Political support… The optimism over the relaunch of social dialogue (see this column in yesterday's bulletin) is not a result of auspices or wishes, but of something more solid: the positions taken by the Community institutions and particularly the will of the social partners themselves. During the Summit which celebrated its twentieth anniversary at the end of September, the President of the Council John Prescott declared that the UK today believes in social dialogue, pointing out that his country participates in social aspects of the EU's activity, accepted the Charter of Fundamental Rights being part of the Constitution and, nationally, is proving that economic growth and social justice can go hand-in-hand. That said, the basic UK orientations remain unchanged: priority to reforms, a “modernised” European budgetary framework, etc. The President of the Commission José Manuel Barroso took the floor twice. The first time, opening the meeting, it was to underline that without the social partners Europe cannot face current challenges and that in practice social dialogue sometimes plays a role of co-legislator. In his second intervention he advocated a “true partnership” between the European Institutions and the social partners, with the understanding that social justice and solidarity (which is “at the heart of the Union”) are just as crucial as reforms. For the Commission, he said, “better legislation” does not in any way mean reducing workers' rights. Mr Barroso also invited the social partners to tackle the theme of demographic change in their dialogue, an issue which will bring about a reduction in the EU's workforce from 2011 onwards.
…and good intentions. On their side, the social partners have all referred to the first task of relaunched social dialogue: drawing up the work programme for the years 2006 to 2008, with the list of subjects to be discussed. This will not be easy, but they have expressed the will to succeed in it by the end of the year. In basic terms, their positions do not overlap; that much was predictable. On behalf of the employers, the President of UNICE Ernest Antoine Seillière asked that at the end of the month at their meeting in London, the heads of state and government send out a "strong signal” for the modernisation of the social model: “Rather than preserving jobs, we need to create them”. This does not necessarily mean increasing public spending, but rather simplifying them and directing them better. The President of the ETUC (Trade Union Confederation) Candido Mendez asked: that the EU budget be increased, that there be firmer support for social dialogue from the authorities and that the running of the dialogue itself be improved. The General Secretary of the same organisation, John Monks, was sometimes critical in his tone. In his view, the signs are not very positive. He does not share the tendency to talk about three, four or more “European models” of society; there are certainly differences from one country to the next, but they are less significant than the similarities. In particular, the principle of collective bargaining is the same everywhere and the crucial issue of services of general interest is asked in the same way everywhere: “We should not envisage different social rules for a united labour market”. João Cravinho, the President of the CEEP (public enterprises) also emphasised the importance of services of general interest, which are a source of “European pride”. On behalf of small and medium-sized enterprises, Paul Reckinger suggested that SMEs should not be penalised, since they create jobs and are always concerned with training. I would also recall the steps taken by Eurochambres and CESI (independent trade unions) with a view to being involved in the dialogue (see bulletin 9042).
We can see that neither the institutions nor the social partners have announced anything new with regard to their orientations, but they share in the requirement to relaunch the dialogue. As a starting point, we cannot ask for more. But divergences and misunderstandings persist. The relaunch Summit was not the appropriate occasion to discuss this. To find out more, the “EESC Pamphlet” (European Economic and Social Committee) mentioned yesterday presents a summary - conducted under the direction of Claude Didry, with Céline Ethuib and Arnaud Mias - of the Conference “20 years of European social dialogue: state of play and prospects” which was held by the EESC on 14 April. The controversial aspects are dealt with in it, including: a) the autonomy of the social partner, particularly with regard to the European Commission, which must not put pressure on the result of negotiations; b) the distinction between “social dialogue” (which according to Odile Quintin should “give form to professional relations at European level”) and “civil dialogue”, which is the result of the participation of citizens in discussions on Europe.
(FR)