Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Hospitals

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Industrial relations,
  • Representativeness,
  • Date of Publication: 27 May 2009



About
Author:
Franz Traxler
Institution:

This report examines the role of social partner associations and collective bargaining in the economic subsector of hospital activities. The study first outlines the economic background of the sector. It then describes the relevant social partner associations in all EU Member States, focusing in particular on membership levels, their role in collective bargaining and public policy, and their national and European affiliations. The final section analyses the relevant European associations, in terms of membership composition and capacity to negotiate. The aim of the EIRO representativeness studies is to identify the relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in the field of industrial relations in selected sectors. The impetus of these studies arises from the European Commission objective to recognise the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the EC Treaty provisions. Hence, this study is designed to provide the basic information required to establish sectoral social dialogue.

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

Download the full report (402KB PDF)

National contributions may be available


Objectives of study

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

Against this background, this study addresses two main tasks. The first is to identify the relevant national and European associations on both sides of industry – in other words, the social partner associations. Secondly, the structure of the sector’s relevant European associations, in particular their composition of membership, will be analysed. This involves clarifying the unit of analysis at both the national and European level of interest representation. The study includes only associations whose membership domain is ‘sector-related’ (see below). At both national and European level, a multiplicity of associations exist that are not social partner organisations in the sense that they essentially deal with industrial relations. Thus, the need arises for clear-cut criteria which will enable analysis to differentiate the social partner organisations from other associations.

As regards the national level, classification as a sector-related social partner organisation implies fulfilling one of two criteria. The organisations 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 European Commission’s list of European social partner organisations consulted under Article 138 of the EC Treaty, and/or that participates in the sector-related European social dialogue. Taking affiliation to a European social partner organisation as a sufficient criterion for determining a national association as a social partner implies that such an association may not be involved at all in industrial relations in its own country. Hence, this selection criterion may seem odd at first glance. However, if a national association is a member of a European social partner organisation, it becomes involved in industrial relations matters through its membership in 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, since they 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 European social partner organisations, as defined above, as well as any other sector-related European association which has under its umbrella sector-related national social partner organisations – also defined above. Therefore, the study design to identify the sector-related national and European social partner organisations is both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’.

For a comparative analysis of the hospital sector, the reference to collective bargaining raises a conceptual problem which generally applies to the public sector or certain parts of it in several countries where collective bargaining in the genuine sense is not established. Collective bargaining in the genuine sense implies joint regulation of the employment terms, resulting from negotiations between parties with equal bargaining rights. This does not hold true for the public sector if the statutory power to regulate the employment terms unilaterally remains with the state bodies. In these circumstances, the trade unions can enter only a process of consultation or de facto negotiations with the authorities. Borderline cases also arise in that unilateral regulation is given in formal terms, whereas the outcome of de facto negotiations or consultation is generally regarded as binding in practice. This conceptual problem is central to the present study since involvement in collective bargaining is a definitional property of a social partner organisation, as outlined above. Applying the concept of bargaining in the genuine sense to the hospital sector, which usually covers a large public sector segment, would thus exclude this segment and its numerous associations in a sizeable number of countries. Instead, the analysis adopts a less strict concept that refers to whether trade unions of the public sector can exert a significant influence on the regulation of the employment terms through collective bargaining in the genuine sense or a recurrent practice of either de facto negotiations or consultation. Associations that meet this condition are registered as relevant. For each of these associations, this study documents whether this relevance is based on collective bargaining, or de facto negotiations and consultation.

Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the sector is defined in terms of the classification of economic activities in the European Community (Nomenclature générale des activités économiques dans les Communautés européennes, NACE). This is to demarcate an ‘interest space’ which is common to all EU Member States, so that cross-national comparability of the research findings is assured. More specifically, the hospital sector is defined as embracing NACE 85.11, that is, hospital activities. The domains of the trade unions and employer associations, and similarly the scope of relevant collective agreements, are likely to vary from this precise NACE demarcation. Therefore, this study includes all trade unions, employer associations and multi-employer collective agreements that are sector-related in terms of any of the following four patterns:

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

At European level, the European Commission has established a European Social Dialogue Committee for the hospital sector. The European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) participates in the sector’s European social dialogue on behalf of workers, while the European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ Association (HOSPEEM) represents employers. Hence, they are the reference associations with regard to analysing the European level and, for the purposes of this study, affiliation to one of these European organisations is thus one sufficient criterion for classifying a national association as a social partner organisation. However, it should be noted that the constituent criterion is sector-related membership. This is important in the case of EPSU and HOSPEEM due to their multi-sectoral domain. This study will include only those affiliates to HOSPEEM and EPSU whose domain relates to the hospital sector.

Collection of data

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

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 organisation, which are then used to calculate the density or coverage rate on the basis of available statistical figures on the potential membership of the association;
  • personal estimates made by representatives of the respective associations.

While the data sources of the economic figures cited in this report are generally statistics, the figures relating to the associations are either administrative data or estimates.

Report structure

The study consists of three main parts, beginning with a brief summary of the economic background of the sector. The report then analyses the relevant social partner organisations in all 27 EU Member States. The third part considers their counterparts at European level. Each section will 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 of the national and European levels for two reasons. Firstly, account has to be taken of how national regulations and practices capture representativeness. Secondly, the national and European organisations differ in their tasks and scope of activities. The concept of representativeness must adapt to this difference.

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


Economic background

Tables 1 and 2 give an overview of the socioeconomic development of the hospital sector from the early 1990s to the early 2000s, presenting a few indicators which are important to industrial relations and the social dialogue. It is important to note that the meaning of what is listed here as companies widely differs across countries. In most cases, this meaning refers to the hospitals themselves as employers. In some countries, however, the notion of companies also stands for higher-order holdings which operate as employers. A case in point is the Health Service Executive (HSE) which is responsible for operating the Irish public hospital system. For this reason, the figures on companies are not strictly comparable across countries. Nevertheless, they allow for a longitudinal perspective. For those countries recording related data, it appears that the number of cases registering an increase in the number of companies is almost equal to the number of countries where the number of companies declined. This observation contrasts with the development of employment. In nine of the 12 countries for which data are available, total employment expanded. Likewise, the number of employees increased in 11 countries, whereas a decline was observed in four cases. In most countries, the number of employees comes close to the number of total employment. Female employment clearly prevails in the sector in all countries recording statistics according to gender.

Table 1: Total employment in hospital sector, 1994 and 2005
  No. of companies Total employment* Male employment Female employment
  1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005
AT n.a. 266a 107,348b 134,870c n.a. 37,783f n.a. 97,087c
BE 284 215 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
BG 284 317f n.a. 68,800c n.a. 13,800f n.a. 55,000f
CY 144a,g 94 5,331g 6,285 1,631g 1,895 3,700g 4,390
CZ 225 391 134,950 145,827 28,554 27,659 106,396 118,170
DE n.a. 3,895e n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
DK 2 1 103,416 105,764 20,024 18,837 83,392 86,927
EE 107 54 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
EL n.a. ~ 190 n.a. 191,886 n.a. 71,687 n.a. 120,199
ES 788d 750e n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FI 70 26 70,249 91,513 10,800 13,695 59,449 77,818
FR 3,284 2,856 1,088,999 1,126,533 268,872 290,276 820,127 836,257
HU n.a. 163 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
IE n.a. 11 n.a. ~130,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
IT 809b 1,225c 607,294b 661,580c 236,678b 257,835c 370,616b 403,745c
LT n.a. 174i n.a. 105,700i n.a. 16,600i n.a. 89,100i
LU n.a. 13j n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
LV n.a. 109i n.a. 29,810i n.a. 5,574i n.a. 24,236i
MT n.a. 39 n.a. 11,573 n.a. 5,113 n.a. 6,460
NL 114 243 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PL 701 781 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PT 1g 51 74,745g 96,691 22,420g 23,400 52,344g 66,791
RO 415 433 237,431 230,042 n.a. 34,997 n.a. 195,045
SE 976 573i 271,589 205,128 44,497 36,908 227,092 168,220
SI 24 29 16,757 21,208 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
SK 103 115i 60,143 49,483i 11,695 10,109i 48,448 39,374i
UK n.a. 230i n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Notes: See Annex for list of country codes. * Total employment includes employees and other workers. n.a. = not available. a = establishments, b = 1991, c = 2001, d = 1997, e = 2004, f = 2006, g = 1995, i = 2006, j = 2007.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2006

Table 2: Total employees in hospital sector, 1994 and 2005
  Total employees (excluding other workers) Male employees Female employees Aggregate sectoral employment as a percentage of total employment in the economy, Aggregate sectoral employees as a percentage of the total number of employees in the economy
  1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005
AT n.a. 134,842c n.a. 37,761c n.a. 97,081c c.3%b c.3.7%c c.3.4%b c.4.2%c
BE 145,732d 165,437e 30,752d 32,742e 114,954d 132,646e n.a. n.a. 3.5% 3.8%
BG n.a. 66,796f n.a. 12,658f n.a. 54,138f n.a. 2.05%f n.a. 3.03%f
CY n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2% n.a. n.a.
CZ 133,158 143,309 27,576 26,662 105,582 116,647 2.74% 3.02% 3.11% 3.55%
DE 1,229,422l 1,252,910i 283,364l 300,772i 943,581l 952,138i n.a. n.a. 4.5% 4.6%
DK 103,414 105,762 20,023 18,835 83,392 86,927 3.87% 3.84% 3.87% 3.84%
EE n.a. 13,561 n.a. 1312 n.a. 12,249 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.4%
EL n.a. 159,867 n.a. 53,880 n.a. 105,707 n.a. 4.3% n.a. 5.6%
ES 370,264 437,764 126,121 129,450 244,143 308,314 n.a. n.a. 3.6% 2.9%
FI 70,221 91,511 10,794 13,694 59,427 77,817 3.7% 4% 4.3% 4.5%
FR 1,025,755 1,064,274 243,029 247,913 782,726 816,361 4.7% 4.5% 5.2% 4.7%
HU n.a. 91,259h n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.3%
IE n.a. ~130,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.2% n.a. 7.5%
IT 605,370b 660,191c 235,631b 256,970c 369,739b 403,221c 2.6%b 2.8%c 3.6%b 3.8%c
LT n.a. 82,787i n.a. 13,263i n.a. 69,523i n.a. 7.1%i n.a. 7.4%i
LU n.a. 7,308j n.a. 1,675j n.a. 5,633j n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.44%j
LV n.a. 29,602i n.a. 5,536i n.a. 24,066i n.a. 3.08%i n.a. 3.12%i
MT n.a. 11,217 n.a. 4,849 n.a. 6,368 n.a. 7.6% n.a. 8.6%
NL 228,800 324,200 64,600 164,200 78,800 247,400 n.a. n.a. 4% 4.3%
PL 320,576 287,549 n.a. 36,669 n.a. 250,880 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PT n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.8%g 1.9% 2.4%g 2.4%
RO 237,431 230,042 n.a. 34,997 n.a. 195,045 2.4% 2.8% 3.7% 5%
SE 284,456 209,141i n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 7.1% 5.4% 8.2% 6%
SI 16,757 21,208 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%
SK 60,143 49,482i 11,695 10,109i 48,448 39,373i 2.85% 2.23%i 3.04% 2.38%i
UK 911,390k 1,233,363i n.a. 370,000i n.a. 863,363i n.a. n.a. 3.8%k 4.5%i

Notes: n.a. = not available. b = 1991, c = 2001, d = 1997, e = 2004, f = 2006, g = 1995, h = working in companies with more than four employees, i = 2006, j = 2007, k = 1996, l = 1999.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2006

Table 2 also reveals that the hospital sector represents a notable share of overall employment. In particular, this applies to the number of employees in the sector as a proportion of the total number of employees in the economy, with a percentage ranging from 2.4% in Portugal to 7.4% in Lithuania and 8.6% in Malta. Over the time period under consideration (1994–2005), this proportion increased in nine countries, while it declined in five countries. It remained stable in Portugal and Slovenia.

Finally, it is worth emphasising two properties of the sector which are particularly important to how its system of industrial relations is structured. Firstly, the sector is usually differentiated into a larger public segment and a smaller private one. Secondly, the sector – like other parts of the broader health and social work sector – is characterised by a high degree of professional education of the labour force. This high professional level is often based on formal licensing, including such occupations as doctors, nurses and physiotherapists. As a rule, the sector’s professional profile is found in parallel with strict job demarcations. A clear, formally established division of labour exists among the professions in terms of tasks and responsibilities.


