Developments in collectively agreed pay 2012

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Collective bargaining,
  • Pay and income,
  • Date of Publication: 09 July 2013



About
Author:
Christine Aumayr-Pintar and Karel Fric
Institution:

EIRO’s annual analysis of collectively agreed pay for 2012 finds that although average nominal agreed increases were slightly greater than in 2011 in many countries, the rise in prices diminished people’s purchasing power. In real terms, only a handful of countries had positive collective pay increases on average – and, if so, then very modest. In 2012, these were Sweden (+1.7%), Austria (+0.8%), Germany (+0.6%), France (+0.4%) and Belgium (+0.4%, already including indexation). In the case of Austria, this was a return to positive figures after two years of real decline on average. In countries where some form of pay indexation mechanisms are in place, the increases set via these mechanisms did – by and large (with the exception of Italy) – compensate for the rise in prices in 2012, while they had failed to do so in 2011. The report also examines collectively agreed pay increases in three selected sectors (metal, banking and local government) and developments in statutory minimum wages.

The annual update 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 have not been subject to Eurofound's standard editorial process. The national reports were drawn up in response to a questionnaire and should be read in conjunction with it.

Download the report (1310KB PDF)

National contributions may be available


Introduction

Macroeconomic imbalances within the framework of a common currency area have shifted the position of European policymakers (including the European Central Bank – ECB) on wages: as adjustment variable instead of currency devaluation; the reiterated demand to more closely align wages with productivity growth; and the need to better coordinate wage bargaining internationally. A report on collectively agreed wages (1,997 KB PDF) points out that the Euro-Plus Pact of 2011 calls for a close monitoring of wages and collective bargaining institutions and that the new ‘scoreboard’ to which Member States have to adhere defines a ‘permitted’ margin of wage developments (Schulten 2013). This has resulted in an increasing interest in wage-setting mechanisms and outcomes at national level, which touches ‘sensitive’ fields.

The area of pay setting is a national domain. This has been laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, Article 153(5)), which expressly excludes pay from those fields where ‘the Union shall support and complement the activities of the Member States’.

In February 2013, the Employment Committee of the Council of the European Union invited the European and national social partners to a tripartite exchange on wages, as had been announced in the Commission’s Employment package. Social partners were in general in agreement that wages ought to be a national domain and the autonomy of social partners should be respected.

Wage setting is a complex and diverse process across the Member States. There is a multitude of different approaches as to how wages are negotiated, how minimum wages are agreed upon in social partner negotiations or set unilaterally by government, how wages are indexed so that they reflect price developments or how they are adjusted. This process of wage setting takes place at different levels: centrally in the form of government recommendations; cross-sectoral negotiations; at sector level; or at company level – with all forms of interlinkages or ways of ‘articulation’ between the levels. The map in Figure 1 attempts to give an indicative overview of the dominant levels of wage bargaining for each Member State as of 2012 and it also indicates whether higher-level agreements or laws exist. A 2013 report from Eurofound gives a broad overview of different wage-setting systems (Eurofound 2013) , while a more in-depth study on wage-setting mechanisms and their change in the context of the crisis and new economic governance will follow in 2014. There are no cases where one Member State’s bargaining system is identical to that of another.

Figure 1: Wage setting in the EU, 2012

Figure 1: Wage setting in the EU, 2012

Source: Eurofound, 2013

This underlines the difficulty of pursuing a comparative exercise on developments in collectively agreed pay across Europe. Needless to say, there is no European-level harmonised data source on collectively agreed pay. One notable attempt in this regard is the work done in the CAWIE project (1,019 KB PDF), which does not attempt to harmonise data, but explains and compares cross-national differences in indices of collectively agreed pay (van Gyes, 2013). The authors of this report have therefore sought to respect, document and explain the differences in the bargaining systems of the different countries, while trying to ensure that the comparative view of this European-level exercise is preserved. This report is part of an ongoing annual exercise, which Eurofound has carried out since 1998 through its European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO). For the first time, the annual report includes Croatia as a new Member State. Drawing on a multitude of national data sources the report performs the following tasks:

  • reports on the outcomes of collective wage bargaining across the total economy (in 2011 and 2012);
  • examines collectively agreed pay increases in three sectors (metalworking, banking and local governments);
  • summarises the development of statutory minimum wages with a focus on social partner debates, their involvement and possible changes in the mechanisms, while also summarising developments in youth minimum wages, where these exist;
  • gives a brief outlook on the developments expected for collectively agreed pay for 2013.

 

1: Collectively agreed pay – total economy

Given the multitude of different wage-setting mechanisms applied and the heterogeneity of approaches to collecting data on collective wage bargaining at Member State level, this report distinguishes the following ways of reporting on collectively agreed pay developments.

Half the Member States have databases in place, which allow the calculation of ‘average’ collectively agreed pay increases. These are reported in the first instance. For those countries where central agreements, cross-sectoral agreements, wage indexation mechanisms or pace-setting agreements are in place, the outcomes of these negotiations are also reported.

The questionnaire is available together with the completed national contributions at http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn1303028s/index.htm

Combined European picture

The overall picture of collectively agreed pay increases across Europe is gloomy. While nominal agreed increases in 2012 were a little higher than in 2011 in many countries, the rise in prices diminished people’s purchasing power further. In real terms, only a handful of countries had positive collective pay increases on average – and, if so, then very modest. In 2012, these were Sweden (+1.7%), Austria (+0.8%), Germany (+0.6%), France (+0.4%) and Belgium (+0.4%, already including indexation). In the case of Austria, this was a return to positive figures after two years of real decline on average.

In countries where pay indexation mechanisms are in place, the increases set by means of these mechanisms did – by and large – compensate for the rise in prices in 2012, having failed to do so in 2011. Italy is an exception in this regard, where on average the collectively agreed increases were below the ‘technical’ guidance given in the form of an inflation rate.

In the remainder of countries for which information on ‘averages’ of collectively agreed pay increases is available, the increases that had been agreed were not high enough to compensate for the rise in prices.

In the Nordic countries there is a tradition of negotiating agreements in one industry that are then adopted by other sectors, hence serving as pace-setting agreements. They are – to a different degree – the starting point for company-level negotiations. The increases set in countries with pace-setting agreements – Finland and Denmark – were rather modest. However, in Finland purchasing power has been maintained through the additional increases set in company-level bargaining. In Sweden and Austria – as also evidenced by the average collective increases – the pace-setting agreements were relatively high, so they resulted in modest growth of pay in real terms.

The series of figures below (Figures 2–5) present the outcomes of collective wage bargaining, in both 2011 and 2012. It should be noted that for the following countries, no data on collectively agreed pay across the whole economy can be provided: Croatia, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia. This is because company-level bargaining is the predominant level in most of these countries (except Slovenia) and neither databases of collective agreements exist nor are central-level agreements made for the whole economy the starting point for further negotiations.

Figure 2: Average collectively agreed pay from national databases of collective agreements

Figure 2: Average collectively agreed pay from national databases of collective agreements

Note: Malta: increases of pay indexation not included in the average figure. All other countries with pay indexation (Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg): the averages reported take indexation into account.

Source: EIRO national contributions, see Table 1.

Figure 3: Outcomes of pay indexation mechanisms affecting major parts of the economy

Figure 3: Outcomes of pay indexation mechanisms affecting major parts of the economy

Note: Malta and Cyprus: increases refer to weekly rates of the cost of living allowance (COLA).

Source: EIRO national contributions.

Figure 4: Outcomes of pace setting sectoral agreements

Figure 4: Outcomes of pace setting sectoral agreements

Notes: Data presented for Finland and Sweden have been annualised to reflect a per annum percentage increase over 12 months.

Source: EIRO national contributions, based on individual agreements.

Figure 5: Outcomes of central or cross-sectoral agreements or recommendations

Figure 5: Outcomes of central or cross-sectoral agreements or recommendations

Note: For Greece, the figure for 2012 was agreed, but was actually preceded by the Second Memorandum: a 22% nominal decline in minimum wages (basis for collectively agreed wages).

Source: EIRO national contributions, based on individual agreements

 

National picture of collective wage bargaining in the Member States

Averages of collectively agreed pay across the economy

Almost half the Member States have databases that record collective agreements. These databases are managed either by official authorities, statistical offices or private providers. Their scope varies: some refer to the full number of collective agreements made (as in Spain or Sweden), while others list the major agreements (Slovakia or Italy). Table 1 summarises the main data sources by Member State. A more detailed description as to how data have been collected and how an ‘average’ figure for each country has been derived can be found in Table 9 in Annex 2. A note of caution: owing to the fact that collectively agreed pay setting differs in importance for the various countries, takes place at different levels, and is recorded and analysed differently within these databases, cross-country comparisons should be made with the utmost caution. More important in this respect is the intracountry comparison over time.

Table 1: Data sources on the averages of collectively agreed pay increases

Country

Institution

Source

Austria

Statistik Austria

Tariflohnindex TLI

Belgium

Federal Administration of Employment, Work and Social Dialogue (FOD WASO)

Index of the conventionally agreed wages

Czech Republic

Trexima, s.r.o.

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA)

Informační systém o pracovních podmínkách, ISPP (Working Conditions Information System, ISPP),

Finland

Statistics Finland

Index of the negotiated wages and salaries

France

Ministry of Employment's Office for Research and Statistics (DARES)

Annual Collective Bargaining reports (La négociation collective)

Germany

Institute for Economic and Social Research (WSI) within the Hans Böckler Foundation (Hans Böckler Stiftung)

The WSI Collective Agreement Archive (WSI-Tarifarchiv)

Italy

Italian Statistical office, Istat

(a) Istat ‘Contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali’, 26 January 2012;

(b) Istat ‘Contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali’ 21 December 2012

Malta

Department of Industrial and Employment Relations (DIER)

Economic Survey

Netherlands

Inspection of the Ministry of Social affairs and Employment, which includes the former Labour Inspectorate

I-SWZ

Portugal

Ministry of Economy and Employment

Variação média ponderada intertabelas (Average weighted variation between wage tables)

Slovakia

MPSVR SR and Trexima Ltd

Informačný systém o pracovných podmienkach (ISPP) (the annual sample survey)

Spain

Ministry of Labour

Labour Statistics Bulletin

Sweden

National Mediation Office (Medlingsinstitutet)

Avtalsdatabasen (the Agreement Database)

UK

Labour Research Department (LRD), a private, trade union-linked, subscription-based service.

Payline database

Pay indexation

Although widely applied, the automatic mechanism on wage indexation in Belgium is not centrally organised. A patchwork of mainly sectoral systems dominates, which differ in their details and/or have particularities in the mechanism applied. Increases are made for an indefinite duration, where both the timing and amount of indexation depend on the pace of the price evolution. As a result of the economic crisis and the need to strengthen the competitiveness of the Belgian economy, the question of whether or not to keep the system was revived in 2012. The government decided in November 2012 to retain the automatic wage index, but to change the composition of the index basket in order to temper the effect (for example by taking into account temporary price reductions) (BE1211031I). A ‘floor’ for the system exists because the national minimum wage is also automatically indexed (BE1204011Q). The increases made in 2011 and 2012 were 2.5% and 2.8% respectively, covering around 95% of Belgian employees.

In Cyprus, the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) is the basis for pay increases. It is currently recalculated every six months (on 1 January and 1 July). The wages of all employees covered by collective agreements – but in practice all employees – are readjusted on the basis of the percentage change in the consumer price index (CPI) over the preceding six-month period. Public dialogue in 2012 focused on revising the system of wage indexation. Despite the tripartite agreement achieved in February 2012 to implement the system throughout almost the whole private sector (CY1202019I), constant pressure from the employers’ side as well as the upcoming consultations with the Troika on the implementation of a memorandum in Cyprus led the government to form a new proposal on the content and operation of the system. The proposal for the private sector (which as of January 2013 is still under discussion) states that indexation is to take place only once a year and is to be reduced and ought to be halted in times of negative growth. In the public and the broader public sector, a policy of containment of public-sector wages has been put forward (CY1301019Q); this includes a total freeze of the payment of the cost of living allowance (COLA). Increases granted for 2011 and 2012 were 2.6% and 3.0% respectively.

