries – such as Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the UK – multiple memberships occur. Overall, the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa counts 25 direct affiliations from the countries under examination. Almost two thirds (66%) of the trade unions listed in Table 3 are directly or indirectly (via higher-order units) affiliated to the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa. A number of other trade unions are also affiliated to UNI-Europa, albeit to a section other than Hair and Beauty.

Table 8: Members of Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa, 2008
Country Members
AT vida*
BE ACV/CSC energie-chimie*, ABVV/FGTB centrale générale*, ACLVB/CGSLB*
BG ITUFECCTCS
CY
CZ
DE verdi*
DK DFKF*
EE
EL ACCE-OIYE*
ES FES-UGT*, AADD-CCOO*, ELA-Zerbitzuak*
FI PAM*
FR FdS-CFDT*, FC-CGT*, SGC-FGTA-CGT-FO*
HU
IE
IT FILCAMS*, FISASCAT*, UILTuCS*
LT LKKPS-LKKDPS
LU OGB-L
LV
NL FNV Mooi*
PL
PT SITESE
RO
SE HF*
SI
SK
UK GMB, USDAW

Notes: Membership list is confined to the sector-related associations of the countries under consideration.

* Involved in collective bargaining

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

As far as available data on sectoral membership of the national trade unions provide sufficient information on their relative strength, one can conclude that the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa covers the sector’s most important labour representatives – with the exception of Austria’s Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists (Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten, Druck, Journalismus, Papier, GPA-DJP) and Portugal’s Union of Professionals in Hairdressing and Beauty Services (SINDPAB), which are considered as major social partner organisations in the sector. Apart from this, exceptional cases of major trade unions that are not covered do not occur. Altogether, 19 of the direct and indirect members of the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa, for which relevant information is available, are involved in collective bargaining in personal services; on the other hand, six affiliates from countries such as Bulgaria, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal and the UK are not involved in such bargaining.

Table 9 lists the members of Coiffure EU. Of the 26 countries under consideration, Coiffure EU has 15 members under its umbrella through associational members from these countries. Multiple memberships only exist in Belgium – more specifically, through affiliation to one and the same higher-order unit, namely the Union of Belgian Hairdressers (Unie van de Belgische Kappers/Union des Coiffeurs Belges, UBK/UCB). Table 3 indicates that affiliated and unaffiliated associations co-exist in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovenia. This co-existence partially ensues from the fact that Coiffure EU’s membership domain embraces only hairdressing activities, such that this association does not represent national business organisations whose membership domain is confined to companies performing beauty treatment activities only. Lack of comparable membership data makes it difficult to reveal the relative importance of affiliated and unaffiliated associations in these countries. Taking into account also the role in collective bargaining as an indicator of an association’s significance does not show a clear trend in this respect either. In several countries, some important or even all employer organisations that conduct bargaining remain outside this process. Moreover, in at least one country, namely the UK, the affiliates of Coiffure EU are not engaged in bargaining. In all countries where sectoral multi-employer bargaining is absent, except for Cyprus, Poland and the UK, employer organisations do not exist at all. In all of the countries where sectoral multi-employer bargaining is not prevalent, collective agreements tend to be completely absent, which means that there is no company-level bargaining either. Employer organisations that are not involved in collective bargaining may regard themselves as trade associations rather than industrial relations actors. Of the 17 direct and indirect affiliates of Coiffure EU, 11 are involved in sector-related collective bargaining. This means that, in comparison with the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa, no significant difference in terms of Coiffure EU’s proportion of member organisations that are involved in bargaining can be found. Coiffure EU members cover collective bargaining in at least nine of the 26 countries under consideration, which is only slightly below the number of countries (11) where sector-related collective bargaining is conducted by its European-level counterpart – that is, the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa.

Table 9: Members of Coiffure EU, 2008
Country Members
AT BIF*
BE RCBH**, NFHB**, NCBH**
BG
CY CHF***
CZ
DE ZV****
DK DF*
EE
EL GFH***
ES
FI SH*
FR FNC*
HU MOSZI***
IE
IT CIA***
LT
LU
LV
NL ANKO*****
PL SFKWP-POLFRYZ***
PT
RO
SE Frisörföretagarna*
SI OZS*
SK
UK NHF

Notes: Membership list is confined to the sector-related associations of the countries under consideration.

