The Characteristic Features of Social Dialogue in the Baltics

In perspective of posted workers policy implementation, the area is based on the performance of special agencies and specific networks of other actors. This network has a number of disadvantages in terms of cooperation. National public agencies have formal independence in assurance of single market functioning. At the same time, their regulatory effectiveness depends on administrative cooperation on the EU or bilateral level as well as national level and not necessary beneficial for both sides. The policy implementation is partially based on horizontal cooperation, a proactive approach, and interaction between agencies and stakeholders. Former researches identify three main cooperation types: 1) administrative on EU level (mostly between labour inspectorates as well others co called competent authorities); 2) administrative cooperation on the national level (labour inspectorates, social insurance boards, tax authorities. In some countries outside actors are involved i.e. trade unions, NGO); 3) policy formation level cooperation (governments, political parties, responsible ministries and social partners. This cooperation mode is identifi ed on the national and EU levels) (Cremers, 2013; Hartlapp, 2014; Kullmann, 2015; Benz, Corcaci, Wolfgang Doser, 2016; Voss, Faioli et al., 2016; Hartlapp, Heiidbreder, 2018 ).The main aim of this article is to examine the main determinants of cooperation and better communication between stakeholders in the EU countries on the posting workers policy issue. The following questions guide the research: 1) What is the cooperation status and information exchange between stakeholders involved in posting policy issues in the Baltic states, Sweden and Poland?; 2) How and to what extent does information exhange between stakekeholders influence cooperation in the Baltic states, Sweden and Poland in the field of posting workers? These research questions integrate and consolidate the theoretical and practical evidence in the field of administration, social dialogue, protection of rights of posting workers into an explanatory framework that makes it possible to explain differences and similarities of the labour inspectorate trade union, business organization practice in the selected EU states.

PurposeTo explore social dialogue over vocational education and training in Europe, comparing the role of the social partners in different national training systems and different industrial relations contexts.Design/methodology/approachA survey of European member states (EU15 before enlargement) and two EFTA countries addressed to the national agencies or ministries responsible for vocational education and training and representing the contacts of the CEDEFOP Refernet network, supplemented by a literature review and discussions with the social partners at European level.FindingsThroughout Europe the social partners have a formal role in developing vocational training policy and are involved in implementation, particularly at sector and local levels. While the structures of participation vary according to the degree of state regulation and the locus of training, social partner involvement is extensive irrespective of the nature of the regulatory framework.Research limitations/implicationsOnly 13 countries responded to the survey and respondents were not always aware of workplace developments. The gaps were addressed through the literature and discussions but inevitably the study is not comprehensive.Practical implicationsValuable information for those seeking to identify common and good practice in social dialogue to improve the quality and relevance of vocational training.Originality/valueA useful baseline study of the role of the social partners in vocational education and training in Europe.

In their negotiations for accession to the EU, candidate countries have made important social policy commitments. These include the promotion of social dialogue up to EU standards and the application of the principles and values that prevail in this area. Accordingly, governments of candidate countries are trying to promote appropriate conditions for such social dialogue to take place, while social partners are reinforcing their structures to play their full role in the social dialogue process. Nevertheless, there has been little debate about the real objectives of social dialogue in the candidate countries. What is social dialogue for, what has it achieved so far, and why is it so important to develop it further? Who are expected to be the ultimate beneficiaries of social dialogue mechanisms and practices? What implications might current features of social dialogue in candidate countries have in the enlarged European Union? This article provides a first tentative assessment of the coverage of social dialogue - and thus of the effectiveness of social dialogue mechanisms - in the candidate countries.

This article reviews the negotiated responses to the crisis at different levels of social dialogue in the Baltic countries. The Baltic countries form a relatively coherent group of small open economies that can be classified as belonging to the neoliberal type of central and eastern European capitalism. Their responses to the crisis were consistent with such classification: flexible labour markets absorbed the main impacts of the crisis through rapid increases in unemployment, as well as nominal and real drops in wages. A negotiated response was either not sought at all by governments or was of minor importance at all levels of interaction between the social partners. If anything, national-level social dialogue deteriorated, remaining at a low level even after the crisis had peaked. Based on qualitative examples from Estonia and Lithuania we show that, at company level, responses to the crisis varied.

5. France: Protecting the insiders in the crisis and forgetting the outsiders? Jérôme Gautié* 1. INTRODUCTION Like many other countries, France was seriously hit by the recent crisis. Gross domestic product (GDP) fell sharply from the second quart...

