Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Live performance industry

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Collective bargaining,
  • Darbo santykiai,
  • Representativeness,
  • Socialinis dialogas,
  • Social partners,
  • Date of Publication: 16 Gegužė 2013



About
Author:
Institution:

This study provides information designed to aid sectoral social dialogue in the live performance industry. The study has three main parts: a summary of the sector’s economic background; an analysis of the social partner organisations in all EU Member States, including their membership, their role in collective bargaining and public policy, and their national and European affiliations; and an analysis of relevant European organisations, including their membership composition and capacity to negotiate. The aim of EIRO studies on representativeness is to identify the relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in the field of industrial relations in selected sectors. The impetus for these studies comes from the European Commission’s desire to recognise the representative social partner organisations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

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 (2572KB PDF)
See also the executive summary

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 associations) in the field of industrial relations in the live performance sector;
  • 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 or confirm the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Hence, this study seeks to provide the basic information needed to assess the existing sectoral social dialogue in the live performance sector. The effectiveness of 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. Only European associations that meet this precondition will be admitted to the European social dialogue.

Against this background, the study begins by identifying the relevant national social partner organisations in the live performance sector. It then analyses 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 which will enable analysis to differentiate the social partner organisations from other associations.

For national level associations, classification as a sector-related social partner organisation implies fulfilling one of two criteria: the associations must be either 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 154 of the TFEU and/or which participates in the sector-related European social dialogue.

Taking affiliation to a European social partner organisation as sufficient for determining a national association as a social partner could imply that such an association may not be involved in any way in industrial relations in its own country. At first glance this selection criterion may seem odd. However, if a national association is a member of a European social partner organisation, it becomes involved in industrial relations matters through its membership of the European organisation.

Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the national affiliates to the European social partner organisations are engaged in industrial relations in their respective country. Affiliation to a European social partner organisation and/or involvement in national collective bargaining are of utmost importance to the European social dialogue as these are the two constituent mechanisms that can systematically connect the national and European levels.

In terms of the selection criteria for the European organisations, this report includes the sector-related European social partner organisations on the Commission’s list of consultation. In addition, this study considers any other European association with sector-related national social partner organisations, as defined above, under its umbrella.

Thus the aim to identify the sector-related national and European social partner organisations applies both a ‘top–down’ and a ‘bottom–up’ approach.

Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the live performance sector is defined in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE) to ensure the cross-national comparability of the findings. More specifically, the live performance sector is defined as embracing NACE (Rev. 2) code R.90 Creative, arts and entertainment activities. This includes the following activities:

  • R.90.01 Performing arts;
  • R.90.02 Support activities to performing arts;
  • R.90.03 Artistic creation;
  • R.90.04 Operation of arts facilities.

The domains of the trade unions and employer organisations, and the 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 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 (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 plus (parts of) one or more other sectors.

These domain patterns are shown schematically in Figure 1 and summarised in Table 1.

Figure 1: Possible domain patterns of sector-related social partner organisations

Figure 1: Possible domain patterns of sector-related social partner organisations

Table 1: Domain pattern and scope of the organisation’s domain
Domain pattern Domain within the sector: Does the domain of the union/employer organisation embrace potentially all employees in the sector? Domain outside the sector: Does the union/employer organisation also represent members outside the sector?

Congruence (C)

Yes

No

Sectionalism (S)

No

No

Overlap (O)

Yes

Yes

Sectional overlap (SO)

No

Yes

At European level, the European Commission established a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for the live performance sector in 1999. The Performing Arts Employers Associations League Europe (PEARLE*) on the employers’ side as well as the European Arts and Entertainment Alliance (EAEA) on the employees’ side participate in the sector’s European social dialogue.

The EAEA consists of the International Federation of Musicians (FIM), the International Federation of Actors (FIA) and the European Federation of the Media and Entertainment International – Technical Professions of the Entertainment Sector (EURO-MEI), which forms part of the Union Network International (UNI) Europa structure.

Therefore, affiliation to one of these four European/international organisations (PEARLE*, FIM, FIA and EURO-MEI) is a sufficient criterion for classifying a national association of one of the 27 EU Member States as a social partner organisation for the purpose of this study. However, the constituent criterion is one of sector-related membership. This is important, in particular, in the case of FIM, FIA and EURO-MEI due to their sector-overlapping domains. Thus, the study includes only those affiliates to these three European/international trade union organisations whose domain relates to the live performance sector as defined above. In addition, the study only considers affiliates to the international organisations FIM and FIA that are based in the EU27.

Data collection

The collection of quantitative data, such as those on membership, is essential to investigate the representativeness of the social partner organisations. Unless cited otherwise, this study draws on the country studies provided by the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO) national centres. Eurofound provided the EIRO correspondents with standardised questionnaires which they completed by contacting the sector-related social partner organisations in their countries. Contact was generally made initially via a telephone interview, but may also have been be in some cases established via email. If a representative was not available, the national correspondents were asked to fill out the relevant questionnaire based on secondary sources, such as information given on the social partner’s website or previous research studies.

It is often difficult to find precise quantitative data. Given the practical and political relevance of this study, the EIRO national centres are asked to provide estimates rather than leaving a question blank – noting if necessary any doubts over the reliability of an estimate.

In principle, quantitative data may stem from three sources:

  • official statistics and representative survey studies;
  • administrative data, such as membership figures provided by the respective organisations, which are then used to calculate 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 sources of the economic data cited in the report are generally statistics, the figures in respect of the organisations are usually either administrative data or estimates. And in order to give a complete picture of the sector’s associational ‘landscape’, several country studies also present data on trade unions and business associations that do not meet the definition given above of a sector-related social partner organisation. For these reasons, as well as for methodological reasons of cross-national comparability, such trade unions and business associations are not considered in this overview report. However, these organisations are found in the national contributions published with the overview report.

Quality assurance

To assure the quality of the information gathered, a number of verification procedures and feedback loops were included in the process used to draw up this report.

  • First, the author and Eurofound staff carried out consistency checks of the figures provided and made sure that the organisations listed correspond to the definition above and were thus relevant to the scope of the study.
  • Secondly, Eurofound sent the national contributions to the national members of its governing board, as well as to the European-level sector-related social partners’ organisations. The peak-level organisations then asked their affiliates to verify the information. Feedback from the sector-related organisations was then taken into account provided it was in line with the study methodology.
  • Thirdly, the complete study was evaluated by the European-level sectoral social partners and Eurofound’s Advisory Committee on Industrial Relations. The latter consists of representatives from both sides of industry, governments and the European Commission.

Structure of report

The report has three main parts. It begins with a brief summary of the sector’s economic background. It then analyses the relevant social partner organisations in all 27 EU Member States. The third part considers the representative associations at European level.

The second and third parts of the report contain 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. First, 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. Although it provides 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. This is because defining criteria for adequate representativeness is a matter for political decision rather than an issue of research analysis.


Economic background

The live performance sector, as defined for the purpose of this study, covers performing arts, support activities to performing arts, artistic creation and operation of arts facilities. Live performance activities thus take place in both the public (still prevalent in most countries) and the private (subsidised or commercial) sectors.

According to the Eurostat Labour Force Survey (LFS) 2012, the European live performance industry employs around one million people. However, the often informal and unstable nature of ‘cultural’ work in virtually all Member States makes it likely that not all European live performance employment is recorded in the Eurostat data. The lack of reliable data over a longer period of observation makes it almost impossible to properly assess the sector’s development in terms of employment during the past one or two decades.

Due to its heavy dependence on public funding and a stable and sustainable (legal, administrative, institutional) environment guaranteed by the public authorities, both turnover and employment of the performing arts sector vary widely with different national standards and fluctuations in economic activities.

The sector is characterised by a high and even increasing incidence of freelance activities and self-employment – a trend, according to the EIRO country reports, that has been reinforced by the recent economic crisis in many countries. In contrast, many live performance establishments are publicly owned and funded; their staff are regularly employed on a full-time and long-term basis and often have the status of civil servants.

Nevertheless, ongoing cuts in the public sector in general and culture budgets in particular are increasingly questioning the status of these workers. They also directly affect employment opportunities in the entire sector, which features a highly labour-intensive market – see Survey on the situation of social dialogue in the live performance sector in twelve southern European EU Member States and Candidate Countries (725KB PDF) published by the EAEA and PEARLE* in 2010.

Like many other sectors, the live performance sector has suffered considerably from the most recent recession in a number of countries in that state subsidies for cultural institutions of any kind and/or staff in publicly run institutions have been let go. As detailed in their EIRO country report, examples include Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK.

In a joint statement (104KB PDF) issued on 6 May 2009, the European sectoral social partners (that is, the EAEA and PEARLE*) expressed ‘their deep concern regarding the current financial and economic situation and its impact on the live performance sector’. They stated that:

recent months have reflected an unmistakable downturn: tours being cancelled or postponed, smaller or less expensive productions programmed for the next season, cheaper tickets selling more quickly than higher priced ones, and reluctance on the part of sponsors to renew or sign contracts.

Together with the reduction in public financing for culture envisaged or already implemented by several Member States, the EAEA and PEARLE* claimed that this ‘forms a serious threat for the people working in the sector’.

However, neither the figures given in most of the national reports nor the Eurostat LFS data suggest that the sector – at least in terms of employment – has generally suffered badly from the recession since 2008. According to Eurostat, overall sectoral employment in the EU27 remained relatively stable during the period from 2008 to 2012 (Figure 2).

Yet although it appears from both the national reports and Eurostat (see also Figure 3) that in most countries the recession did not affect (or only marginally affected) the sector in terms of employment, it may nevertheless have worsened the sector’s employment situation in the long run. The decline in public subsidies in many EU Member States has tended to put the budgets of many established performing arts organisations under pressure, possibly prompting them to reduce the number of more expensive standard employment contracts and to hire freelance and short-term workers.

The crisis may thus have stimulated the incidence of less stable work contracts rather than resulted in direct job losses. Moreover, it is likely that there will be some latency in the full impact of government cuts in financing of culture since many live performance establishments have used cash reserves to reduce the level of cuts in the first instance. Employment effects may thus arise with some delay.

The live performance sector’s business structure is dominated by small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) as well as many self-employed people. As indicated previously, the live performance industry is a highly labour-intensive sector. For individual establishments, and under the increasing financial pressure imposed by government austerity programmes and reductions in public financing, cuts in labour costs thus remain vital for them to maintain the establishments and their cultural activities as such – even though the scale and quality of production may then be affected.

Employment characteristics

As indicated in some national reports, the labour market in the live performance sector is highly fragmented. Particularly in the traditional, large culture establishments owned and funded by the state, employees tend to be employed as public servants or under the terms of regular, long-term employment contracts, which guarantee them stable social protection. However, an increasing number of people in the sector, particularly younger ones, are working as freelancers and contract workers. Depending on the individual situation and the country, their status may involve insufficient social protection and precarious working conditions.

The 2010 EAEA-PEARLE* study revealed a so-called ‘outsider’ opposing ‘insider’ employment situation in some Member States in southern Europe, leading to older employees equipped with ‘standard’ employment contracts in publicly owned culture establishments being ‘considered to “block” access to employment for younger artists’.

By its nature, the live performance sector does not only demand from the artists and technical workers a great deal of flexibility in terms of employment but also of geographical mobility. However, according to the sectoral social partner organisations, there is still no satisfactory transnational regulation on visas and work permits, especially for short-term employment abroad, residence, recognition of diplomas, social protection and taxation. According to Eurostat (LFS 2011), at European level about 43.5% of the sector’s workforce are women.

Both pay and working conditions widely vary within the sector according to the employment status and the marketing opportunities (celebrity) of the individual artist.

Long-term trends

Based on the EIRO national reports, Tables 2 and 3 provide an overview of the development from around 2000 to around 2010 (that is, the situation as of (just after) the peak of the recession of the late 2000s), presenting figures on companies, employment and employees in the sector (data on the national economy stem mainly from national sources).

In all of the 13 Member States but three (Czech Republic, Netherlands, Romania) for which related data are available, the number of companies more or less increased during this period. However, it is uncertain whether this growth actually reflects a general expansion of the sector witnessed in these countries or just a process of fragmentation of the sector’s company structure. In a few countries such as Finland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia, the number of companies increased by more than 50% within the decade to 2010.

Eight of the only 10 countries with available data recorded an increase in overall employment within the sector in the same time period, while in Portugal and Slovakia employment fell. In terms of the number of sectoral employees, four countries (Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia) recorded a decrease during the period of observance, while in 10 countries this indicator increased; no comparable data are available for the other 13 countries). There are at least nine Member States (Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, UK) where the number of employees with a contractual relationship amounted to less than half of the total number employed. From these findings it can be inferred that, at least in these countries (comparable data are not available for all Member States), the sector is characterised by a high incidence of non-standard employment arrangements.

Table 2: Total companies and employment, 2000 and 2010

Country

Companies

Employment

Total sectoral employment as % of total employment in economy

Year

Number

Year

Number

Total

Female

Male

AT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2011

21,900

8,400

13,500

0.5

BE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

>400

2011

20,400

10,200

10,200

0.5

BG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

81

2010

8,348

4,074

4,274

0.3

CY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

239

2010

510

204

306

0.1

CZ a

2000

9,171

2000

21,800

10,600

11,200

0.5

2010

5,950

2010

24,100

10,800

13,300

0.5

DE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

50,349

2010

234,000

95,000

139,000

0.6

DK

2000

1,055

2000

7,232

3,153

4,079

0.3

2010

1,545

2010

8,417

4,047

4,370

0.3

EE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2009

302

2009

3,000

n.a.

n.a.

0.5

EL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

8,549

3,971

4,578

0.2

ES

2000

22,153

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

24,962

2010

54,000

20,000

34,000

0.3

FI

2000

1,558

2000

8,270

3,813

4,457

0.4

2010

2,496

2010

9,601

4,598

5,003

0.4

FR

2000

11,842

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2008

17,426 b

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

n.a.

2010

10,634

n.a.

n.a.

0.2

IE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

7,542

n.a.

n.a.

0.4

IT

2001

19,896

2001

37,496

12,785

24,711

0.2

2009

29,867

2009

49,983

17,043

32,940

0.2

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2011

576

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

n.a.

n.a.

2000

120

n.a.

n.a.

0.1

2010

~30

2010

350

n.a.

n.a.

0.1

LV

2000

154

2000

7,005

2,634

4,371

0.9

2010

268

2010

7,670

4,994

2,676

0.9

MT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

1,086

2010

1,060

328

732

0.5

NL

2000

2,875

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2009

1,895

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

16,420

2010

71,000

39,200

31,800

0.5

PT c

1999

61

1999

867

n.a.

n.a.

0.0

2009

152

2009

508

n.a.

n.a.

0.0

RO

2000

1,426

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

1,253

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2000

1,593 d

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

2,282 d

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

2000

1,793 e

2000

3,847

1,725

2,122

0.5

2010

2,909 e

2010

5,152

2,503

2,649

0.6

SK

2000

242

2000

8,700

4,500

4,200

0.4

2010

465

2010

6,400

3,000

3,400

0.3

UK

2000

n.a.

