SOCIAL DIALOGUE IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES SECTOR IN EUROPE Dr. Jane Lethbridge, Director, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), University of Greenwich, UK

To make recommendations to strengthen social dialogue AIM To critically assess the role of social dialogue in the social services sector in Europe OBJECTIVES To highlight some of the results of 22 national case studies of social dialogue in the social services sector in Europe To make recommendations to strengthen social dialogue

SOCIAL SERVICES - DEFINITIONS Long-term care for older people Care and rehabilitation for people with disabilities Child care Other services to reach disadvantaged or excluded groups only included if have strong social dialogue sector DEFINITION OF SOCIAL DIALOUGE “A dialogue between employers and employees”

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES Central/ Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia Continental Europe Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,Italy, The Netherlands, Nordic region Finland, Sweden Southern Europe Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal UK & Ireland UK, Scotland, Ireland

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES Social dialogue in social services in Europe is under- researched Difficulties in estimating the contribution of social services to social and economy – how to measure social value added? Statistics about workforce often collected by different government departments so fragmented Workforce often defined by occupation rather than sector Large number of part time jobs in social services – often measured in full-time equivalents Details of collective agreements – increasingly fragmented and difficult to access

MAIN TRENDS Form of social services – changing from institutional to community and personalised care Increasing focus on ‘enabling people to cope’ as compared to ‘doing things for people’ Funding of social services – major political issue – different solutions introduced - social insurance, care allowance, health and social care integration Increased role of for-profit/not for profit private sector providers Social services – an economic growth sector in some countries

Majority workers – women Part-time Use of migrant labour Low pay LABOUR FORCE PROFILE Majority workers – women Part-time Use of migrant labour Low pay Low status as caring not valued Mainly poorly trained Ageing workforce Shortages of workers in many countries

SOCIAL DIALOGUE STRUCTURES Well-defined social dialogue structures (from mid 20th century) The Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium, France Finland, Sweden, UK, Italy – (dialogue/ negotiations but term ‘social dialogue’ not used) Newly established social dialogue structures (post-1990) Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia Recently reformed social dialogue structures France, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal

REPRESENTATIVITY - EMPLOYERS Several employers’ organisations covering social services Germany, Poland, Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic Some unified employers’ organisations Austria, France, The Netherlands No employers’ organisations Bulgaria Creation of new potential employers’ organisations Spain

REPRESENTATIVITY – TRADE UNIONS Single trade union Germany, Czech Republic, France (groupings) Several trade unions covering social services Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, UK

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (1) Social services sector coverage – by general collective agreements Austria – collective agreement which covers health sector, social services, disability, child/youth & welfare services, labour market services Finland – public social services comply with municipal service agreements UK – covered by CA in NHS (health service) and local government but not private sector Czech Republic – Collective Bargaining Act Italy – National Collective Labour Agreements

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (2) Social services sector coverage – by specific sectoral collective agreements The Netherlands – 3 CA s – disability care, childcare and older people care Spain – CA for workers in elderly care (institutional and home care) and workers with people with disabilities Bulgaria – CA at enterprise level with social services providers, municipal level for municipal employees, branch level for Agency of Social Assistance for employees under contract & union members Poland – sectoral CA for municipal and county social services Romania – Social assistance and childcare

Lithuania – Social services CA in 17 institutions COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (3) Social services sector coverage – by industry / enterprise collective agreements Lithuania – Social services CA in 17 institutions Poland – Sectoral agreement for local government social assistance but only few CAs Italy – 9 in socio-charitable sector and 40 in social services sector Czech Republic – 200 out of 2,500 social services providers have a CA

Basic coverage wages and some working conditions COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – ISSUES COVERED Basic coverage wages and some working conditions Well developed collective agreements (CAs) cover employer/ employee relations, contracts, working hours, holidays and other absences, training, and trade union rights Some CAs include organisational changes, work changes, redundancies

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – AGE/ MATURITY OF AGREEMENTS Collective bargaining arrangements of several countries over 50 years old, for example, Belgium, the Netherlands Newly established systems in Central/ Eastern Europe An established industrial relations system can inform the way in which relationships between employers and employees are managed. Industrial relations systems - not static arrangements and are subject to change in recent decades – very important impact of austerity e.g. Greece, Poland, Portugal, Spain  

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING COVERAGE (public, not-for- profit, for-profit) Highest coverage 50% + The Netherlands (100%), Austria (95%), Finland (84.7%), Germany (52%) 20-49% coverage Bulgaria 25% Below 20% Czech Republic, Poland

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – ROLE OF STATE Finland - government plays a role of looking after the ‘common good’ through employment laws, social policy reforms and tax relief Belgium - government, as the public authority funding social enterprises, is involved in the tri-partite negotiations with employers and employees. AUSTERITY Spain, Greece – fundamental changes in labour legislation and move to company level bargaining Poland - changes in Labour Code for flexible working hours – led to breakdown of social dialogue Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Bulgaria, Lithuania - budget cuts contribute to difficult negotiations

CONCLUSIONS Social services sector – labour intensive sector so budget cuts affect workers Increasing for profit- not for profit providers – response to personalisation of social services Representativity of employers – limited Representativity of workers – more extensive, often with more than 1 union History of social dialogue establishes systems and procedures Even in countries with national social dialogue structures social partners often excluded Collective agreement coverage for social services – wide national variations in public sector and for-profit/ not for profit coverage lower Increasing trend towards enterprise/ company level collective agreements where coverage is limited Influence of austerity on collective bargaining – continues

RECOMMENDATIONS Wide range of common problems facing the social services sector should be addressed through the development of social dialogue at European level More research is needed to further understand how to support the development of social dialogue at different levels New opportunities to promote reflection within the not-for-profit sector needed to identify employer responsibilities across Europe More work is needed to develop systems of employer representativity Support the creation of social dialogue pilots at national level to create effective dialogue between employers and employees National governments and other stakeholders should commission research to explore how social services delivery could be restructured using new technology and new forms of organization.