* Involved in collective bargaining

** Involved in collective bargaining; affiliation via higher-order unit

*** No information available on collective bargaining involvement

**** Collective bargaining involvement via lower-order units at regional level

***** Collective bargaining involvement via higher-order unit

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Capacity to negotiate

The third criterion of representativeness at the European level refers to the organisations’ capacity to negotiate on behalf of their own members. Both the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa and Coiffure EU have indicated obtaining from their members a permanent mandate to negotiate in matters of the European social dialogue.

As proof of the weight of both these organisations, it is useful to look at other European organisations that may be important representatives of the sector. This can be done by reviewing the other European organisations to which the sector-related trade unions and employer associations are affiliated.

For the trade unions, these affiliations are listed in Table 3. Accordingly, European organisations other than the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa represent only a relatively small proportion of both sector-related trade unions and countries. Among the organisations listed are the following: the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT), with six affiliations covering three countries; UNI-Europa sections other than Hair and Beauty, with five affiliations covering four countries; and the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), the European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation (EMCEF), the Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff (Eurocadres), the European Federation of Public Service Employees (Eurofedop), the European Trade Union Liaison Committee on Tourism (ETLC) and the Nordic Hairdressers’ Union (NHU), with one affiliation each. While the affiliations listed in Table 3 may not necessarily be exhaustive, this overview underlines the principal status of the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa as the sector’s labour representative, in particular since many of the aforementioned affiliations to other European organisations reflect the overlapping domains of the affiliates rather than a real reference of the affiliations as such to the personal services sector.

Table 4 provides a similar overview of European organisations to which employer organisations are affiliated. The results indicate that organisational links of the sector-related employer organisations with European federations other than Coiffure EU exist in only a few countries, as follows: the European Confederation of Beauticians and Cosmeticians (CEPEC), with two affiliations covering two countries; and the European Cosmetics Association (Colipa), organising the cosmetics and personal care industry, with one affiliation only. The Organisation Mondiale Coiffure (OMC) – which is an international rather than a European organisation, specialising in the technical aspects of hairdressing rather than core business issues – is not taken into account in this study, despite several affiliations. The low incidence of affiliations to European organisations other than Coiffure EU highlights the relevance of the latter as the unmatched European voice of business in the sector, even though this association only has a proportion of the EU Member States under its umbrella through affiliations from these countries.


Commentary

Compared with most other sectors, industrial relations tend to be poorly organised in the personal services industry. This reality is reflected in the relatively low unionisation rates, the low densities in terms of employer representation and the high polarisation with regard to collective bargaining coverage. More precisely, this means that in about half of the countries for which relevant data are available, collective bargaining is completely absent. Conversely, in those countries where sector-related collective bargaining is recorded, bargaining coverage tends to be very high, with rates frequently coming close to 100%. In this respect, the following pattern can be revealed. In the ‘older’ EU15 countries, the sector’s industrial relations structures are generally well-established, with evidence of prevalent multi-employer bargaining settlements and very high collective bargaining coverage rates. The only exceptions in this group of countries are Luxembourg and the UK, where bargaining is absent. By contrast, in all of the new Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, with the noticeable exception of Slovenia, collective bargaining is completely lacking. This is because no industrial relations structures in the sector have been established in this group of countries, which is clearly manifested in the lack of sector-related, representative social partner organisations on the two sides of industry in almost all of these countries. Strikingly, not even single-employer bargaining arrangements have been set up in this group of countries, such that the collective bargaining coverage is zero in all of these Member States.

However, despite high collective bargaining coverage rates in most of the EU15 countries, both unionisation rates and overall densities of the employer organisations in the personal services sector also tend to be low in these countries. The difficulties faced by the trade unions in recruiting workers in the sector may result from different factors – such as the high incidence of non-standard work and female employment, the small size of most establishments, the high staff turnover and the limited capacity of the trade unions involved to set incentives for potential members. This relative weakness of organised labour in the sector translates into generally poor pay and problematic overall working conditions, particularly in terms of working time, training, work-life balance and occupational advancement.

In order to tackle at least some of these problems – in particular regarding training standards and health and safety – the sector’s social partners at European level, that is Coiffure EU on the employers’ side and the Hair and Beauty Section of UNI-Europa on the employees’ side, have launched some joint initiatives in the framework of social dialogue. In this context, a series of joint declarations and guidelines have been drawn up and delivered since 2000. However, despite these efforts, no substantial results have been achieved thus far – neither with regard to the envisaged harmonisation of training standards in hairdressing nor in relation to improvements in overall working relations. Nevertheless, Coiffure EU and UNI-Europa’s Hair and Beauty Section have to be regarded as, by far, the most important, if not the only EU-wide representatives of the personal services sector’s employers and employees.