Digital labour platforms transform work and employment relations in many ways. Crucially, they renounce the role of the employer, leading to a redefinition of traditional categories of actors and their roles in social policy and dialogue. Using the example of the EU proposal for a directive on improving working conditions in platform work, this article examines how this redefinition is materialising in practice among social partners in order to understand its implications for the future of social dialogue and legislation. While previous research focused on the status of workers, this study takes a complementary view by considering the employer side as a key counterpart in a functioning employment relationship. The actor‐approach is used to analyse the views and positions of EU social partners and how their prerogatives are affected by the blurring of the role of the employer and the redefinition of traditional categories of actors in social policy.

The article explores the question of impact of European Union (EU) enlargement (2004) on social dialogue in two new EU member countries: Poland and Estonia. The research shows a contradictory influence of the enlargement. On the one hand, social dialogue was supported by European institutions as a way to improve effectiveness and legitimacy of public policies. On the other hand, the logic of European accession was based on the quick transfer of vast numbers of regulations (acquis communautaire), which were not intended as subject to change. This fact made it difficult to develop social dialogue in many areas of public policy, and it made the possibilities to discuss changes in European law with social partners more of a challenge. Consequently, enlargement weakened the role of social dialogue, as an effective mechanism of public reforms in the two countries examined. The article demonstrates the importance of political and administrative culture in the implementation of social dialogue in Central-East European countries. When the influence of European accession is weak and contradictory, the influence of local conditioning grows in importance. In order to explain the impact of local culture on the enlargement processes, the article proposes two models of relations between state and society: (i) administrative state, which is based on socialist state legacy; and (ii) network state, which corresponds with Western European standards of democracy.

This study underscores the critical role of social dialogue as a fundamental instrument for fostering engagement among employees, employers, and governmental institutions, with the overarching goal of maintaining peace and addressing significant labor and social challenges. Social dialogue facilitates the identification and resolution of underlying issues that often stem from discrimination, inequality, or unmet employee expectations, thereby reducing workplace tensions and promoting social stability. Furthermore, the study examines the intersection of social dialogue and peacebuilding, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity in addressing diverse social needs. Engaging various stakeholders, including local communities and vulnerable groups, fosters social cohesion and prevents the recurrence of conflicts. Educational initiatives play a crucial role in this context by instilling values of tolerance and mutual understanding, equipping individuals with the skills necessary for effective dialogue. By reviewing global and local educational programs that integrate themes of peacebuilding and social dialogue, this study identifies best practices and recommendations for enhancing negotiation and conflict resolution skills among social partners. The findings highlight that effective social dialogue and the active participation of trade unions are vital for maintaining peace and stability in societies. The recommendations provided aim to strengthen these processes, facilitating better working conditions and social stability through informed and engaged stakeholders, thereby contributing to the creation of sustainable and inclusive societies

Despite many positive examples, the dissemination of workplace innovation is still rather limited. The market mechanism is not in itself capable of delivering workplace innovation. This chapter discusses the likely reasons, and the need for policies and interventions by governments and social partners at European and national levels. Workplace innovation connects different policy agendas such as productivity, innovation, skills, digitalisation, quality jobs, social dialogue and the European Pillar of Social Rights. Workplace innovation policies do not take the form of ‘hard regulation’ such as legislation, but that of ‘soft regulation’ in its various forms. In the Finnish, German and Scottish cases discussed in this chapter, ‘learning network’ approaches appear to be fairly successful. There are more similarities than differences between the three cases, and the differences are mainly those of degree. Although strategic justifications differ slightly over time and between countries, the common rationale is that of rebalancing economic and innovation policies by embedding the complementarity of technological innovation and workplace innovation, emphasising the important role played by employee participation. These policies are being supplemented by action research, as well as research into possible scenarios. The chapter concludes with research questions regarding the determinants of managerial choices and the interplay between the innovation policy, the industrial relations system and the research system. A final category of research lies in better evaluation of programmes, including studies to identify long-term and indirect impacts of interventions, examining the extent to which they are able to create a sustainable momentum of change.

The author examines the role of the European Social Dialogue (ESD) in decision-making on social policy and labor relations at supranational level in the EU. The author looks into the history and distinctive features of the ESD, its formats, procedures, and legal framework. Based on a review of the institutionalization of social dialogue at the national level in the EU-27, the author draws two conclusions. The first is that the development of social dialogue is uneven across the Union because of the particularities of the social models of the member states and their political and socioeconomic development. The second is that, despite national differences, the coverage of workers by collective agreements in the EU as a whole and the entrenchment of social dialogue at the supranational level make it an integral and distinctive feature of the European social model. An analysis of the evolution of the ESD suggests that there has been a continual move towards a more autonomous status for the social partners. However, because of the 2008–2010 crisis, the ESD’s role has significantly weakened. “A New Start for Social Dialogue” announced by the Juncker’s Commission and several further initiatives are largely declarative. The Court of Justice’s 2021 decision limiting the scope for implementing autonomous agreements at the communitarian level could have a negative impact on the further development of the ESD. Finally, the author positively assesses the possible role of the ESD in overcoming the social consequences of internal and external challenges and the negative effects of transformation of the labor markets.