2000

12,1713

55,736

65,977

0.4

2010

28,400

2010

147,975

64,917

83,058

0.5

Notes: Approximate figures

aData of different reference years not directly comparable.

bFigure does not include public sector companies/employers.

cOnly officially registered workers are included; hence, employment figures are likely to be underestimated.

dOnly companies employing one or more employees.

eFigure includes private entrepreneurs and self-employed.

n.a. = not available

For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.

Source: EIRO national centres (2012), national statistics

Table 3: Total employees, 2000 and 2010

Country

Year

Number of employees

Total sectoral employees as % of total employees in economy

 

Total

Female

Male

AT

2000

8,893

3,546

5,347

0.3

2010

10,252

4,481

5771

0.3

BE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

8,348

4,074

4274

0.3

CY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

381

175

206

0.1

CZ a

2000

16,700

9,000

7800

0.4

2010

15,300

7,400

7900

0.4

DE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

64,323 b

28,608 b

35,715 b

0.2 b

DK

2000

6,194

2,859

3,335

0.2

2010

6,294

3,160

3,134

0.3

EE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2009

2,500

n.a.

n.a.

0.4

EL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

3,704

1,314

2,390

0.1

ES

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

26,000

11,000

15,000

0.2

FI

2000

6,989

3,286

3,703

0.3

2010

7,842

3,852

3,990

0.4

FR

2000

147,943

n.a.

n.a.

0.6

2008

186,463 c

70,856 c

115,607 c

0.8 c

HU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

6,000

n.a.

n.a.

0.2

IE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

2001

12,760

5,357

7,403

0.1

2009

16,155

6,783

9,372

0.1

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2011

7,782

n.a.

n.a.

0.7

LU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LV

2000

6,990

2,628

4,362

0.9

2010

7,657

4,985

2,672

0.9

MT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

367

175

192

0.3

NL

2000

45,100

21,900

23,200

n.a.

2009

82,800

41,100

41,700

1.1

PL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2010

~12,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT d

1999

825

n.a.

n.a.

0.0

2009

407

n.a.

n.a.

0.0

RO

2000

2,505

n.a.

n.a.

0.1

2010

2,105

n.a.

n.a.

0.1

SE

2000

10,723 e

n.a.

n.a.

0.3 e

2010

11,622 e

n.a.

n.a.

0.3 e

SI

2000

2,201

1,038

1,163

0.3

2010

2,508

1,200

1,308

0.2

SK

2000

6,900

3,900

3,000

0.4

2010

4,300

2,400

1,900

0.2

UK

2000

39,634

23,790

15,844

0.2

2010

45,845

23,430

22,415

0.2

Notes: Approximate figures

aData of different reference years not directly comparable.

bFigure refers to employees liable to social security contributions.

cFigure does not include public sector employees.

dOnly officially registered workers are included; hence, figures of employees are likely to be underestimated.

eFigure likely to be underestimated.

n.a. = not available

For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.

Source: EIRO national centres (2012), national statistics.

Men represent the majority of sectoral workers in most countries with available data (Tables 2 and 3). However, in the vast majority of the Member States for which data are available, the numbers of male employees/employment only slightly exceeded those of female employees/employment. In only very few countries, such as France and Greece, men by far outnumbered female employees during the period covered by the two tables in that they represented at least 50% more employees within the workforce compared to women.

Relatively small gaps between the sexes in terms of the number of sectoral employees can be found in Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. In Denmark, Slovakia and the UK, female employees slightly outnumbered their male counterparts, while in Latvia the number of female employees was almost twice as high as those of men; Latvia is therefore an exception for the distribution of the sexes within the sector’s workforce. For all other countries, no comparable data are available.

Tables 2 and 3 also indicate that the sector is not very large. In terms of employment share, the live performance sector remained stable in almost all countries with available data during the decade to 2010. Its share in aggregate employment was below 1% in all countries under examination with available data and below 0.5% in more than half of the countries with available data. In terms of absolute numbers of sectoral workers, Germany held an outstanding position; according to the country report, about 234,000 people were in paid employment in the sector in 2010, making up almost a quarter of the sector’s employment in the EU27 (Table 2).

Recent developments

The impact of the global recession from 2008 onwards on the live performance sector varied between countries. Overall, at least in terms of employment, the live performance sector appears to have suffered less from the crisis compared with most other industries.

Overall in the European Union, the live performance sector was apparently – in terms of employment – barely hit by the crisis, in that employment remained relatively stable during the period 2008 to 2012 (Figure 2). With the exception of a peak of almost 1.05 million in the third quarter of 2009, total employment for the 15–64 age group oscillated between slightly below and slightly above one million during that period. Figure 2 shows a rather modest, but erratic development of employment over the whole period under observation rather than a cyclical development within each year, indicating that employment variations within the sector are caused by other factors than seasonal fluctuations. However, it remains unclear whether and to what extent these factors are related to the global economic downturn on the one hand and to country-specific developments and peculiarities on the other.

Figure 2: Employment during the recession, EU27

Figure 2: Employment during the recession, EU27

Note: Workforce aged 15–64, total numbers

Source: Eurostat LFS, 2012

In all EU Member States with full data availability, the sector – at least to a certain degree – declined in terms of employment in at least one of the four consecutive years 2009 to 2012 (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Employment during the recession

Figure 3: Employment during the recession

Notes: Workforce aged 15–64

Percentage change to quarter 1 of the previous year

No LFS data are available for Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta. According to the LFS, for a few countries, in particular Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia, the data may be unreliable.

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (LFS), 2012, and own calculations on the basis of LFS data.

Most countries (15 out of 23 with available data) recorded a decrease in sectoral employment in the period 2009 to 2010, whereas for all other reference years, a majority of countries recorded increases in relation to the respective previous years (Figure 3). A possible explanation could be that the impact of the global economic downturn on the live performance sector was stronger during 2009–2010 than in the other years under examination.

None of the countries with full data availability for the whole period of observation recorded increases for all four consecutive years from 2009 to 2012. However, some countries such as Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia recorded increases for at least three years within the four-year period.

Denmark was the only country with job losses within the sector in all the four consecutive years of observation. Job losses in three years within the four-year period were observed in Ireland and Sweden.

Large-scale changes (growths or declines) of more than 40% from one year to the other were only observed in countries such as Cyprus and Slovenia. However, the data for these two countries are assessed by Eurostat to be unreliable, as is also the case of the figures given for Latvia and Lithuania. Apart from that, increases or decreases in sectoral employment of about 30% up to 40% within one year only (as is the case, for instance, of Finland, Hungary and Portugal) appear to be doubtful or in need of explanation.

In this context, it is not possible to link (significant) job losses to only one single cause, that is, the recent recession. Rather, it seems likely that changes in sectoral employment levels within a very short period of time are down to a number of causes including global economic trends and country- and sector-specific developments.


National level of interest representation

In many 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;
  • 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 extension of collective agreements to unaffiliated employers only when the signatory trade union and employer association represent 50% or more of the employees within the agreement’s domain.

As outlined previously, 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 (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; this in turn gives governments an incentive 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 and 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;
  • their role in public policymaking.

These elements are discussed below.

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 which the organisation does not claim to represent. As already explained, this study considers only organisations whose domain relates to the live performance sector. However, there is insufficient space 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’ (Figure 1).

There is a difference 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.

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. Measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex since they organise collective entities, namely companies that employ employees. In this case, there are two possible measures of membership strength – 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 trade unions and employer organisations generally 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 first presents data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and then considers those of the employer organisations. Unlike previous studies of this kind, this report deals only marginally with membership strength of the associations examined as a change in the questionnaire means that it no longer asks for density figures. As far as sectoral membership numbers are concerned, sectoral densities can be calculated provided the number of employees within the sector is given.

Trade unions

Table 4 presents data on trade union domains and membership strength. It lists all trade unions that meet at least one of the two criteria for classification of a sector-related social partner organisation as defined above.

All the 27 Member States have at least one sector-related trade union. Of the 116 sector-related trade unions identified, none has demarcated its domain in a way which is congruent with the sector definition. This is not a surprise, given that artificially defined demarcations of business activities for statistical purposes differ from the lines along which employees identify common interests and gather in associations.

Domain demarcations resulting in overlap in relation to the sector occur in 17.9% of the cases for which related information is available. Overlap by and large arises from two different modes of demarcation. The first mode refers to general (that is, cross-sectoral) domains) which, in a strict sense, is the case of only the General Workers’ Union (GWU) of Malta. The second mode relates to domains covering (larger parts of) the entire culture (including communication and media) sector or (larger parts of) the entire service sector. The former applies to:

  • Pancyprian Union of Professional Artists (PASYNEK) of Cyprus;
  • Theatre and Media Employees in Finland (TEME);
  • National Union of Artists and Professionals of Entertainment, Sport and Culture (SNAPAC-CFDT), Federation ‘Force Ouvrière’ for Arts, Shows, Audiovisual Sector, Press, Communication and Multimedia (FASAP-FO), Communication Union of the French Confederation of Christian Workers (FEDECOM) and United, Democratic and Unitary Culture and Media Solidarity Union (SUD-Culture) of France;
  • Communication Workers Union – General Confederation of Italian Workers (SLC-CGIL), Press, Telecommunications and Show Business – Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions (FISTEL-CISL) and Show Business, Visual Arts, Information, Sports – General Trade Union Confederation of Autonomous Unions (LIBERSIND-CONFSAL) of Italy;
  • Latvian Trade Union Federation for People Engaged in Cultural Activities (LKDAF);
  • Federation of Dutch Trade Unions – Union for the Arts, Entertainment, Information and Media (FNV-Kiem);
  • Union of Live Performance Workers (STE) of Portugal;
  • Union of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia (GLOSA) of Slovenia;
  • Swedish Union for Theatre, Artists and Media (TF).

Examples of the latter are:

  • Union for Municipal Employees and the small Arts, Media, Sports and Liberal Professions (GdG-KMSfB) of Austria;
  • United Services Union (ver.di) of Germany;
  • Federation of Services of the General Workers’ Confederation (FeS-UGT) and Federation of Citizen Services of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (FSC-CCOO) of Spain.
Table 4: Domain coverage, membership and density of trade unions, 2010–2011
 

Name

Membership type

Domain coverage a

Membership

Density

Members active

Members sector active

Sector density (%)

Sectoral domain density in relation to overall domain density

AT

GdG-KMSfB

Voluntary

O

155,000

8,000

78

<

BE

SETCa/BBTK *

Voluntary

SO

400,000

1,000

n.a.

<

CGSP/ACOD *

Voluntary

SO

254,000

6,329

n.a.

<

ACOD/VRT

Voluntary

SO

254,000

n.a.

n.a.

<

CGSP/RTBF

Voluntary

SO

254,000

n.a.

n.a.

<

CGSLB/ACLVB *

Voluntary

SO

250,000–300,000

802

n.a.

<

CSC/ACV Transcom-Culture *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

<

CNE/LBC *

Voluntary

SO

482,000

1,150

n.a.

<

BG

UBMD *

Voluntary

S

1,900

1,900

23

n/a

CL Podkrepa – Federation Culture *

Voluntary

S

1,500

1,500

18

n/a

UBA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

EHK/AUC *

Voluntary

S

280

280

73

n/a

PASYNEK *

Voluntary

O

600

500

n.a.

n.a.

SYTHOC-OHO *

Voluntary

S

40

40

10

n/a

SIDIKEK *

Voluntary

SO

4,000

100

26

<

PASEY *

Voluntary

SO

4,720

45

12

>

CZ

HA

Voluntary

S

686

686

4

n/a

OS PKZ

Voluntary

SO

1,523 b

~1,500b

10

>

OS PKOP

Voluntary

SO

2,100 b

n.a.

n.a.

<

OS VUOK

Voluntary

S

400 b

400 b

3

n/a

Unie OH CR

Voluntary

S

1084 b

1,084 b

7

n/a

Unie OSPZ CR

Voluntary

S

~300 b

~300 b

2

n/a

DE

ver.di *

Voluntary

O

2,094,455 b

~12,000 b

19

n.a.

DOV *

Voluntary

SO

10,500

9,000

14

>

GDBA *

Voluntary

SO

3,500 b

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

VdO *

Voluntary

S

4,200 b

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

DJV *

Voluntary

SO

38,000 b

n.a.

n.a.

<

DK

DAF *

Voluntary

S

1,200

1,200

19

n/a

DSF

Voluntary

S

1,800

1,800

29

n/a

DMF *

Voluntary

S

6,800

6,800

100

n/a

TL

Voluntary

SO

30,000

575

9

>

SDS

Voluntary

S

215

215

3

n/a

FDS

Voluntary

S

157

157

2

n/a

DJOEF

Voluntary

SO

44,873

100

2

equal

DJ

Voluntary

SO

15,500

2,500

40

equal

EE

ETL *

Voluntary

S

1,000

1,000

40

n/a

ENL *

Voluntary

S

~400

~400

16

n/a

ELL *

Voluntary

S

~70

~70

3

n/a

EKTL *

Voluntary

S

79

79

3

n/a

ES

FeS-UGT *

Voluntary

O

135,378

5,823

22

>

FSC-CCOO *

Voluntary

O

n.a.

500

2

n/a

CIG *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ELA STV *

Voluntary

SO

24,909

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UMC *

Voluntary

SO

1,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FAEE *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

OSAAEE *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

AAG *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

TEME

Voluntary

O

4,300

3,400

35

equal

SNL

Voluntary

S

1,800

1,800

19

n/a

SML

Voluntary

S

3,300

3,300

34

n/a

FR

SFA-CGT *

Voluntary

SO

2,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SNAM CGT *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SNTR-SGTIF *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SYNPTAC CGT *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SNAPAC CFDT *

Voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FASAP FO *

Voluntary

O

1,500

800

0

n.a.

SNM FO *

Voluntary

SO

>1,000

950

1

n.a.

SNAA FO *

Voluntary

SO

<1,500

<800

0

n.a.

SNSV FO *

Voluntary

SO

<1,500

<800

0

n.a.

FEDECOM *

Voluntary

O

<500

<100

0

n.a.

FCCS *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SIA UNSA *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SUD Culture *

Voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

SziDoSz

Voluntary

S

1,326

1,326

12

n/a

MZTSZ

Voluntary

S

2,939

2,939

28

n/a

IE

SIPTU

Voluntary

SO

199,881

2,500

n.a.

<

TEEU

Voluntary

SO

39,000

50

n.a.

<

IT

SLC-CGIL *

Voluntary

O

97,178

n.a.

n.a.

<

SAI *

Voluntary

S

1,900

1,900

12

n/a

SIAM *

Voluntary

S

700

700

4

n/a

FISTEL-CISL *

Voluntary

O

50,803

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UILCOM-UIL *

Voluntary

SO

40,544

5,373 c

n.a.

<

FIALS-CISAL *

Voluntary

S

1,200

1200

7

n/a

LIBERSIND-CONFSAL *

Voluntary

O

4,000

3,500

22

equal

FESICA-CONFSAL *

Voluntary

O

375,000

n.a.

n.a.