National level of interest representation

In many of the EU 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 associations. 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 associations; and participation in public policy and tripartite bodies of social dialogue. Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally measured by the membership strength of the organisations. For instance, statutory extension provisions usually allow for extending a collective agreement to unaffiliated employers only when the signatory trade union and employer association represent 50% or more of the employees within the agreement’s domain (see Institut des Sciences du Travail (IST), Collective agreement extension mechanisms in EU member countries, Catholic University of Louvain, Typescript, 2001).

As outlined above, the representativeness of the national social partner organisations is of interest to this study in connection with the capacity of their European umbrella organisations for participation in the 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 the European social dialogue tends to increase with the growing ability of the national affiliates of the European associations to regulate the employment terms and to influence national public policies affecting the sector. As cross-nationally comparative analysis shows, a generally positive correlation emerges between the bargaining role of the social partners and their involvement in public policy (see Traxler, F., ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2004, pp. 571–598). Social partner organisations that are engaged in multi-employer bargaining play a significantly stronger role in state policies than their counterparts in countries where multi-employer bargaining is lacking. The explanation for this finding is that only multi-employer agreements matter in macroeconomic terms, setting an incentive for governments to persistently seek the cooperation of the social partner organisations. If single-employer bargaining prevails in a country, none of the collective agreements will have a noticeable effect on the economy due to their limited scope. As a result, the basis for generalised tripartite policy concertation will be absent.

In summary, representativeness is a multi-dimensional concept that embraces three basic elements: 1) the membership domain and membership strength of the social partner organisations; 2) their role in collective bargaining; and 3) their role in public policymaking.

Membership domain and strength

The membership domain of an association, as formally established by its constitution, demarcates its potential members from other groups which the association does not claim to represent. As explained above, this study considers only associations whose domain relates to the hospital sector. For reasons of space, it is impossible to outline in detail the domain demarcations of all of the associations. Instead, the report notes how they relate to the sector by classifying them according to the four patterns of ‘sector-relatedness’, as specified earlier. Regarding membership strength, a differentiation should be made between strength in terms of the absolute number of members and strength in relative terms. Research on this subject usually refers to relative membership strength as ‘density’ – that is, the ratio of actual to potential members.

Furthermore, a difference also arises between trade unions and employer associations when measuring membership strength. Trade union membership simply means the number of unionised persons. In addition to taking the total membership of a trade union as an indicator of its strength, it is also reasonable to break down this membership total according to the sex of the members. However, the situation regarding employer associations is more complex since they organise collective entities, in other words, companies that employ workers. Hence, in this instance, two possible measures of membership strength may be used, one referring to the companies themselves, and the other to the employees working in the member companies of an employer association.

For a sectoral study such as this, measures of membership strength of both the trade unions and employer associations also have to take into account how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not congruent with the sector demarcation, the associations total density – that is, density referring to its domain – may differ from sector-specific density – in other words, density referring to the particular sector. This report will first present the data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions, followed by the corresponding data for the employer associations.

Trade unions

Table A1 (in Annex 1) outlines the trade union data on both the domains and membership strength; the table lists all trade unions meeting the two criteria for classification as a sector-related social partner organisation, as outlined earlier. The domain of the majority of the trade unions (about 69%) sectionally overlaps with the demarcation of the hospital sector. The corresponding figure for domain overlaps is 25%, whereas sectionalism and congruence are exceptional cases, at about 5% and 1%, respectively. This underscores the fact that statistical definitions of business activities differ somewhat from the lines along which employees identify common interests and gather together in trade unions. The high incidence of sectional domain overlaps emanates from the dual segmentation of the sector: a large number of trade unions have specialised in either (certain groups of) public sector employees or specific professions. The fact that these groups usually also work in areas other than the hospital sector, and represent only a subgroup of the sector at the same time results in sectional overlaps of the domains of these trade unions with the hospital sector. Overall, pronounced pluralism characterises the trade union system. A multi-union situation emerges in all countries except Slovakia. In the remaining countries, only Bulgaria, Latvia and Luxembourg have fewer than three trade unions in the sector. This pluralism is most accentuated in Italy and Denmark, which count 19 and 18 trade unions respectively. As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, so do their domains with one another. Consequently, competitive inter-union relationships are reported for a large number of countries: Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

Turning to the membership data of the trade unions, it appears that female employees numerically prevail in almost two thirds of the trade unions for which figures are given. In a notable number of cases, the proportion of female trade union members is 80% or even higher. This remarkable degree of trade union feminisation corresponds with the strong presence of women in the sector’s employment and related professions.

The absolute numbers of the trade unions’ members differ markedly. Their records range from several hundred thousands of members to fewer than 1,000 members. This considerable variation reflects differences in the size of the economy and the comprehensiveness of the membership domain rather than the ability to attract members. Compared with total membership, the sector-specific membership is fairly small in several trade unions, with fewer than 100 members. In almost all trade unions with overlapping or sectionally overlapping domains, total membership is clearly higher than membership within the sector.

Since density corrects for differences in country size, this measure of membership strength is more appropriate to a comparative analysis. Based on voluntary membership, domain density is higher than 50% in the case of half of the trade unions which document figures on density. About 43% of all of the trade unions represent 70% or more of the employees covered by their domain. Only 19% of the unions for which data are available organise fewer than 15% of the employees within their domain. Sectoral density of about 37% of the voluntary trade unions is lower than 15%. Around 34% of the unions record a sectoral density of more than 50% of their potential members, and 31% report a sectoral density of 70% or higher. Compared with domain density, these figures suggest a lower degree of unionisation in the sector. A direct comparison of domain density and sectoral density in the case of those voluntary trade unions for which figures on both measures are recorded reveals smaller differences. In about 37% of these cases sectoral density is equal to domain density, whereas the former is lower than the latter in approximately 33% of instances. The reverse relationship applies to the remaining 30%. Overall, these figures correspond with the absolute numbers of membership: the sector is usually not the stronghold of those trade unions whose domain embraces other sectors as well. Compared with many other service industries, however, density of the sector seems to be rather high, a feature which may be attributed to its public segment.

Employer organisations

Tables A2 and A3 (in Annex 1) present the membership data on employer associations. Overall, 21 of the 27 EU Member States register employer organisations. In the other six countries, no association meets the definition of a social partner organisation as previously outlined. This does not mean that employers have remained unorganised. Generally, business interest organisations may also deal with interests other than those related to industrial relations. Organisations which specialise in matters other than industrial relations are commonly designated as trade associations (see TN0311101S). Sector-level trade associations usually outnumber sector-level employer associations (see Traxler, F., ‘Business associations and labour unions in comparison’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 4, 1993, pp. 673–691). Several of the EIRO national centres’ studies of the hospital sector – for instance, for Hungary, Lithuania and Romania – provide examples of business associations that operate as trade associations rather than employer organisations according to the standards of this comparative analysis.

Some 65% of the 49 employer organisations listed in Table A2 have demarcated their domain in a way that sectionally overlaps with the hospital sector. The predominance of sectional overlaps mainly emanates from the fact that the employer organisations usually cover areas of health and social work which are broader than the hospital sector, while they specify their domain in terms of ownership at the same time. In the majority of cases, this demarcation by ownership follows the divide between the public and private sectors. In a few cases, this demarcation is more specific. The Austrian Association of Interest Representation of Catholic Hospitals and Old People’s and Nursing Homes (Verein Interessenvertretung von Ordensspitälern und von konfessionellen Alten- und Pflegeheimen Österreichs, VIO) and the Italian Association of Religious Sociomedical Institutions (Associazione Religiosa Istituti Socio-Sanitari, ARIS), for example, represent the socio-medical institutions owned by the church. Sectional domains are confined to certain categories of hospitals, such as university hospitals in the case of the Dutch Federation of University Medical Centres (Nederlandse Federatie van Universitair Medische Centra, NFU). The employer organisations have managed to arrive at complementary domain demarcations in countries where more than one of them operates. Inter-associational competition and rivalry are thus largely absent. The only exception is Austria, where competition over bargaining rights is reported to involve the Association of Private Hospitals and Sanatoria (Fachverband der privaten Krankenanstalten und der Kurbetriebe, FVPKK) and the Association of Private Hospitals in Austria (Verband der Privatkrankenanstalten Österreichs, VPÖ).

As regards the figures on membership in Table A2 (in Annex 1), it should be noted that the unit of membership is not necessarily the hospital as a company because other institutions, such as holdings of hospitals or state bodies or regions, operate as employers in several countries. Hence, these figures are not strictly comparable across associations and countries – as is also the case of the data on companies in Tables 1 and 2, as already mentioned above. Regardless of this, the data on membership show that density is rather high. Approximately one third of the voluntary employer organisations for which data are documented report a density level within their domain which is equal or close to 100% in terms of both members and employees. Fewer cases of such high density emerge with regard to the sector, a situation which results from domain demarcations which do not entirely cover the sector. An important reason for the high levels of density is public ownership, which facilitates the process of association, in particular when the hospitals are under the umbrella of more encompassing employers, such as holdings or state bodies.

Collective bargaining and its actors

Table 3 gives an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 27 EU Member States. The standard measure of the importance of collective bargaining as a means of employment regulation calculates the total number of employees covered by collective bargaining as a proportion of the total number of employees within a certain segment of the economy (see Traxler, F., Blaschke, S. and Kittel, B., National labour relations in internationalized markets, Oxford University Press, 2001). Accordingly, the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage is defined as the ratio of the number of employees covered by any kind of collective agreement to the total number of employees in the sector.

To delineate the bargaining system, two further indicators are used. The first indicator refers to the relevance of multi-employer bargaining, compared with single-employer bargaining. Multi-employer bargaining is defined as being conducted by an employer association on behalf of the employer side. In the case of single-employer bargaining, the company or its subunit(s) 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 proportion of the total number of employees covered by a collective agreement, therefore indicates the impact of the employer associations on the overall collective bargaining process.

The second indicator considers whether statutory extension schemes are applied to the sector. Table 3 reveals whether this is indeed the case. For reasons of brevity, this analysis is confined to extension schemes designed to extend the scope of a collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer associations; extension regulations targeting employees are thus not included in the research. The latter are not relevant to this analysis for two reasons. On the one hand, extending a collective agreement to the employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the particular agreement is a standard of the International Labour Organization (ILO), aside from any national legislation. On the other hand, there is good reason for employers to extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when they are formally not obliged to do so; otherwise, they would set an incentive for their workforce to unionise.

In comparison with employee-related extension procedures, schemes that target the employers are thus far more important to 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 association 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 pervasive, such practices encourage employers to join their employer association, since membership enables them to participate in the bargaining process and to benefit from the association’s related services in a situation where the respective collective agreement will bind them in any case (ibid). It should be noted that the category of extension practices also covers functional equivalents to these practices. There are two types of such equivalents. One type of equivalent is obligatory membership which is legally established in public-law interest associations such as the Austrian Chamber of Doctors (Österreichische Ärztekammer, ÖÄK) and FVPKK in Austria’s hospital sector. The other functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes can be found in Italy. According to that country’s constitution, minimum conditions of employment must apply to all employees. Labour court rulings relate this principle to the multi-employer agreements, such that they are seen as generally binding (see IST, 2001).

As noted above, collective bargaining in the genuine sense is not established in the public part of the hospital sector of several countries. In Austria and Belgium, for instance, de facto negotiations regularly take place. In France, trade union involvement rather takes the form of consultation. In the United Kingdom (UK), special Pay Review Bodies exist for each of the distinct medical professions within the scope of the National Health Service (NHS). NHS employers and trade unions submit evidence to these bodies, which then issue recommendations for pay awards to the government, which makes the final decisions. Insofar as data are available, Table 3 documents two coverage rates in these cases. The unadjusted coverage rate indicates the proportion of employees under a collective agreement in the genuine sense in relation to the total number of employees in the sector. The adjusted coverage rate refers to the share of employees covered by a genuine collective agreement in relation to the total number of employees equipped with genuine bargaining rights, in other words, in the private part of the sector.

