User:Vogz19/sandbox

[Name]

Role of Social Dialogue In Employment Policies Of The EU.

[Course] [Instructor] [University Affiliation]

[Date]

ROLE OF SOCIAL DIALOGUE IN EMPLOYMENT POLICIES OF THE EU. Introduction. Evidence from various countries from the past three decades of European integration indicated that EU level social dialogue indeed plays an imperative role in the advancement of the social model of the Union. This is done through the delivery of benefits from the workers, workers as well as for the economy and the entire society as a whole. October 2011 marked the 20th anniversary of the agreement between social partners which was later officially enshrined on the mashsrctictt treat ( Alter, 1998). This lead to the establishment of procedures for governance of the  labor and management on shaping as well s executing the EU  employment as well as social policies (Bailey,2009). According to (Armingeon,et al. 2008), the European social dialogue entails the discussions, negotiations , consultations and joint actions that involve  the organizations  that represent two sides of the European industries, namely the worker sad the employers. The EU social dialogue primarily takes two forms: •	The tripartite dialogue that entails the public authorities •	The bipartite dialogue between the trade union organizations and the European  employers. Usually this happens across the cross industry levels and also within the sectoral committees of social dialogue As an integral part of the treaty that established the European  community (TECO), social dialogue in the EU is a fundamental aspect in the social model of Europe (Enderlein, 2006) .This is because it encompasses the negotiations,discussions and joint actions that are undertaken by the social partners. In the community level,the employees are represented under the Europeans Trade Union Confederation (Falkner,1998). Brief History Of Social Dialogue In EU. Social dialogue was created as an instrument that c could be used to uphold the objective of institution in Europe to coordinate in terms of their economic policies of the countries. This was with the view of achieving the aim of having one European community. In this regard, social dialogue became a fundamental social model of the Union. As such,the Standing Committee on Employment, which was first created in 1970 was the first social dialogue structure that aimed at bringing together various  representatives of the employers, employees and the intuitions so that they could appropriately initiate dialogue, and consultation. Despite the fact that no string initiatives resulted from the committee’s activities, it set the foundation of a process that gradually developed across the next decades. The single Act of 1985 for example, added another new objective of  the interaction between social partners. Namely, this was the possibility of making contractual relations and therefore marked the beginning of the structured social dialogue. The joint opinions that were signed in the subsequent years were a good revelation of the ability of social partners to act together. However, the impacts still remained limited as a result of the fact that the partners had no way of influencing the making of polices by the community. This meant that the opinions did not provoke the social partners into action. The Maastricht treaty and later the Amsterdam treaty increased the stakes. They treaties also confirmed the new objectives of social dialogue including direct contribution to the legislation of EU.