<

CONFSAL-FISALS *

Voluntary

SO

6,500

n.a.

n.a.

<

LT

LZS

Voluntary

SO

1,100

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

OGBL, FLTL

Voluntary

SO

800

100

29

<

LV

LKDAF

Voluntary

O

2,154

450

6

>

LAA d

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

GWU

Voluntary

O

43,002

30

3

<

NL

FNV Kiem

Voluntary

O

6,000

n.a.

n.a.

equal

KNTV

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FNV Mondiaal

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

KSPIA NSZZ Solidarnosc *

Voluntary

S

762

762

6

n/a

FZZPKiS *

Voluntary

SO

3,000

1,000

8

>

ZZAP *

Voluntary

S

700

700

6

n/a

ZZST Forum *

Voluntary

SO

400–500

n.a.

n.a.

<

PT

STE *

Voluntary

O

1,100

220

n.a.

<

CENA *

Voluntary

SO

400–500

400–500

n.a.

n.a.

RO

USRC *

Voluntary

SO

7,000

n.a.

n.a.

>

FAIR *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

>

USIS *

Voluntary

SO

2,063

n.a.

n.a.

>

SE

DIK *

Voluntary

SO

22,000

200

n.a.

equal

TF *

Voluntary

O

7,000

6,000

n.a.

>

SYMF *

Voluntary

S

1,600

1,600

n.a.

n/a

SMF *

Voluntary

SO

3,000

2,700

n.a.

equal

Unionen *

Voluntary

SO

500,000

200

n.a.

equal

SI

ZDUS *

Voluntary

SO

344

n.a.

n.a.

equal

GLOSA *

Voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

<

SUKI-GLOSA *

Voluntary

SO

80

n.a.

n.a.

equal

GLOSA-SKG *

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

equal

SVIZ *

Voluntary

SO

40,000 b

205 b

4

<

SKUU RTVS

Voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SK

SOZ SP *

Voluntary

SO

432

n.a.

<7

>

HOS *

Voluntary

SO

65

n.a.

1

equal

OZ PHS *

Voluntary

SO

600

almost 600

9

>

UK

BECTU

Voluntary

SO

27,285

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Equity

Voluntary

SO

31,500

<31,500

n.a.

n.a.

MU

Voluntary

SO

30,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

WGGB

Voluntary

SO

1,500

500

0

n.a.

Notes: The figures have been rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure lower than 0.5%.

* Domain overlap with other sector-related trade unions.

aC = congruence; O = overlap; SO = sectional overlap; S = sectionalism

bFigure includes non-active members.

cFigure includes audiovisual services workers.

dNo trade union according to EIRO national correspondent

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

Source: EIRO national centres (2012), administrative data and estimates

Sectional overlaps prevail in the sector and occur in 53.6% of the cases for which information is available. This mode usually emanates from domain demarcations that focus on certain categories of employees who are then organised across several or all sectors. This mode can also be found with trade unions representing employees in segments of the economy sectionalistically overlapping the live performance sector. Employee categories are specified by various parameters such as:

  • distinct occupations, for example, journalists, of which only freelancers are covered by the live performance sector – see Danish Union of Journalists (DJ), German Association of Journalists (DJV) and Lithuanian Journalists Union (LZS);
  • public service staff and municipal employees – see General Confederation of Public Services (CGSP/ACOD) and Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC/ACV) of Belgium, and Local Authority Workers’ Trade Union (SIDIKEK) of Cyprus;
  • technical workers of various kinds – see Danish Association of Professional Technicians (TL), Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) of Ireland and Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union (BECTU) of the UK;
  • actors and musicians including those engaged in the audiovisual sector – see French Union of Performing Artists (SFA-CGT), National Federation of Musician Artists’ Unions (SNAM-CGT), National Musicians’ Union ‘Force Ouvrière’ (SNM-FO) and National Union of Live Performance ‘Force Ouvrière’ (SNSV-FO) of France, German Orchestra Association (DOV), Union of Professionals in Live Performance and Audiovisual (CENA) of Portugal, Association of Actors of the Galicia (AAG), Federation of Artists of the Spanish State (FAEE) and Trade Union Organisation of Actors of the Spanish State (OSAAEE) of Spain and Equity of the UK;
  • employment status, for example, white-collar workers, as is the case of Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers (SETCa/BBTK) and National Federation of White-Collar Workers (CNE/LBC) of Belgium, Federation of Culture, Communication and Live Performance (FCCS) of France and Poland’s Union of Associated Artists Forum (ZZST Forum);
  • geographical region, for example, Federation of Services of the Galician Inter-union Confederation (CIG), Basque Workers’ Solidarity (ELA STV), Catalan Musicians’ Union (UMC) and AAG of Spain;
  • language, for example, Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers – Flemish Radio and Television Organisation (ACOD/VRT) and Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers – French Belgian Radio and Television (CGSP/RTBF) of Belgium.

Other trade unions’ domains cover part of the live performance sector in terms of business activities – rather than in terms of employee categories – in addition to (parts of) at least another sector. Such domains may, for instance, cover (part of) the public sector, public facilities, the communication and media sector, and so on.

Last, but not least, sectionalism is also common in the sector, with a share of 28.6% of trade unions (for which related information is available) recording this mode of domain demarcation relative to the sector. Sectionalism ensues from the existence of sector-specific trade unions which represent either, in terms of employee category, a particular profession or, in terms of business activity, one particular area of activity within the live performance sector, without any representational domain outside the sector.

Most frequently, domains focusing on particular occupations cover musicians, actors and/or dancers as is the case of:

  • Bulgaria’s Union of Bulgarian Musicians and Dancers (UBMD);
  • the Czech Republic’s Actors’ Association (HA), Union of Orchestral Musicians of the Czech Republic (Unie OH CR) and Union of Professional Singers of the Czech Republic (Unie OSPZ CR);
  • Danish Artists’ Union (DAF), Danish Actors’ Association (DSF) and Danish Musicians’ Union (DMF);
  • Estonian Actors Union (ENL) and Estonian Professional Dancers Union (EKTL);
  • Union of Finish Actors (SNL) and Finnish Musicians Union (SML);
  • Association of German Opera Choruses and Stage Dancers (VdO);
  • Greece’s Hellenic Actors’ Union (HAU), Pan-Hellenic Musicians’ Union (PMU) and Pan-Hellenic Union of Musicians of Local Authorities (PEM OTA);
  • Union of Hungarian Musicians and Dancers (MZTSZ);
  • Italian Actors Union (SAI) and Trade Union of Italian Musical Artists (SIAM);
  • Trade Union of Polish Actors (ZZAP);
  • Swedish Union for Professional Musicians (SYMF).

In a few cases they represent:

  • scenographers, for example, Association of Danish Scenographers (SDS);
  • stage directors, for example, Association of Danish Stage Directors (FDS) and Estonian Theatre Directors’ Union (ELL);
  • stage technicians, for example, Union of Greek Theatrical Technicians (SETETH).

In contrast, some trade unions define their domain in terms of business activity rather than employee category, in that all or some of the employees of cultural facilities, such as theatres, are represented – see the Union of Cyprus Theatre Organisations – Federation of Semi-State Organisations (SYTHOC-OHO), Estonian Theatre Union (ETL), Hungary’s Theatre Workers’ Union (SziDoSz) and Poland’s Domestic Section of Workers of Artistic Institutions of the Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarnosc (KSPIA NSZZ Solidarnosc).

One explanation for the relatively high incidence of small sector-related trade unions with a clear-cut and narrow membership domain focusing on a particular occupational subgroup within the sector’s workforce is that the live performance sector is highly differentiated in terms of traditional and distinct occupations such as actors, dancers, musicians, freelance journalists and technicians. Moreover, these occupational groups tend to have attributes such as a high level of qualification, clear professional profiles and fairly coherent interests that favour gathering them in small and highly specialised trade unions, which may then perform quite a particularistic interest representation on behalf of and to the benefit of their small and particular constituency.

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the sector-related trade unions between the four membership domain categories.

Figure 4: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related trade unions

Figure 4: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related trade unions

Notes: N = 112. Percentages are rounded.

Source: EIRO country reports (2012)

This very fragmented associational ‘landscape’ on the side of organised labour does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about unionisation rates. Even though a highly particularistic interest representation tends to increase unionisation rates within a trade union’s domain, several factors characterising the live performance sector are generally unfavourable to member recruitment:

  • often unsecure and unsteady working conditions (high incidence of freelance work);
  • often highly dispersed nature of employment (several distinct working places, sometimes abroad);
  • very diverse levels of pay;
  • high presence of non-standard, part-time work.

As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, so do their sectoral domains with one another in the case of those countries with a pluralist trade union ‘landscape’ in the live performance sector.

Compared with most other business sectors, the live performance sector records mutual inter-union domain overlaps less frequently. In the pluralist trade union systems of the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia and the UK no case of inter-union domain overlap within the sector is seen. This may ensue from the very fragmented trade union ‘landscape’, characterised by the existence of a number of small and particularistic trade unions with narrow and clear-cut membership domains within the sector in these countries. In all other countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) with more than one sector-related trade union, the sectoral domain of any of them overlaps with the sectoral domain of at least one other. Depending on the scale of mutual overlap, this results in competition for members. Noticeable inter-union competition within the sector is recorded from five countries, namely Estonia, France, Germany, Slovenia and Sweden.

Membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all cases but one – SETETH in Greece. In principle SETETH is a voluntary organisation representing stage technicians but membership is compulsory for one particular professional group, stage electricians. Their job specialisation must be licensed and certified, and they are compelled to be a member of SETETH in order to pursue their profession on stage.

The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from about 2.1 million (in the case of Germany’s ver.di) to only around 40 (in the case of SYTHOC-OHO of Cyprus). 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. Hence, density is the measure of membership strength which is more appropriate to comparative analysis.

Therefore, this report considers densities referring to the sector (sectoral density), given that both a trade union’s membership within the sector and the number of employees in the sector are provided. Moreover, some tentative information (without providing figures) on the trade unions’ sectoral domain density (that is, the density referring only to that part of the sector covered by the union’s domain) in relation to their overall domain density (that is, the density referring to the union’s overall domain) is available for those unions with a domain (sectionalistically) overlapping with regard to the sector (see below).

The sectoral density figures provided in this section refer to net ratios, which means that they are calculated on the basis of active employees rather than taking all union members into account (that is, those in a job and those who are not). This is mainly because research usually considers net union densities as more informative than gross densities, since the former tends to reflect unionisation trends among the active workforce more quickly and more appropriately than the latter (only the active workforce is capable of taking industrial action).

More than half of the trade unions with available data had a sectoral density (calculated as the ratio of the number of members within the sector to the total number of employees within the sector) less than 10%. The sectoral density was 40% or lower in the case of around 95% of those trade unions that document figures on density.

There are two possible explanations for the overall very low sectoral densities of the sector-related trade unions:

  • low densities with regard to the unions’ sectoral domain (sectoral domain densities);
  • their generally small size (in terms of sectoral membership domain) in relation to the sector.

Whereas only tentative information is available for the former (see below), the latter appears to apply to many of the sector-related trade unions. This is indicated by not only generally low sectoral membership numbers of the trade unions but also the fact that about 82% of the unions have a membership domain which is sectionalist or sectionalistically overlapping with regard to the sector and thus covers only part of the sector. However, sectoral density data are recorded for only slightly less than half the 116 sector-related trade unions and therefore these figures should be treated with caution.

Comparing the trade unions’ overall domain densities with their sectoral domain densities provides an indication of whether the live performance sector tends to be a stronghold of sector-related trade unions that also organise employees in other sectors or not. The national correspondents were asked to give a substantiated estimate of the relationship between these two densities, if possible, without providing exact figures.

Almost 50% of the unions for which information is available had a sectoral domain density lower than their overall domain density, whereas about a quarter had a sectoral domain density higher than and roughly equal to their overall domain density. Although some of the answers to this question may be unreliable and this indicator has been introduced tentatively, the results nevertheless show that overall the live performance sector cannot be qualified as a stronghold of those trade unions with a membership domain (sectionalistically) overlapping with regard to the sector. Rather, in about half of the cases, their core membership base supposedly lies in areas other than the live performance sector.

In conclusion, the study reveals that the trade union ‘landscape’ in the live performance sector is somewhat fragmented, with quite a number of occupational trade unions having very narrow membership domains. This may favour a particularistic representation of collective interests on behalf of small professional groups. However, coordination of union policies across the sector appears to be difficult. Moreover, the predominance of particularistic interest representation may prevent many non-standard workers and employees with atypical vocational profiles, who stand in between the occupational domains of the various trade unions, from joining such an interest organisation.

In general, despite the shortcomings in terms of data availability and the existing dataset, it can be inferred from the information collected that union density rates in the sector are not very high. This is tentatively indicated by the fact that, in about half the unions recording a (sectionalistically) overlapping domain with regard to the sector and based on available information, the sectoral domain densities tend to be lower than their overall domain densities. Relatively low densities within the sector do not come as a surprise given the growing incidence of precarious working conditions and the various forms of non-standard employment, including freelance work and bogus self-employment.

Employer organisations

Membership data for the employer/business organisations in the live performance sector are given in Table 5. Unlike the trade union side, sector-related employer organisations are not documented for all the 27 Member States. In Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia there was no sector-related employer organisation matching at least one of the two criteria for inclusion (see above). At least one sector-related employer organisation was found in the other 20 countries. In six of this latter group of countries (Czech Republic, France, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Spain), at least one employer/business organisation was identified which is not a party to collective bargaining (see Table 8). These associations are classified as social partner organisations in this report only because of their affiliation to PEARLE* (that is, the sector-related European-level employer organisation participating in the European sectoral social dialogue). In the other 14 countries with one or more sector-related employer/business organisations, at least one was engaged in sector-related collective bargaining (Table 8).

Table 5: Domain coverage and membership of employer/business organisations, 2010–2011
 

Name

Domain coverage a

Membership

Type

Number of companies

Companies in sector

Number of employees

Employees in sector

AT

WBV

S

Voluntary

7

7

1,000

1,000

TV

S

Voluntary

13

13

2,000

2,000

VVAT

SO

Voluntary

55,000

n.a.

200,000

n.a.

FGWKKV

SO

Compulsory

363

121

n.a.

n.a.

BE

ABS/BSV *

S

Voluntary

n.a.

180

n.a.

n.a.

CPEPAF *

S

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

OKO *

SO

Voluntary

n.a.

>160

n.a.

4,500

BG

BAROK

O

Voluntary

81

44

2,500

2,000

CY

           
CZ

APD CR

S

Voluntary

31

31

5,670

5,670

ASOPS

S

Voluntary

16

16

1,150

1,150

DE

DBV

S

Voluntary

248

248

51,000

51,000

TdL

SO

Voluntary

14

4

2,000,000

n.a.

VKA

SO

Voluntary

10,000

n.a.

2,000,000

n.a.

DHV

SO

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

350,000

n.a.

BDZV

SO

Voluntary

300

300

45,000

43,000

VDZ

SO

Voluntary

350

350

33,000

n.a.