In Luxembourg, salaries, wages and social contributions (including the social minimum wage) are adjusted in line with the evolution of the cost of living, twice a year. If the consumer price index has risen or fallen by 2.5 % during the previous semester, salaries are normally adjusted by the same proportion. Recently, there were temporary changes in the application of the mechanism (LU1102011I). In December 2011, after the deadlock of the talks in the Tripartite Committee, the government decided to modify the mechanisms of automatic indexation of wages, with only one adjustment maximum per year until 2014. These index-linked adjustments will lead to a 2.5% rise in the sliding wage scale in 2012 and 2013 respectively, compared with 4.0% and 1.9% prior to the change. For the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 there will be a payment of one index slice per year. A period of 12 month should be kept between these tranches. The tranche that normally was supposed to take place in March 2012 has been postponed to October 2012. From 2015 onwards, it is envisaged that it will go back to the previous system.

In Malta the wage indexation is based on the annual average inflation rate as determined by the Retail Price Index (RPI). This mechanism establishes the mandatory Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) which is granted to all employees in January through the Wage Increase National Standard Order (Subsidiary Legislation 452.65). In 2012, in its pre-electoral proposals to the political parties, the General Workers’ Union (GWU), Malta’s largest union, asked to have the COLA mechanism reviewed every six months, rather than every year. However, the government publicly stated that it did not want to make changes to the existing COLA mechanism. The increases made in 2011 and 2012 based on the minimum wage were 0.76% and 3.04% for the weekly rate respectively, covering all employees – around 152,000 in all. Data presented in Figure 2 refers to the private sector as registered with the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations (DIER), who do not incorporate the COLA. Lately, only new government collective agreements are incorporating the COLA.

In Italy, an interconfederal agreement (as of 22 January 2009) signed by the government and the social partners (with the exception of the General Confederation of Italian Workers – CGIL) introduced some reforms into the bargaining system (IT0902059I). The 2009 agreement also established a new reference indicator (the IPCA) for the protection of the purchasing power of wages, which is based on the European Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), but excludes imported energy. The new indicator is calculated by a third party, the National Institute of Statistics (Istituto Centrale di Statistica, ISTAT).

In Romania, an adjustment mechanism that updated salaries to reflect the rate of inflation was abandoned after 2008.

Central or major cross-sector agreements

Belgium, in addition to the mechanism of wage indexation in place, has an Interprofessional Agreement (IPA) which is negotiated by the social partners every second year. In case of non-agreement, the government has the right to make a decision. Sectoral agreements should respect the IPA and wage norm (or, in the absence of the IPA, the governmental decisions). The government can only modify some elements if these modifications amount to an improvement of working conditions. For 2011, the IPA foresaw a pay freeze, while for 2012 a modest increase of 0.3% was agreed upon.

In Ireland, the Public Services Agreement 2010–2014 includes a pay freeze, which covers the entire public service. It should be noted, however, that this agreement does not serve as a basis for further pay agreements outside the public sector.

In Greece, the last National General Collective Agreement (EGSSE) – on minimum wages for the three-year period of 2010–2012 – does not provide for any nominal increases in 2010 and in the first semester of 2011, while the nominal increases provided for in the agreement as of 1 July 2011 add up to a rate equal to the rate of the annual change in the euro zone’s inflation: 1.6%. The same increase has been agreed by the social partners and the EGSSE providing for it has been signed. The increase will be in the order of 1.6% as of 1 July 2012 and it concerns 17% of employees (325,000) in the private sector. Although agreed, these increases were however never put in place, being preceded by the provisions of the 2nd Memorandum, which stipulated a cut in minimum wages of 22%.

Major changes of collective bargaining in Greece in 2012 and beyond

As a rule, for many years the minimum wages of all the employees in the country – and at all levels – have been determined through free collective bargaining between the social partners. In the case of failure to reach agreement, this bargaining was continued with the Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration (OMED). Recently, in the context of the support mechanism of the Greek economy, the manner of determining minimum wages has been substantially modified both at national and sectoral level. The main characteristics of the new situation are the direct intervention by the state authorities in determining minimum wages and the significant restrictions imposed on free collective bargaining.

The Troika and the Greek government prepared the austerity measures of the Second Memorandum of Understanding (included in the Medium-Term Fiscal Strategy 2012–2015 approved in June 2011) without first assessing the negative effects of the First Memorandum of Understanding. The aim of the measures was to save €6.5 billion in 2011 and €22 billion over the period from 2012 to 2015. Of these savings, €11.7 billion were to be made in 2013 and 2014. Because of these measures, Greece is the only EU country where, since February 2012, there has been a drastic nominal reduction of the minimum wage by 22%. For workers under the age of 25, the reduction is as high as 32%. This reduction was set by an Act of Cabinet, despite the last three-year National General Collective Labour Agreement 2010–2012 (concluded in 2010 by all the social partners) still being in force at the time. In November 2012, the Greek Parliament approved a new law (Law No. 4093/12, referred to as the ‘Third Memorandum’) as a prerequisite for the continuation of the bailout programme and the financial support of the country, on conditions imposed and supervised by the IMF, EU and ECB. In addition to the general fiscal adjustment and a strict austerity strategy plan, this Third Memorandum includes very serious changes to the national labour relations system. It also negates the crucial role of the recognised national social partners in the shaping of Greek industrial relation, through the EGSSE. Moreover, the Third Memorandum has additional provisions on dismissals in the public sector, on the tax system, on the social security and the pension systems, as well as on issues concerning privatisations, and the functioning of the bank-finance sector.

In Spain, the Agreement for Employment and Collective Bargaining (2012–2014) determines the criteria and guidelines on wage increases to be followed at the sectoral and company levels. However, these guidelines are not mandatory. According to the agreement, wage increases stipulated in collective bargaining should not rise by more than 0.5% in 2012. As the average data show, however, this guidance has not been followed, with 2012 increases in the total economy amounting to 1.3% (Figure 2).

In Romania, the Tripartite Agreement on the Evolution of the Minimum Wage during the Period 2008–2014, which would have been applicable to all employees in the national economy, was suspended as result of the economic and financial crisis (RO1204019Q).

Pace-setting agreements

As outlined earlier, a tradition exists in Nordic countries of pace-setting agreements that are negotiated in one sector then being adopted in other sectors. In Sweden, the pay increases negotiated by industry (the Industrial Cooperation and Negotiation Agreement, Industriavtalet) usually serve as a benchmark for pay increases in other sectors. The pay increases in the industrial sector have to a large extent served as benchmarks for other sectors. The last update of the industrial agreement was estimated to cover 300,000 employees within the manufacturing sector (SE1111019I). In March 2010, the industry negotiated an annual pay increase of 1.75% for the following 18 to 22 months, depending on the specific collective agreements. The new collective agreements that were negotiated for parts of the manufacturing sector in December 2011 stipulated an annual pay increase of 2.6%, valid for 13 months.

In Denmark, the Industry Agreement sets the pace for the private sector and thus indirectly for the public sector. In connection with renewals of collective agreements in the large private sector, the Industry Agreement must be settled before the other sectors (such as transport and services) can conclude their own sectoral agreements. Altogether, the agreement covers approximately 600,000 employees, of whom 240,000 are employed in the pace-setting sector. The nominal increase agreed for 2012 was 1.26%, slightly lower than the 1.65% agreed for 2011.

In Finland the collective agreement for the technology sector (including metalworking) has traditionally served as a pace-setting agreement for other sectors. In recent years, however, the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) – particularly some affiliated associations representing the export industry – has expressed its dissatisfaction with the recent trend whereby the pay increases in the private services sector and in the public sector have been higher than the pay increases in manufacturing: while the average nominally agreed increase in 2011 was 2.4% for 13 months, in 2012 it amounted to only 1.9% for 20 months.

In Norway the Industriavtalen (the Industry Agreement) is not formally binding, but the result in the so-called ‘trend-setting’ sectors is regarded as a guideline for the rest of the economy. The trendsetting sectors comprise both blue-collar and white-collar workers. Recently the government and the social partners agreed on a public committee with tripartite representation. The aim is to deliberate aspects of the Norwegian wage formation processes, including how to boost the international competitiveness of the export sectors. However, the committee will most probably also look into aspects of the bargaining model. The 2012 negotiations also exposed challenges to the model, where the public-sector unions challenged the estimate for wage drift/company-level bargaining in the private sector as being too low. The 2012 negotiations ended in a strike involving large parts of the public sector.

Other countries – such as Austria, Estonia and Portugal – report that some sectors could be perceived as pace-making. However, the agreement is merely a reference for other sectors’ negotiations: it is not mimicked as closely by other sectors as in the Nordic countries (in most years).

In Austria, the metalworking sector traditionally starts the annual bargaining rounds. Due to the fact that the unionisation rate in the sector is comparatively high and thus the agreements reached are comparatively good from the employees’ perspective, the agreements have been considered as setting a pattern for the rest of the economy. However, the negotiated increases are not automatically adopted in other sectors; they usually mark the highest wage increases of all sectors. Also, in the 2012 bargaining round, a decentralisation process has occurred, so that it is highly questionable if the sector can keep its pace-setting nature (see 4: Outlook on pay developments in 2013).

In Estonia there are only two sectoral agreements (in transport and in health care); thus, these can be regarded somewhat as pace-setting agreements. The extent to which these agreements are actually adopted by other sectors is unknown, since these are the only sectoral agreements in Estonia and information on enterprise-level collective agreements is usually not available. In both sectors, the previous sectoral collective agreement was concluded in 2007. Compared with the previous sectoral collective agreement, the minimum wage of bus drivers increased in two stages up to 12.2% from 1 February 2012 (EE1202019I). Compared with the previous sectoral collective agreement, the wages for doctors are being increased by 11%, for nurses 17.5% and for caregivers 23%, from 1 March 2013 (EE1301019Q).

Finally, in Portugal, the public administration over recent years has increasingly assumed the role of a pace setter in wage setting. In 2011–2012, this influence has decreased, because the most important factors influencing the employers’ positions are now the economic crisis (resulting in very rigid employers’ positions on wages) and the suspension of the extension mechanisms of collective agreements (motivating many employer associations not to sign any agreement). These two factors are the main cause for the present deep crisis in collective bargaining. The recent drastic cuts in remunerations in public administration have not been transferred one-to-one to the private sector, but they have strongly influenced the climate of wage bargaining in the private sector. In 2011, the pay rise was 0% for wages of up to €1,500 per month, and higher wages were reduced in a differentiated manner, with wage reductions of between 3.5% (for salaries of more than €1,500 per month) and 10% (for salaries higher than €4,165 per month). In 2012, the general wage freeze and cuts for the higher paid were maintained; in addition, the extra vacation payment and the Christmas allowance (corresponding to a 13th and 14th monthly wage) were suspended.

Table 2: Signatory parties to central or trend-setting agreements

Country

Employers

Trade unions

Denmark

Central Organisation of Industrial Employees (CO-industri)

Confederation of Danish Industry (DI)

Estonia

Transport sector: Union of Estonian Automobile Enterprises (Autoettevõtete Liit), see EE1202019I;

Health care: Estonian Hospitals’ Association (EHL)

Estonian Transport and Road Workers’ Trade Union (ETTA)

Finland

Technology Industries (Teknologiateollisuus)

Metalworkers’ Union (Metalliliitto)

Greece

Hellenic Federation of Enterprises; and the National Confederation of Hellenic Commerce

Greek General Confederation of Labour; the Hellenic Confederation of Professionals, Craftsmen and Merchants

Norway

Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO); and the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri)

Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO); and the Norwegian United Federation of Trade Unions (Fellesforbundet)

Portugal

There are no wage agreements in public administration. There are talks between the government and trade unions about wages, but the government sets the wages unilaterally.

 

Spain

Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations (Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales, CEOE); and the Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (Confederación Española de la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa, CEPYME)

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras, CCOO); and the General Workers’ Confederation (Unión General de Trabajadores, UGT)

Sweden

Swedish Industrial and Chemical Employers’ Association (Industri och Kemigruppen); the Swedish Forest Industries’ Federation (Skogsindustrierna); the Employers’ Association of the Steel and Metal Industry (Stål och Metall Arbetsgivareförbundet); the Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (Teknikföretagen); and other employers’ associations within the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv)

Forestry, Woodworking and Graphic Workers Union (GS); the Union of Metalworkers (IF Metall); the Food Workers Union (Livsmedelsarbetareförbundet); the Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers (Sveriges Ingenjörer); and the Trade Union for Professionals in the Private Sector (Unionen)

Table 3: Economic indicators used in the negotiations of central or trend-setting agreements or as a basis for lower-level negotiations

Country

Indicators

Austria

Traditionally, the unions apply the so-called ‘Benya formula’, according to which, wage increases should fully compensate workers for inflation and grant them a significant share (one-half) of the productivity growth in their demands for a wage increase. However, the compromise reached between the unions and the employer associations always lies well below that initial request.