References

ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd, New trends and developments in the European hairdressing sector, A final report for CIC-Europe and UNI-Europa, Birmingham, 2000, available online at: http://www.uniglobalunion.org/unihairbeauty.nsf/9548462b9349db27c125681100260673/abc5785b616a0fc0c1256b5d004d3907?OpenDocument.

Traxler, F., ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism’, in European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2004, pp. 571–598.

Traxler, F., Blaschke, S. and Kittel, B., National labour relations in internationalised markets, Oxford University Press, 2001.


Annex: List of abbreviations

Country Abbreviation Full name of organisation
Austria (AT) BIF Federal Association of Hairdressers
  BIFKM Federal Association of Beauty Treatment Companies
  GPA-DJP Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists
  ÖGB Austrian Trade Union Federation
  vida Vida Trade Union
  WKÖ Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Belgium (BE) ABVV/FGTB Belgian General Federation of Labour
  ACV/CSC Confederation of Christian Trade Unions
  ACLVB/CGSLB Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium
  NCBH National Chamber of Belgian Hairdressers
  NVHB National Federation for Hairdressers in Belgium
  PABC Professional Association for Bio-Esthetics and Cosmetology
  RCBH Royal Circle for Belgian Hairdressers
  SETCa/BBTK Belgian Union of White-collar, Technical and Executive Employees
  UBK/UCB Union of Belgian Hairdressers
  UCM Union of Small Firms and Traders
  UNEB National Union of Beauticians in Belgium
  UNIZO Organisation of the Self-Employed
Bulgaria (BG) CITUB Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria
  ITUFECCTCS Independent Trade Union Federation of Employees in Commerce, Cooperatives, Tourism, Credit and Social Services
Cyprus (CY) CHF Cyprus Hairdressing Federation
Czech Republic (CZ)
Denmark (DK) DA Confederation of Danish Employers
  DF Danish Hairdressing Federation
  DFKF Danish Hairdressing and Cosmetics Union
  DKF Danish Christian Trade Union
  HVR Federation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  KA Christian Employers’ Association
  KF Christian Trade Union
  Krifa Christian Trade Union Movement
  LO Danish Confederation of Trade Unions
  SAMA Danish Federation of Small Employers’ Associations
Estonia (EE) ELL Association of Estonian Cities
Finland (FI) PAM Services Trade Union
  SH Finnish Hairdressers’ Association
  SY Federation of Finnish Enterprises
France (FR) CFDT French Democratic Confederation of Labour
  CFE-CGC French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff
  CFTC French Christian Workers’ Confederation
  CGPME General Confederation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  CGT General Confederation of Labour
  CGT-FO General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière
  CNAMS National Confederation of Craft Industry, Trades and Services
  CNEC National Council of Hairdressing Companies
  FC-CGT Commerce Federation – General Confederation of Labour
  FCSF-CFTC Commerce, Services and Sales Staff Federation – French Christian Workers’ Confederation
  FdS-CFDT Services Federation of the French Democratic Confederation of Labour
  FNECS National Federation of Commerce and Services Executives
  FNC National Federation of Hairdressing
  MEDEF Movement of French Enterprises
  SGC-FGTA General Hairdressing Union – General Federation of Agricultural, Food, Tobacco and Allied Services Workers
Germany (DE) DGB Confederation of German Trade Unions
  verdi United Services Union
  ZV Employer Association for the German Hairdressing Sector
Greece (EL) ACCE-OIYE Association of Cosmetic Company Employees – Federation of Private Employees in Greece
  GFH Greek Federation of Hairdressers
  GSEE Greek General Confederation of Labour
  PSVAK Pan-Hellenic Association of Industrialists and Representatives of Cosmetics and Perfumes
  SEV Hellenic Federation of Enterprises
Hungary (HU) MOSZI Hungarian National Trade Corporation
Ireland (IE) IBEC Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation
  ICTU Irish Congress of Trade Unions
  IHF Irish Hotels’ Federation
  ISME Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association
  IWU Independent Workers’ Union
  SFA-IBEC Small Firms Association – Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation
  SIPTU Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union
  Unite General Union Unite
Italy (IT) Casartigiani Autonomous Confederation of Artisan Unions
  CGIL General Confederation of Italian Workers
  CIA Italian Chamber of Hairdressers
  CISL Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions
  CLAAI Confederation of Free Italian Artisan Associations