As an implication of this conceptualisation, the unadjusted coverage rate is not very high in countries where genuine bargaining is absent in the public part of the sector and where this part is rather large. However, looking at the adjusted coverage in these cases, it appears that the coverage level is generally high. Of the 25 EU Member States for which data are available, 18 countries register a coverage level of more than 70%. In almost all of these cases, multi-employer bargaining prevails, which boosts coverage either through high density of the bargaining parties or through extension practices. Overall, multi-employer bargaining prevails in 18 of the 25 countries for which data are available. Notable exceptions to the positive association between multi-employer bargaining and high coverage levels are the Czech Republic and Malta, where multi-employer agreements do not exist, while coverage is nevertheless reported to be higher than 70%. Macro-level comparative analysis shows that, under the predominance of single-employer bargaining, the coverage rate almost always increases with trade union density (see Traxler et al, 2001). This explanation presumably holds for Malta, where aggregate union density is high, whereas union density in the Czech Republic does not match the registered coverage level. Since information on coverage is a rough estimate made by one single Czech trade union, it may be somewhat inflated. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the sector’s employers, especially the public ones, subscribe to single-employer bargaining even when they face a weak trade union presence. At any rate, such propensity is not generally given, as the very low coverage rate of less then 10% in some countries demonstrates.

Table 3: System of sectoral collective bargaining, 2005–2006
Country Collective bargaining coverage (CBC) (%) Proportion of multi-employer bargaining (MEB) in total CBC (%) Extension practices
AT 14%–15%a (90%–100%)b Single-employer bargaining (SEB) prevailing None
BE 58%a (100%)b MEB prevailing Pervasive
BG 100% 100% Pervasive
CY 30% SEB prevailing Limited
CZ 74% 0% None
DE > 52%c/> 46%d MEB prevailing None
DK 100% 100% None
EE > 88% 88% None
EL e ~ 34%a (100%)b 100% Pervasive
ES n.a. MEB prevailing Pervasive
FI 92% 100% Pervasive
FR f (100%)b (private sector only) 100% Pervasive
HU 7.5% 0% None
IE ~ 80% MEB prevailing Limited
IT 100% 100% Pervasive
LT 20%–25% 0% None
LU ~ 100% 100% None
LV 100% MEB prevailing Pervasive
MT 95% 0% None
NL 100% 100% None
PL n.a. 0% None
PT g 3.2% n.a. n.a.
RO 100% 100% Pervasive
SE 80%–90%h/100%i ~ 100% None
SI 100% 100%j None
SK 95% MEB prevailing Limited
UK n.a. n.a. None

Notes: Collective bargaining coverage (CBC) means employees covered as a percentage of the total number of employees in the sector. Multi-employer bargaining (MEB) is noted relative to single-employer bargaining (SEB). Extension practices include functional equivalents to extension provisions, that is, obligatory membership and labour court rulings. n.a. = not available. a = unadjusted for employees excluded from collective bargaining, b adjusted for employees excluded from collective bargaining, c = west Germany, d = east Germany, e = public sector: no practice of collective bargaining although right to bargain is established, f = public sector: only consultation by the Ministry of Health, g = public sector: no practice of collective bargaining, h = private sector, i = public sector, j = sector-wide agreements.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2007

Participation in public policymaking

Interest associations may partake in public policy in two basic ways: they may be consulted by the authorities in matters affecting their members; or they may be represented on ‘corporatist’ – that is, tripartite – committees and boards of policy concertation. This study only considers cases of consultation and corporatist participation which are suited to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes are not necessarily institutionalised, meaning that the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues being addressed and over time, depending on changes in government. Moreover, the authorities may initiate a consultation process on an occasional rather than on a regular basis. Given this volatility, Tables A1, A2 and A3 (in Annex 1) designate only those sector-related trade unions and employer associations that are usually consulted. Depending on country-specific regulations and practices, the sector-specific associations may directly or indirectly participate in public policy. Indirect participation takes place through their affiliation to a top-level association which has participatory rights.

In relation to the trade unions, they are usually consulted in the majority of countries. Since a multi-union system is established in almost all countries, it is possible that the authorities may favour certain trade unions or that the unions may compete for participation rights. However, in most countries where a noticeable practice of consultation is observed, any of the existing trade unions can take part in the consultation processes. Spain provides an example of selective consultation: since rights of consultation are formally tied to criteria of representativeness, only the most representative trade union organisations are admitted to the consultation process.

As is the case for the trade unions, employer associations, where existing, are consulted by the authorities in the majority of countries. Likewise, this consultation process usually involves each of the existing employer associations. Furthermore, if employer associations exist, their opportunity to participate in consultation processes does not differ from that of the trade unions. Generally, the two sides of industry are both consulted or not consulted at all. As noted above, employer associations in the sense of the earlier definition of a social partner organisation are not established in all of the 27 EU Member States. This does not mean that business is excluded from consultation procedures in these countries. Under such circumstances, trade associations are likely to be consulted. In addition to these business associations, large employers themselves may be involved directly in consultation procedures, particularly when policymaking follows the pattern of a ‘company state’ rather than that of an ‘associative state’ (see Grant, W., Business and politics in Britain, London, Macmillan, 1993).

Turning from consultation to tripartite participation, the research reveals that sector-specific tripartite bodies are established in only a minority of countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Romania and Slovakia. Table 4 summarises the main properties of these bodies. A few business associations which are represented in these tripartite bodies are not listed in Tables A2 and A3, since they do not meet the criteria of a social partner organisation. In some of the tripartite bodies, the sector-related organisations themselves are not represented but rather their national-level associations.

Table 4: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy, 2005–2006
Country Name of body and scope of activity Origin Participants
Trade unions Business associations
BG SCTCH: Industrial relations, social policy Statutory FTUH, MF Podkrepa NAHE
EE Supervisory Board of Estonian Health Insurance Fund Statutory EAKL, TALO EHL, ETTK
FI Innovative working hours of the caring professions Agreement SuPer, Tehy, JHL KT
The availability of labour Agreement SuPer, Tehy, ERTO, Jyty TLR
FR CSFPH Statutory CFDT, CFTC, CFE-CGC, FO, CGT, SUD, UNSA, SNCH FHF
CNOSS Statutory All trade unions of the sector All employer associations of the sector
CNAMTS Statutory CFDT, CFTC, CFE-CGC, CGT, FO MEDEF, CGPME, UPA
IE Health Service National Partnership Forum: Developing social partnership Agreement IMPACT, SIPTU, INO, IMO, IHCA, UNITE, TEEU HSEEA, IBEC
Health Service National Joint Council: Consultation on matters of health service Agreement IMPACT, SIPTU, INO, IMO HSEEA
Health Service Forum on work practices Agreement IMPACT, SIPTU, INO, IMO, IHCA, UNITE HSEEA
LV Healthcare subcommission of the National Tripartite Cooperation Council Statutory LBAS LDDK
RO Commission for social dialogue at Ministry of Public Health Statutory All national trade union confederations All employer organisations representative at national level
Board of Administration of National Health Insurance House Statutory All national trade union confederations All employer organisations representative at national level
SK HSR: Legislation, minimum wage, sector-related state budget Statutory KOZ SR AZZZ SR
HSR MZSR: Sector-related legislation, remuneration, reforms Statutory SOZZaSS, LOZ ANS, AFN SR, other associations of sector-related interest groups

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

Source: EIRO national centres, 2007


European level of interest representation

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

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

In terms of social dialogue, the constituent property of these structures is the ability of an organisation to negotiate on behalf of its members and to conclude binding agreements. Accordingly, this section on the European organisations of the hospital sector will analyse their membership domain, the composition of their membership and their capacity to negotiate.

As will be outlined in greater detail below, two European associations – representing both sides of industry – are of utmost importance to the sector: EPSU as the representative of labour, and HOSPEEM for business. The following analysis will concentrate on these two organisations, while providing supplementary information on others to which the sector’s national industrial relations actors have an affiliation.

Membership domain

In terms of membership domain, EPSU – which in turn is linked to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) – organises public services. This domain embraces the public segment of the hospital sector. EPSU’s domain thus relates to the sector as a whole in the form of sectional overlap. The membership domain of HOSPEEM, which is a member of the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP), comprises the hospital and wider healthcare sector. In relation to the hospital sector, this pattern is a case of overlap.

Membership composition

Regarding the composition of membership, it should be noted that in the case of both EPSU and HOSPEEM the countries covered extend beyond the EU Member States. However, only the latter countries will be considered here. Furthermore, this report will examine only those affiliates which have members in the hospital sector, as demarcated above. Following these specifications, Table 5 documents the list of EPSU members; the organisation covers all of the 27 EU Member States. Insofar as available data on membership of the national trade unions provide sufficient information on their relative strength (see Table A1), it may be concluded that EPSU generally organises the largest national trade unions of the sector, and usually represents the majority of the sector’s unionised employees. The trade union members under the umbrella of EPSU constitute a minority of total union membership only in Estonia, Lithuania and Portugal. All national affiliates to EPSU are involved in bargaining or ‘quasi-bargaining’, that is, de facto negotiations or consultation, depending on country properties. Overall, the strong presence of EPSU in the sector also underlines the fact that a large majority of the sector’s employees work in public hospitals.

Table 5: Members of EPSU, 2007
Country Members
AT GdG*, GÖD**, GPA-DJP*
BE CNE-GNC*, ACOD/CGSP**, LBC-NVK*, BBTK-SETCA*, VSOA-LRB/SLFP-ALR**, ACV-Public Services**
BG CITUB (FTUH)*, MF Podkrepa*
CY PASYDY*
CZ OSZSP ČR*
DE ver.di*, Marburger Bund*
DK 3F*, TL*, DJØF*, DBIO*, FAS*, HK Kommunal*, DSR*, SL*, FOA*, Dansk Metal*
EE ETTAL*
EL ADEDY (POEDIN, POSE-IKA, POYGY-IKA, POSEYP-IKA)
ES FSP-UGT*, FSSS-CC.OO*, FEP-USO*, ELA-STV*
FI Tehy*, SuPer*, JHL*, KTN (BOTBS)*, AEK (SL*), Jyty a *
FR FSAS-CGT*, FO-p-s*, FSS-CFDT*
HU EDDSZ*
IE SIPTU*, IMPACT*
IT FPS-CISL*, FP-CGIL*
LT LSA DPS*
LU LCGB*, OGB-L*
LV LVSADA*
MT GWU*
NL FNV Abvakabo*, CNV Publieke Zaak*, NU91 (CMHF)*
PL SOZ*
PT SINTAP*
RO Federaţia Sanitas*
SE SKTF*, ASSR*, SK*, Vårdförbundet*
SI SZSVS*
SK SOZZaSS*
UK GMB**, Unite**, RCM**, RCN**, UNISON**, FDA**

Notes: Membership list confined to sector-related trade union organisations of the countries under consideration. See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations. * Involved in collective bargaining, ** involved in de facto negotiations or consultation. Organisations in parentheses are sector-related trade unions listed in Table A1 which are indirectly affiliated through national higher-level associations or lower-level affiliates. aFormerly KTN.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2007

Table 6 lists the members of HOSPEEM. A total of 12 EU Member States are under its umbrella. In six of the 15 Member States which are not covered, no employer association according to the definition of this study exists (see Tables A2 and A3). In the remaining nine uncovered Member States, employer associations do exist but none of them is a member of HOSPEEM. With regard to the 12 countries with an affiliation to HOSPEEM, the affiliates representing Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland are engaged neither in genuine collective bargaining nor in de facto negotiations or consultation. Conversely, in the other nine countries – equating to one third of the 27 EU Member States – affiliates to HOSPEEM do have a role in collective bargaining, de facto negotiations or consultation.

Table 6: Members of HOSPEEM, 2007
Country Members
AT VÖWG
BE –––
BG –––
CY –––
CZ AČMN
DE VKA*
DK DR*
EE –––
EL –––
ES –––
FI –––
FR FHF**
HU –––
IE HSEEA*
IT ARAN*
LT –––
LU –––
LV LSB*
MT –––
NL NVZ*
PL Polish Health Confederation
PT –––
RO –––
SE SALAR (SKL)*
SI –––
SK –––
UK NHS Employers**

Notes: Membership list confined to sector-related employer organisations and companies of the countries under consideration. See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations. * Involved in collective bargaining, ** involved in de facto negotiations or consultation. Organisations in parentheses are sector-related employer organisations listed in Tables A2 and A3 which are indirectly affiliated through national higher-level associations.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2007

Capacity to negotiate

The third criterion of representativeness at European level refers to the capacity of an organisation to negotiate on behalf of its own members. EPSU has a mandate to negotiate on matters of the European social dialogue, in accordance with its constitution. HOSPEEM also has a mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members in matters of the European social dialogue.

