Brussels, 19/03/2015 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 19 March, the European social partners left the tripartite social summit with the satisfactory feeling of having given a shot in the arm to social dialogue at EU level and with the hope that their influence on European policies is coming into the ascendant.
This summit, which is traditionally held just before the start of the European spring Council, provided the social partners with the opportunity to put to the test all the promises that were made to them barely two weeks ago (see EUROPE 11268), specifically that they will be more listened to by the European institutions. And so, did the trio who chaired the summit - the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, the Commission Vice-President, Valdis Dombrovskis, and the Latvian Prime Minister, Laimdota Straujuma - actually pay more attention to the demands of the social partners?
The answer is 'yes', according to the interested parties. “The words have changed, the attitude has changed and references to the social partners have changed”, said the Secretary General of the European Trade Unions Confederation (ETUC), Bernadette Ségol, following the summit. Reports from the employers were similar. “The approach was extremely positive on all sides”, commented the Director General of BusinessEurope, Markus Beyrer.
This new highly cordial atmosphere in which the social dialogue took place does not mean that the complaints of the social partners will be completely done away with. Their criticism of European economic governance have lessened concerning the form, as they have been promised greater involvement. As for the substance, the social partners are still calling for the same thing: an end to austerity policies and more investments of a social nature, on the part of the unions, and improved competitiveness of European businesses, on the part of the employers.
Today, their main leverage to secure influence lies in the European Semester budgetary process. BusinessEurope and ETUC both agree on the importance of country-by-country recommendations and both wish to be involved in drawing these up. However, their ultimate goals are not the same, or at the same level. The employers are satisfied with country-by-country recommendations, as these often emphasise the need for structural reforms of the employment market. Beyrer said that it is the fact that just 22% of these recommendations are implemented, according to his calculations, that is the problem. The unions also stressed the importance of this fact, but above all want to shake up the economic priorities of the current recommendations. (Jan Kordys)