Publications

Following negotiations with the Education Minister, 3,300 unemployed supply
teachers won the right in late January 1997 to be temporarily reinstated in
their jobs.

Compared to many other western industrialised countries, Germany has the
image of being a high-wage economy with a relatively low inequality of
incomes and living standards. This is mainly the result of the German system
of branch-level central collective bargaining (Flächentarifvertrag), where
almost all employees in any sector receive the same basic payment.
Nevertheless, it is not widely known that there is still a large number of
sectors and areas of employment where collectively-agreed basic wages and
salaries are relatively low. This is the main finding of a recent study by
the Institute for Economics and Social Science (Wirtschafts- und
Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut,WSI) on low wages in Germany
("Niedriglöhne. Die unbekannte Realität: Armut trotz Arbeit", Gerd Pohl &
Claus Schäfer (eds), VSA-Verlag Hamburg (1996)). The study was inspired by
the European Commission which, in 1993, adopted an Opinion on an equitable
wage, the main purpose of which was "to outline certain basic principles on
equitable wages, while taking into account social and economic realities".

The Ford Motor Company announced on 16 January 1997 that it was to cut 1,300
jobs at its Halewood plant on Merseyside (in the north-west of England) This
was after five days of speculation following a report in the /Observer/
newspaper that Ford wanted to install new efficient working practices, and
that it would threaten to build its new -generation Escort model elsewhere,
or close the plant altogether if trade unions did not agree to concessions.
It was confirmed on 16 January that production of the new-model Escort would
not include Halewood but instead be located at Saarlouis (Germany) and
Valencia (Spain), and furthermore that Halewood would also immediately reduce
its shift pattern to one shift per day. Because production of the old-model
Escort is due to be phased out by 2000, there appears to be a real threat of
the plant closing down altogether

The agreement was concluded on 11 February 1997 and sets out the ways in
which the financial recovery, growth and modernisation of the Italian rail
system will be brought about in line with the guidelines of the 1991
Directive on the development of Community railways (440/91/EEC). The deal was
signed by the Ministry of Transport, the state railways board (FS), and the
following railway trade union organisations: CGIL (the General Confederation
of Italian Workers); CISL (the Italian Confederation of Workers' Unions); UIL
(the Union of Italian Workers); the three confederations' respective sectoral
organisations - Filt-Cgil, Fit-Cisl and Uilt-Uil; and three non-confederal
organisations - Fisafs-Cisal (the autonomous rail trade union), Comu
(theUnited Train Drivers' Committee) and Sma ( the Train Drivers' Trade
Union).

Figures from the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (
Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon or NHO) show that over 530,000 working days
were lost in industrial conflict during the 1996 wage negotiations. These
figures cover only private sector companies which are members of NHO, but
nearly all industrial conflicts in 1996 took place within this area. This is
the highest number of working days lost since 1986, when Norway experienced a
major lockout in the private sector. In 1996, lawful strikes accounted for
all the lost working days, and the number of working days lost in strikes
alone (ie, excluding lock-outs) is thus the highest since the 1930s. The
major strikes all came in the private sector and among unions affiliated to
the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, or
LO). The Government did not, as often before, intervene to stop strikes with
compulsory arbitration. Three strikes accounted for the majority of lost
working days. These came in the metal industry, the hotel and restaurant
industry and in the electrical installation industry.

Some Portuguese sectors have been characterised by a widespread move away
from standard, regular and permanent jobs towards temporary forms of
employment, including irregular and casual work, homeworking and certain
forms of self-employment. These developments are the result of an interplay
between macroeconomic conditions, company strategy and labour legislation.
However, pressure is mounting amongst the social partners to counter further
fragmentation of standard employment statuses.

Late in 1996, Parliament passed legislation providing for changes in the
Employment Security Act that aroused the anger of the trade unions. Although
most of the new provisions apply from 1 January 1997, the most controversial
modification, in Section 2 of the Act, will not come into force until 1 July.
This will give trade unions and employers more time to adapt to the new rule
in the legislation which deals with the level of central bargaining and
collective agreements.

The Institute for Economics and Social Science (Wirtschafts- und
Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut, WSI) has recently published its annual
examination of the previous collective bargaining round. It paints a rather
mixed picture of 1996, a year in which collective bargaining was overshadowed
by continuing relatively poor economic performance and a further increase in
unemployment. GDP grew by only 1.4% over the year, while at the end of the
year more than 4 million people were officially registered as unemployed.

In January 1997, the cement company, Blue Circle (BCC), and two of Britain's
largest trade unions, the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) and the
General Municipal and Boilermakers Union (GMB), agreed what has been
described as a "ground breaking" deal which gives a guarantee of job
security, in return for pay restraint and more flexible working arrangements.
Both the unions and the Labour Party see the agreement as a model for future
employee relations, which could go some way towards reviving the fortunes of
the British economy.

For the first time since 1960, the Belgian social partners have failed to
reach an intersectoral pay agreement and have instead accepted government
imposition of measures on employment and maximum pay increases. This
development runs counter to all traditions of free collective bargaining and
the autonomy of both sides of industry. It also appears to reinforce the
trend towards sector-level bargaining, away from intersectoral or
central-level bargaining, thereby widening the disparities between strong and
weak sectors.