Adam, Georg

On 22 July 2003, the Austrian Trade Union Federation (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, ÖGB) and the Chamber of Labour (Arbeiterkammer, AK) jointly presented a study on the working and living conditions of 'atypical' workers in Austria. The study (Atypisch beschäftigt - typisch für die Zukunft der Arbeit [1]) evaluates interviews conducted in 2002 with 528 people who made use of special advisory services for 'atypical' workers offered by both ÖGB and AK. More precisely, the researchers’ focus group were self-employed people employed under either a 'free service contract' (freier Dienstvertrag) or a 'contract for work' (Werkvertrag) (TN0205101S [2]). According to Austrian labour law, both groups are classified as self-employed in the narrow sense, although they do not employ other people and often work for only one client. Actually, their working situation resembles to a great extent that of (dependent) employees. People working on a 'contract for work' basis (also referred to as the 'new self-employed', or neue Selbständige) are obliged to fulfil a certain, well-defined task, regardless of whether they do this themselves or subcontract to other people. For their part, 'free service contract' workers provide an (often fixed-term) ongoing service. Formally, they are not subject to the instructions of the client and are free to schedule their own working time. Working materials, in general, have to be made available to these workers by the client. [1] http://www.oegb.at/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldokument&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=Dokument&blobwhere=1060188977969 [2] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/erm/comparative-information/economically-dependent-workers-employment-law-and-industrial-relations

Since the coalition government of the conservative People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) and the populist Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) took office for the first time in February 2000 (it started a second term in February 2003), it has launched several initiatives to restructure the state-owned Austrian Federal Railways (Österreichische Bundesbahnen, ÖBB). The government’s aim has been to reduce the financial burden on the state arising from its legal obligation to compensate for ÖBB’s deficits. However, so far the two governing parties have not managed to reach a joint agreement on how to reorganise this public company. Recent ÖVP plans (presented in January 2003) to transform ÖBB into a holding company, heading several independently-operating enterprises specialising in sales, infrastructure, financing, personnel management etc, were strongly opposed by the Union of Railway Employees (Gewerkschaft der Eisenbahner, GdE) (AT0302201N [1]). The union argues that splitting up ÖBB would pave the way for the privatisation and sell-off of the company’s divisions one by one. With GdE threatening industrial action in the event of ÖBB being dismantled (AT0211201N [2]), restructuring measures such as those planned by ÖVP and – in principle – supported by the management have hitherto been blocked. [1] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/railway-employees-threaten-strike-over-restructuring [2] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/dispute-over-railway-restructuring

In Austria, 'minimally employed workers' (geringfügig Beschäftigter) are defined as employees whose income per year does not exceed a fixed amount (calculated as a monthly average) laid down by law and upgraded annually. For 2003, this monthly pay limit amounts to EUR 309.38. Nearly all minimally employed workers are part-time workers.

The Austrian Trade Union Federation (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, ÖGB) enjoys a de facto monopoly of trade union representation, and Austrian trade unionism is thus characterised by a notably high degree of unity and coherence. ÖGB is currently divided into 13 member unions which together cover all branches of the economy. Their membership domains are, in general, complementary, though not in the strict sense that only one union always covers any given sector or company. In the private sector, six blue-collar workers' unions and one white-collar union coexist. Furthermore, there are two unions which represent both blue- and white-collar workers - in the arts, media, sports and liberal professions and in the printing, journalism and paper industry respectively. The pattern of union representation in the public sector mirrors the structure of the employing public authorities. Accordingly, there are separate unions for central and regional government and for local government. Separate unions also exist for former public enterprises - ie postal services and telecommunications companies and the Austrian Federal Railways (Österreichische Bundesbahnen, ÖBB) - which are undergoing a transition period due to liberalisation and privatisation.

EU Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services [1] seeks to avoid 'social dumping' by ensuring that a minimum set of rights is guaranteed for workers posted by their employer to work in another country. The basic principle is that the working conditions and pay in effect in a Member State should be applicable both to workers from that State, and those from other EU countries posted to work there. The Directive covers undertakings established in a Member State, which, in the framework of the transnational provision of services, post workers to the territory of another Member State. [1] http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31996L0071&model=guichett

Over recent years, the Minister of Economy and Labour Affairs, Martin Bartenstein, has made several unsuccessful attempts to liberalise further the current regulations on shop opening hours, which were most recently amended in 1997 but are still seen as relatively restrictive (AT0101239N [1]). Any such extension of opening hours and working time was opposed by both the social partners and the political parties in parliament, except the conservative People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) (AT0107221N [2]). However, in spring 2003, the coalition government of the ÖVP and the populist Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) reached agreement on further deregulation of the shop opening legislation. [1] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/new-controversy-over-shop-opening-hours [2] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/negotiations-deadlocked-over-more-flexible-shop-opening-hours

On 8 May 2003, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled (in case C-171/01 [1] /Wählergruppe Gemeinsam Zajedno v Birlikte Alternative und Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG/) that the Republic of Austria must allow employees of Turkish nationality to be eligible to stand as candidates for election to the general assembly of the Chamber of Labour (Arbeiterkammer, AK). The judgment resulted from a case referred by the Austrian Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof, VfGH) to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling in March 2001. The VfGH - Austria's highest court for matters including elections to statutory representative bodies in the industrial relations field, such as the Chamber of Labour - had referred the matter to the ECJ since the former's members had been undecided as to whether Community law was in conflict with the Austrian legislation which excludes workers who are citizens of countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA) from eligibility to stand for election as officers in the Chamber of Labour (AT9802168N [2]). [1] http://europa.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79969491C19010171&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET [2] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/controversy-surrounds-eligibility-of-foreigners-to-stand-as-worker-representatives

Since the coalition government of the conservative People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) and the populist Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) resumed office in February 2003, Austria’s public debate has been dominated by the government’s plans for a fundamental reform of the public pensions system. This reform is designed to reduce considerably future expenditure on pension benefits, especially for (younger) employees in the private sector (AT0305201N [1]). [1] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/major-industrial-action-planned-over-pensions-reform

On 6 May 2003, hundreds of thousands of workers participated in tens of thousands of assemblies and 'defence strikes,' protesting against the government’s plans for substantial cuts in public pensions (AT0305201N [1]). These protests, which were carried out across all sectors and initiated by the Austrian Trade Union Federation (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, ÖGB), were the largest strike actions in Austria for more than 50 years. Since the government has refused to consider ÖGB’s demands, further actions are to be expected. In view of the magnitude and rapid implementation of the pensions reform, which critics believe will lead to a deterioration in the public pensions system for all persons in employment, 62% of the Austrian population support the protest actions, according to recent surveys. This is notable in that Austria has had almost no tradition of industrial action during recent decades, due to a highly developed 'corporatist' system. [1] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/major-industrial-action-planned-over-pensions-reform

In December 2002, a special commission established by the coalition government of the conservative People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) and the populist Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) presented a report questioning the sustainability of the present level of statutory pensions (AT0301203F [1]). The coalition, returned to office after a general election in November 2002, adopted most of the report’s restrictive proposals aimed at making major cuts in cash benefits and presented a draft pensions reform in March 2003. After a short period of obligatory consultation which expired on 25 April, this draft was due to be accepted by the cabinet on 29 April and to be passed by parliament in June 2003. [1] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/pensions-reform-report-provokes-controversy