Current Situation of Social dialogue in EU. Thus far, social dialogue continues to play a critical role in the creation of a single market .Currently, it plays an irreplaceable role in making the economic governance  stronger as well as the creation of an economic union. It is important that the European union and the member states invest in strengthening social  dialogue at the national as well as the EU  levels  of prevention of the divisions between lab our and capital is to achieved  (Eberlein &Dieter 2002). Other things that could be prevented using social dialogue include the fall of the growth and employment potential of Europe, bigger macro economic imbalances as well as the increasing exclusion of particular territories within the context of the economic crisis that is currently happening. To be successful, the EU  requires cross industry  and also   a sectoral social dialogue. In addition, the union needs dialogue in the individual businesses. Although social dialogue is largely autonomous, the social partners have the critical responsibility of addressing the major structural challenges that face Europe in the future. So far, the many experiences of crisis has indicated the extent to which social dialogue can be used in the alleviation of the effects of economic downturn, provision of resilience and  stability,  and the preservation  as well  as the enhancement of employee competitiveness. On the national level, social dialogue has gone a long way in addressing the employment crisis across many Europe countries. As will be seen in the discussion, the EU member states that have robust social dialogue techniques have successfully faced the economic crisis. The reality however is that social dialogue is still weak in most of the member states that joined the European Union in 2004 as well as 2007. In addition, there is the tendency to erode, downgrade and even eliminate the social structures. Undermining the bargaining and social rights of employees may form a part of implicit social dumping techniques .Such approaches are detrimental for Europe and similarly detrimental to the countries that are concerned since they will be both socially and economically unsustainable. In addition, trust among the key participants of social dialogue is limited as a result of the underdeveloped institutional capacity.Within the national levels  these  issues have  translated into major failures to develop reposes to the crisis .On the EU level, these weaknesses can decrease the legitimacy of   processes  of economic  governance as well as undermine  the implementation  of policies. In this regard, the commission offers capacity building through social dialogue through the social  fund as well as transnational projects .The  social partners as well as governments are  therefore encouraged  to  come up with better social dialogue policies to foster a stronger as well as more robust dialogue as far as the employment policies of the EU are concerned. Social Dialogue and EU Employment Policies. Employment is a central political concern of the European Community. One of the fundamental objectives of the European Union as stated in Article 2 of the Treaty is to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment. Both EU Member States and EU accession countries are facing rapid economic and social changes, which strongly affect the employment labour market. Tackling unemployment is one of their constant efforts. Unemployment in the 15 EU Member States is currently at 8.1% and over 14% in the accession countries (Bartolini, 2006). Everyone agrees that a high level of employment is a key element in finding solutions to the most urgent economic and social problems such as ageing, sustainability of pension systems, competitiveness and social cohesion. Social partners have an active role to play in this area. The European Employment Strategy At the European Luxembourg Summit, in 1997, EU Member States made officially the commitment to co-ordinate the policies of employment on the European level as well as to foster the creation of more and better jobs. This commitment was enshrined in the Amsterdam Treaty. Within the European Employment Strategy, the EU Members States agreed to jointly address common European objectives as well as the measures that  had been adopted by the Council.They later presented them as the official European Employment Guidelines  (Keller, &Bernd S1999). These guidelines of employment are currently translated by the 15 nations into an annual process through setting up of annual National Action Plans.In addition; the NAPs are evaluated through the European Commission that set up particular recommendations for the EU Member States to align with the joint objectives. The results are subsequently published in a Joint Employment Report adopted by the Council.

As a result of enlargement, the acceding member countries started to applying to the European Employment Strategy. This is despite the fact that their economic as well as social situations are still falling far behind the EU member countries.The technique used for the  implementation of this is referred to as the  Open Method of Co-ordination (Bercusson,2007). This is a new system of a more effective, efficient as well as democratic governance that are based on partnership. Additionally, it is focussed on the exchanging of good practices, benchmarking as well jointly agreeing  on objectives as well  indicators. The overall process leads to the development of the Members States an obligation in  order  to achieve the results that  stresses convergence. This is mainly because they have a duty to come as close as possible to the performances of the three best Member States. social dialogue plays a significant role in the making of the employment policies of the EU since the national and  European strategies cannot be successful  without the complete involvement  as well as commitment of the factors at all levels. Although the current European employment strategy is conceived as well addressed to nation, social partnerships  is described as the primary tool for the implementation  of  the employment strategy and additionally in the  development of national action plans .This means that the high degree of involvement  of social dialogue is  needed at all levels so as to  ensure or guarantee proper and effective governance.

Some of the main issues within the current guidelines for European employment include the prevention of unemployment  with particular focus on  long term unemployment. The creation of better and more jobs by promoting  entrepreneurship  dealing with change as well as the fostering of adaptability as well as mobility within the market for labour, the creation of human capital alongside lifelong learning. Other issues include the increase of the supply for labor as well as the promotion of active ageing, equality of gender, and reconciliation of family and work life. Finally the employment guidelines  by social dialogue addresses the promotion of integration and curbing of discrimination  in the market  for labour through the fostering  of work using incentives, curbing undeclared work and the curbing of employment disparities (Büchs, 2009).

Role Social Dialogue partners.

There is a direct involvement of social partners since most the Employment Guidelines are dedicated to issues that  under the shared responsibility of the social partners. This includes things such as the organisation of work, active ageing, human capital, restructuring, and lifelong learning,. As was mentioned earlier. Other factors include achieving a balance between flexibility and security. All these areas need considerable contribution from the social partners. cross-industry social partners at the European level are largely involved in having relevant discussions with the Commission in the course of the drafting phase .Regarding their implementation at this level, social partners act  in a responsible manner. The majority of initiatives as well as actions put down in their autonomous joint Work Programme are  in addition dedicated towards  employment.