  CNA National Confederation of Artisans and of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  CNA Benessere e Sanita National Confederation of Artisans and of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises – Health and Wellness
  Confartigianato General Italian Federation of Artisans
  Confartigianato Acconciatori General Italian Federation of Artisans – Hairdressers
  Confartigianato Estetica General Italian Federation of Artisans – Beauty Care
  Federmanager National Federation of Industrial Company Managers
  FILCAMS Italian Federation of Workers in the Commerce, Tourism and Services Sector
  FISASCAT Italian Federation of Commercial Services and Tourism
  UIL Union of Italian Workers
  UILTuCS Italian Union of Workers in the Commerce, Tourism and Services Sector
Latvia (LV)
Lithuania (LT) LKKPS-LKKDPS Trade Union of Lithuanian Hairdressers and Cosmetologists – Lithuanian Trade Union of Commercial and Cooperative Employees
  LPSK Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation
Luxembourg (LU) CGT-L General Confederation of Labour in Luxembourg
  OGB-L Luxembourg Confederation of Independent Trade Unions
Netherlands (NL) ANKO Royal General Dutch Hairdressers’ Organisation
  CNV Christian Trade Union Federation
  CNV Bedrijvenbond Industry, Food and Transport Workers’ Union
  FNV Federation of Dutch Trade Unions
  FNV Mooi Federation of Dutch Trade Unions – Beauty
  FUSION Federation of Dutch Employers in Hairdressing
  MKB-NL Dutch Federation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  VPP Association of Professionals for Professionals
Poland (PL) SFKWP-POLFRYZ Stowarzyszenie Fryzjerów, Kosmetyczek i Wizazystów Polskich - POLFRYZ Polish Association of Hairdressers, Barbers and Beauticians
Portugal (PT) ABCDB Association of Barbershops and Hairdressers in the District of Braga
  ACP Association of Hairdressers of Portugal
  APBCIB Portuguese Association of Barbershops, Hairdressers and Beauty Institutes
  CCP Confederation of Commerce and Services of Portugal
  CESP Union of Commerce, Office and Service Workers of Portugal
  CGTP-IN General Confederation of Portuguese Workers
  CIP Confederation of Portuguese Industry
  FETESE Trade Union Federation of Workers and Technicians in Services
  SINDPAB Union of Professionals in Hairdressing and Beauty Services
  SITESE Union of Administrative, Commerce, Hotel and Services Workers
  UGT General Workers’ Confederation
Romania (RO)
Slovakia (SK)
Slovenia (SI) GZS Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia
  OZS Slovenian Chamber of Craft and Small Businesses
  SODS Trade Union of Craft Companies
  ZDOPS Association of Employers in Craft and Small Businesses of Slovenia
  ZSSS Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia
Spain (ES) AADD-CCOO Federation of Diverse Activities of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions
  ANEPECS National Association of General Hairdressing and Beauty Treatment Companies
  CEOE Spanish Federation of Employer Organisations
  CEPE Spanish Confederation of Hairdressers and Estheticians
  CEPYME Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  ELA-Zerbitzuak Federation of Solidarity Services of Basque Workers
  FANAE National Federation of Estheticians
  FEIPPSB Spanish Federation of Personal Image, Hairdressers and Beauty Salons
  FES-UGT Service Federation of the General Workers’ Confederation
  UGT General Workers’ Confederation
Sweden (SE) Frisörföretagarna Association of Employers in Hairdressing
  HF Commercial Employees’ Union
  LO Swedish Trade Union Confederation
United Kingdom (UK) GMB Britain’s General Union
  NHF National Hairdressers’ Federation
  TUC Trades Union Congress
  USDAW Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers
     
Europe CEPEC European Confederation of Beauticians and Cosmeticians)
  Coiffure EU European Association of Employers’ Organisations in Hairdressing
  COLIPA European Cosmetics Association
  EFFAT European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions
  EMCEF European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation
  EMF European Metalworkers’ Federation
  EPSU European Federation of Public Service Unions
  ETF European Transport Workers’ Federation
  ETLC European Trade Union Liaison Committee on Tourism
  ETUC European Trade Union Confederation
  Eurocadres Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff
  Eurofedop European Federation of Public Service Employees
  FEANI European Federation of National Engineering Associations
  NHU Nordic Hairdressers’ Union
  OMC Organisation Mondiale de la Coiffure
  UNI-Europa Union Network International – Europe
  UNI-Europa – Hair and Beauty Section Union Network International – Europe – Hair and Beauty Section

Georg Adam, Department of Industrial Sociology, University of Vienna

EF/09/32/EN

Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Añadir nuevo comentario