DK

DTF

S

Voluntary

11

11

2,500

2,500

LOF

S

Voluntary

5

5

340

340

TIO

S

Voluntary

70

70

n.a.

n.a.

EE

EETEAL

S

Voluntary

19

19

1,843

1,843

EL

PEETH

S

Voluntary

28

28

n.a.

n.a.

METHEXI

S

Voluntary

150

150

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FAETEDA

S

Voluntary

420

420

4,500

4,000

AEOS

S

Voluntary

28

28

n.a.

n.a.

FASYDE

SO

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

MaRa

SO

Voluntary

2,400

25

60,000

200

PTY

SO

Voluntary

530

10

26,000

275

ST

S

Voluntary

49

49

3,000

3,000

KT LGE

SO

Compulsory

481

27

450,000

1,000

SUOSIO

S

Voluntary

30

30

1,100

1,100

HPL

SO

Voluntary

240

12

27,000

100

FR

SYNOLYR *

S

Voluntary

14

14

4,600

4,600

SYNDEAC *

SO

Voluntary

330

330

20,600

20,600

SMA *

SO

Voluntary

151

115

1,000

800

AFO *

S

Voluntary

32

32

n.a.

n.a.

CPDO *

S

Voluntary

42

42

n.a.

n.a.

PRODISS *

S

Voluntary

330

330

n.a.

n.a.

PROFEDIM *

S

Voluntary

60

60

n.a.

n.a.

SDTP *

S

Voluntary

56

56

3,000

3,000

SNSP *

S

Voluntary

170

170

6,970

<6,970

SNES *

S

Voluntary

200

200

n.a.

n.a.

CSCAD *

SO

Voluntary

700 b

270 b

n.a.

n.a.

SYNAVI *

S

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SCC *

S

Voluntary

60

60

500

500

HU

MSzZSz

S

Voluntary

14

14

2,939

2,939

IE

IBEC

SO

Voluntary

7,500

11

n.a.

n.a.

IT

AGIS *

SO

Voluntary

7,400

n.a.

200,000

96,000

ANFOLS

S

Voluntary

12–14

12–14

6,000

6,000

FIPE *

SO

Voluntary

110,000

2,500

400,000

n.a.

UNCI *

SO

Voluntary

7,825

n.a.

129,301

n.a.

UNSIC *

SO

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CSCI *

SO

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CONFEDIA *

SO

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ANI.Coop *

SO

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

           
LU

FLTP

S

Voluntary

21

21

200

200

LV

           
MT

           
NL

NAPK

S

Voluntary

103

103

4,100

4,100

VSCD

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

ZFP

S

Voluntary

20

20

n.a.

n.a.

PT

           
RO

           
SE

Danscentrum *

S

Voluntary

60

60

360

360

Teatercentrum *

S

Voluntary

76

76

700

700

SVS *

S

Voluntary

104

104

6,000

6,000

SI

           
SK

ARPOS

S

Voluntary

5

5

928

928

UK

ABO

SO

Voluntary

150

65

5,000

1,500

FST *

S

Voluntary

120

120

n.a.

n.a.

ITC *

SO

Voluntary

500

500

2,000

2,000

SOLT *

S

Voluntary

175

175

n.a.

n.a.

TMA *

S

Voluntary

272

272

n.a.

n.a.

Notes: * Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/ business organisations

aC = congruence; O = overlap; SO = sectional overlap; S = sectionalism

bFigure refers to 2007

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres (2012), administrative data and estimates

In general, business interest organisations may deal also 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 live performance sector. In terms of their national scope of activities, all the associations that are not involved in collective bargaining according to Table 8 either primarily or exclusively act as trade associations in their country. (Put simply, trade associations’ main reference is the ‘product’ market – where business has interests in relation to customers and suppliers – rather than the labour market.) It is only the conceptual decision to include all associational affiliates to PEARLE*, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, which gives them the status of a social partner organisation within the framework of this study.

Of the 67 employer/business organisations listed in Tables 5 and 6, seven organisations belong to this group; no related information is available for one organisation, the UK’s Federation of Scottish Theatre (FST). In seven (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia) of the 20 countries where sector-related employer/business organisations exist, only one single organisation (in the meaning of a social partner organisation as defined before) has been established. Thus, the incidence of pluralist associational systems on the employer side is lower than on the labour side, where pluralist associational systems exist in 23 of the 27 Member States. This is in line with the fact that the number of sector-related employer/business organisations across the Member States is clearly somewhat less than the number of sector-related trade unions.

The membership domains of the employer/business organisations tend to be even narrower than those of the trade unions. Only one employer organisation, the Bulgarian Association of Employers in the Field of Culture (BAROK), has a membership domain overlapping with regard to the live performance sector and there is no organisation with a membership domain congruent with the sector. Membership domains that are sectionalist relative to the sector clearly prevail among the employer organisations, with a share of 59.1% of the cases for which related information is available; 39.4% of the associations rest on sectionalistically overlapping domains relative to the sector.

Accordingly, there is no organisation in the sector recording a domain which is cross-sectoral – apart from Ireland’s general association, the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation (IBEC), whose domain does not cover artistic creation. Alternatively, most cases of domain overlaps (in the case of organisations with domains either overlapping or sectionalistically overlapping with regard to the sector) ensue from either coverage of the broader services sector – as is the case of the Employers’ Association for Service Enterprises (PTY) in Finland, and the Italian Federation of Commercial Business (FIPE), the Union of National Farmers’ Unions and Entrepreneurs (UNSIC), the Confederation of Commerce and Enterprise (CSCI) and the National Employer Confederation of Autonomous Enterprises (Confedia) of Italy – without, however, covering the subsector of artistic creation, or (part of) the culture sector – as is the case of the Performing Arts Employers Organisation (OKO) in Belgium, Bulgaria’s BAROK, the Union of Contemporary Music (SMA) and the National Union of Artistic and Cultural Companies (SYNDEAC) in France, the General Italian Association of Show Business (AGIS) and the Association of British Orchestras (ABO) in the UK. (It should be noted that, for methodological reasons, PEARLE* questioned the accuracy of the domain demarcations with regard to the artistic creation subsector as outlined here.)

There are also several employer/business organisations whose domain is focused on a very particular segment of the economy which sectionally overlaps the live performance sector. Such organisations may cover:

  • the cooperative sector such as the National Italian Association of Cooperatives (ANI.Coop) and National Union of Italian Cooperatives (UNCI);
  • the newspaper and magazine sector such as the German Newspaper Publishers’ Association (BZDV) and the Association of German Magazine Publishers (VDZ);
  • the wellness, tourism and recreation industry, as far as it provides live performance activities, as is the case of the Association of Event Organisers in Austria (VVAT), the Finnish Hospitality Association (MaRa), the Union of Artistic Cabarets and Night Clubs (CSCAD) in France, the German Spa Association (DHV) and the Federation of Night Clubs and Discos of Spain (FASYDE);
  • the local/regional authorities as is the case of the Employer Association of German Länder (TdL) and the Confederation of Municipal Employers’ Associations (VKA) in Germany, and Finland’s KT Local Government Employers (KT LGE).

Sectionalism, the prevailing domain pattern in relation to the live performance sector among the sector-related employer/business organisations, is caused by domain demarcations that focus on a particular subsegment of the live performance sector, without covering areas of business activity outside the sector. Such subsectors/subsegments may be:

  • national, as is the case of the Association of Theatre Maintainers of Austrian Provinces and Cities (TV), the Association of Professional Theatres of the Czech Republic (APD CR), the Danish Association of Theatres (DTF) and the Theatres’ Interest Association (TIO) in Denmark, the Association of Finnish Theatres (ST), the National Union of Theatre Directors (SDTP) in France, the Pan-Hellenic Union of Free Theatres (PEETH) in Greece, the Theatre Federation (FLTP) of Luxembourg, the State Federation of Associations of Theatre and Dance Production Enterprises (FAETEDA) of Spain, the Centre for Independent Theatres (Teatercentrum) in Sweden and the Theatrical Management Association (TMA) in the UK;
  • local/regional theatre management – see the Vienna Stage Association (WBV) in Austria, the Chamber of Permanent Employers of French-speaking Performing Arts (CPEPAF) in Belgium as well as FST and the Society of London Theatre (SOLT) in the UK;
  • orchestras of all kinds and their management, as is the case of the Association of Symphony Orchestras and Choirs of the Czech Republic (ASOPS), the Association of Danish Regional Symphony Orchestras (LOF), the Association of Finnish Symphony Orchestras (SUOSIO), the National Employer Organisation for Orchestras and Operas (SYNOLYR) in France and the French Association of Orchestras (AFO), the Hungarian Association of Symphony Orchestras (MSzZSz), the National Association of Opera and Symphonic Foundations (ANFOLS) in Italy, Polish Philharmonics Society (ZFP), the Association of Slovak Professional Orchestra Directors (ARPOS) and the Association of Spanish Symphony Orchestras (AEOS);
  • stage production in a strict sense, as is the case of France’s National Union of Producers, Distributors and Theatres (PRODISS) and the Professional Union of Producers, Festivals, Ensembles, Distributors of Independent Music (PROFEDIM) as well as of the Dutch Association for Performing Arts (NAPK).

While some of the associations only cover publicly owned performing arts institutions (such as ZFP of Poland), some other organisations cover only private/independent theatres such as the Pan-Hellenic Union of Free Theatres (PEETH) in Greece, FAETEDA of Spain and Danscentrum – Network of Independent Dance Employers (Danscentrum) and Teatercentrum in Sweden. Separate employer/business organisations representing only a subsegment of the sector such as theatres or circuses can also be found.

In most countries, the sectoral employers have generally managed to establish specific employer organisations as a particular voice of narrow and clearly distinct business activities. For most sector-related employer/business organisations, their domains are tailor-made for a particular group of employers and businesses. Even more pronounced than on the side of organised labour, this enables these associations to perform a very particularistic interest representation on behalf of their members.

Figure 5 shows the distribution of the sector-related employer organisations between the four membership domain categories.

Figure 5: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related employer organisations

Figure 5: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related employer organisations

Note: N = 66. Percentages are rounded.

Source: EIRO country reports (2012)

One employer organisation in Austria – the Viennese branch of the ‘cinemas, cultural institutions and entertainment companies’ subunit (FVKKV) of the Federal Economic Chamber (WKÖ), FGWKKV– and one in Finland (KT LGE) can rely on obligatory membership (Table 5). This is due to their public law status as a chamber of commerce in the case of FGWKKV, and as an association of the country’s public administration at local state level in the case of KT LGE. All other sector-related employer/business organisations are voluntary associations.

In those countries with a pluralist structure in relation to employer organisations, these associations have usually managed – with the exception of Sweden’s Teatercentrum and Swedish Performing Arts (SVS) as well as the UK’s FST, Independent Theatre Council (ITC), SOLT and TMA –to arrive at non-competing and collaborative relationships. Their activities are complementary to each other as a result of inter-associational differentiation by either membership demarcation – as is the case, in particular, of Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece and Spain – or functions and tasks as is partially the case of Belgium, France, Italy, Sweden and the UK.

As the figures on membership totals (Table 5) and density (Table 6) indicate, membership strength in terms of both companies and employees varies widely with regard to both the membership domain in general and the sector. As with the trade unions, density figures rather than absolute membership numbers are informative in terms of membership strength. In the case of the sector-related employer/business organisations, sectoral densities in terms of companies and employees (employed by these companies) can be calculated.

However, due to a lack of absolute numbers of members, in particular in terms of employees in the case of many associations, sectoral densities can be calculated only for some of them. According to the figures available, more than 90% and about 43%, respectively, of the employer/business organisations record a sectoral density in terms of companies and employees of 5% or below. While the median of the organisations’ sectoral densities in terms of companies lies at 1%, the corresponding median in terms of employees is at 10.5%. Higher sectoral densities in terms of employees compared with those in terms of companies indicate a higher propensity of the larger companies to associate compared with smaller ones.

As is the case of the sector-related trade unions, some tentative information on the employer/business organisations’ sectoral domain density in relation to their overall domain density is available for those associations with a domain (sectionalistically) overlapping with regard to the sector. Although information for only very few employer/business organisations has been provided, the same tendency as observed in relation to the organised labour side is found. Their sectoral domain densities, in terms of both companies and employees, tend to be lower than their overall domain densities. These, albeit very tentative, results indicate that – as is the case of the trade union side – the live performance sector cannot be considered a stronghold of employer/business organisations with a domain (sectionalistically) overlapping with regard to the sector. This is despite the fact that a majority of the sector-related employer/business organisations have tailored their membership domain to the live performance sector, or part of it, in order to align their policy of interest representation with the specific requirements of their members.

Table 6: Density of employer/business organisations, 2010–2011
 

Name

Companies

Employees

Sector (%)

Sectoral domain in relation to overall domain

Sector (%)

Sectoral domain in relation to overall domain

AT

WBV

n.a.

n/a

10

n/a

TV

n.a.

n/a

20

n/a

VVAT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FGWKKV

n.a.

equal

n.a.

equal

BE

ABS/BSV *

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n/a

CPEPAF *

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n/a

OKO *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

BAROK

54

<

24

<

CY

       
CZ

APD CR

0

n/a

37

n/a

ASOPS

0

n/a

8

n/a

DE

DBV

0

n/a

79

n/a

TdL

0

>

n.a.

n.a.

VKA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DHV

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BDZV

1

n/a

85

n.a.

VDZ

1

n/a

n.a.

n.a.

DK

DTF

1

n/a

40

n/a

LOF

0

n/a

5

n/a

TIO

4

n/a

n.a.

n/a

EE

EETEAL

6

n/a

74

n/a

EL

PEETH

3

n/a

n.a.

n/a

METHEXI

16

n/a

n.a.

n/a

ES

FAETEDA

2

n/a

15

n/a

AEOS

0

n/a

n.a.

n/a

FASYDE

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n.a.

FI

MaRa

1

<

3

<

PTY

0

<

4

<

ST

2

n/a

38

n/a

KT LGE

1

equal

13

equal

SUOSIO

1

n/a

14

n/a

HPL

0

<

1

equal

FR

SYNOLYR *

0

n/a

2

n/a

SYNDEAC *

2

n.a.

11

n.a.

SMA *

1

n.a.

0

n.a.

AFO *

0

n/a

n.a.

n/a

CPDO *

0

n/a

n.a.

n/a

PRODISS *

2

n/a

n.a.

n/a

PROFEDIM *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SDTP *

0

n/a

2

n/a

SNSP *

1

n/a

4

n/a

SNES *

1

n/a

n.a.

n/a

CSCAD *

1 a

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SYNAVI *

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n/a

SCC *

0

n/a

0

n/a

HU

MSzZSz

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n/a

IE

IBEC

n.a.

<

n.a.

<

IT

AGIS *

n.a.

<

n.a.

equal

ANFOLS

0

n/a

37

n/a

FIPE *

8

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UNCI *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UNSIC *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CSCI *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CONFEDIA *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ANI.Coop *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

       
LU

FLTP

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n/a

LV

       
MT

       
NL

NAPK

5

n/a

5

n/a

VSCD

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

ZFP

0

n/a

n.a.

n/a

PT

       
RO

       
SE

Danscentrum *

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n/a

Teatercentrum *

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n/a

SVS*

n.a.

n/a

n.a.

n/a

SI

       
SK

ARPOS

1

n/a

15

n/a

UK

ABO

0

n.a.