Denmark

The rate of inflation expected, and the wage increases and labour costs in Germany and Sweden; the outcome of previous collective bargaining rounds also plays a role in determining the wage increase.

Estonia

The wage increase is not directly linked to any specific indicators.

Finland

Normally, both past and predicted rates of inflation and the growth of labour productivity

Greece

Until recently, the national rate of inflation was taken into consideration within the framework of the National General Collective Agreement (EGSSE). Since 2010, it is the average rate of inflation in the euro zone that is taken into account during collective bargaining and in the collective agreements. This is the rate of annual average change, compared with the previous year, of the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices in the euro zone (as announced by Eurostat).

Spain

The rate of inflation predicted by the government in the general budget is the indicator that has tended to provide the basis for discussions on the amount of increase.

 


2: Collectively agreed pay in three sectors

This chapter looks at collectively agreed pay increases in three sectors – metalworking, banking and local government. Collective pay setting in relation to sectors takes place at different levels across the Member States, with various ways of articulation between them. This will be summarised at the beginning of each section, together with the changes in collective bargaining as of 2012. A similar approach to data gathering as for the entire economy has been applied in this part of the study: correspondents were asked to first look for databases of collective agreements that could be related to the sector. Where such databases exist, the figures provided are averages of the outcomes of collective agreements. In countries where sector-level bargaining is predominant and no such databases exist, the outcomes of the major sector-related agreements are reported. Finally, for those cases where neither of these two apply, correspondents were asked to list up to three major company-level agreements. It concludes with an overview of the collectively agreed changes in pay.

Collective wage bargaining in the metalworking sector

Levels of bargaining and trends in collective bargaining

Table 4 presents the dominant level of bargaining or pay setting – company, sector and national level – for the metalworking sector in each country. It should be noted that the picture presented serves as a rough comparison and that it is rather simplified. In half of the Member States wages are negotiated mainly at sectoral level, company-level bargaining playing the dominant role in the other half. In most northern European countries and in the new Member States, the company level is the dominant level for bargaining or pay setting. Italy is an exception, with the national level being the dominant one. In Finland, all levels are equally important. In Norway and Slovakia, both company and sectoral level seem to be of equal importance.

Table 4: Dominant level of bargaining/pay setting in metalworking sector by country, 2012

Dominant level of bargaining

Country

Company

Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, UK

Sector

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden

National

Finland

Source: EIRO national correspondents

In Austria, there seems to be a continuing trend towards organised decentralisation. This can be viewed as a result of the economic crisis, since employers are opposed to high wage settlements in less prosperous times and hence initiated this step. However, the trade unions have protested this development.

Decentralisation of collective bargaining can also be seen in Denmark and Ireland. In Denmark it has been reported that the decentralisation is organised and that it is not a consequence of the economic crisis.

The Hungarian correspondents report that even though the abolition of the National Interest Reconciliation Council (OÉT) was not a sector-related change, it had some impact on the metalworking sector, as the OÉT had annually reworked and recommended a general pay system.

In Norway the parties agreed in 2012 on a new agreement covering the metalworking sector, as well as the textile, cable, and technology and data subsectors. This process of merging four agreements was carried out over time, was undramatic, well deliberated among the parties and unrelated to the financial crisis. Company-level bargaining takes place (two-tiered bargaining), and the industry agreement states that ‘local negotiations shall be held based on the individual enterprise’s economic reality’.

In Poland, interviews with representatives of trade unions operating in the metalworking sector indicate that in recent years the number of company-level collective agreements terminated by employers has been growing.

In Portugal, in 2010, the Association of Metal, Metalworking and Allied Industries of Portugal (AIMMAP), one of the two major employer organisations, signed a new agreement with a group of unions that was revised in 2013. The Federation of Manufacturing Unions (FIEQUIMETAL, affiliated to the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers – CGTP), which was not party to the agreement, criticized AIMMAP’s procedure. AIMMAP’s move was not a result of the economic crisis. It seems to be a strategic decision using the new legal possibility to effectively withdraw from existing agreements and to select one major partner – the National Industry and Energy Trade Union (SINDEL, affiliated to the General Workers’ Union (UGT)). The other major employer organisation, the National Federation of Metal Employers (FENAME), has not revised any collective agreements since 2010. None of the trade unions involved agree with this procedure.

In Romania, there is a tendency towards decentralisation, with bargaining gradually moving from sector to company level. Act 62/2011 replaced branches with sectors, and collective bargaining shifted accordingly. While this change in legislation formally implies a more centralised way of bargaining, it led to more decentralised bargaining in practice; the economic sectors were then defined by a government decision in December 2011. The new legislation requires that the social partners regain their representativeness at sectoral level. In addition to the previous conditions for the registration of a sectoral collective agreement, the number of employees in the companies affiliated to the signatory employer organisations must account for more than 50% of the workers in the sector. If this condition is not met, the collective agreement will be deemed valid only as a collective agreement at the level of a group of units. In 2012, no employer requested recognition of representativeness. This caused an interruption of the collective bargaining process at this level.

Outcomes of collective pay bargaining in the metalworking sector

Excluding the reported single-company-level agreements, the UK reported the highest agreed pay increase for the metalworking sector on average (4.75%) in 2010–2011, followed by Slovakia (3.7%). In 2011–2012, Austria reported the highest agreed pay increases in the metalworking (an average increase of 4.2% with higher increases for low-income groups and lower increases for high-income groups) followed by the UK (4%). Bulgaria reported an agreed increase of 15% over the two-year period between 2011 and 2012. At the other end of the scale, Estonia, Greece, Ireland and Portugal reported pay freezes in both years. When comparing the dynamics between the two years concerned, we see that five countries reported a growth in the level of agreed pay increase (Austria, Germany, Malta, Sweden and Slovakia) while eight countries reported a decline (Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Slovakia and the UK). The remaining countries reported either: company-level agreements (Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland); no change in agreed level (Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal); no data (Latvia and Norway); or increases over longer periods (Bulgaria and the Netherlands).

Figure 6: Outcomes of collective wage bargaining in the metalworking sector, 2012

Figure 6: Outcomes of collective wage bargaining in the metalworking sector, 2012

Notes: See Tables 10 and 11 in the Annex 2. Increases agreed refer to different lengths of collective agreements and usually, but not consistently, refer to per annum increases, reflecting a period of 12 months. However, annualisation would not lead to a change of the pattern in the map, as it gives only broad categories.)

Source: EIRO national correspondents, based on databases of collective agreements and individual agreements. The map provides indicative information and should be read in conjunction with the information provided in Tables 10 and 11.

Collective wage bargaining in the banking sector

Levels of bargaining and trends in collective bargaining in the banking sector

Table 5 gives the dominant level of bargaining per country for the banking sector. The overall picture is very similar to the metalworking sector. The sectoral level appears to be slightly less important than the company level. For Estonia, no level was highlighted as there are no trade union organisations in the country related to the banking sector and the employer organisation (Estonian Bank Association) is not involved in sector-related collective bargaining.

Table 5: Dominant level of bargaining/pay setting in the banking sector by country, 2012

Dominant level of bargaining

Country

Company

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, UK

Sector

Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

National

Germany, Finland, Italy

Notes: No bargaining at any level in Estonia.

Source: EIRO national correspondents

In Belgium, the banking sector is going from a tradition where the company level was the most important level of bargaining to a system where the sectoral level gains importance in collective bargaining. Still, the sectoral agreement 2011–2012 gave explicit room for negotiation at company level.

In Denmark and Ireland, a trend towards decentralisation was reported. In Denmark, the decentralisation does not seem to be a consequence of the crisis.

In the Greek banking sector, no collective agreements were concluded. Only company-level agreements were concluded, which provided no pay increases as salaries were either fixed or reduced. The changes mentioned in the chapter on the metalworking sector also apply to the banking sector.

In Spain, the Memorandum of Understanding Financial-Sector Policy Conditionality signed by the Spanish government and the European institutions only makes demands with regard to the number of branches and workers of those banks receiving public support. Accordingly, it did not have any impact on collective bargaining in the banking sector. Collectively agreed wages, nevertheless, declined.

In the UK, bargaining has remained decentralised to company level and, to a lesser extent, sub-company level (at the level of the business unit or occupational category, for instance). There has been a major process of consolidation through mergers and takeover in the sector in recent years. Following such mergers and takeovers, an important issue at several banks (such as Lloyds and Santander) has been the establishment of single bargaining units covering employees from the merged banks, who formerly had their own bargaining arrangements.

Outcomes of collective pay bargaining in the banking sector

Apart from the reported single-company collective agreements, the United Kingdom reported the highest averages of agreed pay increase (5%) in the banking sector for 2010–2011, followed by France (between 4% and 5%). In 2012, Finland had the highest reported agreed pay increases (1.2% in June 2011, 2.4% in November 2011, 4.6% in December 2012 consisting of an overall pay increase of 3% and 1.6% of wage discussion increment, with a lump sum of €150 at the beginning of 2012). Next were Luxembourg (with 2.5% indexation and 1% of merit-based increases) and Belgium (3.2%). In contrast, Italy reported no pay increase for 2010–2011 while Cyprus, Portugal and Sweden reported no increase for 2011–2012. If we compare the change of agreed pay increases between the two years concerned, we see that five countries reported a growing trend in the level of agreed pay increase (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Malta) while nine countries reported a decreasing trend (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Portugal and the UK). The remaining countries reported either: company-level agreements (the Netherlands); no change in the agreed increase (Luxembourg, Sweden and Slovakia); or could not give any data for one or both of the periods concerned (Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania and Slovenia).

Figure 7: Outcomes of collective wage bargaining in the banking sector, 2012

Figure 7: Outcomes of collective wage bargaining in the banking sector, 2012

Notes: The map provides indicative information and should be read in conjunction with the information provided in Table 12 and Table 13 in Annex 2. Increases agreed refer to different lengths of collective agreements and usually, but not consistently, refer to per annum increases, reflecting a period of 12 months. However, annualisation would not lead to a change of the pattern in the map, as it gives only broad categories.

Source: EIRO national correspondents, based on databases of collective agreements and individual agreements.

Pay setting in the local government sector

Levels of pay setting and trends in collective bargaining

The local government sector embraces a heterogeneous set of activities in the various Member States. For this reason, the choice of what sector-related agreements to report on has been left to the discretion of national correspondents (according to national delimitations of the sector).

Table 6 presents the dominant level of bargaining or pay setting for each country. This can take place at three levels:

  • the local level (the local unit or a group of establishments);
  • the ‘sector level’, which in this case means all or major parts of activities carried out by local governments;
  • the central or cross-sectoral level, which would usually be an agreement or law covering the entire public administration or civil service sector, but being applied by local governments as well.

Compared with the metalworking and banking sectors, national-level agreements or wage changes set at central level or by law are much more important for the local government sector. For example, in Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal and Romania, wages are set by law. This may be done with prior collective bargaining (as in Austria, for example) or without such prior bargaining (as in Portugal or Romania). Pay setting at the local (or institutional) level is less common in the local government sector, with only seven countries applying this practice.

Table 6: Dominant level of bargaining/pay setting in local government by country, 2012

Dominant level of bargaining

Country

Local level

Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Norway

Pay settled in collective agreements or set by law, which covers local government sector only

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland , Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK

Pay settled in collective agreements or set by law which for public administration in general, but also cover the local government sector

Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia

In Spain, cuts have been made in the wages of civil servants. In 2012, the government did not pay the extra (14th) payment before Christmas.

In the UK, no significant developments took place in the process of collective bargaining in 2012. National sectoral bargaining arrangements remain intact, despite the fact that no pay settlements have been reached since 2009, owing to pressures on public finances, with employers imposing settlements (mainly pay freezes).

Romania reported the highest agreed paid increase for both years (15% in 2010–2011 and 8% and 7.4% in 2011–2012). It is important to mention that the increments granted compensated in nominal terms for the 25% wage cuts sustained in 2010. However, they did not make up for the price rises of over 9% during the period 2010–2012.