As a proof of the weight of EPSU and HOSPEEM, it is worthwhile making a comparison with other European associations that may be important representatives of the sector. This can be done by reviewing the European associations to which the sector-related trade unions and employer organisations are affiliated.

Regarding the trade unions, these affiliations are listed in Table A1. Numerous affiliations to European organisations other than EPSU feature. However, these memberships are so widely dispersed across the trade unions as well as across countries that few clusters of affiliations emerge. For brevity, this section will consider only those European organisations which cover at least three countries. This involves the:

  • European Federation of Public Service Employees (Eurofedop), which covers seven trade unions in six countries;
  • European Federation of Salaried Doctors (Fédération Européenne des Médecins Salariés, FEMS), with seven affiliations in five countries;
  • European Union of Medical Specialists (Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes, UEMS), with five affiliations in five countries;
  • Standing Committee of European Doctors (Comité Permanent des Médecins Européens, CPME), with five affiliations in five countries;
  • European Midwives Association (EMA), with three affiliations in three countries;
  • European Forum of National Nursing and Midwifery Associations (EFNNMA), with three affiliations in three countries;
  • European Union of General Practitioners (Union Européenne des Médecins Omnipraticiens, UEMO), with three affiliations in three countries.

Even though the list of affiliations in Table A1 may be incomplete, this review confirms the principal status of EPSU as the labour representative of the hospital sector at European level.

An analogous review of the memberships of the employer associations can be derived from Table A3. Most of the European associations have no more than one single employer organisation, as listed in Table A3, under their umbrella. Three European associations cover three countries or more: the European Hospital and Healthcare Federation (HOPE), with 10 affiliations from six countries; and CEEP and the European Union of Private Hospitals (Union Européenne de l’Hospitalisation Privée, UEHP), each with five affiliates in five countries. Any of these European associations covers fewer affiliates and fewer countries than HOSPEEM. Although the latter counts only two members more than HOPE, HOSPEEM covers far more countries than any of the other European associations, including HOPE. HOSPEEM is thus the most important voice of business in the hospital sector.


Commentary

Compared with other sectors, the representational system of the hospital sector shows four main properties. At national level, pronounced pluralism characterises the associational system of both business and labour. Particularly in the latter case, the analysis finds a proliferation of trade unions, resulting in accentuated multi-union systems in almost all countries. Fewer employer organisations are found, as is the case in most other sectors. Nevertheless, the hospital sector has a relatively large number of countries which have more than one employer organisation. These highly pluralist structures can be attributed to the sector’s marked differentiation in two respects: elaborate segmentation by professions and the divide between private and public ownership.

A second property of the sector is its comparatively high degree of organisation at national level. In comparison to many other services sectors, trade union density is usually high. The same holds true for employer density. There is good reason to believe that the twofold differentiation of the sector also accounts for this characteristic. Public ownership buttresses the organisation of both sides of industry. Likewise, the segmentation by highly qualified, often state-licensed professions creates a ‘small-size effect’ that helps to overcome free-riding tendencies (see Olson, M., The logic of collective action, Harvard University Press, 1965).

These generally high levels of organisation translate into high collective bargaining coverage. A comparison may be made with recent figures on cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage in the 25 EU Member States before Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007 (see Marginson, P. and Traxler, F., ‘After Enlargement’, Transfer, Vol. 11, 2005). Such an exercise indicates that the hospital sector’s bargaining coverage is higher than the national average in 10 of the 17 countries for which comparable data are available, whereas sectoral coverage is lower than the national average only in four cases. This pattern applies particularly to the new Member States (NMS) from central and eastern Europe. Looking at seven comparable cases from the NMS – the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia – the study finds that sectoral coverage is higher than the national average in five countries, and lower only in Hungary.

The fourth property of the sector is that the high degree of organisation at national level has fed through to the European level in an asymmetrical way. Unlike the employer side, trade union representation is highly organised at European level, as is manifested by the encompassing coverage of EPSU.