3

n.a.

FST *

0

n/a

n.a.

n/a

ITC *

2

n/a

4

n/a

SOLT *

1

n/a

n.a.

n/a

TMA *

1

n/a

n.a.

n/a

Notes: The figures have been rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure lower than 0.5%.

* Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/ business organisations

aFigure refers to 2007

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

Source: EIRO national centres (2012)

Collective bargaining and its actors

Table 7 lists all of the trade unions engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. Despite numerous cases of inter-union domain overlap and some cases of unclear domain demarcation, inter-union rivalry and competition for bargaining capacities were identified in only two countries (France and Slovenia). In the case of the sector-related employer organisations (Table 8), no case of competition over collective bargaining capacities was reported.

Table 7: Trade union involvement in collective bargaining, 2010–2011
 

Name

Collective bargaining a

Collective bargaining coverage (total) b

   
AT

GdG-KMSfB

S+M

7,200

tripartite structures

ad hoc

BE

SETCa/BBTK *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

CGSP/ACOD *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

ACOD/VRT

S+M

2,330

tripartite structures

regularly

CGSP/RTBF

S+M

2,100

tripartite structures

regularly

CGSLB/ACLVB *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

CSC/ACV Transcom-Culture *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

CNE/LBC *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

BG

UBMD *

S+M

1,900

tripartite structures

regularly

CL Podkrepa - Federation Culture *

S+M

1,500

tripartite structures

regularly

UBA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

EHK/AUC *

S+M

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

PASYNEK *

no

0

no

n/a

SYTHOC-OHO *

S

n.a.

no

n/a

SIDIKEK *

S+M

n.a.

no

n/a

PASEY *

S

46

no

n/a

CZ

HA

(S)

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

OS PKZ

(S)

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

OS PKOP

(S)

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

OS VUOK

(S)

n.a.

no

n/a

Unie OH CR

(S)

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

Unie OSPZ CR

(S)

n.a.

tripartite structures

ad hoc

DE

ver.di *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

DOV *

S+M

9,000

unilaterally

regularly

GDBA *

S+M

15,573

tripartite structures

regularly

VdO *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

DJV *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

ad hoc

DK

DAF *

S+M

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

DSF

S+M

1,800

unilaterally

ad hoc

DMF *

S+M

1,000–1,500

unilaterally

ad hoc

TL

M

300

unilaterally

ad hoc

SDS

S+M

30

unilaterally

ad hoc

FDS

S+M

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

DJOEF

no

0

no

n/a

DJ

S+M

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

EE

ETL *

S+M

1,500

tripartite structures

regularly

ENL *

S+M

400–500

tripartite structures

regularly

ELL *

S+M

~80

no

n/a

EKTL *

no

0

unilaterally

n.a.

EL

HAU

S+M

n.a.

no

n/a

PMU

M

n.a.

no

n/a

PEM OTA

M

n.a.

no

n/a

SETETH

M

n.a.

no

n/a

PROSPERT

S

3,500

no

n/a

ES

FeS-UGT *

S+M

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

FSC-CCOO *

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CIG *

S+M

n.a.

unilaterally

regularly

ELA STV *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UMC *

no

0

unilaterally

ad hoc

FAEE *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

OSAAEE *

M

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

AAG *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

TEME

S+M

4,500

unilaterally

ad hoc

SNL

S+M

2,000

tripartite structures

regularly

SML

M

4,000

unilaterally

ad hoc

FR

SFA-CGT *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

SNAM CGT *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

SNTR-SGTIF *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

SYNPTAC CGT *

S+M

90,000

tripartite structures

regularly

SNAPAC CFDT *

S+M

90,000

tripartite structures

regularly

FASAP FO *

S+M

90,000

tripartite structures

regularly

SNM FO *

S+M

20,000

tripartite structures

regularly

SNAA FO *

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SNSV FO *

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FEDECOM *

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FCCS *

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SIA UNSA *

S

n.a.

no

n/a

SUD Culture *

S

n.a.

no

n/a

HU

SziDoSz

S

n.a.

unilaterally

regularly

MZTSZ

S

2,939

unilaterally

regularly

IE

SIPTU

S

2,500

unilaterally

ad hoc

TEEU

S

50

n.a.

n.a.

IT

SLC-CGIL *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

SAI *

M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

SIAM *

M

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

FISTEL-CISL *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

UILCOM-UIL *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

FIALS-CISAL *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

ad hoc

LIBERSIND-CONFSAL *

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FESICA-CONFSAL *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CONFSAL-FISALS *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

LZS

M

100

unilaterally

ad hoc

LU

OGBL, FLTL

no

0

yes

ad hoc

LV

LKDAF

S

450

tripartite structures

regularly

LAA d

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

GWU

S

30

no

n/a

NL

FNV Kiem

M

3,850

unilaterally

ad hoc

KNTV

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FNV Mondiaal

no

0

n.a.

n.a.

PL

KSPIA NSZZ Solidarnosc *

S

n.a.

tripartite structures

ad hoc

FZZPKiS *

S

n.a.

tripartite structures

ad hoc

ZZAP *

S

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

ZZST Forum *

no

0

unilaterally

ad hoc

PT

STE *

no

0

tripartite structures

n.a.

CENA *

M

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

RO

USRC *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

ad hoc

FAIR *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

ad hoc

USIS *

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

ad hoc

SE

DIK *

M

400

no

n/a

TF *

S+M

10,000

unilaterally

ad hoc

SYMF *

S+M

5,000

unilaterally

ad hoc

SMF *

S+M

15,000

unilaterally

ad hoc

Unionen *

M

350

no

n/a

SI

ZDUS *

no

0

no

n/a

GLOSA *

M

5,000

unilaterally

ad hoc

SUKI-GLOSA *

no

0

unilaterally

ad hoc

GLOSA-SKG *

no

0

unilaterally

ad hoc

SVIZ *

M

5,000

unilaterally

ad hoc

SKUU RTVS

S

1,922

no

n/a

SK

SOZ SP *

S

n.a.

unilaterally

ad hoc

HOS *

no

0

unilaterally

ad hoc

OZ PHS *

S

1,200

unilaterally

ad hoc

UK

BECTU

S+M

12,000–18,000

tripartite structures

ad hoc

Equity

S+M

n.a.

tripartite structures

regularly

MU

S

5,000

tripartite structures

ad hoc

WGGB

S+M

1,000

tripartite structures

regularly

Notes: The figures have been rounded in all cases.

* Domain overlap with other sector-related trade unions

aS = single-employer bargaining; M = multi-employer bargaining; (S) = indirect collective bargaining involvement at company level via lower-order units

bNumber of employees covered within the live performance sector

cEither within established tripartite bodies or unilaterally by the authorities

dNo trade union according to EIRO national correspondent

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

Source: EIRO national centres (2012), administrative data and estimates

Table 8: Involvement of employers’ organisations in collective bargaining, 2010–2011
 

Name

Collective bargaining a

Collective bargaining coverage b

Consultation practice

Consultation frequency

Companies

Employees

AT

WBV

M

7

1,000

T

ad hoc

TV

M

13

2,000

T

regularly

VVAT

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FGWKKV

S

1

500

T

ad hoc

BE

ABS/BSV *

S+M

>400

n.a.

T

regularly

CPEPAF *

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

T

regularly

OKO *

S+M

>400

n.a.

T

regularly

BG

BAROK

S+M

44

2,000

T

regularly

CY

         
CZ

APD CR

no

0

0

T

regularly

ASOPS

no

0

0

T

regularly

DE

DBV

S+M

180

25,000

T

regularly

TdL

M

14

n.a.

no

n/a

VKA

M

n.a.

n.a.

no

n/a

DHV

M

n.a.

n.a.

T

ad hoc

BDZV

M

300

n.a.

U

regularly

VDZ

M

~250

9,000

U

regularly

DK

DTF

M

11

2,500

U

ad hoc

LOF

M

5

340

U

ad hoc

TIO

M

70

n.a.

U

ad hoc

EE

EETEAL

M

19

1843

T

ad hoc

EL

PEETH

M

n.a.

n.a.

no

n/a

METHEXI

M

n.a.

n.a.

no

n/a

ES

FAETEDA

(M)

420

2,500

U

ad hoc

AEOS

no

0

0

n.a.

n.a.

FASYDE

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

MaRa

M

35

400

U

regularly

PTY

S+M

10

275

T

ad hoc

ST

S+M

100

4,000

T

regularly

KT LGE

M

27

1,000

U

ad hoc

SUOSIO

S+M

30

1,100

T

regularly

HPL

M

12

100

U

ad hoc

FR

SYNOLYR *

M

4,600

90,000

T

regularly

SYNDEAC *

M

4,600

90,000

T

regularly

SMA *

M

4,600

90,000

T

regularly

AFO *

no

0

0

U

n.a.

CPDO *

S+M

4,600

90,000

T

regularly

PRODISS *

M

n.a.

n.a.

T

ad hoc

PROFEDIM *

M

4,600

90,000

T

ad hoc

SDTP *

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

T

ad hoc

SNSP *

M

4,600

90,000

T

regularly

SNES *

M

n.a.

n.a.

T

n.a.

CSCAD *

M

n.a.

n.a.

T

n.a.

SYNAVI *

M

4,600

90,000

n.a.

n.a.

SCC *

M

4,600

90,000

T

regularly

HU

MSzZSz

S

14

2,939

U

regularly

IE

IBEC

S

11

n.a.

yes

n.a.

IT

AGIS *

S+M

n.a.

96,000

T

regularly

ANFOLS

M

14

6,000

n.a.

n.a.

FIPE *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UNCI *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UNSIC *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CSCI *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CONFEDIA *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ANI.Coop *

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

         
LU

FLTP

no

0

0

U

regularly

LV

         
MT

         
NL

NAPK

M

108

4,100

U

ad-hoc

VSCD

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

ZFP

no

0

0

U

ad hoc

PT

         
RO

         
SE

Danscentrum *

M

70

420

U

ad hoc

Teatercentrum *

M

135

1,250

U

ad hoc

SVS *

M

104

11,000

T

ad hoc

SI

         
SK

ARPOS

no

0

0

no

n/a

UK

ABO

M

45

2,000

U

ad hoc

FST *

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

ITC *

M

100

2,000

yes

regularly

SOLT *

M

65

n.a.

yes

ad hoc

TMA *

M

272

n.a.

yes

ad hoc

Notes: The figures have been rounded in all cases.

* Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/ business organisations

aS = single-employer bargaining; M = multi-employer bargaining; (M) = indirect collective bargaining involvement (multi-employer bargaining) via lower-order units

bNumber of companies/employees covered within the live performance sector

cT = within established tripartite bodies; U = unilaterally by the authorities

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

Source: EIRO national centres (2012), administrative data and estimates

Table 9 provides an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 27 Member States. 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 (Traxler et al, 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.

Table 9: Sectoral collective bargaining system, 2010–2011
 

Estimates of CBC (%)

Estimates of share of MEB in total CBC (%)

Extension practices a

AT

70

28

(1)

BE

100

100 b

2

BG

50

MEB prevailing

0

CY

n.a.

n.a.

0

CZ

n.a.

0

0

DE

40

55

0

DK

<20

40–60

0

EE

>60

MEB prevailing

0

EL

100 c

MEB prevailing c

2c

ES

20

77

2

FI

60

80

2

FR

>80

MEB prevailing

2

HU

71

0

0

IE

n.a.

SEB prevailing

0

IT

100

100 b

(2)

LT

>10

~0

0

LU

>40

0

0

LV

6

0

0

MT

3

0

0

NL

n.a.

MEB prevailing

1

PL

n.a.

0

0

PT

n.a.

100

1

RO

100 c

100 b,c

2 c

SE

80

95

1

SI

almost 100

MEB prevailing

0

SK

40–50

n.a.

0

UK

n.a.

MEB prevailing

0 d

Notes: CBC = collective bargaining coverage, that is, employees covered as a percentage of the total number of employees in the sector

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

aExtension practices (including functional equivalents to extension provisions, that is, obligatory membership and labour court rulings): 0 = no practice, 1 = limited/exceptional, 2 = pervasive. Cases of functional equivalents are in brackets.

bComplemented by single-employer bargaining

cUntil 2011

dNo legal provision for extension procedures, but multi-employer collective agreements are often informally used by non-affiliated parties in the sector.

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres (2012), administrative data and estimates

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 the 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 thus 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 not included in the research.

Regulations concerning employees are not significant to this analysis for two reasons. First, apart from any national legislation, extending a collective agreement to employees who are not unionised in a company covered by the collective agreement is a standard of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Secondly, employers have good motivation to extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when they are not formally obliged to do so, else 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 respective collective agreement will bind them in any case (see Traxler et al, 2001).

Collective bargaining coverage

Overall, collective bargaining coverage in the live performance sector is relatively low, but tends to be higher in the public and state-funded segment of the sector than in the commercial one.

Seven of the 20 countries for which data are available (Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden) had a high coverage rate of around 80% or more in 2010–2011 (Table 9). In the case of Greece, this was only until 2011, as the enactment of the First Memorandum 2011 agreed with the Troika to abolish national collective bargaining regulations (see GR1203019I). This was also only true until 2011 for Romania, since the enactment of the Social Dialogue Act 2011 effectively abolished the national unique collective agreement which served as a reference point for collective bargaining at all levels (see RO1112019I, RO1107029I).

No data were provided for seven countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, UK).

In eight countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Sweden), the coverage rate was around 30%–70% in 2010–2011.

However, a third group of five countries (Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Spain) had coverage rates of 20% or below in 2010–2011.

Relatively low collective bargaining coverage rates in the sector result from various factors. The most important of these are:

  • a lack of strong and comprehensive social partners on both sides of industry (that is, high fragmentation of the social partner ‘landscape’) in virtually all Member States combined with the highly dispersed nature of the sector in terms of both business activities and employment;
  • the absence of multi-employer bargaining in around a third of the countries for which data are available;
  • the absence of extension practices in a majority of countries.

Although sector-related social partner organisations on both sides of industry have been established in the vast majority of countries, they usually cover only particular niches of the sector; this is especially true in the private/commercial segment. The high fragmentation of the associational ‘landscape’ and thus the collective bargaining structure in the sector, which is buttressed by the sector’s division in a private and public segment, are among the main reasons making it difficult or even impossible to even roughly estimate the collective bargaining coverage rate of the entire live performance sector in several countries.

Although coverage in countries with prevalent multi-employer bargaining and pervasive extension practices tends to be higher than in countries that do not have these properties, coverage is not necessarily high even in such circumstances. In the cases of Bulgaria, Germany and Spain, for instance, prevalent multi-employer bargaining systems do not induce coverage rates higher than 40% or 50%. In contrast, in Hungary the pure single-employer bargaining system generates a coverage rate of over 70%. This indicates that the high associational fragmentation in the sector in combination with the sector’s heterogeneity in terms of activities and employment often translates into a narrow scope not only of single-employer but also of multi-employer agreements. Business areas not covered by the domains of trade unions and/or employer organisations are thus not covered by collective agreement either.