Outcomes of collective pay bargaining in the local government sector

The situation as regards wages in local government continues to be gloomy. Local governments – across Europe – are also affected by the pay freezes and cuts made within the public sector. Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia and the UK reported agreed wage freezes and/or cuts in both years discussed. Denmark reported agreed pay freezes only for 2011–2012. When comparing the change of agreed pay increases between the two years, we see that in six countries the agreed pay increase was higher in 2011–2012 than in 2010–2011 (Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania and Sweden); for four countries, it was lower (Cyprus, Denmark, Finland and Greece). The remaining countries reported no change in the level of agreed increases (France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and the UK) or not enough detailed data for one or both of the periods concerned (Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta and Portugal).

Figure 8: Outcomes of collective wage bargaining in the local government sector, 2012

Figure 8: Outcomes of collective wage bargaining in the local government sector, 2012

Notes: The map provides indicative information and should be read in conjunction with the information provided in Table 14 and Table 15 in Annex 2. Increases agreed refer to different lengths of collective agreements and usually, but not consistently, refer to per annum increases, reflecting a period of 12 months. However, annualisation would not lead to a change of the pattern in the map, as it gives only broad categories.

Source: EIRO national correspondents, based on databases of collective agreements and individual agreements.


3: Statutory minimum wages

Minimum wages in some countries are closely related to centrally agreed collective wage increases. Hence Chapter 3 – on minimum wages – should be read in conjunction with Chapter 1. A Eurofound report from 2013 provides an overview as to how minimum wages are set in the Member States that have them (Eurofound, 2013). This chapter will therefore focus only on their development and on the debates and actual changes that took place during the reporting period. The available data on those persons working at a minimum wage are patchy and incomplete, as Table 17 in Annex 2 suggests. Eurofound is currently working on a comparable estimate using Structure of Earnings Survey data.

Increases of minimum wages and coverage

Compared with the – already gloomy – picture of collective pay increases across Europe, the situation as regards the development of minimum wages is even worse. Real increases were negative in most countries with statutory minimum wages; they were positive only in those countries where the minimum wage is at a very low level. This is even more worrying: the same rate of inflation has been used to calculate these figures, although it is commonly understood that low-wage earners, having higher rates of consumption than average-wage earners, are more affected by increases in consumer prices.

Figure 6 gives an overview of the development of nominal minimum wages in 2011 and 2012. In three countries, nominal minimum wages were frozen in both years: Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Ireland. Bulgaria and Estonia increased the minimum wage by 16.7% and 4.3% respectively in 2012 following a freeze in 2011. In contrast, three countries froze their minimum wages in 2012, having increased them in 2011: Portugal (2.1% in 2011), Spain (1.3%) and Latvia (11.1%).

Figure 9: Development of nominal gross minimum wages, 2011 and 2012

Figure 9: Development of nominal gross minimum wages, 2011 and 2012

Note: National minimum wages are published bi-annually. They reflect the situation on 1st of January and 1st of July of each year respectively. Revisions between these dates will not be published.

Source: Eurostat, Monthly minimum wages - bi-annual data [earn_mw_cur], (downloaded in March 2013), Eurofound calculations; Lithuania: the update as of August 2012 has been taken into account, weighted accordingly.

These figures refer to the development of minimum wages in nominal terms. In real terms, the picture, however, looks more negative. The only countries with some positive increases in real terms in 2012 were Bulgaria (13.9%), Hungary (12.8%), France (1.2%), Poland (4.4%) and Romania (1.0%). (As already mentioned, due to a change in taxation the observed rise in Hungary was purely compensatory: it was not an actual increase.) The declines in real terms were highest in Greece (-11.2%), the Czech Republic (-3.4%) and Croatia (-3.3%). In all other countries, the purchasing power for those on minimum wages declined a little less or stagnated.

Table 7: Development of gross minimum wages in real terms, 2011, 2012
 

2011

2012

Belgium

-0.5%

-0.6%

Bulgaria

-3.3%

13.9%

Croatia

-2.2%

-3.3%

Czech Republic

-2.1%

-3.4%

Estonia

-4.9%

0.1%

France

-0.7%

1.2%

Greece

-2.2%

-11.2%

Hungary

2.1%

12.8%

Ireland

-1.2%

n.a.

Latvia

6.6%

-2.2%

Lithuania

-3.9%

-0.6%

Luxembourg

-0.5%

-0.4%

Malta

-1.7%

-0.9%

Netherlands

-1.2%

-1.3%

Poland

1.3%

4.4%

Portugal

-1.4%

-2.7%

Romania

5.5%

1.0%

Slovakia

-1.0%

-0.5%

Slovenia

10.1%

-0.8%

Spain

-1.8%

-2.3%

United Kingdom

-2.1%

-0.1%

Source: Eurofound calculations, based on Eurostat: [earn_mw_cur] (downloaded in March 2013) and [tec00118]; Lithuania updated by EIRO national correspondent.

Debates and issues around national minimum wages in 2012

The usual debates have been taking place on the level of minimum wages – for instance, trade unions demanding higher increases than employers are willing to support). This can be seen, for instance, in Poland, where trade unions have reiterated their demand that the minimum wage should amount to 50% of average wages. However, the most notable debates took place in those countries were minimum wages had been frozen in the past.

Unilateral government decisions on minimum wages

In the Czech Republic, Portugal and Spain, minimum wages were frozen by unilateral government decision. In the Czech Republic, both trade unions and employer organisations did ask for (albeit different) increases, but the government decided in December 2011 not to increase the minimum wage, having concerns about its impacts on economic development. In Portugal, trade unions refer to the Tripartite Agreement signed in 2006, which stipulated that the minimum wage should reach €500 in 2011 (see PT0603019I). In Spain, the government did not open any debate with regards to the national minimum wage, but decided to freeze it. In Lithuania, because the minimum wage had been frozen since January 2008, social partners (particularly trade unions) had been pursuing increases since 2010. Trade unions and employers representing large businesses were normally in favour of an increase in the minimum wage, whereas employers representing small businesses and – especially – the government opposed it. After several years of discussions the minimum monthly wage was increased in Lithuania as of August 2012 to LTL 850 (€246 as at 13 May 2013). In Greece, although a small increase in the minimum wage had been agreed for 2012 (+1.6%), it was never put in place, as this was preceded by the provisions of the Second Memorandum, which stipulated a cut in minimum wages of 22%. (See more in the section National picture of collectively wage bargaining in the Member States).

Changes in the structures where minimum wages are set

In Romania, until May 2011, the national minimum wage used to be negotiated in the Economic and Social Council (Consiliul Economic şi Social, CES). Since then, according to Act 62/2011, the decision on the minimum wage has been the prerogative of the National Tripartite Council for Social Dialogue (Consiliul Naţional Tripartit pentru Dialog Social, CNTDS).

Setting of minimum wages

In Croatia, the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (SSSH/UATUC), the largest trade union association, insisted on the implementation of the current act (the Act on Minimum Wage, OG 39/13) and expected the Legislation Committee of the Croatian Parliament to provide a clear and robust explanation of the adjustment method. The second largest association, the Independent Trade Unions of Croatia (NHS), proposed fine tuning the act in order to clarify articles that appear problematic. The NHS proposed that the minimum wage be treated as the basic wage and be subject to all the wage supplements prescribed by other laws, collective agreements and contracts. The Croatian Employers' Association, the only employer association that is representative at the national level and the only one with influence on policy, had fundamental objections to the existing legislation. Essentially, it suggests that the Minimum Wage Act ought to be adapted to allow collectively agreed rates of pay in sector agreements at a level below the statutory minimum wage level.

In Hungary, it is difficult to determine whether the introduction of new regulation about the level of the minimum wage was the result of consultation with the social partners, since the formerly existing National Council for the Reconciliation of Interests (OÉT) was abolished in 2011 (HU1107021I). After the termination of the OÉT, the role of the reconciliation of interest was taken over by the overall consultative National Economic and Social Council (NGTT). However after heavy and controversial discussions, there has been a kind of silent yielded consent within the social partners regarding the wage increases, which serve generally as a basis for further negotiations or collective agreements. Government Regulation 299/2011 (XII. 22.), accepted by the government at the end of 2011, contained regulations both on the degree of the increase needed in 2012 to maintain the net value of wages and regulations regarding the possible extent of the related fringe benefits. Accordingly, the government determined the wage increase (with state compensation) in a two-year time-frame for those earning less than HUF 216,805 per month (€739 as at 13 May 2013) so that their net wage would not be lower than it was prior to the introduction of a single rate personal income tax of 16%. Collectively agreed pay increases within this agreement, valid for 2012, ranged between 25% and 0.2% depending on the income category, but only for the lower wage categories (up to HUF 216,805). As the average wage earner receives HUF 219,400 gross (€748), their wages are not affected by the agreement. In 2011, the guaranteed minimum pay increased by 5% (HUF 94,000 – €320).

Changes in the taxation system

In Hungary changes in the personal taxation system led to a de facto freeze in actual minimum wages (the increases agreed only compensated for the rise in taxes). In Latvia in 2012 the non-taxable minimum was increased for 2012 and 2013, however the actual level of minimum wage was not increased.

Government proposal to differentiate minimum wages

In Bulgaria, the government proposed to introduce minimum wages differentiated by region and economic activity. In small and poor cities with very high unemployment, the minimum wage would be lower than in larger cities with a strong economy and higher incomes. This proposal was strongly opposed by the trade unions, who maintained that minimum wages should have a protective function for all and not fall below the official poverty line. The Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) insisted on introducing a tax-free minimum equal to the minimum wage. Employer organisations supported the introduction of such a minimum wage differentiated by region. According to them, the minimum wage is determined by a legal act only in those institutions and structures in which the state is the employer.

Compliance with minimum wages

In December 2012, the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) – the largest union in Ireland – pointed out that half of the workplaces inspected by the National Employment Rights Agency (NERA) between January and October 2012 for compliance with the National Minimum Wage were found to be paying under the €8.65 hourly rate. In the Netherlands, the main issue is compliance with the Minimum Wage Act, especially with regard to foreign workers. Both employers and unions stress the importance of inspection activities.

Industrial action

In Greece, until the end of the period of economic adjustment and for the purpose of implementing the previous memorandum II (Law 4046/2012 and amendments thereof), there will be the possibility to increment minimum salaries with an allowance for length of service. As of 14 February 2012 and until the national unemployment rate falls to under 10%, the validity of all provisions, acts, laws, collective agreements, and arbitration rulings that provide for salary bonuses, including those for length of service, are suspended. Further to the above decisions, the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) and the Supreme Administration of Greek Civil Servants Trade Unions (ADEDY) called a 48-hour national general strike, which was backed by the National Confederation of Hellenic Commerce (ESEE) and the General Confederation of Professionals, Craftsmen and Merchants (GSEVEE).

Youth minimum wages

Almost half the Member States have separate statutory national minimum wages for young workers. Mostly these are defined in terms of the full adult rate and increase with age.

In some countries – Belgium and the Czech Republic – youth minimum wages are seen to stand against the principle of equality and will henceforth be eliminated (gradually until 2015 in Belgium and with effect from January 2013 in the Czech Republic, regulation No. 246/2012). Other countries, in contrast, are using the scheme purposefully as a means to reduce high levels of youth unemployment. The scheme in Greece was introduced during the crisis, as outlined in two Eurofound reports on pay developments – one from 2010, and one from 2011; meanwhile, the scheme in the UK was modified to include apprentices in 2010. Latvia is exceptional, in that the youth minimum wage is higher than the adult rate, as young people have fewer weekly working hours. Some countries, such as France and the UK, have separate minima levels for apprentices.

In the UK the debate in 2012 focused mainly on the government’s decision to freeze the rates for workers aged 16 to 20, as recommended by the Low Pay Commission. The government justified the decision on the grounds that increases in these rates might discourage employers from employing young workers. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), a leading employer organisation, welcomed the freeze, arguing that with youth unemployment at very high levels, care must be taken not to price young people out of a job. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) on the other hand strongly criticised the government’s failure to increase youth rates, arguing that there is no evidence that the national minimum wage has an adverse impact on young people’s employment and claiming that the freeze may lead young people to view minimum wage work as exploitative.