Annually  during the Tripartite Summit for Growth and Employment, the n social partners present report regarding their contribution to the Employment Strategy (CEC ,2004). A good example is how  at the 2003 Spring Council, the social partners  presented  the telework agreement. This was the first follow-up report a national level on their framework for actions (Goetschy,1999).

Finally on the  national level, situations diverge significantly from one country to another. for example, in some of the countries, social partners are deeply involved in the entire process and also  feel concerned about most of employment issues. Apart from this, they v often conclude national employment pacts as is the case in Spain and Ireland  (Joerges, &Florian2009). This  includes  a wider  range of concrete initiatives as well as  collective agreements along the guidelines. Usually this is supported by  the full support as well as  respect of their  respective government. Emergence of Social Dialogue. During the 1990s, the Open Method of Coordination offered the European Union with a soft coordination process as far as social dialogue was concerned. Initially, this approach appeared to be a best expel of the strategy that postulated the change of making policies in Europe. In this regard, governance took place without the classical equipment for hierarchical governance. Simultaneously, there was a rapid increase in the importance of societal actors like social partners and networks Currently social dialogue in the EU is not merely a national phenomenon. This is attributed to the fact that both labor and  management have become co-legislators of the social policy of the EU within the Maastricht treaty  (Dølvik, 1997) .Despite this, there are signals that social dialogue, in the absence of backing politically,  softening. This softening is attributed to the premise that it needs to overcome the non committed position that has been taken by the employers. In this regard, the instruments that were initially used have been picked up by social partners. Thus, they push for governance towards voluntarism that is twofold. Instead d of moving from the weak state to stringer societies, weak social partners and weak decision making centers and processes  are observed. This can be seen clearly in four phases ; the era prior to the Maarsht treaty that was largely characterized by the precedence  of integration  that was deemed negative, the shift to the non binding coordination in social and employment policies  from the 1990sand the current shift to non binding coordination within the realm of social dialogue that  us referred to a double voluntarism  (Iankowa, 2006). Functional Subsidiary. In this model of social dialogue the Maastricht as well as the annexed social protocol brought in the new phase of policy making in the EU where the social partners were given authority to draft legislation. Within this model the following four innovations were introduced in social dialogue. •	The creation of new competencies •	The expansion of the scope of the qualified majority voting •	Strengthening of the European parliament •	and social partners were accorded more significance. The four changes above brought in a new form of governance to the European Union .Some of the radical changes that came with the new social dialogue technique was that the community method of social partners procedures of competencies thus allowing the labor and management to negotiate in terms of frameworks of agreement (Eising, & Beate 2005).Upon the request of management and employees, the agreements were transformed to a directive from the directive decision of proposal from the commission. Given this case, the best option of the council would be to reject or accept it completely. In addition the Maastricht treaty sought to make the national social partners stronger. Finally, it introduced the case of entrusting the labor and management with the execution of directives of requested. Evaluation of new social dialogue techniques. The approach taken so far as far social dialogue in the EU has not been without challenges and more challenges and difficulties are anticipated to be encountered in the future. Regardless, the social dialogue as managed to chalk up approximately  6 join initiatives  as far important employment issues are concerned (Johansson, 2002). Social dialogue has so far indisputably reveals that a contrastive relationship between employers and  employees  has been developed on which further developments can be made (Hornung-Draus, 2002). The discussion above clearly indicates that social dialogue adds value to the social dialogues on both the national and regional level. This is done by placing the issues in the national agenda such as the telework stress. It is also achieved by offering a   good mutual learning framework and by reinforcing capabilities to the social partners