After some promise in the 1990s, European unions have grown increasingly disillusioned with regard to the results of EU social policy and EU social dialogue. The paper analyses the extent and reasons of this disillusion by looking at the impact on social dialogue of the Active Inclusion Recommendation launched by the European Commission at the outset of the economic crisis in 2008. The Recommendation led to a tripartite framework agreement at the EU level in 2010 (the only such agreement in a decade), which was then to be implemented at national and regional levels. With a multilevel governance approach, the paper looks at the extent to which social dialogue on Active Inclusion at the EU level, in six EU countries (France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) and six regions (Rhône-Alpes, Lombardy, Lower Silesia, Catalonia, West Sweden and Greater Manchester) within those countries was somehow revitalised. The analysis, looking at both top-down and bottom-up processes and based on documentary analysis and interviews, shows that the initiative displays ambiguities similar to those of typical composite EU principles, such as famously the case of ‘flexicurity’. The multilevel governance of the EU, including the interaction between ‘soft’ employment policies and evolving ‘hard’ Eurogovernance tools, and with poor horizontal and vertical coordination, resulted in multiple distortions of the principle and, over time, to frustration. Unions’ engagement varies by level, country and region, reflecting both traditional national approaches and the local perception of ‘active inclusion’ as an opportunity. Although trade unions were more welcoming of ‘active inclusion’ than they had been for flexicurity, similar related threats and opportunities led to modest achievements and a gradual fading of the idea at the European and national levels, with some more opportunities however at the regional level. The paper concludes that, if trade unions want to engage with the idea of a European Social Model and with Eurogovernance, they could develop stronger networks among regional organisations.

The development of the real estate market contributes to the development of the national economy, thus creating a favourable investment climate for the investors. Increase in the level of the incomes of the inhabitants may increase the availability of housing in the country by fiscal and monetary policy instruments. The topicality of the paper is related to the need for analysis of the trends and prospects of the real estate market development of the Baltic States, as it has a high social meaning and has a high importance for market participants. The objective of the research is to analyse influencing factors and tendencies of real estate market development in Baltic States, and includes a comparative analysis of the residential property market in the Baltic States is conducted. The research methods used in the paper are statistical data analysis, historical and logical approach methods. The article focuses mainly on the housing market. It was concluded in the study that under the similar geographic and economic conditions in the Baltic States, the housing affordability index and real estate market development tendencies have many differences and success indicators are still varying.

This article first outlines the main features of social dialogue and collective bargaining in Slovenia during the 1990s. It then identifies the main changes affecting actors and processes that emerged in the 2000s and during the recent economic crisis. The highly coordinated Slovenian system of the 1990s has been exposed to strong socio-economic shocks in the 2000s. Under pressure from these shocks the system’s capacity for coordination has been weakened. Nevertheless, all attempts to replace social dialogue structures by unilaterally imposed government policies have been basically unsuccessful.

Corrigendum to Work accommodations and sustainable working: The role of social partners and industrial relations in the employment of disabled and older people in Estonia, Hungary and Poland

In 1990 Esping-Andersen distinguished among three ideal-types of welfare state regimes, defined according to two dimensions; degree of decommodification and stratification and labour market participation. The former refers to the extent to which social policies make individuals independent of the market, while the latter concerns the extent to which the welfare state differentiates in the treatment of different groups. He claimed that it is not possible to understand welfare state variations linearly; rather, there are qualitative differences in the way social provision is provided and that welfare states tend to cluster into three different regimes forming interconnected configurations of state and market, and later, the family. Echoing Titmuss, Esping-Andersen identified three ‘worlds of welfare states’, which he labelled ‘conservative-corporatist’, ‘liberal’ and ‘social-democratic’ (or Nordic) regimes. The first is characterized by strong emphasis on the role of social partners, on the principle of subsidiarity, on an underdeveloped service sector and on the existence of labour market ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. Empirically it is illustrated, for example, by France and Germany. The second is characterized by minimal and targeted assistance measures, re-enforcement of job-seeking behaviour and promotion of systems of private welfare provision, and it is illustrated by the United Kingdom and the United States.