Annex 1: social partner organisations and collective bargaining

Table A1: Data on the trade unions, 2005–2006
Country and trade union name Type of membership Domain coverage Membership Density (%) Collective bargaining Consultation National and European affiliations**
Members Sectoral members Female membership (%)* Domain Sector
AT                    
GPA-DJP Vol. SO 251,000a 1,500a 42% 22% 95%a Yes Yes ÖGB, UNI Europa, EFFAT
GöD Vol. SO 230,000a 31,600a 50.6% 63% 43%a (Yes)b Yes ÖGB, EPSU Eurofedop
Vida Vol. SO 166,000 12,000a 29% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes ÖGB, ETF, EFFAT, UNI Europa
GdG Vol. SO 155,000a 35,000a 49% 80%a 75%a Yes Yes ÖGB, EPSU, ETF, Eurofedop
ÖÄK Compulsory SO 40,000 19,500 n.a. 100% 100% Yes Yes AEMH, AESGP, CEOM, CPME, EANA, EFMA/ WHO, FEMS, UEMO, UEMS
BE                    
ACV-Public Services Vol. SO 148,908 n.a. 46% n.a. 30% (Yes)b Yes ACV/CSC, EPSU, Eurofedop
ACOD/CGSP Vol. SO 284,576 11,423 n.a. n.a. 25% (Yes)b Yes ABVV/FGTB, EPSU, PSI
VSOA-LRB/SLFP-ALR Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (Yes)b Yes ACLVB, EPSU
LBC-NVK Vol. SO 297,449 n.a. 59% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes ACV, EPSU
CNE-GNC Vol. SO 145,415 n.a. 64% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CSC, EPSU
BBTK-SETCA Vol. SO 356,912 10,000 n.a. n.a. 10% Yes Yes ABVV, EPSU
AC-CG Vol. SO 350,764 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes ABVV
ACLVB-CGSLB Vol. SO 220,000 2,089 n.a. n.a. 2%–3% Yes Yes –––
BG                    
FTUH Vol. O 9,300 4,538 78% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CITUB, EPSU d, PSI
MF Podkrepa Vol. O 4,000 1,360 75% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CL Podkrepa, EPSU, PCI
CY                    
PASYDY Vol. SO 13,778 2,659 59.6% n.a. 95% Yes No EPSU
PASYKI Vol. SO 530h n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No –––
PASYNO Vol. SO ~ 220h n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No –––
FPSW Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No SEK
FGMCSW Vol. SO 3,200h 580h n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No SEK
SEVETTYK Vol. SO 5,044 240 45.7% n.a. n.a. Yes No PEO
PASYEK Vol. SO 4,794 330 37.5% n.a. n.a. Yes No PEO
CZ                    
OSZSPČR Vol. O 42,236 32,062 64.9% n.a. 22.37% Yes No ČMKOS, EPSU
LOK-SČL Vol. SO 5,150 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.6% Yes No ASO, FEMS
POUZPČMS Vol. O 12,600 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No –––
DE                    
Ver.di Vol. O 2,274,731 348,500 49.8% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes DGB, EPSU
DBB Vol. SO 1,250,000 n.a. 32% n.a. n.a. Yes No –––
Marburger Bund Vol. SO 108,000a 81,000 46% 46% 77% Yes No EPSU
GOED Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No CGB
BiG Vol. O 1,600a n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No –––
DK                    
YL Vol. S 9,665 7,967 59% 100% 100% Yes Yes KTO, AC, EPSU
FAS Vol. SO 8,512 4,892 28% 100% 100% Yes Yes KTO, AC, EPSU
DJØF Vol. SO 50,877 467 47% 100% 100% Yes Yes KTO, AC, EPSU
IDA Vol. SO 46,650 n.a. 17% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes KTO, AC, FEANI
HK-Kommunal Vol. SO 68,949 n.a. 81% 45% n.a. Yes Yes KTO, EPSU
SL Vol. SO 34,216 572 75% 86.8% n.a. Yes Yes KTO, LO, EPSU
FOA Vol. O 200,644 16,000 88% 90% 90% Yes Yes KTO, LO, EPSU
DSR Vol. SO 55,174 34,193 96.5% 90% 100% Yes Yes SK, FTF, EPSU
DBIO Vol. SO 6,258 5,058 94% 91% 91% Yes Yes SK, FTF, EPSU
DF Vol. SO 5,705 2,163 86% 95% 95% Yes Yes SK, FTF, WCPT/Europe
3F Vol. SO 352,451 1,600 34% 70% 80% Yes Yes KTO, LO, EPSU
Farma Vol. SO 4,448 620 99% 100% 100% Yes Yes SK, FTF, CEPT
Ergo Vol. SO 5,722 1,023 95% 95% 95% Yes Yes SK, FTF, COTEC, ENOTHE
Jordemoder Vol. S 1,433 1,425 99.7% 100% 100% Yes Yes EMA
TL Vol. SO 28,894 100 43% n.a. 85% Yes Yes KTO, LO, EPSU
K&E Vol. SO 7,700 1,161 98% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes SK, FTF, EFAD
Dansk Metal Vol. SO 135,088 613 5% 80% n.a. Yes Yes KTO, LO, EPSU
MMF Vol. SO n.a. 6,837 0.6% 100% 100% Yes Yes –––
EE                    
EAL Vol. SO 2,790 1,659 80% 58% 12.2% Yes c No CPME, UEMS
EKTK Vol. SO 4,085 3,600 99% 23.5% 26.5% Yes No EAKL
EOL Vol. SO 4,000 3,200 99% 21% 23.6% Yes Yes EAKL, EFNNMA
ETTAL Vol. O 2,095 2,080 90% 6% 15.3% Yes Yes EAKL, EPSU
EL                    
POEDIN Vol. S 85,000 85,000 50% 85%–90% 57.8% No No ADEDY, EPSUd
OSNIE Vol. SO 4,500 n.a. 15%–20% 30% n.a. Yes No GSEE
POSE-IKA Vol. SO     50%     No No ADEDY, EPSU d
POYGY-IKA Vol. SO     50%     No No ADEDY, EPSU d
POSEYP-IKA Vol. SO     50%     No No ADEDY, EPSU d
ES                    
FSSS-CC.OO Vol. C n.a. n.a. 78% n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CC.OO, EPSU
FSP-UGT Vol. C n.a. 32,000 48% n.a. 0.1% Yes Yes UGT, EPSU
CESM Vol. SO ~30,000 ~30,000 n.a. 0.5% 0.1% Yes c Yes –––
FEP-USO Vol. SO 110,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No USO, EPSU
ELA-STV-Gizalan Vol. O 106,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No ELA-STV, EPSU
FI                    
Tehy Vol. SO 124,000 40,100 92% 90% 90% Yes Yes EPSU
KTN Vol. SO ~ 15,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes EPSU
SuPer Vol. SO 69,000 7,000 97% 70% 70% Yes Yes EPN, EPSU
SL Vol. SO 21,418 7,514 51% 95% 95% Yes Yes CPME, UEMS, UEMO
ERTO Vol. SO 28,000 700 70% 60% 65% Yes Yes STTK
Jyty Vol. O 68,000 4,000 85% 50% 10% Yes Yes EPSU
JHL Vol. SO 230,000 20,000 71% 27% 15% Yes Yes SAK, EPSU
FR                    
FSS-CFDT Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CFDT, EPSU
FSAS-CGT Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CGT, EPSU
FO-p-s Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes FO, EPSU
CFTC SS Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CFTC
CFE-CGC-SMAS Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CFE-CGC
SUD SS Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (Yes e) Yes SUD
UNSA Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (Yes e) Yes UNSA
SNCH Ss Vol. S n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (Yes e) Yes –––
HU                    
EDDSZ Vol. O 30,723 15,000 n.a. 16% 16% Yes Yes SZEF, EPSU
LIGA ES Vol. SO 1,500–2,000 1,200–1,500 n.a. 1% 1% Yes Yes LIGA
MOSZ Vol. SO 12,000 8,000 n.a. 40% 13% Yes Yes LIGA
HODOSZ Vol. SO 2,500–3,000 300 n.a. 12% 0.3% Yes Yes MSZOSZ
VSZ Vol. SO 10,000 240 n.a. 20% 0.3% Yes Yes MSZOSZ
OSS Vol. SO n.a. 125 n.a. n.a. 0.1% Yes Yes –––
IE                    
SIPTU Vol. O 225,000 38,000 n.a. n.a. 29.2% Yes Yes ICTU, EPSU
IMPACT Vol. SO 55,000 26,000 66% n.a. 20% Yes Yes ICTU, EPSU
INO Vol. SO 33,000 33,000 n.a. n.a. 25% Yes Yes ICTU
PNA Vol. SO 5,000 5,000 n.a. n.a. 3.8% Yes Yes –––
IMO Vol. SO 5,800 5,800 n.a. n.a. 4.5% Yes Yes ICTU
IHCA Vol. S 1,800 1,800 n.a. 80% 1.4% Yes Yes –––
UNITE Vol. SO 50,000 2,000 n.a. n.a. 1.5% Yes Yes ICTU
TEEU Vol. SO 40,000 200 n.a. n.a. 0.15% Yes Yes ICTU
IT                    
FP-CGIL Vol. O 397,468 104,535 n.a. 17.8% 12.4% Yes Yes CGIL, EPSU
FPS-CISL Vol. O 350,000 140,000 n.a. 12.5% 16.6% Yes Yes CISL, EPSU
CISL Medici Vol. SO 7,800 n.a. 20% 7% n.a. Yes Yes CISL
UIL FPL Vol. O 196,231 89,115 61.8% 9.7% 10.6% Yes Yes UIL
FIALS Vol. SO 60,000 40,000 60% n.a. 4.8% Yes Yes CONFSAL
FSI Sanità Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes FSI
UGL Sanità Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes UGL, Eurofedop
CIVEMP Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes –––
FESMED Vol. SO 7,000 n.a. n.a. 6.4% n.a. Yes Yes FSI
UMSPED Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes –––
CIMO-ASMD Vol. SO 13,500 n.a. 20% 12.3% n.a. Yes Yes CONFEDIR, FEMS
ANAAO ASSOMED Vol. SO 18,000 n.a. 15% 16.4% n.a. Yes Yes COSMED, FEMS
ANPO Vol. S n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes FEMS
S.I.Dir.S.S Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CIDA
AUPI Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CONFEDIR
SiNaFO Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CONFEDIR
ARPA, SDS-SNABI Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes –––
CONFEDIR SANITÀ Vol. S n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CONFEDIR
CIMOP Vol. S n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes –––
LT                    
LSADPS Vol. O 3,642 2,185 ~ 86% 20% 11% Yes c No LPSK, EPSU
LGS Vol. SO 7,000 5,000 n.a. 80% 40% Yes No CPME
LSSO Vol. SO ~ 9,200 ~ 4,600 99.9% ~ 50% ~ 50% Yes No LPSK
LMDPS Vol. SO ~ 8,000 ~ 1,600 ~ 70% n.a. 5%–7% Yes No –––
LU                    
OGB-L Vol. O 59,300 3,152 33% n.a. 5.32% Yes Yes EPSU
LCGB Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes n.a. EPSU
LV                    
LVSADA Vol. O 17,049 n.a. 87% n.a. 57.2% Yes Yes LBAS, EPSU
LĀADA Vol. O 1,427 1,100 97% n.a. 4.8% Yes Yes LBAS
MT                    
GWU Vol. O 46,156 n.a. 18% 30% n.a. Yes Yes EPSU, UNI Europa, EURO-WEA, FERPA, ETF, EFFAT, EMF
UHM Vol. O 26,129 5,000 31% 17% 45% Yes Yes CMTU, Eurofedop, FERPA
MAM Vol. SO 680 n.a. 30% 52% 6% Yes Yes CMTU, EFMA, PWG, UEMS, CPME
MUMN Vol. SO 2,466 2,466 71% 40% 22% Yes Yes EFNNMA, EMA
NL                    
FNV Abvakabo Vol. O 352,000 37,500 n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes FNV, EPSU
CNV Publicke Zaak Vol. SO 78,761 7,200 n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CNV, EPSU, Eurofedop
CMHF Vol. SO 61,000 27,100 n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes MHP, EPSU c
PL                    
OZZPiP Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes FZZ
FZZPOiPS Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. ~ 14% Yes Yes OPZZ
SOZ Vol. O n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. ~ 8% Yes Yes NSZZ Solidarity, EPSU
OZZL Vol. SO ~ 22,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes FEMS
PT                    
SCTS Vol. SO 5,600 4,800 65% 77% 5.3% Yes Yes EAPB
SEP Vol. SO 18,000 14,205 84% 39.2% 47.9% Yes Yes CGTP
SIFAP Vol. SO 3,000 30 40%   0% Yes Yes  
SINTAP Vol. SO n.a. 3,500 58% n.a. 3.8% Yes Yes UGT, EPSU
UHWSP Vol. SO 13,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CGTP, FESAHT
UHWNP Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CGTP, FESAHT
UHWCP Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CGTP, FESAHT
UHWA Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CGTP, FESAHT
UHWARM Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CGTP, FESAHT
UWTTS Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CGTP, FESAHT
FETESE Vol. SO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes UGT
RO                    
Federaţia Sanitas Vol. SO 120,000 109,000 65% 65% 75% Yes Yes CNSLR Frăţia, EPSU
FSS Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No Cartel Alfa, Eurofedop
Federaţia Hipocrat Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes CSDR
TESA din USB Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes Yes Cartel Alfa
SE                    
SK Vol. SO 560,000 61,000 81% ~ 75% ~ 75% Yes No LO, EPSU
Vårdförbundet Vol. O 111,009 n.a. 92% 85% n.a. Yes No TCO, EPSU, EPN, EPBS, EMA, EHMA, EFNNMA
SKTF Vol. SO 169,278 1,000–2,000 73% 75%–80% ~ 10% Yes No TCO, EPSU
SL Vol. SO 39,144 n.a. 43% ~ 90% n.a. Yes No SACO, CPME, UEMO, UEMS, AEMH, AMEE
SP Vol. SO 8,651 ~ 1,000 71% n.a. n.a. Yes No SACO, EFPA, EAWOP
FSA Vol. SO 9,464 950–1,900 96% ~ 94% ~ 94% Yes No SACO, COTEC
LSR Vol. SO 11,792 7,500 82% ~ 80% ~ 80% Yes No SACO
SF Vol. SO 7,601 ~ 200 87% ~70%–75% ~70%–75% Yes No SACO
ASSR Vol. SO 52,746 ~ 3,000 80% n.a. n.a. Yes No SACO, EPSU
Ledarna Vol. SO ~ 70,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes No CEC
SI                    
SZSVS Vol. O 20,000 6,000 85% 40.2% 28.3% Yes Yes KSJS, EPSU
SDZNS Vol. SO 8,500 5,000 90% 17.1% 23.6% Yes Yes KSJS
SZS-Pergam Vol. O 7,000 4,500 80% 9% 18.9% Yes Yes –––
FIDES Vol. SO 2,000 1,600 50% 25% 7.5% Yes Yes FEMS
SZSSS Vol. O 4,000 3,000 80% 8% 14% Yes Yes ZSSS
SK                    
SOZZaSS Vol. O 30,394 23,000 80% 37%–39% 46.5% Yes Yes KOZ SR, EPSU
UK                    
BDA Vol. SO 5,768 n.a. 97% n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes TUC
BOS Vol. SO 1,043 n.a. 96% n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes TUC
CSP Vol. SO 35,050 n.a. 86% n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes TUC
MiP Vol. SO 5,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes TUC e
FDA g Vol. SO 16,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes EPSU
GMB Vol. O 575,892 n.a. 43% n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes TUC, EFFAT, FERPA, EPSU, EMCEF, UNI Europa, EFBWW, ETUF-TCL, EMF
HCSA Vol. S 3,088 n.a. 15% < 10% < 10% (Yes) f Yes TUC
UNISON g Vol. O 1,343,000 n.a. 70% n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes TUC, EMCEF, EPSU, UNI Europa, EFFAT, EMF, EFBWW
Unite Vol. O 1,941,610 n.a. 22% n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes TUC, EMCEF, ETF, EFFAT, EPSU, EMF, EFBWW, UNI Europa
RCN Vol. SO 380,000 n.a. ~ 90% n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes EPSU
RCM Vol. SO 23,000 n.a. > 90% n.a. n.a. (Yes) f Yes EPSU
SOR Vol. SO 16,838 n.a. 85% 90% 90% (Yes) f Yes TUC

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations. * As a percentage of total union membership. ** National affiliations are in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral – that is, national-level – organisations are listed; for the European level, only sector-related organisations are listed. Vol. = voluntary membership. C = congruence, O = overlap, S = sectionalism, SO = sectional overlap. n.a. = not available. a = 2007, b = informal negotiations, c = through lower-level affiliates, d = indirect affiliation through confederation, e = only consultation in the public sector, f = Pay Review Bodies, g = involved in sectoral matters through their joint organisation Managers in Partnership (MiP), h = 2007.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2007

Table A2: Domain coverage, membership and density of employer organisations, 2005–2006
Country and organisation name Domain coverage Membership Density (%)
Companies Employees
Type Companies/ members Companies in sector Employees Employees in sector Domain Sector Domain Sector
AT                    
VÖWG SO Vol. 100–110 n.a. n.a. 55,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. 50%
FVPKK SO Obl. 940 45 20,000 n.a. 100% 100% 100% 100%
VPÖ SO Vol. 130 25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
VIO SO Vol. 18 18 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
BE                    
VVI SO Vol. 566 82 80,000 n.a. 38% 38% 22% n.a.
VOV-AEPS SO Vol. 48 n.a. 50,000 n.a. 100% 25% 100% 30%
BECOPRIVE-COBEPRIVE SO Vol. 900 20 140,000 n.a. 100% 10% 100% n.a.
NVMSV-FNAMS SO Vol. n.a. 20 n.a. n.a. 100% 10% 100% n.a.
BVZ/ABH C Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FIH-W SO Vol. 145 31 n.a. n.a. 100% 14% 100% 45%
AFIS SO Vol. 67 20 n.a. n.a. 100% 10% 100% n.a.
CBI SO Vol. 31 8 n.a. n.a. 100% 4% 100% n.a.
SOVERVLAG SO Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
BG                    
NAHE O Vol. 24 17 13,867 12,307 7% 5.4% 18.4% 17.9%
CY                    
OEB SO Vol. 5,000 52 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
CZ                    
AČMN C Vol. 147 147 n.a. n.a. 37.6% 37.6% n.a. n.a.
DE                    
VKA SO Vol. n.a. 650 2,000,000 450,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TdL SO Vol. n.a. ~ 40 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
BDPK S Vol. 460 460 248,000 248,000 79% 28% 83% n.a.
DK                    
DR SO Vol. ––– ––– n.a. 105,762 100% 100% 100% 100%
EE                    
EHL C Vol. 22 22 15,000 15,000 41% 41% n.a. n.a.
EL                    
ASMC S Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
ANPC S Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PHAEHU SO Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
ACR S Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
ES                    
––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––
FI                    
TLR SO Vol. 210 25 17,000 3,000 2% 100% 86% 100%
KT SO Obl. 616 n.a. 428,000 75,500 100% 99% 100% 100%
PTY SO ? 364 7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FR                    
FHF SO Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FEHAP SO Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FHP SO Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
HU                    
––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––
IE                    
HSEEA SO Obl. n.a. n.a. 100,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. 76.9% n.a.
IBEC O Vol. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
IT                    
ARAN SO Obl. 9,792 n.a. 2,589,944 n.a. 100% 100% 100% 100%
AIOP SO Vol. 542 n.a. 65,704 n.a. 86.6% n.a. n.a. n.a.
ARIS SO Vol. 264 n.a. 54,131 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
FDCG SO Vol. 28 n.a. 3,800 n.a. 100% n.a. n.a. n.a.
LT                    
––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––
LU                    
EHL O Vol. 24 13 8,477 7,308 <100% <100% <100% <100%
LV                    
LSB C Vol. 52 52 n.a. n.a. 64% 64% 70% 70%
MT                    
––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––
NL                    
NVZ S Vol. 170 170 120,219 120,219 100% 59% 100% 48%
NFU S Vol. 8 8 60,000 60,000 100% 3% 100% 24%
GGZ S Vol. 110 110 68,932 68,932 100% 38% 100% 28%
PL                    
Polish Health Corporation SO Vol. n.a. 170 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PT                    
APHP S Vol. 42 42 6,500 6,500 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
RO                    
––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––
SE                    
SKL SO Vol. 311 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100% ~ 95% 100% n.a.
V SO Vol. ~ 1,800 ~ 100 44,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
SI                    
––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––
SK                    
ANS C Vol. 57 57 20,000 20,000 50% 50% 40% 40%
AFN SR S Vol. 15 15 19,843 19,843 94% 13% 95% 40%
UK                    
NHS Employers SO Vol. 227 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations. C = congruence, O = overlap, S = sectionalism, SO = sectional overlap. Vol. = voluntary membership, Obl. = obligatory membership. n.a. = not available.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2007