Table 8: Youth minimum wages in 2012, as percentage of the full adult rate, by age
 

Years of age

Comments

  15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  

BE

70%

70%

76%

82%

88%

94%

     

CZ

80%

50% (if fully disabled and not receiving the full disability pension)

90% (during the first six months of employment)

   

EL

87.2% (below 25 years of age)

For clerical staff below the age of 25: €510.95 per month; for skilled workers below 25 years of age the minimum hourly wage is set at €22.83.

FR

80%

80%

90%

         

Seizes after the person has worked in the same sector for at least six months, or when a collective agreement sets higher minimum wage levels for young employees.

IE

70%

80% in first year of employment;

90% in second year of employment

75%–80%–90% for the duration of employer approved training courses

Over 18: no maximum age, but reduced rates for the first and second year of employment.

LU

75%

80%

           

LV

114%

           

MT

94%

96%

Up to the age of 24

NL

30%

34.5%

39.5%

45.5%

52.5%

61.5%

72.5%

85%

 

PL

80% in first year of employment

 

UK

 

59.5%

80.5%

     

UK

42.8%

42.8%

Apprentices


4: Outlook on pay developments in 2013

Collectively agreed wages

In some countries, the bargaining rounds for the increases to be applied in 2013 have already taken place; in other countries, multiannual agreements will apply further.

In Austria in the 2012 autumn bargaining round (in which pay is agreed for the upcoming year), a decentralisation process took place, so it is highly questionable that the metalworking sector can keep its pace-setting nature. The six sectoral employer organisations had for forty years formed a – voluntary – bargaining community; however, following strikes in the sector in the 2011 bargaining round, they quit this community before the 2012 bargaining round and decided to conduct separate wage negotiations. Thus, instead of one communal set of negotiations in which all subsectoral employer organisations would participate as in previous years, the negotiations were split into six different subsectoral negotiations. The six agreements, however, resemble each other and the wage increases agreed upon were in the same range in all six subsectors with an increase in minimum wages of between 3.3% and 3.4% and of actual wages of between 3% and 3.3%.

In Belgium, social partners have already agreed upon pay freezes within the Interprofessional Agreement until 2014 as have social partners in Ireland within the Public Services Agreement 2010–2014.

In Luxembourg, the temporary change of the wage indexation mechanism is to remain in place in 2013, but is intended to be suspended by 2015.

Statutory minimum wages

The most notable developments are the likely introduction of a statutory minimum wage in Germany as well as a change in the wage-setting mechanism in Greece.

Introduction of statutory minimum wage

At the beginning of March 2013, the Federal Council (the second chamber of the German Parliament) approved a draft law on the introduction of a statutory national minimum wage. The proposal sets the minimum wage at an hourly rate of €8.50 – exactly the rate demanded by the Confederation of German Trade Unions (DGB). While the draft still has to pass the German Parliament, it has nonetheless stirred a heated debate amongst employers.

Changes in how minimum wages are set

The new minimum wage scheme in Greece is conditional on the signing of the new EGSEE (which expires on 31 March 2013). From 1 April 2013, when the new scheme came fully into force, employers are able to choose whether to remain in the employer organisations that sign the EGSSE and pay their employees the salaries stipulated by the EGSSE or, instead, pay the minimum wage stipulated by the state. However, any such change will require signing a new enterprise-level or personal agreement. The Third Memorandum voted through in Parliament in November 2012 presents a new system for determining minimum wages. As of 2013 (the date of entry will be 1 April 2013), the minimum wage for employees and skilled workers throughout the country will be defined by law and in a manner to be determined by law in the first trimester of 2013 by an act of the Council of Ministers.

In France, on 17 December 2012, the government announced that it would reform the process for determining the national minimum salary.

Level of minimum wages

An International Monetary Fund (IMF) review of Ireland in mid-2012 said: ‘A reduction in the NMW [national minimum wage] should be considered given the broad fall in consumer prices, including rents, in recent years, and because it is notably above the minimum wage in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom despite the highly integrated labour market.’ However, the IMF also said there were ‘limits to reductions given the need to ensure the NMW provides adequate incentives to take up employment.’

In Poland, in July 2012, the Tripartite Commission failed to reach an agreement on increasing the minimum wage for 2013. The government set the monthly minimum wage unilaterally by way of a regulation, at PLN 1,600 (€386 as at 13 May 2013). However, trade unions demanded a higher minimum wage: the All Poland Alliance of Trade Unions (OPZZ) demanded a minimum wage of PLN 1,676 PLN (€404), and the Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarity (NSZZ Solidarność) demanded PLN 1,625 (€392). In contrast, the employers agreed with the proposed sum of PLN 1,600.

In the UK the ‘accommodation offset’ will be reviewed. This allows employers to offset against the national minimum wage the cost of providing accommodation to an employee as a benefit in kind, but places limits on the amount of this offset.


Bibliography

Eurofound (2013), Wages: A working conditions and industrial relations perspective, Dublin.

Eurofound (2011), Pay developments 2010, Dublin.

Nestić, D. (2010), ‘Croatia: Moving towards a more active minimum wage policy’ pp. 85–112, in Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (ed.), The minimum wage revisited in the enlarged EU, , Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, and International Labour Organization, Geneva.

Schulten, T. (2013), Current trends in collectively agreed wages and wage drift in Europe 2001-2010, Hans Böckler Foundation, Düsseldorf.

Statistik Austria (2011), Standard-Dokumentation Metainformationen (Definitionen, Erläuterungen, Methoden, Qualität) zum Tariflohnindex 06, Vienna, available at http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/soziales/tariflohnindex/index.html

Van Gyes, G. (2013), Indicators of collectively agreed wages in the Eurozone – A quality report, Paper for ILERA-Europe Conference, Amsterdam, 20–22 June 2013, HIVA – Research Institute for Work and Society, KU Leuven.


Annex 1: Country codes

Country

Code

Austria

AT

Belgium

BE

Bulgaria

BG

Croatia

HR

Cyprus

CY

Czech Republic

CZ

Denmark

DK

Estonia

EE

Finland

FI

France

FR

Germany

DE

Greece

EL

Hungary

HU

Italy

IT

Ireland

IE

Latvia

LV

Lithuania

LT

Luxembourg

LU

Malta

MT

Netherlands

NL

Norway

NO

Poland

PL

Portugal

PT

Romania

RO

Slovakia

SK

Slovenia

SI

Spain

ES

Sweden

SE

United Kingdom

UK


Annex 2: Supplementary tables

Table 9: National databases of collective agreements

Country

Database description, coverage and weighting applied

Austria

The basic index was formed in 2006 and the sample chosen followed a two-stage sampling procedure. At first, the sampling occurs at the level of the collective agreements (and laws); in a second step, the sampling is done at the level of wage positions within the respective collective agreements and wage regulations. Furthermore, the collective agreements and wage regulations are chosen according to the NACE system and the Federal Economic Chamber’s (WKO) economic activity classification, which differs from the NACE classification. For each of the two-digit NACE activities, representative collective agreements and wage regulations are sampled. Additionally, the sampling procedure occurs separately for both blue-collar and white-collar workers’ collective agreements and public employees’ wage regulations.

The general rule applied is that at least 75% of all workers of a specific economic activity area (two-digit NACE) need to be represented by the collective agreement(s) or wage regulation(s) sampled. The index thus includes 295 collective agreements and wage regulations at all levels (sectoral, intersectoral, single- and multi-employer levels, even though collective bargaining in Austria takes place almost exclusively at the multi-employer sectoral level) and 1,075 different wage positions.

For the calculation of the basic index 2006, a variety of weights have been applied (with regard to employers, employees, sectors, pay/bonus payments, working time and so on). For more information, see Statistik Austria 2011.

Belgium

Mode of collection: the collective labour agreements concluded by the various sector joint committees in the private sector.

Full sample of all collective sector agreements in the private sector. In-company collective agreements are not included (no database available). Recalculation on the basis of an index system (pay levels in 1958 = 100). Premiums are not part of this index.

In the sector agreements the middle wage category is taken to calculate changes. So no weighting within a sector is done: only an arbitrary wage is taken. Weighting between sectors and occupational groups is done based on employment figures.

Czech Republic

The ISPP is a regular annual survey on working conditions, including wages, agreed in collective agreements for the relevant year. It has been carried out under the control of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA) since 1993. The purpose of the survey is to map and analyse collective bargaining in the Czech Republic. The survey does not include all the company collective agreements in the given period –only an available sample of them (likely most of them).

2011: nominal wages: 297 company-level collective agreements (CLCAs) (around 22.8% of the total sample); from 2010 to 2011: ISPP data nominal wages: 273 CLCAs (around 21.6% of the total sample), ISPP data.

Non- weighted averages.

Finland

Index of negotiated wages and salaries (Q1–Q1 each year).

Statistics Finland measures the contributions of collectively agreed wage increases to average earnings (for regular working hours) by means of the Index of Negotiated Wages and Salaries. As source data, Statistics Finland uses collective agreements filed at the central employer organisations. Collective agreements are filed at employer organisations (private, central government and local government).

Annual data for the whole economy and by employer’s sector (private, local government, central government) are available from 1968 until the present, and quarterly data for economy and sector are available from 1995.

France

The data are based on an analysis of the register of the Directorate-General for Labour (Direction générale du travail, DGT) based at the French Ministry of Labour. In its Database for Collective Agreements (BDCC), social partners file and register all agreements concluded.

The figures are calculated using all agreements filed before a deadline fixed by the agency. Agreements concluded in 2012 but filed after this date do not count into the averages. All statistics are, thus, provisional and may not include all collective agreements concluded in 2012. In previous years, however, the coverage was estimated to be above 95%. Sectoral agreements from all sectors. In previous years, around 1,000 agreements were included in the calculations.

Averages are weighted by the number of employees in the sector.

Germany

The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI) Collective Bargaining Archive collects all collective agreements concluded by affiliates of the Confederation of German Trade Unions (DGB).

All sectoral collective agreements containing pay provisions for the relevant year are included plus all company-level agreements affecting at least 1,000 employees in western Germany and 500 employees in eastern Germany (for instance, agreements that were concluded in 2010 but provide for pay increases in 2012 are included when calculating the 2012 average pay increase).

The averages are weighted by the number of employees liable to social security contributions working in the sector, industry or company covered by the agreements.

Italy

The survey considers the remuneration of employees working full time and refers to a constant number of workers who have the same level of qualifications and occupational status. The study considers the general characteristics of remuneration (basic pay, periodic increases in seniority pay and general indemnity, monthly premiums, extra monthly pay and other regular forms of pay during the year). Consequently, the data are not influenced by variations in the composition of workers, specific company characteristics, the number of hours effectively worked or by specific non-continuous payments (arrears, single payments, and so on).

The national sectoral collective agreements considered in the survey (76 sectoral collective agreements that involve approximately 13 million employees) are the most representative in terms of numbers of employees for each economic sector. In general, the agreements that act as a ‘guide’ for the other agreements in the sector are selected, since the same basic wage improvements are applied.

No information on weighting was provided.

Malta

Data are collected from collective agreements concerning the private sector as deposited with the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations (DIER). It has to be pointed out that it is possible that not all collective agreements are deposited with the DIER. The sample for the comparison of 2010 and 2011 is made up of 230 firms employing 26,887 employees. The sample for the comparison of 2011 and 2012 is made up of 206 firms employing 25,016 employees. Each sample represents roughly 15% of the labour supply.

The number of collective agreements is not included in the report. However, since all collective agreements sampled are at company level, one can assume that the sample for the comparison of 2010 and 2011 derives from about 230 collective agreements, while that for the comparison of 2011 and 2012 is based on about 206 collective agreements.

Weighting is applied. Collective agreements are grouped on the basis of economic activity. The average of the minimum and maximum wage scales for each individual collective agreement is calculated to provide the subsectoral mean wage. The resultant figures are then topped up with the cost of living adjustments in cases where the collective agreement is exclusive of the cost of living allowance (COLA).

Netherlands

The reports compiled by I-SZW are based on a (varying) sample of 100–120 collective agreements, including all major sector agreements and large company agreements, covering around 85% of the employees. Both private and public sector are included.

This report: 100 agreements.

Weighted on the basis of the number of employees covered.

Portugal

All collective agreements are published by the Ministry of Economy and Employment. The coverage is 100% (this excludes public administration where no wage bargaining takes place, but includes public companies with collective bargaining). The Ministry publishes statistics on these agreements.