as was discussed above. A good example of this is the enlargement of central and eastern European countries that took place in 2004 (Ganghof & Philipp2008). Looking forward, as the negotiations on working time continue, there is the opportunity to shows the added value of social dialogue which is that it is possible to success where  other types of decision making have not succeeded .Further, the new policies  of social dialogue that have extensively been discussed  can be used in negotiations  with a view of curbing the detrimental  effects as well as the legal uncertainty that stems from rulings given by courts for both the employees as well as the employers (Katzenstein, 1985). Conclusion. The EU social dialogue as has been demonstrated in the above discussions  makes one of the most important and fundamental elements of the social systems of European Nations. One of the primary ingredients for the EU to be successful will stem from the union’s capacity to  come to an agreement regarding the  priorities using a realistic approach. Although past approaches of hard power such as directives worked, social dialogue offers the best approach of doing this. Currently the EU’s priority y is to contribute to the growth of jobs so as to reduce unemployment. Within the social dialogue plan of the social partners agree in the  social and economic reforms, there is no doubt that  social partnership will be at the centre of the processes of making decisions. With the social dialogue currently at its mature phase, it s is indeed necessary to opt for it as opposed to the hard forms of directives since it has proven to be a more qualitative approach. Mean while in the short term, the negotiations  of partners is expected  to bring  lasting solutions to the issues of employment as well as the problems that workers and citizens  face in the European regional realm Bibliography Alter, K (1998). Who Are the "Masters of the Treaty"?. European Governments and the European Court of Justice, in. International Organization 52, 121-147. Armingeon, Klaus et al. (2008). Comparative Political Data Set III 1990-2006, University of Berne. Bailey, D (2009). The Political Economy of European Social Democracy. A Critical Realist Approach. London. Routledge. Bartolini, S (2006). Mass Politics in Brussels. How Benign Could It Be?, in. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften 4, 28-56. Bercusson, B(2007). The Trade Union Movement and the European Union. Judgement Day, in. European Law Journal 13, 279-308. Büchs, M (2009). The Open Method of Coordination – Effectively preventing welfare state retrenchment?, in. Kröger, Sandra (ed.). What we have learnt. Advances, pitfalls and remaining questions in .CEC (2004). Communication from the Commission. Partnership for Change in an Enlarged Europe - Enhancing the Contribution of European Social Dialogue - COM(2004) 557 final. Brussels. Commission of Dølvik, J. E (1997). Redrawing Boundaries of Solidarity? ETUC, Social Dialogue and the Europeanisation of Trade Unions in the 1990s. Oslo. ARENA. Eberlein, B. K (2002). Theorising the New Modes of European Union Governance, in. Enderlein, H. (2006). Adjusting to EMU. The Impact of Supranational Monetary Policy on Domestic Fiscal and Wage-Setting institutions, in. European Union Politics 7, 113-140. Falkner, G(1998).EU Social Policy in the 1990s. Towards a Corporatist Policy Community, Routledge Research in European Public Policy. London/New York. Routledge. Ganghof, S and Philipp G(2008). Taxation and Democracy in the EU, in Journal of European Public Policy 15, 58-77. Goetschy, J (1999). The European Employment Strategy, Genesis and Development, in. European Journal of Industrial Relations 5, 117-137. Hassel, A (2003). The Politics of Social Pacts, in, British Journal of Industrial Relations 41, 707-726. Héritier, A and Dirk L (2008). Introduction. The Shadow of Hierarchy and New Modes of Governance, in. Journal of Public Policy 28, 1-17. Hornung-Draus, R (2002). Between E-economy, Euro and Enlargement: Where are Employer Organisations in European Heading?, in. Industrielle Beziehungen 9, 209-221. Iankowa, E (2006). Sozialer Dialog in der erweiterten EU, in: WSI-Mitteilungen 59, 568-574. Joerges, C and Florian R (2009). Informal Politics, Formalised Law and the 'Social Deficit' of European Integration. Reflections after the Judgments of the ECJ in Viking and Laval, in: European Law Journal 15, 1-19. Johansson, K (1999). Tracing the Employment Title in the Amsterdam Treaty. Uncovering Transnational Coalitions, in: Journal of European Public Policy 6, 85-101. Johansson, K/ M (2002). Another Road to Maastricht. The Christian Democrat Coalition and the Quest for European Union, in. Journal of Common Market Studies 40, 871-893. Katzenstein, P. (1985). Policy and Politics in West Germany. The Growth of a Semisovereign State. Philadelphia. Temple University Press.