Table A3: Collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of employer organisations, 2005–2006
Country and organisation name Collective bargaining Consultation National and European affiliations*
AT      
VÖWG No No HOSPEEM, CEEP
FVPKK Yes Yes –––
VPÖ Yes Yes UEHP
VIO Yes No –––
BE      
VVI Yes Yes CSPO, Verso, IHF
VOV-AEPS Yes Yes CSPO, Verso, BCSPO/CBENM, UFENM, HOPE
BECOPRIVE-COBEPRIVE Yes Yes UEHP
NVMSV-FNAMS Yes Yes CSPO, BCSPO/CBENM, UFENM
BVZ/ABH Yes Yes HOPE
FIH-W Yes Yes CSPO, UFENM, HOPE, IHF
AFIS Yes Yes CSPO, UFENM, HOPE
CBI Yes Yes CSPO, BCSPO/CBENM
SOVERVLAG Yes Yes –––
BG      
NAHE Yes Yes BIA
CY      
OEB Yes No –––
CZ      
AČMN No No HOSPEEM
DE      
VKA Yes Yes BVöD, HOSPEEM, CEEP a
TdL Yes Yes –––
BDPK Yes Yes UEHP
DK      
DR Yes Yes HOSPEEM, CEEP
EE      
EHL Yes Yes ETTK, HOPE, EHMA
EL      
ASMC Yes No –––
ANPC Yes No –––
PHAEHU Yes No –––
ACR Yes No –––
ES      
––– ––– ––– –––
FI      
TLR Yes Yes EK
KT Yes Yes CEEP, CEMR
PTY Yes Yes –––
FR      
FHF (Yes b) Yes HOPE, HOSPEEM
FEHAP Yes Yes UNIFED, HOPE
FHP Yes Yes MEDEF, EBS
HU      
––– ––– ––– –––
IE      
HSEEA Yes Yes HOSPEEM
IBEC Yes n.a. –––
IT      
ARAN Yes Yes HOSPEEM
AIOP Yes Yes Confindustria, UEHP
ARIS Yes Yes –––
FDCG Yes Yes –––
LT      
––– ––– ––– –––
LU      
EHL Yes Yes HOPE, EAHD, COPAS
LV      
LSB Yes Yes LDDK, HOSPEEM
MT      
––– ––– ––– –––
NL      
NVZ Yes Yes VNO-NCW, HOSPEEM
NFU Yes Yes VNO-NCW
GGZ Yes Yes VNO-NCW
PL      
Polish Health Corporation No Yes KPP, HOSPEEM
PT      
APHP Yes Yes UEHP
RO      
––– ––– ––– –––
SE      
SKL Yes No CEEP, HOSPEEM c
V Yes No SN, UF, SF
SI      
––– ––– ––– –––
SK      
ANS Yes Yes AZZZ SR, EAHM, HOPE
AFN SR Yes Yes –––
UK      
NHS Employers Yes d Yes HOPE, HOSPEEM

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations. * National affiliations are in italics; only affiliations to sectoral European associations are listed. n.a. = not available. a= indirect affiliation through higher level organisation, b = only consultation in the public sector, c = indirect affiliation through Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL), d = Pay Review Bodies.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2007