In 2012, the Ministry published 36 branch agreements, 9 agreements for groups of companies, 40 company agreements and 8 so-called ‘adherence agreements’ (agreements whose signatories adhere to an existing agreement signed by other parties). In 2011, the Ministry published 93 branch agreements, 22 agreements for groups of companies, 55 company agreements and 12 ‘adherence agreements’.

Weighted by number of employees covered in the different groups of wage tables.

Slovakia

Data from the Information System on Working Conditions (ISPP) are collected by means of regular annual surveys in a group of companies (reporting units) of different ownership, type and size from all regions.

In total 1,733 and 1,801 company-level collective agreements were concluded in 2011 and 2012 respectively

Not weighted averages.

Spain

The basic source of information derives from what is known as the ‘statistics sheet’ (hoja estadística), which is completed by the bargaining commissions once the agreement is signed. This sheet is presented along with all the necessary documentation in order to register the agreement. The outcomes of collective bargaining are grouped according to the year in which the economic effects begin. The collected data contain the average collectively agreed pay increase of all collective agreements and the economic effects of which begins.

The sample is fully representative of all collective agreements nationwide, which are included in this average figure. Moreover, data are provided according to the functional and territorial scope. In terms of the functional scope, the statistics given by the Ministry of Labour distinguish between company agreements and multi-employer agreements. As far as the territorial scope is concerned, data are provided by the Autonomous Communities.

The averages provided are not weighted.

Sweden

The data include all collective agreements registered at the National Mediation Office (Medlingsinstitutet).

The data cover the entire economy and all sectors. Currently 680 agreements are included.

Agreements without a given pay increase have been weighted in with the value zero. No weights applied for the number of employees covered.

UK

The data on the agreements are apparently collected mainly through contacts with the social partners, and the database covers all the settlements that LRD has been able to collect which have a known increase or freeze in their lowest basic pay rate effective during the period in question.

For 2011–2012, the average figure from the Labour Research Department (LRD) was based on 713 agreements. Of these, 28 were private sector multi-employer (sectoral) agreements, 549 were private- sector company agreements, and 136 were public-sector agreements. For 2010–2011, the figure was based on 702 agreements, of which 28 were private sector multiemployer agreements, 571 were private-sector company agreements, and 103 were public-sector agreements.

LRD produces a median figure weighted for the number of workers covered by each agreement.

Note: Half of the EU Member States have databases of collective agreements in place; hence, there are 14 databases listed here.

Table 10: Overview of average collectively agreed changes in pay in metalworking sector

Country

Collectively agreed pay increases

Coverage of collective agreements/databases

Reported databases

2010–2011

2011–2012

Belgium

3.10%

2.20%

100% of the sectoral agreements in JC 111.01, 111.02, 111.03 and 209; company level agreements are not included.

Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue web page:

Czech Republic

2.90%

2.80%

23.8% of company level collective agreements in 2010-2011 and 23.5% in 2011-2012

Working Conditions Information System

Germany

1.60%

3.30%

All collective agreements that can be related to the metalworking sector

WSI Collective Bargaining Archive

Italy

2.40%

2.40%

Whole sector; 2011-2012 are temporary data

(a) Istat ‘Contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali’, 26 January 2012 and (b) Istat ‘Contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali’ 21 December 2012

Malta

0.47%

1.87%

The datasource is based on a sample. The percentage of collective agreements covered is unknown.

Economic Survey

Slovakia

3.70%

3.60%

Company-level collective agreements related to the metalworking sector included in the sample of surveyed companies.

2011: Informačný systém o pracovných podmienkach (ISPP); 2012: MPSVR SR and Trexima Bratislava

Spain

2.17% (Manufacture of basic metals, NACE code 24); 2.91% (Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment, NACE code 25)

1.58% (Manufacture of basic metals, NACE code 24); 1.56% (Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment, NACE code 25)

100% of the agreements that can be related to the metalworking sector

Labour Statistics Bulletin, Ministry of Labour (Main series)

Sweden

1.50%

3.40%

The whole industrial sector as the pace-setting sector for the metalworking industry as well

The National Mediation Office (Medlingsinstitutet)

UK

4.75%

4%

In all, 67 agreements from the manufacturing sector (engineering and metal products); total number of the agreements in the sector not reported.

.

LRD Payline Database

Table 11: Overview of collective wage agreements related to the metalworking sector

Country

Collectively agreed pay increases

Coverage of the collective agreements/databases

Reported agreements

2010–2011

2011–2012

Austria

2.5% (lower paid grades); actual wage increase: 2.3% (at least €45 gross income per month)

Agreed wage increase of 4.2% on average across the income groups covered (higher increases for low paid grades and lower increases for higher paid grades)

Subsectoral level agreement (for all member companies of the Association of Austrian Machinery and Metalware Industries for which membership is obligatory) covering 120,000 employees, both blue- and white-collar

Collective agreement for employees in the machinery and metalware industries

   

Subsectoral level agreement (for all member companies of the Association of the Austrian Automobile Industry for which membership is obligatory) covering 30,000 employees, both blue and white collar

Collective agreement for employees in the automobile industry

   

Subsectoral level (for all member companies of the Association of the Austrian Mining and Steel Industry for which membership is obligatory), covering 17,000 employees

Collective agreement for employees in the machinery and metalware industries

Bulgaria

15% over two years (2011 and 2012)

80% of the agreements at sector level

Trade Union Federation Metalitsi

Croatia

3.20%

4.70%

Company level agreement, all employees (250) in the company are covered. There are about 110 agreements in total in the whole sector covering around 90%-95% (30,000) of employees.

Collective Agreement for Đuro Đaković Strojna Obrada Company

3.20%

4.70%

Company level agreement, all employees (350) in the company are covered.

Collective Agreement for Đuro Đaković Specijalna Vozila Company 

Cyprus

1.10%

0%

Only a limited number of enterprises are not covered by the collective bargaining; the sectoral collective agreement covers all workers irrespective of their class of occupation (around 9,000)

 Estimate for 2011 by the Cyprus Metalworkers, Mechanics and Electricians Trade Union (SEMMHK)

Denmark

1.65%

1.26%

Sectoral agreement covering blue-collar and white collar in the manufacturing industry (approximately 240,000)

The Industry Agreement

 

Estonia

No information about whether the agreement has been renewed

No information about whether the agreement has been renewed

Sectoral level multi-employer collective agreement; all the affiliates of the signatory parties – that is, 8,285 employees (around 25% in the sector)

Social partnership general agreement 2007–2009

 

Finland

2.4% (1.6% overall pay increase + 0.8% locally-negotiated increment); 1 October 2011 to 31 October 2012

1.9% (1.3% overall pay increase plus 0.6% locally negotiated increment); 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013; lump sum of €150 at the beginning of 2012

Workers in the technology industries sector (99,000)

Collective agreement of employees in the Technology Industries (1,035 KB PDF);

Statistics Finland – Wages, salaries and labour costs 2012 (631 KB PDF)

Salaried employees in the technology industries sector (25,000)

Collective agreement of employees in the Technology Industries (1,035 KB PDF);

Statistics Finland – Wages, salaries and labour costs 2012 (631 KB PDF)

Senior salaried employees in the technology industries sector (62,000)

Collective agreement for senior salaried employees in technology industries 20112013

Statistics Finland – Wages, salaries and labour costs 2012 (631 KB PDF)

France

2.30%

2.30%

   

3.4% (lower pay grades); 2.3% (higher pay grades)

3.4% (lower pay grades); 2.0% (higher pay grades)

Managers and chartered engineers in companies dealing with metal production and transformation; The agreement was extended and covers all graduated engineers and managers in France (411,400 as of 31/12/2009); Link to Agreement of 12 September 1983

Agreement on minimum wages for 2012 (Accord du 25 janvier 2012 relatif aux salaires minimaux pour l'année 2012)

Official online database of the French government for the publication of legislation and collective agreements (Légifrance)

Greece

Annual European inflation rate in 2010 increased by 0.5% (the basic wage and salary threshold) – basis for minimum increases agreed in sector

Annual European inflation rate in 2011 increased by 0.5% (the basic wage and salary threshold)

basis for minimum increases agreed in sector

80% of the employees in the sector are covered by the collective employment agreement (CEA)

CEA of skilled metal workers and clerical staff of all metal enterprises as well as production, processing, assembly, packaging, repair etc., departments of other companies (16 October 2010)

Total coverage of the database is 80% of the collective agreements in the sector

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

0 (no renewal)

0 (no renewal)

80% of the employees in the sector

CEA On the terms of compensation and employment of the personnel of chassis and bodywork manufacturing industries and repair shops for the same and agricultural machinery repair shops (automobile bodywork 16 October 2010)

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

0 (no increase)

1% (the minimum wage threshold of employees of all categories and specialties covered under this agreement); per 1 July 2012 increase of the basic wage threshold by the annual European inflation rate for the year 2011

80% of the employees in the sector

CEA for the jewellery sector (Arbitration Decision) 7/2011

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

Hungary

5%–6% (the metal sector)

2.1% (DUNAFERR)

All employees of the DUNAFERR company who do not have executing employers’ rights and to whom the Labour Code (Act I. of 2012. 279.§) applies (about 5,300 employees)

Collective agreement of DUNAFERR

 

4%

6%

All employees of the company who do not have executing employers’ rights and to whom the Labour Code (Act I. of 2012. 279.§) applies (about 8,000 employees)

Collective agreement of AUDI Hungária

 

Ireland

Pay freeze; An additional lump-sum of €45,000 will be paid and split equally between all employees covered by the agreement in April each year and a further €45,000 to be paid each year on reaching targeted objectives

Pay freeze

Company-level agreement covering about 100 workers in Kirchhoff Ireland

Vision 2020 Stability and Job Protection Agreement

 

Lithuania

0% (no agreement on increases made)

1%–5% (depending on occupation)

Company-level agreement covering employees of the company only (approximately 500 in total, including seasonal employees)

Collective agreement of Enterprise A

 

0% (no agreement on increases made)

6.25% – only for minimum wage earners (due to the increase of the national minimum monthly wage since August 2012)

Employees of the company only (320 employees)

Collective agreement of Enterprise B

 

0% (no agreement on increases made)

5% (depending on occupation)

Employees of the company only (230 employees)

Collective agreement of Enterprise C

 

Luxembourg

2.5% (indexation) + approximately 1%; unique bonus of €500 per employee in 2011 (for the 100th Anniversary of Arbed)

2.5% (indexation) + approximately 1%

All employees of Arcelor Mittal (excluding top management) - 5960 employees

ArcelorMittal

 

Netherlands

2.3% per annum for the period May 2011 until July 2013 (granted twice) (figure by ISZW)

Covering part of the sector; not known how many employees are covered. The agreement is extended, so all firms in the subsector as described in the agreement (metalworking sector, except light engineering) are covered, unless they have a company agreement.

CAO Metalektro

 

2.5% per annum, for the period April 2011–May 2013 (granted twice) (figure by ISZW)

Covering part of the sector. Not known how many employees are covered. The agreement is extended, so all firms in the subsector as described in the agreement are covered, unless they have a company agreement.

CAO Metaal en Techniek - Metaalbewerking

 

Norway

n.a.

n.a.

Blue-collar workers in companies covered by the agreement (and individual employers with ‘carbon-copy’ agreements); around 405,000 employees

Industrioverenkomsten (Industry Agreement)

 

Poland

n.a.

n.a.

Blue collar workers in companies covered by the agreement (and individual employers with ‘carbon-copy’ agreements); around 405,000 employees

Industrioverenkomsten (Industry Agreement)

 

Portugal

0%

0%

The AIMMAP agreement covers approximately 60% of the sector.

CCT AIMMAP-SINDEL

Data obtained by direct contact with Ministry of Economy and Employment

Slovenia

3.69%

2.97%

These agreements are linked to lower-level company collective agreements so company collective agreements can in principle determine only higher wages than those determined by sectoral level agreements.

Collective Agreement for the Activity of Metal Materials and Foundries of Slovenia

6.26%

3.04%

Collective Agreement for the Activity of Electro Industry of Slovenia

5%

2.99%

Collective Agreement for the Metal Industry of Slovenia

Source: EIRO National correspondents. No data were reported for Latvia and Romania.