Sector-related multi-employer bargaining is completely absent in seven countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland). In all these countries apart from Hungary, collective bargaining coverage within the live performance sector tends to be either low or there is no information available. With the exception of Luxembourg, this group of countries consists of 2004 accession countries only.

However, there is a group of countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK) with exclusive or prevailing multi-employer arrangements (though see notes about changes in 2011 in Greece and Romania above). As indicated above, only some of them record high or even full collective bargaining coverage rates in the sector. In several countries, a multi-level bargaining system is established which combines multi-employer bargaining with single-employer agreements. In such cases, the single-employer settlements contain more favourable employment terms than the multi-employer agreements.

In those countries with prevalent multi-employer settlements, the use of extension practices is sometimes significant. Pervasive extension practices in the live performance sector are reported for a few countries such as Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Romania and Spain (again see earlier notes about changes in 2011 in Greece and Romania). As the aim of extension provisions is to make multi-employer agreements generally binding, the functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes – as can be found in Italy – should also be noted. According to Italy’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 may partake in public policy in two basic ways:

  • They may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members.
  • They may be represented on ‘corporatist’, in other words tripartite, committees and boards of policy concertation.

This study considers only cases of consultation and corporatist participation which 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 occasional rather than a regular basis. Given this variability, only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations that are usually consulted are listed in Tables 7 and 8.

Trade unions

At least some of the trade unions are usually (that is, regularly or on an ad hoc basis) consulted by the authorities in at least 25 of the 27 Member States where one or more sector-related trade unions are recorded (Table 7). Two countries (Greece, Malta) cite a lack of regular consultation of any of the trade unions. In total, 81% of the sector-related trade unions for which information is available are consulted, either through participation in existing tripartite structures (56%) or in the form of unilateral consultation by the authorities (44%). Slightly less than half of them are consulted regularly (generally at least once a year), but slightly more than half are only consulted occasionally.

Since a multi-union system has been established in 23 out of the 27 Member States with sector-related trade unions, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the authorities may favour certain trade unions over others or that the unions compete for participation rights. In at least nine of the 22 countries with a multi-union system where consultation is noticeably practised (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, UK), any of the existing trade unions may take part in the consultation process. In contrast, in seven countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Slovenia, Sweden), only some of the sector-related trade unions are usually consulted while other unions are not. (For several countries, such as Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and Spain, no information on consultation practices is available for at least one trade union.) Nevertheless, evidence of inter-union rivalry and conflicts over participation in public policy matters in the live performance sector was found in only a few countries such as Estonia, France and Sweden.

Employer organisations

The vast majority (over 90%) of sector-related employer/business organisations for which related information is available are involved in consultation procedures. Again, as is the case of the trade union side, there are more employer/business organisations involved in tripartite consultation structures than those unilaterally consulted by authorities (62% versus 38%). In terms of consultation frequency, about half of the employer/business organisations for which information is available are consulted on a regular and an ad hoc basis.

In all the 13 countries with multi-organisation systems but Sweden, where minor conflicts between the relevant associations have arisen in relation to the relative importance of different issues in the context of consultation procedures, no cases of conflicts over participation rights of employer organisations are reported. In the multi-organisation systems of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the UK, where related data on all employer/business organisations are available, all the sector’s organisations are consulted. Adversely, in the pluralist system of Germany at least one of the employer organisations is normally usually consulted while at least one other is not. In the case of Greece and Slovakia, none of the existing sector-related employer/business organisations (two and one, respectively) is consulted. However, for some countries, such as Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain with a pluralist system of employer representation, no information about consultation practices is available for at least some of the organisations, so that it not clear for these countries whether consultation rights are being attributed to the national organisations in a selective manner or not.

In 17 of the 20 countries with relevant sector-related social partner organisations on both sides of industry, consultation rights are symmetrically attributed to the two sides of industry, in that at least one organisation on each side is consulted. There is only one country (Slovakia) where representatives of only one side (that is, organised labour) are consulted.

Tripartite participation

Genuinely sector-specific tripartite bodies have been established in a number of countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, UK). Table 10 lists a total of 11 bodies – one in each country, two in Germany and three in Poland. The legal basis of these tripartite bodies is either a statute or an agreement between the parties involved. Their scope of activities most often focuses on social security problems (such as the bodies of France and Germany), copyright issues (as is the case of the bodies of Poland) and skills-related issues (the bodies of Estonia, Portugal and the UK). Other bodies listed in some country reports are not taken into account in this study because they are either bipartite rather than tripartite in terms of composition or sector-unspecific (that is, cross-sectoral) tripartite bodies for concertation of economic and social policy. These bodies may also address the sector, depending on the particular circumstances and issues that may arise.

Table 10: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy, 2010–2011
 

Name of the body and scope of activity

Origin

Participants

   

CZ

Culture-related Working Group of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement (RHSD CR) – deals with labour law, wages, collective bargaining, employment, occupational safety, human resources development and other issues

Agreement

OS PKZ, OS PKOP

APD CR, ASOPS

DE

Social Security Agency for German Stages (Versorgungsanstalt der Deutscher Bühnen)

Statutory

ver.di, DOV, VdO, GDBA

DBV

Social Insurance Agency for Artists (Künstlersozialkasse)

Statutory

ver.di, DOV, VdO, GDBA

DBV

EE

Culture Professional Council within the Estonian Qualifications Authority (Kutsekoda)

Statutory

ETL

EETEAL

FR

Fund of Professionalisation and Solidarity for Artists – seeks to support artists and technicians who do not receive any unemployment benefit

Agreement

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Council of Show Business at the Ministry for Arts and Culture – consultative body dealing with norms regarding live shows and the sharing of the public funding for the show business sector

Statutory

SLC-CGIL, FISTEL-CISL, UILCOM-UIL

AGIS

PL

Ministry of Cultural and National Heritage – regulation of cultural activities and copyright

Statutory

FZZPKiS, ZZAP, KSPIA NSZZ Solidarnosc, ZZST Forum

ZP UPT

PL

Seym Committee for Culture and Mass Media – regulation of cultural activities and copyright

Statutory

FZZPKiS, ZZAP, KSPIA NSZZ Solidarnosc, ZZST Forum

n.a.

Senate Committee for Culture and Mass Media –regulation of cultural activities and copyright

Statutory

FZZPKiS, ZZAP, KSPIA NSZZ Solidarnosc, ZZST Forum

n.a.

PT

Sectoral Council ‘Culture, Heritage and Production of Contents’ within the National Agency for Qualification – tasked with identifying the requirements of updating the national catalogue of qualifications

Statutory

STE

n.a.

UK

Skillscene – creative and cultural skills, sectoral skills and training council

Statutory

BECTU

ITC, SOLT, TMA

Source: EIRO national centres (2012)


European level of interest representation

At European level, eligibility for consultation and participation in the social dialogue is linked to three criteria 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 which are themselves an integral and recognised part of Member States’ social partner structures and which 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.

In terms of social dialogue, the constituent feature is the ability of such organisations to negotiate on behalf of their members and to conclude binding agreements. Accordingly, this section analyses the membership domain, membership composition and ability to negotiate of organisations in the live performance sector.

As detailed below, three sector-related European associations on the employee side (EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM) and one on the employer side (PEARLE*) are significant in the live performance sector. All four associations are listed by the European Commission as a social partner organisation consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU. Hence the analysis concentrates on these four organisations, while providing supplementary information on others that are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Tables 11 and 12 list the national and European affiliations of the trade unions and employer/business organisations in the live performance sector respectively.

Table 11: Trade union affiliations, 2010–2011
       
AT

GdG-KMSfB

ÖGB

FIA, FIM, EURO-MEI, EPSU, Eurofedop, ETF, EFJ, FIFPro

BE

SETCa/BBTK

FGTB/ABVV

EURO-MEI, EPSU

CGSP/ACOD

FGTB/ABVV

EURO-MEI, FIA, FIM

ACOD/VRT

FGTB/ABVV

EURO-MEI, FIA, FIM

CGSP/RTBF

FGTB/ABVV

EURO-MEI, FIA, FIM

CGSLB/ACLVB

   

CSC/ACV Transcom-Culture

CSC/ACV

EURO-MEI, FIA, FIM

CNE/LBC

CSC/ACV

EURO-MEI, EPSU

BG

UBMD

CITUB

FIM, EURO-MEI

CL Podkrepa – Federation Culture

CL Podkrepa

FIM, EURO-MEI

UBA

 

FIA

CY

EHK/AUC

SEK

FIA

PASYNEK

 

FIM

SYTHOC-OHO

SEK

EPSU

SIDIKEK

PEO

 

PASEY

PEO

 
CZ

HA

CMKOS

FIA

OS PKZ

CMKOS

EPSU

OS PKOP

CMKOS

EPSU

OS VUOK

CMKOS

 

Unie OH CR

CMKOS

 

Unie OSPZ CR

CMKOS

 
DE

ver.di

DGB

EURO-MEI, FIA, FIM

DOV

 

FIM

GDBA

 

FIA

VdO

   

DJV

 

EFJ

DK

DAF

LO

FIA

DSF

FTF

FIA

DMF

FTF

FIM

TL

LO

EURO-MEI

SDS

FTF

 

FDS

FTF

 

DJOEF

AC

EURO-MEI, EPSU

DJ

 

EFJ

EE

ETL

TALO

EURO-MEI

ENL

(TALO)

FIA

ELL

(TALO)

 

EKTL

(TALO)

FIA

EL

HAU

(GSEE)

FIA

PMU

(GSEE)

FIM

PEM OTA

   

SETETH

(GSEE)

 

PROSPERT

GSEE

EURO-MEI

ES

FeS-UGT

UGT

EURO-MEI

FSC-CCOO

CCOO

EURO-MEI, FIA, FIM

CIG

   

ELA STV

 

EURO-MEI

UMC

 

FIM

FAEE

 

FIA

OSAAEE

 

FIA

AAG

   
FI

TEME

SAK

EURO-MEI, (FIA)

SNL

 

FIA

SML

SAK

FIM

FR

SFA-CGT

(CGT)

FIA

SNAM CGT

(CGT)

FIA, FIM

SNTR-SGTIF

(CGT)

EURO-MEI

SYNPTAC CGT

(CGT)

EURO-MEI

SNAPAC CFDT

(CFDT)

EURO-MEI

FASAP FO

(FO)

EURO-MEI

SNM FO

(FO)

 

SNAA FO

(FO)

 

SNSV FO

(FO)

 

FEDECOM

CFTC

 

FCCS

CFE-CGC

 

SIA UNSA

UNSA

 

SUD Culture

SUD

 
HU

SziDoSz

SZEF

FIA

MZTSZ

SZEF

FIM

IE

SIPTU

ICTU

EURO-MEI, FIA, (FIM)

TEEU

ICTU

 
IT

SLC-CGIL

CGIL

FIM, EURO-MEI

SAI

(CGIL)

FIA

SIAM

(CGIL)

 

FISTEL-CISL

CISL

EURO-MEI, UNI-Europa

UILCOM-UIL

UIL

UNI-Europa

FIALS-CISAL

CISAL

 

LIBERSIND-CONFSAL

CONFSAL

 

FESICA-CONFSAL

CONFSAL

CESI

CONFSAL-FISALS

CONFSAL

CESI

LT

LZS

 

EFJ

LU

OGBL, FLTL

OGBL

(EURO-MEI)

LV

LKDAF

LBAS

EURO-MEI, FIA, FIM

LAA d

 

FIA

MT

GWU

 

FIM, EPSU, UNI-Europa, EURO-MEI, FERPA, Eurocadres, ETF, EFBWW, EMF, EFFAT

NL

FNV Kiem

FNV

FIA, FIM, EURO-MEI

KNTV

 

FIM

FNV Mondiaal

FNV

EURO-MEI

PL

KSPIA NSZZ Solidarnosc

   

FZZPKiS

OPZZ

EURO-MEI

ZZAP

 

FIA

ZZST Forum

 

FIM

PT

STE

CGTP

FIA

CENA

CGTP

FIM

RO

USRC

BNS

(FIA), (FIM)

FAIR

BNS

FIA, FIM

USIS

BNS

FIA

SE

DIK

SACO, PTK

ENCATC

TF

TCO, OFR, PTK

EURO-MEI, FIA, FERA

SYMF

TCO, PTK

FIM

SMF

LO

FIM

Unionen

TCO, PTK

EURO-MEI

SI

ZDUS

 

FIA

GLOSA

ZSSS

FIA, (EURO-MEI), (FIM)

SUKI-GLOSA

(ZSSS)

EURO-MEI

GLOSA-SKG

(ZSSS)

FIM

SVIZ

KSJSK

FIM, ETUCE

SKUU RTVS

   
SK

SOZ SP

KOZ SR

EURO-MEI

HOS

 

FIA

OZ PHS

 

FIM

UK

BECTU

TUC, GFTU, ICTU, STUC

EURO-MEI

Equity

TUC

FIA

MU

TUC

FIM

WGGB

TUC

EURO-MEI, FSE, EWC

Notes: Affiliation in brackets indicates indirect affiliation via higher- or lower-order unit.

* Only cross-sectoral (that is, peak level) associations are listed.

** Sectoral associations only

Source: EIRO national centres (2012)

Table 12: Affiliations of employer/ business organisations, 2010–2011
       
AT

WBV

 

PEARLE*

TV

 

PEARLE*

VVAT

 

Hotrec

FGWKKV

WKÖ

 
BE

ABS/BSV

(UNIZO)

PEARLE*

CPEPAF

   

OKO

UNIZO

PEARLE*

BG

BAROK

BIA

PEARLE*

CY

   
CZ

APD CR

KZPS CR

PEARLE*

ASOPS

(KZPS CR)

PEARLE*

DE

DBV

BDA

PEARLE*

TdL

 

EFEE

VKA

 

CEEP

DHV

 

ESA

BDZV

BDA

ENPA

VDZ

BDA

EMMA

DK

DTF

 

PEARLE*

LOF

 

PEARLE*

TIO

Dansk Erhverv

 
EE

EETEAL

ETTK

PEARLE*

EL

PEETH

   

METHEXI

   
ES

FAETEDA

CEOE

PEARLE*

AEOS

 

PEARLE*

FASYDE

CEOE

 
FI

MaRa

EK

Hotrec

PTY

   

ST

 

PEARLE*

KT LGE

 

CEEP, CEMR, HOSPEEM, EFEE

SUOSIO

KT LGE

PEARLE*

HPL

EK

EuroCiett

FR

SYNOLYR

 

PEARLE*

SYNDEAC

 

PEARLE*

SMA

   

AFO

 

PEARLE*

CPDO

 

PEARLE*

PRODISS

 

PEARLE*

PROFEDIM

 

PEARLE*

SDTP

 

PEARLE*

SNSP

 

PEARLE*

SNES

 

PEARLE*

CSCAD

   

SYNAVI

   

SCC

   
HU

MSzZSz

 

PEARLE*

IE

IBEC

 

Eurocommerce

IT

AGIS

Confindustria Cultura Italia

PEARLE*

ANFOLS

   

FIPE

Confcommercio, Confturismo

Hotrec

UNCI

   

UNSIC

   

CSCI

   

CONFEDIA

   

ANI.Coop

   
LT

   
LU

FLTP

 

PEARLE*

LV

   
MT

   
NL

NAPK

 

PEARLE*

VSCD

 

PEARLE*

PL

ZFP

 

PEARLE*

PT

   
RO

   
SE

Danscentrum

   

Teatercentrum

 

EON

SVS

 

PEARLE*

SI

   
SK

ARPOS

 

PEARLE*

UK

ABO

NCVO, NCA

PEARLE*

FST

 

PEARLE*

ITC

 

PEARLE* a

SOLT

 

PEARLE*

TMA

 

PEARLE*

Notes: Affiliation in brackets indicates indirect affiliation via higher- or lower-order unit.