Annex 2 : List of abbreviations

Country Abbreviation Full Name of organisation
Austria (AT) FVPKK Association of Private Hospitals and Sanatoria (Fachverband der privaten Krankenanstalten und der Kurbetriebe)
  GdG Municipal Employees’ Union (Gewerkschaft der Gemeindebediensteten)
  GÖD Union of Public Employees (Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst)
  GPA-DJP Union of Salaried Private Sector Employees – Union of Printers, Journalists and Paper Workers (Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten, Druck, Journalismus, Papier)
  ÖÄK Austrian Chamber of Doctors (Österreichische Ärztekammer)
  ÖGB Austrian Federation of Trade Unions (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund)
  Vida Vida trade union
  VIO Association of Interest Representation of Catholic Hospitals and Old People’s and Nursing Homes (Verein Interessenvertretung von Ordensspitälern und von konfessionellen Alten- und Pflegeheimen Österreichs)
  VÖWG Austrian Association of Public and Social Enterprises (Verband der Öffentlichen Wirtschaft und Gemeinwirtschaft)
  VPÖ Association of Private Hospitals in Austria (Verband der Privatkrankenanstalten Österreichs)
Belgium (BE) ABVV/FGTB Belgian General Federation of Labour (Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond/Fédération générale du travail de Belgique)
  AC-CG General Federation (Algemene Centrale/Centrale Générale)
  ACLVB-CGSLB Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (Algemene Centrale der Liberale Vakbonden van België/Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de Belgique)
  ACOD/CGSP General Federation of Public Services (Algemene Centrale der Openbare Diensten/Centrale Générale des Services Publics)
  ACV/CSC Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond/Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens)
  ACV-Public Services ACV-Openbare diensten/CSC-Services Publics
  AFIS French-speaking Association of Healthcare Institutions
  BBTK-SETCa Union of White-collar, Technical and Executive Employees (Bond der Bedienden, Technici en Kaders/Syndicat des Employés, Techniciens et Cadres)
  BCSPO/CBENM Brussels Confederation of Social Profit Companies (Brusselse Confederatie van Social Profit Ondernemingen/Confédération Bruxelloise des Entreprises Non-Marchandes)
  BECOPRIVE-COBEPRIVE Belgian Confederation of Private Healthcare Institutions
  BVZ/ABH Belgian association of hospitals (Belgische Vereniging van Ziekenhuizen/Association belge des hôpitaux)
  CBI Brussels’ Confederation of Social and Healthcare Institutions
  CNE-GNC National Employee Federation (Centrale Nationale des Employés-Groupement National des Cadres)
  CSPO Confederation of Social Profit Companies (Confederatie voor Social Profit Ondernemingen)
  FIH-W Federation of Hospital Institutions of Wallonia (Fédération des Institutions Hospitalières – Wallonie)
  LBC-NVK National Employee Federation (Landelijke Bediendecentrale/Nationaal Verbond voor Kaderpersoneel)
  NVMSV-FNAMS National Federation of Medicosocial associations (Nationaal Verbond van de medisch-sociale verenigingen/Fédération nationale des associations médico-sociales)
  SOVERVLAG Socialist Federation of Flemish health services (Socialistische Vereneging van Vlaamse Gezondheid)
  UFENM French-speaking federation of not-for-profit companies (Union francophone des entreprises non-marchandes)
  Verso Flemish social profit companies
  VOV-AEPS Federation of Public care institutions (Vereniging van Openbare Verzorgingsinstellingen/Association des Établissements publics de Soins)
  VSOA-LRB/SLFP-ALR Free trade union of the Public Service – Local and regional authorities (Vrij Syndicaat voor het Openbaar Ambt-Lokale en Regionale Besturen/Syndicat Libre de la Fonction Publique-Administrations Locales et Régionales)
  VVI Federation of Caring Institutions
Bulgaria (BG) BIA Bulgarian Industrial Association
  CITUB Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria
  CL Podkrepa Confederation of Labour Podkrepa
  FTUH Federation of Trade Unions in Healthcare
  MF Podkrepa Medical Federation Podkrepa
  NAHE National Association of Healthcare Employers
  SCTCH Sectoral Council for Tripartite Cooperation in Healthcare
Cyprus (CY) FGMCSW Federation of Government, Military and Civil Service Workers
  FPSW Federation of Private Sector Workers
  OEB Employers and Industrialists Federation (Ομοσπονδία Εργοδοτών και Βιομηχάνων)
  PASYDY Pancyprian Public Employees Trade Union (Παγκύπρια Συντεχνία ∆ηµοσίων Υπαλλήλων)
  PASYEK Pancyprian Government and Military Workers Trade Union (Παγκύπρια Συντεχνία Κυβερνητικών και Στρατιωτικών Εργατοϋπαλλήλων)
  PASYKI Pancyprian Union of Government Doctors (Παγκύπρια Συντεχνία Κυβερνητικών Ιατρών)
  PASYNO Pancyprian Union of Government Nurses (Παγκύπρια Συντεχνία Νοσηλευτών)
  PEO Pancyprian Federation of Labour (Παγκύπρια Εργατική Ομοσπονδία)
  SEK Cyprus Workers’ Confederation (Συνομοσπονδία Εργαζομένων Κύπρου)
  SEVETTYK Cyprus Industrial, Commercial, Press-Printing and General Services Workers’ Trade Union (Συντεχνία Εργατοϋπαλλήλων Βιοµηχανίας, Εµπορίου, Τύπου- Τυπογραφείων και Γενικών Υπηρεσιών Κύπρου)
Czech Republic (CZ) AČMN Association of Czech and Moravian Hospitals (Asociace českých a moravských nemocnic)
  ASO Association of Independent Trade Unions (Asociace samostatných odborů)
  ČMKOS Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (Českomoravská konfederace odborových svazů)
  LOK-SČL Trade Union of Doctors in the Czech Republic (Lékařský odborový klub-Svaz českých lékařů)
  OSZSP ČR Trade Union of the Health Service and Social Care of the Czech Republic (Odborový svaz zdravotnictví a sociální péče ČR)
  POUZPČMS Professional and Trade Union of Medical Workers of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (Profesní odborová unie zdravotnických pracovníků Čech, Moravy a Slezska)
Germany (DE) BDPK Federal Association of German Private Hospitals (Bundesverband Deutscher Privatkliniken)
  BiG Health Sector Employees Union (Gewerkschaft für Beschäftigte im Gesundheitswesen)
  BVöD Federation of Public Service Employees (Beschäftigtenverband öffentlicher Dienst)
  CGB Christian Trade Union Federation (Christlicher Gewerkschaftsbund)
  DBB German Civil Service Association (Deutscher Beamtenbund)
  DGB Confederation of German Trade Unions (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund)
  GOED Christian Public Service Workers’ Union (Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst und Dienstleistungen)
  TdL Employers’ Association of the Länder (Tarifgemeinschaft deutscher Länder)
  Ver.di United Services Union (Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft)
  VKA Confederation of Municipal Employers’ Associations (Verband der kommunalen Arbeitgeberverbände)
Denmark (DK) 3F United Federation of Danish Workers (Fagligt Fælles Forbund)
  AC Danish Confederation of Professional Associations (Akademikernes Centralorganisation)
  Dansk Metal Danish Metalworkers’ Union
  DBIO Danish Bio Analysts (Danske Bioanalytikere)
  DF Association of Danish Physiotherapists (Danske Fysioterapeuter)
  DJØF Danish Association of Lawyers and Economists (Danmarks Jurist- og Økonomforbund)
  DR Danish Regions (Danske Regioner)
  DSR Danish Nurses’ Organisation (Dansk Sygeplejeråd)
  Ergo Danish Association of Occupational Therapists (Ergoterapeutforeningen)
  Farma Danish Association of Pharmaconomists (Farmakonomforeningen)
  FAS Danish Association of Medical Specialists (Foreningen Af Speciallæger)
  FOA Trade and Labour (Fag og Arbejde)
  FTF Confederation of Salaried Employees and Civil Servants (Funktionærernes og Tjenestemændenes Fællesråd)
  HK-Kommunal Union of Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark (Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund-Kommunal)
  IDA Danish Society of Engineers (Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark)
  Jordemoder Danish Association of Midwives (Jordemoderforeningen)
  K&E Danish Diet and Nutrition Association (Kost & Ernæringsforbundet)
  KTO Association of Local Government Employees’ Organisations (Kommunale Tjenestemænd og Overenskomstansatte)
  LO Danish Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisationen i Danmark)
  MMF Danish Engineers Association (Maskinmestrenes Forening)
  SK Health Confederation (Sundhedskartellet)
  SL National Federation of Social Educators in Denmark (Socialpædagogernes Landsforbund)
  TL Danish Association of Professional Technicians (Teknisk Landsforbund)
  YL Danish Association of Junior Hospital Doctors (Yngre Læger)
Estonia (EE) EAKL Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions (Eesti Ametiühingute Keskliit)
  EAL Estonian Medical Association (Eesti Arstide Liit)
  EHL Estonian Hospitals Association (Eesti Haiglate Liit)
  EKTK Trade Union Association of Healthcare Officers of Estonia (Eesti Keskastme Tervishoiutöötajate Kutseliit)
  EOL Estonian Nurses Union (Eesti Ödedeliit)
  ETTAL Federation of Estonian Healthcare Professionals Unions (Eesti Tervishoiutöötajate Ametiühingute Liit)
  ETTK Estonian Employers’ Confederation (Eesti Tööandjate Keskliit)
  TALO Estonian Employees’ Unions’ Confederation (Teenistujate Ametiliitude Keskorganisatsioon)
Greece (EL) ACR Association of Clinics of the Regions of Peloponnesos, Western Greece and Islands
  ADEDY Confederation of Public Servants (Ανώτατη Διοίκηση Ενώσεων Δημοσίων Υπαλλήλων)
  ANPC Association of Neuropsychiatric Clinics of Greece
  ASMC Association of Modern Clinics of Greece
  GSEE Greek General Confederation of Labour (Γενική Συνομοσπονδία Εργατών Ελλάδας)
  IKA Social Insurance Foundation (Ίδρυμα Κοινωνικών Ασφαλίσεων)
  OSNIE Federation of Greek Healthcare Institution Unions (Ομοσπονδία Συλλόγων Νοσηλευτικών Ιδρυμάτων Ελλάδας)
  PHAEHU Panhellenic Association of Elders’ Healthcare Units
  POEDIN Panhellenic Federation of Public Hospital Workers (Πανελλήνια Ομοσπονδία Εργαζομένων Δημόσιων Νοσοκομείων)
  POSE-IKA IKA Employees’ Federation (Πανελλήνια Ομοσπονδία Συλλόγου Εργαζομένων-IKA)
  POSEYP-IKA Panhellenic Federation of Health Scientists in IKA (Πανελλήνιας Ομοσπονδίας Συλλόγων Επιστημονικού Υγειονομικού Προσωπικού-IKA)
  POYGY-IKA Panhellenic Federation of Healthcare Employees in IKA (Πανελλ Ομοσπ Υγειονομικων Υπαλλ-IKA)
Spain (ES) CC.OO Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras)
  CESM National Confederation of Doctors Trade Unions (Confederación Estatal de Sindicatos Médicos)
  ELA-STV Basque Workers’ Solidarity (Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna/Solidaridad de Trabajadores Vascos)
  ELA-STV-Gizalan Basque Workers’ Solidarity-Public Service Federation
  FEP-USO Federation of Public Employees of USO (Federación de Empleados Públicos-USO)
  FSP-UGT Public Services Federation of UGT (Federación de Servicios Públicos-UGT)
  FSSS-CC.OO Health Federation of CC.OO
  UGT General Workers’ Confederation (Unión General de Trabajadores)
  USO Workers’ Trade Union Confederation (Union Sindical Obrera)
Finland (FI) AEK Central Union of Special Branches within AKAVA (Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto)
  BOTBS Bargaining Organisation for Technical and Basic Services (Tekniikan ja Peruspalvelujen Neuvottelujärjestö)
  ERTO Federation of Special Service and Clerical Employees ( Erityisalojen Toimihenkilöliitto)
  JHL Trade Union for the Public and Welfare Sector (Julkisten ja hyvinvointialojen liitto)
  JUKO Public Sector Negotiating Commission of AKAVA (Julkisalan koulutettujen neuvottelujärjestö)
  Jyty Federation of Public and Private Sector Employees (Julkis- ja yksityisalojen toimihenkilöliitto)
  KT Commission for Local Authority Employers (Kunnallinen työmarkkinalaitos)
  KTN Confederation of Employees in Technical and Basic Service Professions (Tekniikan ja Peruspalvelujen Neuvottelujärjestö)
  PTY Employers’ Association for Service Enterprises (Palvelulaitosten työnantajayhdistys)
  SAK Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (Suomen Ammattiliittojen Keskusjärjestö)
  SL Finnish Medical Association (Suomen Lääkäriliitto)
  STTK Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (Toimihenkilökeskusjärjestö)
  SuPer Finnish Union of Practical Nurses (Suomen lähi- ja perushoitajaliitto)
  Tehy Union of Health and Social Care Professionals (Terveyden- ja sosiaalihuoltoalan ammattijärjestö)
  TLR Private Health Service Association (Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry)
  TNJ Negotiating Organisation of Salaried Employees (Toimihenkilöiden neuvottelujärjestö)
France (FR) CFDT French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail)
  CFE-CGC French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l’encadrement – Confédération générale des cadres)
  CFE-CGC-SMAS French Federation of Health, Medicine and Social Services (CFE-CGC de la Santé, de la Médecine et de l’Action Sociale)
  CFTC French Christian Workers Confederation (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens)
  CFTC SS Health and Social Services Workers’ Federation (Fédération CFTC Santé et Sociaux)
  CGPME General Confederation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Confédération générale des petites et moyennes entreprises)
  CGT General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail)
  CNAMTS National Salaried Employee Health Insurance Fund (Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salari)
  CNOSS National Committee on Health and Social Services Organisation (Comité national de l’organisation sanitaire et sociale)
  CSFPH Hospital Civil Service Higher Council (Conseil supérieur de la fonction publique hospitalière)
  FEHAP Federation of Private Hospital and Assistance Establishments (Fédération des établissements hospitaliers et d’assistance privés)
  FHF Hospital Federation of France (Fédération hospitalière de France)
  FHP Federation of Private Hospitalisation (Fédération de l’hospitalisation privée)
  FO General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail – Force ouvrière)
  FO-PS Public Services and Health Services Workers’ Federation of FO (FO Publics Santé)
  FSAS-CGT Health and Social Services Federation of CGT (Fédération CGT de la Santé et de l’Action Sociale)
  FSS-CFDT Health and Social Workers Federation of CFDT (Fédération Santé Sociaux CFDT)
  MEDEF Movement of French Enterprises (Mouvement des entreprises de France)
  SNCH National Union of Hospital Managers (Syndicat national des cadres hospitaliers)
  SUD Independent Union – Solidarity, Unity, Democracy (Union syndicale – solidaires, unitaires, démocratiques)
  SUD SS National Health and Social Service Workers’ Federation (SUD Santé-Sociaux)
  UNIFED Union of Non-profitmaking Employer Federations and National Associations in the Health, Sociomedical and Social Services Sector (Union des fédérations et syndicats nationaux d’employeurs sans but lucratif du secteur sanitaire, médico-social et social)
  UNSA National Federation of Independent Unions (Union nationale des syndicats autonomes)
  UPA Craftwork Employers’ Association (Union professionnelle artisanale)
Hungary (HU) EDDSZ Democratic Union of Healthcare Employees (Egészségügyi és Szociális Ágazatban Dolgozók Demokratikus Szakszervezete)
  HODOSZ Trade Union of Defence Employees (Honvédségi Dolgozók Szakszervezete)
  LIGA Democratic League of Independent Trade Unions (Független Szakszervezetek Demokratikus Ligája)
  LIGA ES LIGA Health Federation (LIGA Egészségügyi Szövetség)
  MOSZ Federation of Hungarian Physicians (Magyar Orvosok Szövetsége)
  MSZOSZ National Association of Hungarian Trade Unions (Magyar Szakszervezetek Országos Szövetsége)
  OSS Medical Universities’ Trade Union Federation (Orvasegyetemek Szakszervezeti Szövetsége)
  SZEF Trade Unions’ Cooperation Forum (Szakszervezetek Együttműködési Fóruma)
  VSZ Trade Union of Hungarian Railwaymen (Vasutasok Szakszervezete)
Ireland (IE) HSEEA Health Service Executive Employers Agency
  IBEC Irish Business and Employers Confederation
  ICTU Irish Congress of Trade Unions
  IHCA Irish Hospital Consultants Association
  IMO Irish Medical Organisation
  IMPACT Irish Municipal Public and Civil Trade Union
  INO Irish Nurses Organisation
  PNA Psychiatric Nurses Association
  SIPTU Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union
  TEEU Technical Engineering and Electrical Union
  UNITE UNITE Trade Union
Italy (IT) AIOP Italian Association of Private Hospitalisation (Associazione Italiana Ospedalità Privata)
  ANAAO ASSOMED Association of Medical Managers (Associazione Medici Dirigenti)
  ANPO National Association of Head Physicians of Hospitals (Associazione Nazionale Primari Ospedalieri)
  ARAN State Bargaining Relations Agency (Agenzia per la rappresentanza negoziale delle pubbliche amministrazioni)
  ARIS Association of Religious Sociomedical Institutions (Associazione Religiosa istituti Sociosanitari)
  ARPA Regional Agencies for Environmental Prevention (Agenzie Regionali per la Prevenzione Ambientale)
  AUPI United Association of Italian Psychologists (Associazione Unitaria Psicologi Italiani)
  CGIL General Confederation of Italian Workers (Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro)
  CIDA Italian Confederation of Managers and High Professionals (Confederazione Italiana dei dirigenti e delle alte professionalità)
  CIMO-ASMD Italian Coordination of Hospital Medics-Trade Union Association of Medical Managers (Coordinamento Italiano dei Medici Ospedalieri – Associazione Sindacale dei Medici Dirigenti)
  CIMOP Italian Confederation of Private Hospital Doctors (Confederazione Italiana Medici Ospedalità Privata)
  CISL Italian Confederation of Workers’ Trade Unions (Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori)
  CISL Medici Federation of Medics, affiliated to CISL
  CIVEMP Italian Confederation of Veterinary Surgeons and Preventive Medics (Confederazione Italiana Veterinari e Medici della Prevenzione)
  CONFEDIR Confederation of Trade Unions of Directors, Managers and High Professionals in Public Service (Confederazione dei sindacati dei funzionari direttivi, dirigenti e delle elevate professionalità della funzione pubblica)
  CONFEDIR SANITÀ CONFEDIR – Health
  Confindustria General Confederation of Italian Industry (Confederazione Generale dell’Industria Italiana)
  CONFSAL General Trade Union Confederation of Autonomous Workers (Confederazione Generale Sindacati Autonomi Lavoratori)
  COSMED Confederation of Italian Doctors (Confederazione Medici Italiani)
  FDCG Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation (Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi)
  FESMED Trade Union Federation of Medical Managers (Federazione sindacale medici dirigenti)
  FIALS Italian Autonomous Federation of Health Workers (Federazione Italiana Autonoma Lavoratori Sanità)
  FPS-CISL Federation of Public and Service Workers (Federazione Lavoratori Pubblici e dei Servizi-CISL)
  FSI Federation of Independent Trade Unions (Federazione Sindacati Indipendenti)
  FSI Sanità Independent Trade Union Health Federation
  FP-CGIL Public Service Union of CGIL (Funzione Pubblica CGIL)
  SDS-SNABI National Trade Union of Health Managers of SSN and ARPA-National Trade Union of Italian Biologists, Chemists and Physicists (Sindacato Nazionale Dirigenti Sanitari SSN e ARPA-Sindacato Nazionale Biologi, Chimici e Fisici Italiani)
  Si.Na.F.O National Trade Union of Chemist Managers of SSN (Sindacato Nazionale Farmacisti Dirigenti del SSN)
  S.I.Dir.S.S Italian Trade Union of Health Service Managers (Sindacato Italiano Dirigenti Servizio Sanitario)
  SSN National Health Service (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale)
  UGL General Union of Workers (Unione Generale del Lavoro)
  UGL Sanità General Union of Workers – Health Sector
  UIL Union of Italian Workers (Unione Italiana del Lavoro)
  UIL FPL Federation of Local Institutions of UIL (Federazione Poteri Locali-UIL)
  UMSPED Union of Medical Specialist Managers (Unione medici specialisti dirigenti)
Lithuania (LT) LGS Union of Lithuanian Doctors (Lietuvos gydytojų sąjunga)
  LMDPS Trade Union of Lithuanian Medical Employees (Lietuvos medicinos darbuotojų profsąjunga)
  LPSK Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation (Lietuvos profesinių sąjungų konfederacija)
  LSADPS Lithuanian Trade Union of Healthcare Workers (Lietuvos Sveikatos apsaugos darbuotojų profesinė sąjunga)
  LSSO Organisation of Lithuanian Nursing Specialists (Lietuvos slaugos specialistų organizacija)
Luxembourg (LU) EHL Luxembourg Hospitals Alliance (Entente des Hôpitaux Luxembourgeois)
  LCGB Luxembourg Christian Trade Union Confederation (Lëtzebuerger Chrëschtleche Gewerkschafts-Bond)
  OGB-L Luxembourg Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (Onofhängege Gewerkschaftsbond Lëtzebuerg)
Latvia (LV) LĀADA Latvian Nursing and Healthcare Personnel Trade Union (Latvijas Ārstniecības un aprūpes darbinieku arodsavienība)
  LBAS Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia (Latvijas Brīvo arodbiedrību savienība)
  LDDK Latvian Employers’ Confederation (Latvijas Darba devēju konfederācija)
  LSB Latvian Hospital Association (Latvijas Slimnīcu biedrība)
  LVSADA Latvian Health and Social Care Workers Trade Union (Latvijas Veselības un sociālās aprūpes darbinieku arodbiedrība)
Malta (MT) CMTU Confederation of Malta Trade Unions
  GWU General Workers Union
  MAM Medical Association of Malta
  MUMN Malta Union of Midwives and Nurses
  UHM Union of United Workers (Union Haddiema Maghqudin)
Netherlands (NL) CMHF Union for Managerial and Professional Civil Servants (Centrale van Middelbare en Hogere Functionarissen)
  CNV Christian Trade Union Federation (Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond)
  CNV Publieke Zaak Public Sector Union of CNV
  FNV Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging)
  FNV Abvakabo Civil Servants Union of FNV
  FNV-BG Allied Industry, Food, Services and Transport Union (FNV Bondgenoten)
  GGZ Mental Health Netherlands (Geestelijke Gezondheidszorg Nederland)
  MHP Federation of Managerial and Professional Staff Unions (Vakcentrale voor Middengroepen en Hoger Personeel)
  NFU Dutch Federation of University Medical Centres (Nederlandse Federatie van Universitair Medische Centra)
  NU91 Nurses Trade Union (Nieuwe Unie ’91)
  NVZ Association of Hopitals Netherlands (Nederlandse Vereniging van Ziekenhuizen)
  VNO-NCW Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (Vereniging van Nederlandse Ondernemingen-Nederlands Christelijk Werkgeversverbond)
Poland (PL) FZZ Forum of Trade Unions (Forum Związków Zawodowych)
  FZZPOiPS Federation of Healthcare and Social Aid Employee Unions (Federacja Związków Zawodowych Pracowników Ochrony Zdrowia i Pomocy Społecznej)
  KPP Confederation of Polish Employers (Konfederacja Pracodawców Polskich)
  NSZZ Solidarity Independent and Self-governing Trade Union Solidarity (Niezależny Samorządny Związek Zawodowy Solidarność)
  OPZZ All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions (Ogólnopolskie Porozumienie Związków Zawodowych)
  OZZL Doctors’ Trade Union of Poland (Ogólnopolski Związek Zawodowy Lekarzy)
  OZZPiP Union of Administrative Service Healthcare Employees in Poland (Ogólnopolski Związek Zawodowy Pielęgniarek i Położnych)
  SOZ Health Care Secretariat (Sekretariat Ochrony Zdrowia)
Portugal (PT) APHP Portuguese Association of Private Hospitals (Associação Portuguesa de Hospitais Privados)
  CGTP General Portuguese Workers’ Confederation (Confederação Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses)
  FESAHT Federation of Unions in Food, Beverages, Hotels and Tourism of Portugal (Federação dos Sindicatos da Alimentação, Bebidas, Hotelaria e Turismo de Portugal)
  FETESE Federation of Unions of Workers and Technicians in Services (Federação dos Sindicatos dos Trabalhadores de Escritório e Serviços)
  SCTS Union of Health Sciences and Technologies (Sindicato das Ciências e Tecnologias da Saúde)
  SEP Union of Portuguese Nurses (Sindicato dos Enfermeiros Portugueses)
  SIFAP National Union of Pharmaceutical and Paramedical Professionals (Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Farmácia e Paramédicos)
  SINTAP Union of Public Administration Workers (Sindicato dos Trabalhadores da Administração Pública)
  UGT General Workers Union (União Geral de Trabalhadores)
  UHWA Union of Hotel Workers of the Algarve
  UHWARM Union of Hotel Workers of the Autonomous Region of Madeira
  UHWCP Union of Hotel Workers in Central Portugal
  UHWNP Union of Hotel Workers in Northern Portugal
  UHWSP Union of Hotel Workers in Southern Portugal
  UWTTS Union of Workers in Transport, Tourism and other Services
Romania (RO) Cartel Alfa National Trade Union Confederation ‘Cartel Alfa’ (Confederaţia Naţională Sindicală ‘Cartel Alfa’)
  CNLSR Frăţia National Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Romania Brotherhood (Confederaţia Naţională a Sindicatelor Libere din România Frăţia)
  CSDR Confederation of Democratic Trade Unions from Romania (Confederaţia Sindicatelor Democratice din România)
  Federaţia Hipocrat Medical-Sanitary and Pharmaceutical Trade Union Federation Hipocrat (Federaţia Sindicală Medico-Sanitară şi Farmaceutică Hipocrat)
  Federaţia Sanitas Sanitas Federation of healthcare workers
  FSS Healthcare Workers Solidarity Federation (Federaţia Solidaritatea Sanitară)
  TESA din USB National Federation of Free Trade Unions of Technical, Economic and Administrative Workers from Healthcare Units and Health Clubs (Federaţia Naţională a Sindicatelor Libere Tehnic-Economic şi Administrativ din Unităţile Sanitare şi Balneare)
Sweden (SE) ASSR Association of Graduates in Public Administration and Social Work (Akademikerförbundet Sveriges Socionomers Riksförbund)
  FSA Swedish Association of Occupational Therapists (Förbundet Sveriges Arbetsterapeuter)
  FSF Swedish Association of Occupational Health and Safety (Föreningen Svensk Företagshälsovård)
  Ledarna Swedish Organisation for Managerial and Professional Staff
  LO Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisationen)
  LSR Swedish Association of Registered Physiotherapists (Legitimerade Sjukgymnasters Rihsförbund)
  SACO Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations (Sveriges Akademikers Centralorganisation)
  SF Swedish Pharmaceutical Associations (Sveriges Farmacevtförbund)
  SK Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union (Svenska Kommunalarbetarförbundet)
  SALAR (SKL) Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting)
  SKTF Swedish Union for Publicly and Privately Employed Salaried Employees (Sveriges Kommunaltjänstemanna Förbund)
  SL Swedish Medical Association (Sveriges Läkarförbund)
  SN Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv)
  SP Swedish Psychological Association (Sveriges Psykologförbund)
  TCO Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees (Tjänstemännens Centralorganisation)
  UF Young Enterprise (Ung Företagsamhet)
  V Swedish Association of Health Professionals (Vårdförbundet)
Slovenia (SI) FIDES Trade Union of Doctors and Dentists of Slovenia (Sindikat zdravnikov in zobozdravnikov Slovenije)
  KSJS Confederation of Public Sector Trade Unions (Konfederacija sindikatov javnega sektorja)
  SDZNS Healthcare Trade Union (Sindikat delavcev v zdravstveni negi Slovenije)
  SZS-Pergam Association of Trade Unions in Health – Confederation of Trade Unions of Slovenia Pergam (Sindikati v zdravstvu Slovenije – Konfederacija sindikatov Slovenije Pergam)
  SZSSS Trade Union of Health and Social Welfare of Slovenia (Sindikat zdravstva in socialnega skrbstva Slovenije)
  SZSVS Trade Union of Health and Social Security of Slovenia (Sindikat Zdravstva in Socialnega Varstva Slovenije)
  ZSSS Union of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia (Zveza svobodnih sindikatov Slovenije)
Slovakia (SK) AFN SR Association of University Hospitals (Asociácia fakultných nemocníc Slovenskej republiky)
  ANS Association of Slovakian Hospitals (Asociácia nemocníc Slovenska)
  AZZZ SR Federation of Employers Associations (Asociácia zamestnávateľských zväzov a združení Slovenskej republiky)
  HSR MZSR Healthcare Sector Economic and Social Council (Hospodárska a sociálna rada v rezorte zdravotníctva)
  KOZ SR Confederation of Trade Unions (Konfederácia odborových zväzov Slovenskej republiky)
  LOZ Labour Union of Doctors (Lekárske odborové združenie)
  SOZZaSS Slovakian Trade Union of Health and Social Services (Slovenský odborový zväz zdravotníctva a sociálnych služieb)
United Kingdom (UK) BDA British Dietetic Association
  BOS British Orthoptic Society
  CSP Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
  FDA First Division Association
  GMB Britain’s General Trade Union
  HCSA Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association
  MiP Managers in Partnership
  NHS Employers National Health Service Employers
  PROSPECT Trade Union for Professionals
  RCM Royal College of Midwives
  RCN Royal College of Nursing
  SOR Society of Radiographers
  TGWU Transport and General Workers Union
  TUC Trades Union Congress
  UNISON Public Service Workers’ Union
  Unite Unite the Union
 