Table 12: Overview of averages of collectively agreed changes in pay in the banking sector

Country

Agreed pay increases

Coverage

Reported averages, stemming from databases of collective agreements)

2010–2011

2011–2012

Belgium

3%

3.2%

The data source covers 100% of the sectoral agreements (Joint Committee 310). Additional agreements on company level exist, but are not publicly available and thus not included.

Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue

Czech Republic

2.50%

2.3%

47.4% of company level collective agreements in 2010–2011 and 36.8% in 2011–2012

ISPP

Denmark

1.07%

1%

Sectoral agreement covering 66.4% employees in the financial sector

The Standard Agreement in Finance

Germany

0.2%

2.4%

Whole sector

WSI Collective Bargaining Archive

Italy

0%

1.9%

Whole sector; 2011–2012 are temporary data

(a) Istat ‘Contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali’, 26 January 2012 and (b) Istat ‘Contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali’ 21 December 2012

Malta

0.33%

1.44%

The data source does not cover the whole sector. It is based on a sample. The proportion of collective agreements covered is unknown.

Economic Survey

Spain

0.06%

0.02%

Code 64 of NACE rev. 2 (financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding) taken into account; 100% of the agreements are covered.

Labour Statistics Bulletin, Ministry of Labour (Main series)

Sweden

1.80%

1.8%

The data source covers the whole banking sector.

The National Mediation Office (Medlingsinstitutet)

UK

5%

2.50%

Data covers all agreements for which LRD was able to collect information (27 in total) in ‘Finance and business services’. No information is available on how many collective agreements there are in total in the sector.

LRD Payline database

Table 13: Overview of collective pay agreements in the banking sector

Country

Agreed pay increases

Coverage

Reported agreements

2010–2011

2011–2012

Austria

Average wage increase of 1.36% (in two steps: increase of 0.75% in February 2010 and increase by a lump sum of €15 in August 2010); agreement over period 1 February 2010 to 31 March 2011.

Wage increase of 1.9% and a lump sum of €9; this corresponds to an average wage increase of 2.3%; agreement over period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012.

Subsectoral level (for all member companies of the ÖRV, which includes all banks of the Raiffeisen group with 25,500 employees)

Collective agreement for employees of the Raiffeisen banking group and of Raiffeisen audit associations 

Subsectoral level (for all member companies of the VÖBB, which includes all commercial banks with 24,000 employees)

Collective agreement for employees of commercial banks

 

Subsectoral level (for all member companies of the ÖSV, which includes all savings banks with 16,000 employees)

Collective agreement for employees of commercial banks (16,000 employees) 

Bulgaria

n.a.

n.a.

Company level agreement, the coverage is 100% of SSB employees

Collective agreement of the State Saving Bank (SSB), www.dskbank.bg

Cyprus

2% as of 1 January 2010

Freeze payment of wages and COLA

Sectoral coverage (over 9,000 employees), according to ETYK only senior managerial positions are not covered by the agreement. Traditionally,the agreement between ETYK and KEST (covering about 70% of employees) functions also as a framework agreement for the conclusion of the company-level agreements in the sector (between ETYK and individual banks). The only exception is the National Bank of Greece which is covered by a company level agreement with the Union of National Bank of Greece Employees (SYPETE). Still, it follows the sectoral agreement that is signed between ETYK and KEST.

Agreement between the Cyprus Union of Bank Employees (ETYK) and the Cyprus Bankers Employers’ Association (KEST) for the years 2011–2013

 

Denmark

1.07% (July 2010 to April 2011)

1% (April 2011 to July 2012)

Sectoral agreement covering 66.4% employees in the financial sector

The Standard Agreement in Finance

 

Finland

1% (1 October 2010), 1.2% (1 June 2011)

2.4% (1 November 2011) lump sum of €150 at the beginning of 2012

Employees (officers) and senior salaried employees (28,000 people)

Collective agreement of Financing Sector (Rahoitusalan työehtosopimus )

France

4% (5% for the lowest pay grades)

Annual sectoral negotiations on pay are compulsory, but social partners failed to reach such an agreement for 2012. The previous agreement remained in place and there was no increase of minimum pay rates between 2011 and 2012 at sectoral level. Company negotiations, however, may have delivered wage increases for some companies.

The agreement was extended to the whole economy and convers all companies that qualify as a bank according to article 511-9 of the French Monetary and Financial Code.

Agreement on minimum wages for 2011 (Accord du 31 janvier 2011 relatif aux salaires minima pour l'année 2011)

Légifrance; this is not a statistical database but publishes, among others, collective agreements. The collective agreement for the banking sector covers all companies that qualify as a bank according to article 511-9 of the French Monetary and Financial Code.

Greece

n.a.

There is no change to basic salary; cuts in allowances ranging between 10% and 20% accordingly

Company level agreement covering 7,500 employees

Enterprise-level Collective Agreement of Alpha Bank, 10 May 2012

n.a.

Pay cuts for monthly salaries of a) up to €1,000 by 4.0%; b) from €1,001 to €2,000 by 7.5%; c) above €2,001 by 15%. Employees earning less than €1,800 are exempt from the pay cuts.

The company-level agreement applies to all monthly salary payments to employees of the bank (11,640 employees), despite the source and are reduced according to the level.

Enterprise-level Collective Agreement for the years 2012–2014 of the National Bank of Greece

n.a.

The level of the minimum salary is maintained. Pay cuts to annual salaries of a) up to €26,100 by 4.0%; b) from €26,100 to €50,000 by 8%; c) above €50,000 by 12% to 15% progressively. Employees earning less than €26,100 per year (about 3,700 employees) are exempt from the pay cut.

Company level agreement covering the employees of the bank (7,100 people)

Enterprise-level Collective Employment Agreement for the personnel of the bank EFG Eurobank Ergasias SA 27 June 2012

Hungary

n.a.

Between 2% and 3%

Company-level agreement covering all employees who are not executing employers’ rights and according to the labour code (about 700 employees)

Collective agreement of Commerzbank in Hungary

 

Ireland

n.a.

Depending on the salary, performance rating of the employee and market pay movement between 0% and 8.75%

Company level agreement covering about 5,000 employees in Ulster Bank

Ulster Bank and Unite Agreement 2011

 

Lithuania

n.a.

n.a.

Company level agreement covering the employees of SEB Bank (1,771 employees)

Collective agreement of the SEB bank

 

n.a.

n.a.

Company level agreement covering the employees of Swedbank Bank (1,148 employees)

Collective agreement of the bank Swedbank

 

Luxembourg

2.5% (indexation) + 1%

2.5% (indexation) + 1%

Sectoral agreement covering all employees or the members of the signatories except high managers and apprentices

Convention collective de travail des salariés de banque 2011– 2013

Netherlands

1% on 1 September 2011

2% on 1 January 2012

Company level agreement covering the employees of ING in the Netherlands (27,200 people)

Collective Agreement ING

 

1.5% on 1 July 2011

0%

Company level agreement covering the employees of Rabobank in the Netherlands (27,200 people)

Collective Agreement Rabobank

1% on 1 January 2011

2% on 1 July 2012

Company level agreement covering the employees of ABN AMRO in the Netherlands (24,225 people in 2011)

Collective Agreement ABN AMRO

Norway

n.a.

n.a.

All employees (25,000 people) in the banking and insurance sector (in companies with collective agreements) with the exception of employees in higher management positions. Company-level agreements are obligatory, so the sector is covered by Sentralavtalen and company level agreements.

Sentralavtalen (sector wide agreement for the finance sector)

 

Poland

Inflation rate 4.3%

Inflation rate 3.7%

Company-level agreement covering all employees employed on the basis of employment contracts

Company level collective agreement at Pekao Bank

 

Portugal

1%

0%

The data refer to the ACT Banca-FEBASE agreement covering more than 20 banks (60%–70% of the sector). The workers of all signing banks (54,000) are covered.

ACT Banca-FEBASE 2012; data obtained by direct contact with Ministry of Economy and Employment

Slovakia

2.50%

2.50%

Sectoral-level agreement covering all employees (about 20,000 people)

Multi-employer collective agreement in the banking sector for 2011–2013.

 

Slovenia

 n.a.

n.a.

 All banks

Collective agreement of the banking activity of Slovenia (concluded on 29 December 2010) which is linked to lower level company collective agreements

 

Notes: No data available for Croatia, Latvia and Romania. No sector-related collective bargaining in Estonia.

Source: EIRO National correspondents.

Table 14: Overview of averages of collectively agreed changes in pay in the local government

Country

Agreed pay increases

Coverage

Reported agreements and sources (databases)

2010–2011

2011–2012

Germany

1.60%

2.40%

The agreement applies to public employees in local government and those employed by the federal Government (as both the Confederation of Municipal Employers' Associations and the Federal Goverment are signatory to the agreements). The calculation of the increase applies to local governments. It is the whole sector, meaning that the collective agreement applies to all public employees employed by municipalities.

WSI Collective Bargaining Archive

Italy

0%

0%; in the public administration the bargaining was blocked from 2010 to 2012 by Decree 78/2010 (624 Kb PDF, in Italian) (IT1008019I)

Entire sector

(a) Istat ‘Contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali’, 26 January 2012 and (b) Istat ‘Contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali’ 21 December 2012

Sweden

1.70%

2.70%

The data source covers all local governments.

The National Mediation Office (Medlingsinstitutet)

UK

0%

0%

The data refer to the whole of public administration, rather than local government specifically. However, the source includes all the main sectoral agreements in local government, all of which provided for a pay freeze for both 2011–2012 and 2010–2011, so a 0% pay increase clearly applied in local government in both years.

LRD Payline database

Table 15: Overview of collective pay agreements or other regulations on pay in the local government sector

Country

Agreed pay increases

Coverage

Reported agreements and sources (collective agreements or other regulations)

2010–2011

2011–2012

Austria

Incremental wage increases of between 0.85% and 2.09% (but at least €25.50), averaging at 1.03%, were agreed upon at the central level (1 Janury 2010 to 31 December 2010).

Wage increases of 2.68% for higher wage groups and of 3.36% for lower and medium wage groups agreed at the central level (1 January 2011 to 31 January 2012).

All public employees at the federal, provincial and local levels (160,000 people). Due to the difficult financial situation, regulations differing from the central agreements were agreed upon in several provinces for provincial and local-level public employees in all years concerned. These took the form of zero wage rounds or lower wage increases than agreed upon at the central level.

Salary Act (Gehaltsgesetz) for career public servants (Beamte) and Contract Public Employee Act (Vertragsbediensteten-gesetz) for contract public employees at all levels (state, provinces, local)

Belgium

Automatic price indexation; a yearly increase of the end-of-year bonus in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 of €100, until the level of a 13th month is obtained.

All employees of the Flemish municipalities, provinces and their related institutions.

Sectoral agreement 2008–2013

 

Automatic price indexation; an equalising of the calculation of the end-of-year bonus to the calculation system for the employees at the Walloon region level. No specific amounts were given.

All employees of the Walloon municipalities, provinces and their related institutions.

The sectoral agreement 2007–2010 was only signed in March 2012 and (at time of press) is not yet renewed.

 

Bulgaria

According to the Law of Civil Servant

Increase n.a.

The coverage is 100%.

Federation of Independent Trade Unions from State Administration

Croatia

Due to the economic crisis and lack of public financial resources there was no increase in wages for mentioned employees but very often there was a reduction in the wages.

 n.a.

Information on signed collective agreements is available through trade union of employees in bodies of state and local self-government (Sindikat državnih i lokalnih službenika i namještenika Republike Hrvatske). It does not contain 'averages' of collectively agreed pay increases.

Cyprus

Pay freeze

Pay freeze and, since December 2012, a reduction in wages ranging between 0% and 12.5% depending on the monthly salary

Public sector, based on Law 192(I)/2011 and Law 168(I)/2012 that followed from Cyprus’s commitments under the Euro Plus Pact.

 

Czech Republic

Data are not available; the national budget for 2011 anticipated year-on-year cut in wage funds volume by 10% across the public sector.

   

Denmark

1.47%

0%

Employees in the municipal sector (430,000 people); KTO has 45 member organisations/unions.