* Only cross-sectoral (that is, peak level) associations are listed.

** Sectoral associations only.

aNo affiliate according to PEARLE*, but affiliation to PEARLE* confirmed by UK EIRO correspondent.

Source: EIRO national centres (2012), administrative data and estimates

Membership domain

The membership domain of EURO-MEI (part of the comprehensive skills and services trade union organisation UNI Europa) covers – in terms of business activities – the entire entertainment and media sector, including live performance as defined for the purpose of this study. So although its focus is on technical professions, there is an overlap with the live performance sector.

According to its membership domain as laid down in its statutes, FIM covers – as an international organisation – all ‘musicians’ unions and equivalent representative organisations from all countries’. As its domain also includes part of the audiovisual sector, its domain sectionalistically overlaps with regard to the live performance sector.

The same is true of FIA, which, according to its constitution, claims to represent ‘all national unions representing the interests of artists’ (again including part of the audiovisual sector in terms of business activities).

On the employer side, although its membership domain is not demarcated precisely by its articles of association, it appears that the domain of PEARLE* is largely congruent with the live performance sector. It organises only employer organisations rather than individual companies.

Membership composition

Although the membership of EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM extends beyond the EU27, this report considers only the members of the 27 Member States.

For EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM, Table 13 documents a list of membership of sector-related trade unions drawn from the country reports. Accordingly, for the three European-level labour organisations at least one direct affiliation is recorded in 20, 24 and 22 countries, respectively. Multiple memberships occur in particular with regard to EURO-MEI and FIA, with 10 countries each recording a pluralist membership system, whereby with regard to EURO-MEI in some cases it remains unclear whether the affiliation refers actually to the live performance sector or any other business activity (such as media or the audiovisual sector). In total, EURO-MEI has 36 direct sector-related affiliations from the countries under examination. (It should be noted that the list of sector-related affiliates to EURO-MEI as compiled for the purpose of this study somewhat differs from the list of sector-related members as provided by EURO-MEI itself. This is partially because in some cases EURO-MEI lists higher-level units (that is, trade union confederations) or lower-level units (subunits) rather than their sector-related affiliates as identified by the respective national correspondents. Moreover, in some cases the national correspondents have denied the sector-relatedness of a union, such that this union is not taken into account in this report, although it is included in the list of members provided by EURO-MEI. Such inconsistencies may also apply to the other sector-related European-level trade union organisations.)

FIA and FIM have 36 and 31 direct members, respectively, of the 27 Member States. Each of the three European-level trade union organisations thus covers at least one-fourth of the trade unions listed in Tables 4, 7 and 11 through direct affiliation. Moreover, they generally cover the largest Member States through affiliations of trade unions from these countries. The vast majority of the direct members of EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM are directly involved in collective bargaining related to the live performance sector. However, due to the lack of available sectoral membership and density data for many unions, one cannot conclude whether these European-level organisations cover the sector’s most important national labour representatives or not.

Table 13: EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM membership, 2010–2011
 

EURO-MEI

FIA

FIM

AT

GdG-KMSfB *

GdG-KMSfB *

GdG-KMSfB *

BE

SETCa/BBTK,* CGSP/ACOD,* ACOD/VRT,* CGSP/RTBF,* CSC/ACV Transcom-Culture,* CNE/LBC *

CGSP/ACOD,* ACOD/VRT,* CGSP/RTBF,* CSC/ACV Transcom-Culture *

CGSP/ACOD,* ACOD/VRT,* CGSP/RTBF,* CSC/ACV Transcom-Culture *

BG

UBMD,* CL Podkrepa – Federation Culture *

UBA **

UBMD,* CL Podkrepa – Federation Culture *

CY

EHK/AUC *

PASYNEK

CZ

HA ***

DE

ver.di *

ver.di,* GDB *

ver.di,* DOV *

DK

TL,* DJOEF

DAF,* DSF *

DMF *

EE

ETL *

ENL,* EKTL

ES

FeS-UGT,* FSC-CCOO,* ELA-STV **

FSC-CCOO,* FAEE,* OSAAEE *

FSC-CCOO,* UMC

FI

TEME *

(TEME *), SNL *

SML *

FR

SNTR-SGTIF,* SYNPTAC-CGT,* SNAPAC-CFDT,* FASAP-FO *

SFA-CGT,* SNAM-CGT *

SNAM-CGT *

GR

PROSPERT *

HAU *

PMU *

HU

SziDoSz *

MZTSZ *

IE

SIPTU *

SIPTU *

(SIPTU *)

IT

SLC-CGIL,* FISTEL-CISL *

SAI *

SLC-CGIL *

LT

LU

(OGBL-FLTL)

LV

LKDAF *

LKDAF,* LAA ** a

LKDAF *

MT

GWU *

GWU *

NL

FNV Kiem,* FNV Mondiaal

FNV Kiem *

FNV Kiem,* KNTV *

PL

FZZPKiS *

ZZAP *

ZZST Forum

PT

STE

CENA *

RO

(USRC *), FAIR,* USIS *

(USRC *), FAIR *

SE

TF, * Unionen *

TF *

SYMF,* SMF *

SI

(GLOSA *), SUKI-GLOSA

ZDUS, GLOSA *

(GLOSA *), GLOSA-SKG, SVIZ *

SK

SOZ SP *

HOS

OZ PHS *

UK

BECTU,* WGGB *

Equity *

MU *

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

Organisation in brackets indicates indirect affiliation via a higher- or lower-order unit.

* Involved in sector-related collective bargaining

** No information available on involvement in collective bargaining

*** Indirect collective bargaining involvement at company level via lower-order units.

aNo trade union according to EIRO national correspondent

Source: EIRO national centres (2012)

Table 14 lists the members of PEARLE*. Of the 27 countries being considered, PEARLE* has 18 under its umbrella through direct associational members from these countries and nine countries are not covered. Multiple memberships occur in a number of countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Netherlands, Spain, UK). Two affiliates co-exist in all these countries apart from France (nine affiliates) and the UK (five affiliates – although PEARLE* only acknowledges four UK affiliates).

Table 14: PEARLE* membership, 2010–2011
   
AT

WBV,* TV *

BE

ABS/BSV,* OKO *

BG

BAROK *

CY

CZ

APD CR, ASOPS

DE

DBV *

DK

DTF,* LOF *

EE

EETEAL *

ES

FAETEDA,** AEOS

FI

ST,* SUOSIO *

FR

SYNOLYR,* SYNDEAC,* AFO, CPDO,* PRODISS,* PROFEDIM,* SDTP,* SNSP,* SNES *

GR

HU

MSzZSz *

IE

IT

AGIS *a

LT

LU

FLTP

LV

MT

NL

NAPK,* VSCD *

PL

ZFP a

PT

RO

SE

SVS *

SI

SK

ARPOS

UK

ABO,* FST,*** ITC,*b SOLT,* TMA *

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

* Involved in sector-related collective bargaining

** Indirect collective bargaining involvement via lower-order units

*** No information available on involvement in collective bargaining

aPEARLE* affiliate since June 2012

bNo affiliate according to PEARLE*, but affiliation to PEARLE* confirmed by UK EIRO correspondent

Source: EIRO national centres (2012)

According to the EIRO country reports, PEARLE* counts 37 direct associational members from the EU27 – though its website listed 34 direct affiliates from the EU27 as of the time of writing (November 2012).

Table 12 indicates that affiliated and unaffiliated associations co-exist in a series of countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Spain and Sweden. However, sectoral membership data of the respective organisations of these countries do not provide a clear indication of whether the most important associations are affiliated. In several countries some important or even all employer organisations which conduct bargaining are not affiliated to PEARLE*. There are also a number of countries (Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Spain) where one or more affiliates of PEARLE* are not engaged in bargaining.

Employer/business organisations that are not involved in collective bargaining may regard themselves as trade associations rather than as industrial relations actors. Of the 37 direct affiliates of PEARLE*, 29 are involved in sector-related collective bargaining. Thus, as is the case of its counterparts on the labour side (that is, EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM), PEARLE*’s proportion of member organisations that are involved in sector-related collective bargaining is high.

PEARLE* members cover collective bargaining in 14 of the 18 countries which record affiliations to this European-level employer organisation (see also Table 8). However, there are a number of sector-related employer organisations across the EU not affiliated to PEARLE* which are involved in sector-related collective bargaining and thus have to be regarded as relevant actors within the sector.

Capacity to negotiate

The third criterion of representativeness at the European level refers to the organisations’ capacity to negotiate on behalf of its members.

On the side of organised labour, EURO-MEI is equipped with an implicit rather than explicit permanent mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members in matters of the European social dialogue. According to Article 3 of the EURO-MEI statutes, the collective interest representation on behalf of its members is ensured for the European region by the European Executive Committee elected by the General Assembly of affiliates for a four-year period. This mandate covers the representation of all collective interests, including social dialogue.

Likewise the constitution of FIA does not explicitly grant this organisation a general mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members. Nevertheless, any negotiation carried out by FIA invariably involves a de facto consultation with and direct participation of the members (or at least the most accountable of them) as advisers on the various questions at stake. Hence, there is no need to ask for special mandates in order to enter negotiations on their behalf.

In the case of FIM, its rules stipulate that the organisation is committed to enter ‘into agreements with other international organisations in the interests of member unions and of the profession’. The FIM General Secretariat interprets this provision as a general mandate for negotiations on behalf of its members. Apart from the formal side of the mandate, the Secretariat consults with its members before eventually endorsing any agreement.

On the employer side, no explicit provisions on a general negotiating mandate are laid down in the PEARLE* statutes. However, according to PEARLE* director, an ad hoc mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members can be assigned on a case-by-case basis.

Thus, all the sector-related European-level interest organisations on the two sides of industry are, in principle, capable of negotiating and acting on behalf of their members with regard to the European social dialogue.

As a final proof of the weight of these four organisations, it is useful to look at other European organisations which 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 11 which shows that European organisations other than EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM represent a relatively small proportion of both sector-related trade unions and countries. For reasons of brevity, only those European organisations which cover at least three countries are mentioned here. This involves only two organisations – the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), with eight affiliations covering six countries and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), with three affiliations covering three countries. Although the affiliations listed in Table 11 are not likely to be exhaustive, this overview underlines the principal status of EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM as the sector’s labour representatives. This is mainly because many of the affiliations to other European organisations noted above, in particular the public sector union EPSU, reflect the overlapping domains of the affiliates (see Table 4) rather than a real applicability of the affiliations as such to the live performance sector.

An equivalent review of the membership of the national employer/business associations can be derived from Table 12. Most of them have only a few affiliations to European associations other than PEARLE*. Thus there is only one additional European association which covers three countries – the European Trade Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés (Hotrec), which has three affiliations covering three countries. But in terms of both the number of affiliations as well as territorial coverage, Hotrec lags far behind PEARLE*.

In conclusion, EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM, together forming the EAEA, on the employee side and PEARLE* on the employer side are by far the most important sector-related European organisations.


Commentary

Compared with other sectors, the representational system of the relatively small live performance sector has a number of major properties.

First, pronounced pluralism characterises the associational systems of both labour and business at national level. This high associational fragmentation ensues from a pronounced differentiation in terms of both employment market along numerous well-demarcated occupations and business activities within the sector. Moreover, the sector is divided into a public and a commercial segment, which also fosters proliferation tendencies with regard to the associational ‘landscape’. But as long as live performance establishments are publicly owned and funded, the managers of these performing arts organisations often lack sufficient autonomy in terms of setting pay and employment terms – at least in some southern European countries. This is because the authorities rather than the establishments and their management have an important say in the process of bargaining and employment regulation, since the staff of these establishments are often civil servants. As far as the authorities negotiate with the trade unions, there is no incentive in various southern European countries to establish employer organisations in the public segment of the sector (see EAEA and PEARLE* survey (725KB PDF)).

Second, the associations on both sides of industry are characterised by very narrow membership domains, which tend to be tailored to their constituency. This tends to foster densities, since smaller interest organisations can set selective incentives to (potential) members more easily than larger, general organisations. However, the study reveals that densities tend to be relatively low, at least on the part of organised labour. This may be explained by the high incidence of freelance and self-employed workers as well as the often dispersed nature of employment in live performance.

Third, relatively low levels of organisation combined with a highly fragmented associational ‘landscape’ translate into relatively low levels of collective bargaining within highly fragmented bargaining systems. The figures on cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage in the EU27, as presented in the EIRO industrial relations profiles for each Member State, indicate that the live performance sector’s bargaining coverage is lower than the national overall collective bargaining coverage rates in 11 out of 20 countries for which comparable data are available. In turn, five of these countries register higher sectoral than overall rates, while for four countries the two rates are largely equal. In general, collective bargaining coverage rates in the sector tend to rise with the predominance of multi-employer arrangements and a significant use of extension practices. However, the data provided in the EIRO industrial relations profiles have not been subject to a thorough validation procedure and since more reliable information on national cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage rates tends to be outdated, this report refers to information provided by EIRO national correspondents.

Although the recent recession has to some extent had an impact on the live performance sector (manifested in cuts in public funding and increasing pressure on the labour market in several Member States), neither significant employment effects (in terms of absolute numbers of job losses) nor major effects on the national industrial relations systems within the sector have been observed.

At European level, the sector’s social partners (EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM on the employees’ side and PEARLE* on the employers’ side) set up a joint sectoral social dialogue committee in 1999 to better cope with the challenges facing the sector. The committee has met regularly since then and launched various initiatives.

The recent outcomes of the committee work of the four European associations involved include reports and surveys, joint statements and declarations, action plans and joint projects on issues such as lifelong learning, job creation and promotion as well as the situation of the social dialogue within the sector. Compared with all other European social partner organisations, the study concludes that the EAEA (comprising EURO-MEI, FIA and FIM) and PEARLE* remain unchallenged in their position as EU-wide representatives of the sector’s employees and employers respectively.