  Abbreviation Full name of organisation
Europe AEMH European Association of Senior Hospital Physicians (Association Européenne des Médecins des Hôpitaux)
  AESGP Association of the European Self-Medication Industry
  AMEE Association for Medical Education in Europe
  CEC European Confederation of Executives and Managerial Staff (Confédération européenne des cadres)
  CEEP European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (Centre européen des entreprises à participation publique et des entreprises d’intérêt économique general)
  CEPT Committee of European Pharmacy Technicians
  CEMR Council of European Municipalities and Regions
  CEOM European Conference of Medical Orders (Conférence Européenne des Ordres des Médecins)
  COPAS Confederation of non-profitmaking aid and care organisations (Confédération des Organismes Prestataires d’Aides et de Soins association sans but lucratif)
  COTEC Council of Occupational Therapists of the European Countries
  CPME Standing Committee of European Doctors (Comité Permanent des Médecins Européens)
  EAHD European Association of Hospital Directors (Association Européenne des Directeurs d’Hôpitaux)
  EAHM European Association of Hospital Managers
  EANA European Working Group of Practitioners and Specialists in Free Practice (Europäische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Der Niedergelassenen Ärzte)
  EAPB European Association for Professions in Biomedical Science
  EAWOP European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology
  EBS European Business Summit
  EFAD European Federation of the Association of Dietitians
  EFBWW European Federation of Building and Wood Workers
  EFFAT European Federation of Trade Unions in Food, Agriculture and Tourism
  EFMA/WHO European Forum of Medical Associations and World Health Organization (WHO)
  EFNNMA European Forum of National Nursing and Midwifery Associations
  EFPA European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations
  EHMA European Health Management Association
  EMA European Midwives Association
  EMCEF European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation
  EMF European Metalworkers’ Federation
  ENOTHE European Network of Occupational Therapy in Higher Education
  EPBS European Association for Professions in Biomedical Science
  EPN European Council of Practical Nurses
  EPSU European Federation of Public Service Unions
  ETF European Transport Workers’ Federation
  ETUF-TCL European Trade Union Federation – Textiles, Clothing, Leather
  Eurofedop European Federation of Public Service Employees
  EURO-WEA European Workers’ Education Associations
  FEANI European Federation of National Engineering Associations (Fédération Européenne d’Associations Nationales d’Ingénieurs)
  FEMS European Federation of Salaried Doctors (Fédération Européenne des Médecins Salariés)
  FERPA Federation of Europe Retired Personnel Association
  HOPE European Hospital and Healthcare Federation
  HOSPEEM European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ Association
  IHF International Hospital Federation
  PSI Public Services International
  PWG Permanent Working Group of European Junior Doctors
  UEHP European Union of Private Hospitals (Union Européenne de l’Hospitalisation Privée)
  UEMO European Union of General Practitioners (Union Européenne des Médecins Omnipraticiens)
  UEMS European Union of Medical Specialists (Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes)
  UNI Europa Union Network International Europe
  WCPT/Europe World Confederation of Physical Therapy/European Region

Franz Traxler, Department of Industrial Sociology, University of Vienna

EF/08/77

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

Add new comment