The KTO – KL Agreement in the Municipalities

Finland

3% (between 1 February 2010 and 31 December 2011)

1.7% + 0.7 (locally negotiated); A lump sum payment of €150 (1 January 2012 to 1 February 2013)

321,000, or over 70% of municipal (that is, local government) employees

KVTES General Collective Agreement (GCA)

France

0%

0%

The pay freeze applies to all civil servants (fonctionnaires) in the national and local public service.

Official website of the French government for the public service (Portail de la fonction publique)

Greece

0% for both years

The personnel employed under private law employment relationship, of all categories and specialties, by municipalities, communities, associations, institutions and legal entities of public law of communities and organisations that depend on or are subsidised by municipalities or communities and applies exclusively to the members of unions, members of Pan-Hellenic Federation of Workers of Local Authorities (POE-OTA).

Collective Employment Agreement 2011 of POE-OTA (valid for one year and renewed)

The collective agreement stipulates a weighted average decrease of the pay of OPAP SA employees pay by approximately 14%, while working hours are increased from 7.5 to 8 per day.

Hungary

There is no bargaining in the local government sector, only wage setting by the government. There is a separate body for public sector negotiations – the National Public Service Interest Reconciliation Council (OKÉT) – between government and trade unions. The negotiations are mainly about working conditions, sector-related policies or planned restructuring. However the unions in the sector have been calling for a wage increase for four years, without receiving one. Nonetheless, the public sector agreement is not legally enforceable either.

Ireland

Pay freeze

Pay freeze

All workers in the public sector (including the local government sector): 30,600 employees

Public Service Agreement 2010–2014

Latvia

Collective agreements exist almost in all local governments (nine national-level cities and 110 territories including rural territories and towns). Regular pay is not discussed in collective agreements, because it is regulated by law. Since 2009 within the austerity measures the government implemented several norms in the Law On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Self-government Authorities in order to reduce pay in state and local government institutions. Salaries were reduced and social benefits, employers’ paid insurance, motivation bonuses were prohibited in state and local government institutions. In 2011 the government started to recover step by step the previous pay system, but with a strict proviso that when the state and local government institutions revise pay levels, they should take into account the economic development and the solidarity principle, as well as the change in the economic development (production of value added productivity, inflation, deflation) and other fundamental criteria. In 2011, the government restored part of the social benefits, motivation bonuses and insurance in the most dangerous jobs paid from the state and local government budgets. In 2012, the government expanded the scope of institutions eligible to pay social benefits and motivation payments on behalf of their employees, as well as social benefits for holidays and severance pay.

Luxembourg

1.86%

2.5% (due to the indexation)

n.a.

 

Malta

n.a.: agreement is under renegotiation.

n.a.: agreement is under renegotiation.

Clerical employees; salaries of clerical employees are based on the scales of public sector employees. Any changes in public sector salaries are automatically reflected in the salaries of clerical employees in local councils.

Collective agreement for clerical employees in local councils 2006–2010

Netherlands

0% (agreed increase)

1% (1 January 2012), 1% (1 April 2012); lump sum of €400 (€200 for higher salary scales) in August 2012

All local civil servants (170,000 people)

CAR-UWO

 

Norway

n.a.

n.a.

All employees in the municipal sector with the exception of the municipality of Oslo. About 410,000 employees are covered by this agreement.

Hovedtariffavtalen

 

Poland

The Regulation sets the minimum base wage according to the job grade as well as the maximum rates of position allowance, which have not changed since 2009. Whereas, according to the law, the maximum wage rates are set by the manager of a local government unit.

All local government employees

Regulation of the Council of Ministers dated 18 March 2009 on remuneration of local government employees (Dz. U. [Journal of Laws] No. 50 item 398) exercising the statutory delegation contained in the Act of 21 November 2008 on local government employees.

 

Portugal

In 2011 the pay rise was 0% for wages of up to €1,500 per month, and higher wages were reduced in a different-iated manner, with wage reductions ranging between 3.5% (for more than €1,500) and 10% (for more than €4,165).

In 2012 the general wage freeze and the cuts for the higher paid were maintained, and the extra vacation payment and the Christmas allowance (correspond-ing to a 13th and 14th monthly wage) were suspended.

n.a.

There are no wage agreements in Portuguese public administration.

Romania

15% (as of 1 January 2011)

8% (as of 1 June 2012) and 7.4% (as of 1 December 2012)

At national level, for all workers paid from public funds (including local government)

Act 285/2010, regarding the wages for employees paid from public funds in 2011; Government Emergency Ordinance 19/2012, approving measures to compensate for salary cuts

 

Slovakia

0%

0%

All employees performing work in the public interest (about 98,000 in the public sector)

Multi-employer collective agreements concluded for employees performing work in the public interest for 2011 and 2012

 

0%

0%

All civil servants working in central and local governments (about 82,000)

Multi-employer collective agreements concluded for civil service for 2011 and 2012

 

Slovenia

Indexation by half of the inflation rate in July 2010

Pay freeze in 2011 and 8% pay reduction in June 2012

The whole public sector (around 160,000 people)

No special collective agreement for the local government or local-municipality administration

Spain

Different cuts in public sector wages implemented in 2010 and 2012 have resulted in the public sector agreement not being fulfilled.

For local public administration there are framework agreements that establish the minimum conditions at the regional level which must be applied in the local corporations within the Autonomous Community.

In the public sector, the only agreement that included pay setting was the National Agreement for the Public Workers (2010–2012).

Notes: No data are available for Estonia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Sweden and the UK.

Source: EIRO national correspondents

Table 16: Level of monthly minimum wages in 2011 and 2012 (€)
  2011S1 2011S2 2012S1 2012S2

Belgium

1,415.24

1,443.54

1,443.54

1,472.42

Bulgaria

122.71

122.71

138.05

1,48.28

Czech Republic

319.22

328.61

310.23

312.01

Estonia

278.02

278.02

290

290

Ireland

1,461.85

1,461.85

1,461.85

1,461.85

Greece

862.82

876.62

876.62

683.76

Spain

748.3

748.3

748.3

748.3

France

1365

1365

1398.37

1425.67

Latvia

281.93

281.97

285.92

287.07

Lithuania

231.7

231.7

231.7

231.7

Luxembourg

1,757.56

1,757.56

1,801.49

1,801.49

Hungary

280.63

293.11

295.63

323.17

Malta

664.95

664.95

679.87

679.87

Netherlands

1,424.4

1,435.2

1,446.6

1,456.2

Poland

348.68

347.34

336.47

353.04

Portugal

565.83

565.83

565.83

565.83

Romania

157.2

157.89

161.91

157.26

Slovenia

748.1

748.1

763.06

763.06

Slovakia

317

317

327

327

UK

1,136.22

1,083.6

1,201.96

1,244.42

Source: Eurostat, [earn_mw_cur]

Table 17: Level of monthly minimum wages in 2011 and 2012, in national currency
  2011S1 2011S2 2012S1 2012S2

Belgium (€)

1,415.24

1,443.54

1,443.54

1,472.42

Bulgaria (BGN)

240

240

270

290

Czech Republic (CZK)

8,000

8,000

8,000

8,000

Croatia (HRK)

2,814

2,814

2,814

2,814

Estonia (EEK)

278.02

278.02

290

290

Ireland (€)

1,461.85

1,461.85

1,461.85

1,461.85

Greece (€)

862.82

876.62

876.62

683.76

Spain (€)

748.3

748.3

748.3

748.3

France (€)

1,365

1,365

1,398.37

1,425.67

Latvia (LVL)

200

200

200

200

Lithuania (LTL)

800

800

800

800

Luxembourg (€)

1,757.56

1,757.56

1,801.49

1,801.49

Hungary (HUF)

78,000

78,000

93,000

93,000

Malta (€)

664.95

664.95

679.87

679.87

Netherlands (€)

1,424.4

1,435.2

1,446.6

1,456.2

Poland (PLN)

1,386

1,386

1,500

1,500

Portugal (€)

565.83

565.83

565.83

565.83

Romania (RON)

670

670

700

700

Slovenia (€)

748.1

748.1

763.06

763.06

Slovakia (SKK)

317

317

327

327

UK (GBP)

978

978

1,004

1,004

Source: Eurostat, [earn_mw_cur]

Table 18: Number and proportion of employees receiving national minimum wage
Country Employees on national minimum wage Source

Belgium

250,000 (private sector), 2008

http://payroll.partena.be/s_infoflash_detail.aspx?id=14116&Langtype=2067)

Bulgaria

130,518 (6.2% of full time total workforce), 2012

National Statistical Institute

Czech Republic

90,000 (3% of all employees)

Estimate based on Czech Statistical Office (CSO) data for 2011

Estonia

6.6% of full-time employees in 2010

Statistics Estonia 2010 Structure of Earnings Survey

France

1.7 million employees (11.1 % of all employees in the private sector excluding temporary agents and apprentices)

Study by the Ministry of Labour’s Directorate for Research, Studies and Statistics (1,200 Kb PDF) (DARES)

Hungary

Approximately 620,000

Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Hungary

Ireland

60,000 employees or 4% of the total workforce (2011)

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

Lithuania

11.2% of all full-time employees (2011)

Lithuanian Statistics

Latvia

27.6% of all employees, 11.5% in public sector, 35% in private sector, September 2012

Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia

Malta

2,384 employees (1.3% of the workforce)

Newspaper article quoting the National Statistics Office

Netherlands

146,000 (2% of the total workforce), 2008

Ministry for Social Affairs and Employment

Portugal

11.3% of full-time workers (October 2011)

Ministry of Social Affairs (GEP/MSSS), Inquérito aos Ganhos e à Duração do Trabalho, October 2011

Romania

Approximately 25% of a total of 4.3 million employees (October 2012)

Estimate by national correspondent

Slovakia

1.5%–2% of employees

Qualified estimates

UK

938,000 (3.8%), 2012

Low Pay Commission (LPC)

Croatia

5%–8% of total employment (80,000–110,000 employees)

Nestić (2010);

Report on Minimum wage systems and changing industrial relations in Europe: National report Croatia;

PhD thesis by Sanja Blažević Socioeconomic effects of minimal wage

Slovenia

In September 2011, 41,045 employees received the national minimum wage, which represented 6.7% of all employees (SI1204011Q). In 2012, 44,990 employees received the national minimum wage, which represented 7.5% of all employees (SI1204011Q).

See SI1204011Q and SI1204011Q.

Source: EIRO national correspondents


Annex 3: National contributors

Country

Contributing authors

Austria

Bernadette Allinger, FORBA (Working Life Research Centre)

Belgium

Caroline Vermandere, HIVA KU Leuven

Bulgaria

Snezhana Dimitrova, ISTUR

Croatia

Predrag Bejaković, Institute of Public Finance, Zagreb

Irena Klemenčić, Institute of Public Finance, Zagreb

Viktor Gotovac, Faculty of Law, Zagreb

Cyprus

Evangelina Soumeli, INEK-PEO

Czech Republic

Jaroslav Hála, Research Institute of Labour and Social Affairs

Denmark

Carsten Jørgensen, FAOS, University of Copenhagen

Estonia

Liina Osila, Praxis Center for Policy Studies

Finland

Pertti Jokivuori, University of Jyväskylä

France

Sebastian Schulze-Marmeling, IRShare

Germany

Heiner Dribbusch, WSI

Greece

Elena Kousta, Labour Institute of Greek General Confederation of Labour (INE/GSEE)

Hungary

Katalin Lipták, Solution4.org

Italy

Vilma Rinolfi, Cesos

Ireland

Roisin Farelly, IRN Publishing

Latvia

Raita Karnite, EPC (Economic prognosis centre)

Lithuania

Inga Blaziene, Institute of Labour and Social Research of the Lithuanian Social Research Centre

Luxembourg

Vassil KIROV, IR Share

Malta

Manwel Debono & Christine Farrugia, Centre for Labour Studies

Netherlands

Robbert van het Kaar, AIAS, University of Amsterdam

Norway

Kristin Neergard, FAFO

Poland

Marta Trawinska, Institute of Public Affairs

Portugal

Reinhard Naumann, DINAMIA

Romania

Constantin Ciutacu, Institute of National Economy, Romanian Academy

Slovakia

Ludovit Cziria, Institute for Labour and Family Research.

Slovenia

Štefan Skledar, UMAR

Spain

Pablo Sanz, CIREM Foundation

Sweden

Emilia Johanson, Oxford Research

United Kingdom

Mark Carley, IRRU/SPIRE Associates

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

Add new comment