References

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

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

Georg Adam, Vienna, in cooperation with the Università degli Studi di Milano


Annex: List of abbreviations

Country Abbreviation Full Name
AT

FGWKKV

Vienna branch of the WKÖ sectoral subunit ‘Cinemas, cultural institutions and entertainment companies’

 

GdG-KMSfB

Union for Municipal Employees and the small Arts, Media, Sports and Liberal Professions

 

ÖGB

Austrian Trade Union Federation

 

TV

Association of Theatre Maintainers of Austrian Provinces and Cities

 

VVAT

Association of Event Organisers in Austria

 

WBV

Vienna Stage Association

 

WKÖ

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber

BE

ABS/BSV

Belgian Performing Association

 

ACOD/VRT

Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers – Flemish Radio and Television Organisation

     
 

CGSLB/ACLVB

Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium

 

CGSP/ACOD

General Confederation of Public Services

 

CGSP/RTBF

Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers – French Belgian Radio and Television

 

CNE/LBC

National Federation of White-Collar Workers

 

CPEPAF

Chamber of Permanent Employers of French-speaking Performing Arts

 

CSC/ACV

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions

 

FGTB/ABVV

Belgian General Federation of Labour

 

OKO

Performing Arts Employers Organisation

 

SETCa-BBTK

Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers

 

UNIZO

Organisation of Self-Employed

BG

BAROK

Bulgarian Association of Employers in the Field of Culture

 

BIA

Bulgarian Industrial Association

 

CITUB

Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria

 

CL Podkrepa

Confederation of Labour ‘Podkrepa’

 

UBA

Union of Bulgarian Actors

 

UBMD

Union of Bulgarian Musicians and Dancers

CY

EHK/AUC

Actors’ Union of Cyprus

 

PASEY

Pancyprian Union of Services Workers

 

PASYNEK

Pancyprian Union of Professional Artists

 

PEO

Pancyprian Federation of Labour

 

SEK

Cyprus Workers’ Federation

 

SIDIKEK

Local Authority Workers’ Trade Union

 

SYTHOC-OHO

Union of Cyprus Theatre Organisations – Federation of Semi-State Organisations

CZ

APD CR

Association of Professional Theatres of the Czech Republic

 

ASOPS

Association of Symphony Orchestras and Choirs of the Czech Republic

 

CMKOS

Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions

 

HA

Actors’ Association

 

KZPS CR

Confederation of the Employers’ and Entrepreneurs’ Associations

 

OS PKOP

Trade Union of Workers in Culture and Nature Protection

 

OS PKZ

Trade Union of Workers on Cultural Facilities

 

OS VUOK

Trade Union of Workers in Production and Specialised Organisations of Culture

 

Unie OH CR

Union of Orchestral Musicians of the Czech Republic

 

Unie OSPZ CR

Union of Professional Singers of the Czech Republic

DE

BDA

German Confederation of Employers’ Associations

 

BDZV

German Newspaper Publishers’ Association

 

DBV

German Stage Society – Federal Association of German Theatres

 

DGB

German Trade Union Federation

 

DHV

German Spa Association

 

DJV

German Association of Journalists

 

DOV

German Orchestra Association

 

GDBA

Cooperative of German Stage Employees

 

TdL

Employer Association of German Länder

 

VdO

Association of German Opera Choruses and Stage Dancers

 

VDZ

Association of German Magazine Publishers

 

ver.di

United Services Union

 

VKA

Confederation of Municipal Employers’ Associations

DK

AC

Danish Confederation of Professional Associations

 

DAF

Danish Artists’ Union

 

DJ

Danish Union of Journalists

 

DJOEF

Danish Association of Lawyers and Economists

 

DMF

Danish Musicians’ Union

 

DSF

Danish Actors’ Association

 

DTF

Danish Association of Theatres

 

Dansk Erhverv

Danish Chamber of Commerce

 

FDS

Association of Danish Stage Directors

 

FTF

Confederation of Professionals

 

LO

Danish Confederation of Trade Unions

 

LOF

Association of Danish Regional Symphony Orchestras

 

SDS

Association of Danish Scenographers

 

TIO

Theatres’ Interest Association

 

TL

Danish Association of Professional Technicians

EE

EETEAL

Estonian Association of Performing Arts Institutions

 

EKTL

Estonian Professional Dancers Union

 

ELL

Estonian Theatre Directors’ Union

 

ENL

Estonian Actors Union

 

ETL

Estonian Theatre Union

 

ETTK

Estonian Employers’ Confederation

 

TALO

Estonian Employees’ Unions’ Confederation

ES

AAG

Association of Actors of the Galicia

 

AEOS

Association of Spanish Symphony Orchestras

 

CCOO

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

CEOE

Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations

 

CIG

Federation of Services of the Galician Inter-union Confederation

 

ELA STV

Basque Workers’ Solidarity

 

FAEE

Federation of Artists of the Spanish State

 

FAETEDA

State Federation of Associations of Theatre and Dance Production Enterprises

 

FASYDE

Federation of Night Clubs and Discos of Spain

 

FeS-UGT

Federation of Services of the General Workers’ Confederation

 

FSC-CCOO

Federation of Citizen Services of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

OSAAEE

Trade Union Organisation of Actors of the Spanish State

 

UMC

Catalan Musicians’ Union

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

FI

EK

Confederation of Finnish Industries

 

HPL

Private Employment Agencies Association

 

KT LGE

KT Local Government Employers

 

MaRa

Finnish Hospitality Association

 

PTY

Employers’ Association for Service Enterprises

 

SAK

Confederation of Finnish Trade Unions

 

SML

Finnish Musicians Union

 

SNL

Union of Finish Actors

 

ST

Association of Finnish Theatres

 

SUOSIO

Association of Finnish Symphony Orchestras

 

TEME

Theatre and Media Employees in Finland

FR

AFO

French Association of Orchestras

 

CFDT

French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

CFE-CGC

Confédération Francaise de l’Encadrement – Confédération Générale des Cadres

 

CFTC

French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

CGT

General Confederation of Labour

 

CSCAD

Union of Artistic Cabarets and Night Clubs

 

CPDO

Professional Chamber of Opera Directors

 

FASAP FO

Federation ‘Force Ouvrière’ for Arts, Shows, Audiovisual Sector, Press, Communication and Multimedia

 

FCCS

Federation of Culture, Communication and Live Performance

 

FEDECOM

Communication Union CFTC

 

FO

Force Ouvrière

 

PROFEDIM

Professional Union of Producers, Festivals, Ensembles, Distributors of Independent Music

 

PRODISS

National Union of Producers, Distributors and Theatres

 

SCC

Union of Circusses

 

SDTP

National Union of Theatre Directors

 

SFA-CGT

French Union of Performing Artists

 

SIA-UNSA

Independent Union of Artists and Performers

 

SMA

Union of Contemporary Music

 

SNAA-FO

National Union of Artistic Activities

 

SNAM-CGT

National Federation of Musician Artists’ Unions

 

SNAPAC-CFDT

National Union of Artists and Professionals of Entertainment, Sport and Culture

 

SNES

Association of Live Performance Managers

 

SNM-FO

National Musicians’ Union ‘Force Ouvrière’

 

SNSP

Association of Public Stages

 

SNSV-FO

National Union of Live Performance ‘Force Ouvrière’

 

SNTR-SGTIF

National Union of Technical Directors – General Union of Workers in the Film Industry

 

SUD Culture

United, Democratic and Unitary Culture and Media Solidarity Union

 

SYNAVI

Association of Performing Arts

 

SYNDEAC

National Union of Artistic and Cultural Companies

 

SYNOLYR

National Employer Organisation for Orchestras and Operas

 

SYNPTAC-CGT

National Union of Theatre and Cultural Activities Workers

 

UNSA

Union Nationale des Syndicats Autonomes

GR

GSEE

Greek General Confederation of Labour

 

HAU

Hellenic Actors’ Union

 

METHEXI

Pan-Hellenic Night Club Owners’ Association

 

PEETH

Pan-Hellenic Union of Free Theatres

 

PEM OTA

Pan-Hellenic Union of Musicians of Local Authorities

 

PMU

Pan-Hellenic Musicians’ Union

 

PROSPERT

Pan-Hellenic Federation of Employees’ Associations of Radio and Television Broadcasting Corporations

 

SETETH

Union of Greek Theatrical Technicians

HU

MZTSZ

Union of Hungarian Musicians and Dancers

 

MSzZSz

Hungarian Association of Symphony Orchestras

 

SZEF

Trade Union Cooperation Forum

 

SziDoSz

Theatre Workers’ Union

IE

IBEC

Irish Business and Employers Confederation

 

ICTU

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

 

SIPTU

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

 

TEEU

Technical Engineering and Electrical Union

IT

AGIS

General Italian Association of Show Business

 

ANFOLS

National Association of Opera and Symphonic Foundations

 

ANI.Coop

National Italian Association of Cooperatives

 

CGIL

General Confederation of Italian Workers

 

CISAL

Italian Confederation of Autonomous Unions

 

CISL

Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions

 

Confcommercio

Confcommercio

 

Confindustria

General Confederation of Italian Industry

 

CONFEDIA

National Employer Confederation of Autonomous Enterprises

 

CONFSAL

General Trade Union Confederation of Autonomous Unions

 

Confturismo

Confturismo

 

CSCI

Confederation of Commerce and Enterprise

 

FESICA

Federation of Industrial, Commercial and Artisan Trade Unions

 

FIALS

Show Business Workers - CISAL

 

FIPE

Italian Federation of Commercial Business

 

FISALS

Italian Federation of Autonomous Trade Unions for Foreign Workers

 

FISTEL

Press, Telecommunications and Show Business - CISL

 

LIBERSIND

Show Business, Visual Arts, Information, Sports - CONFSAL

 

SAI

Italian Actors’ Union

 

SIAM

Trade Union of Italian Musical Artists

 

SLC

Communication Workers Union

 

UIL

Italian Union of Workers

 

UILCOM

Italian Union of Workers – Communication

 

UNCI

National Union of Italian Cooperatives

 

UNSIC

Union of National Farmers’ Unions and Entrepreneurs

LT

LZS

Lithuanian Journalists Union

LU

FLTP

Theatre Federation

 

OGBL

Independent Luxembourg Union Federation

 

OGBL-FLTL

Independent Luxembourg Union Federation – Trade Union of Printing Houses, Media and Culture

LV

LAA

Latvian Actors’ Association

 

LBAS

Free Trade Union Federation of Latvia

 

LKDAF

Latvian Trade Union Federation for People Engaged in Cultural Activities

MT

GWU

General Workers’ Union

NL

FNV

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions

 

FNV Kiem

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions – Union for the Arts, Entertainment, Information and Media

 

FNV Mondiaal

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions – Mondiaal

 

KNTV

Royal Dutch Association of Musicians

 

NAPK

Dutch Association for Performing Arts

 

VSCD

Dutch Association of Theatres and Concert Halls

PL

FZZPKiS

Federation of Trade Unions of Workers of Culture and the Arts

 

KSPIA NSZZ Solidarnosc

Domestic Section of Workers of Artistic Institutions of the Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarnosc

 

OPZZ

All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions

 

ZFP

Polish Philharmonics Society

 

ZZAP

Trade Union of Polish Actors

 

ZZST Forum

Union of Associated Artists Forum

PT

CENA

Union of Professionals in Live Performance and Audiovisual

 

CGTP

General Portuguese Workers’ Confederation

 

STE

Union of Live Performance Workers

RO

BNS

National Trade Union Bloc

 

FAIR

Federation of Performing Artists Unions of Romania

 

USIS

Associated Unions of Performing Establishments

 

USRC

Association of Culture Industry Trade Unions

SE

Danscentrum

Danscentrum – Network of Independent Dance Employers

 

DIK

Swedish Trade Union for University Graduates in the Fields of Documentation, Information and Culture

 

LO

Swedish Trade Union Confederation

 

OFR

Public Employees’ Negotiation Council

 

PTK

Council for Negotiation and Cooperation

 

SACO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations

 

SMF

Swedish Union for Musicians

 

SVS

Swedish Performing Arts

 

SYMF

Swedish Union for Professional Musicians

 

Teatercentrum

Teatercentrum – Centre for Independent Theatres

 

TCO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees

 

TF

Swedish Union for Theatre, Artists and Media

 

Unionen

Trade Union for Professionals in the Private Sector

SI

GLOSA

Union of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia

 

GLOSA-SKG

Union Conference of Musicians at Union GLOSA

 

SKUU RTVS

Union of Cultural and Artistic Creators of RTV Slovenia

 

SVIZ

Education, Science and Culture Trade Union of Slovenia

 

SUKI-GLOSA

Union Conference of Freelance Workers in Culture and Media at GLOSA

 

ZDUS

Slovenian Association of Dramatic Artists

 

ZSSS

Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia

SK

ARPOS

Association of Slovak Professional Orchestra Directors

 

HOS

Actors’ Union of Slovakia

 

KOZ SR

Confederation of Trade Unions

 

OZ PHS

Union of Professional Musicians of Slovakia

 

SOZ SP

Slovak Trade Union for Arts and Entertainment

UK

ABO

Association of British Orchestras

 

BECTU

Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union

 

Equity

Equity

 

FST

Federation of Scottish Theatre

 

GFTU

General Federation of Trade Unions

 

ICTU

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

 

ITC

Independent Theatre Council

 

MU

Musicians’ Union

 

NCA

National Campaign for the Arts

 

NCVO

National Council for Voluntary Organisations

 

SOLT

Society of London Theatre

 

STUC

Scotland’s Trade Union Centre

 

TMA

Theatrical Management Association

 

TUC

Trades Union Congress

 

WGGB

Writers’ Guild of Great Britain

     
EUROPE    
 

CEEP

European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest

 

CEMR

Council of European Municipalities and Regions

 

CESI

European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions

 

EAEA

European Arts and Entertainment Alliance

 

EFBWW

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

 

EFFAT

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

 

EFEE

European Federation of Education Employers

 

EFJ

European Federation of Journalists

 

EMCEF

European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation

 

EMF

European Metalworkers’ Federation

 

EMMA

European Mobile Media Association

 

ENCATC

European Network on Cultural Administration Training Centres

 

ENPA

European Newspaper Publishers Association

 

EON

European Off Network for Independent Theatre Makers

 

EPSU

European Federation of Public Service Unions

 

ESA

European Spas Association

 

ETF

European Transport Workers’ Federation

 

ETUCE

European Trade Union Committee for Education

 

Eurocadres

Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff

 

EuroCiett

European Confederation of Private Employment Agencies

 

EuroCommerce

EuroCommerce - The Retail, Wholesale and International Trade Representation to the EU

 

Eurofedop

European Federation of Employees in the Public Service

 

EURO-MEI

European Federation of the Media and Entertainment International – Technical Professions of the Entertainment Sector

 

EWC

European Writers’ Council

 

FERA

Federation of European Film Directors

 

FERPA

European Confederation of Retired and Older Persons

 

FIA

International Federation of Actors

 

FIFPro

International Federation of Professional Footballers’ Associations

 

FIM

International Federation of Musicians

 

FSE

Fédération des Scénaristes d’Europe

 

Hospeem

European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ Association

 

Hotrec

European Trade Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés

 

PEARLE*

Performing Arts Employers Associations League Europe

 

UNI Europa

Union Network International – Europe

EF/13/16/EN

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

Komentuoti