Has European sectoral social dialogue improved since the establishment of SSDCs in 1998?

Abstract

This article looks at the way in which European sectoral social dialogue has developed over the past 20 years. It tries to determine whether the establishment of Sectoral Social Dialogue Committees in 1998 (SSDCs; currently 40) has affected the nature and/or quantity of texts adopted by these bodies. To this end, two periods are considered: 1990—1997 and 1998—2009. A first finding is that European sectoral social dialogue has burgeoned since the mid-1990s. The establishment of SSDCs therefore forms part of this expansion. Our main finding is that, whereas previously sectoral social dialogue was primarily geared towards ‘joint lobbying’ documents addressed to the European institutions, it now appears to be generating more documents that reflect ‘reciprocal commitments’. Yet this trend is really only perceptible from 2003 onwards, five years after the first SSDCs were established. The increased number of binding joint texts adopted can be explained by the Commission having undertaken more consultation (under Treaty Article 154) which opened a window of opportunity for the social partners to sign ‘agreements’.

Patterns of transnational trade union cooperation in Europe: The effect of regimes, sectors and resources

“…The other forms are all softer activities based on dissemination of information and learning, which seem to have been transnationalized to a higher degree through exchange of information, joint education/training, exchange of observers or negotiators in collective bargaining and preparation of joint statements. These latter activities are to a high degree conducted within the ETUFs and the ETUC, for which previous research has reported significant levels of cooperation (Degryse and Pochet, 2011;Glassner and Pochet, 2011;Larsson, 2012;Müller, 2016). We now consider the extent to which variations in cooperation depend on industrial relations regime, sector and size.…”

“…Trade union cooperation comprises a varied set of activities with different goals (Larsson, 2012). They range from loose bilateral contacts strengthening national strategies (Müller, 2016;Traxler et al, 2008), to the work in European organizations at sectoral and crosssectoral levels: the European Trade Union Federations (ETUFs) and the ETUC, through which national unions have access to EU policy consultation and negotiations with employer organizations in social dialogue (Degryse and Pochet, 2011;Müller and Platzer, 2017;Perin and Léonard, 2016;Prosser, 2016).…”

Economic union without social union: The strange case of the European social dialogue

“…The new phase also coincided with the increasing importance of sectoral dialogue. As SSDCs expanded numerically and their output proliferated, attention increasingly shifted from the cross-industry dialogue to the sectoral level (Degryse and Pochet, 2011; Keller, 2003a). Nor did the sectoral dialogue go unaffected by the dialogue’s soft turn.…”

Soft procedures for hard impacts

“…Informal joint committees were established very soon in sectors affected by the first European regulations and the launch of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community (Dufresne, 2006). Such bodies played at first a consultative role, but the role and status of committees evolved throughout the integration process, and the number of sectors having their own committee grew (Degryse and Pochet, 2011), until there was broad coverage of manufacturing and service activities with 43 committees by July 2016 (Degryse, 2015).…”