The Experts below are selected from a list of 150792 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard Parrish - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Social Dialogue in European Professional Football
European Law Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Richard ParrishAbstract:Social Dialogue refers to discussions, consultations, negotiations and joint actions involving organisations representing the two sides of industry, namely employers and workers. The constitutional basis for Social Dialogue is located within Articles 153–155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In July 2008, a Social Dialogue committee in European professional football was established. This article assesses the significance of this move and argues that the committee has the long-term potential to transform industrial relations in European football based on the conclusion of binding collective agreements. In the shorter term, the committee performs two functions: first, as a means of effecting a change in governance standards in European football and as a lobbying technique for the Social partners in terms of their relationship with the EU; second, as a venue for a negotiated settlement between the rival interests operating within the EU's sports policy subsystem.
Philippe Pochet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
has european sectoral Social Dialogue improved since the establishment of ssdcs in 1998
Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 2011Co-Authors: Christophe Degryse, Philippe PochetAbstract:This article looks at the way in which European sectoral Social Dialogue has developed over the past 20 years. It tries to determine whether the establishment of Sectoral Social Dialogue Committees in 1998 (SSDCs; currently 40) has affected the nature and/or quantity of texts adopted by these bodies. To this end, two periods are considered: 1990-1997 and 1998-2009. A first finding is that European sectoral Social Dialogue has burgeoned since the mid-1990s. The establishment of SSDCs therefore forms part of this expansion. Our main finding is that, whereas previously sectoral Social Dialogue was primarily geared towards 'joint lobbying' documents addressed to the European institutions, it now appears to be generating more documents that reflect 'reciprocal commitments'. Yet this trend is really only perceptible from 2003 onwards, five years after the first SSDCs were established. The increased number of binding joint texts adopted can be explained by the Commission having undertaken more consultation (under Treaty Article 154) which opened a window of opportunity for the Social partners to sign 'agreements'.
-
The European sectoral Social Dialogue: questions of representation and membership
Industrial Relations Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Evelyne Léonard, Emmanuelle Perin, Philippe PochetAbstract:In the debates on the European Social Dialogue as a potential level of supranational industrial relations, the key questions of representations and mandates are often neglected. To what extent can the European sectoral Social Dialogue act for national constituencies across 27 Member States in the perspective of collective action by European associations? This article addresses this question by the means of three dimensions: the representation of heterogeneous members, the various degrees of national players' commitment in the European committees and finally, the definition of a common agenda among members.
-
European Social Dialogue between hard and soft law.
2007Co-Authors: Philippe PochetAbstract:[From the introduction]. If the debates raged around the European Employment Strategy (EES) and more generally on Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and the new modes of governance, less and less attention was paid to Social Dialogue. An evaluation of the cross-industry and sectoral Social Dialogue is a difficult task as it is an on-going process with various dimensions, among them the information, consultation, and negotiation between the European trade unions, the European employers and the Commission are often underlined (Transfer, 2006). Social Dialogue is based on the treaty (Art. 138 and 139) and is generally considered as being part of a hard law approach (Falkner, 1998). Nevertheless, the last cross-industry agreement dated back to 1999 and only few binding agreements have been signed at sectoral level. Since 2000, the agreements signed were autonomous agreements which look like a hybrid between soft and hard law both by flexibility of the content and the nature of instruments to implement the EU agreement. The paper analyses the latest developments at cross-industry and sectoral level in order to evaluate the nature of the dynamics at play (Leonard et al., 2007). We will present in an integrated framework both the cross-industry and sectoral Social Dialogues. Their stories run mostly in parallel but recently the interaction has increased as they have worked on the same topics (telework for example) and as the Commission (see CEC, 2004) is trying to combine them. Finally, they have more or less reached the same point (soft law as the main regulatory instrument) and are confronted by the same set of problems (implementation, enlargement, representativeness…). As the sectoral Social Dialogue is much less well-known that the cross-industry one, we will concentrate our attention in this paper on developments at sectoral level (see also De Benecditus et al, 2003, de Boer et al, 2005, Dufresne et al, 2006, for the development at cross-industry level see the annual review by Degryse). This chapter is structured as follows: the first part presents a brief history of the European Social Dialogue, the second part defines broad categories to classify the joint texts adopted by the EU Social partners, the third present a quantitative analysis of the texts adopted in the last ten years at sectoral level. Section 4 briefly illustrates the nature of the exchange and presents a typology. Then we draw some conclusions.
-
The European Sectoral Social Dialogue - Actors, developments, and challenges
ULB Institutional Repository, 2006Co-Authors: Anne Dufresne, Christophe Degryse, Philippe PochetAbstract:In most of the EU's fifteen Member States sectoral collective bargaining is an important process, if not the principal means of regulating relations between employers and employees. Yet the sectoral level of Social Dialogue has long been neglected at Community level, coming a poor second behind cross-industry Social Dialogue. The tide now seems to be turning, and a formally recognised Social Dialogue has been established in more than thirty sectors. The authors of this volume consider recent developments in these sectors, providing a quantitative and qualitative overview as well as some more detailed analysis of particular sectors. This volume is original in that it is based on a systematic collection of documents produced by the European sectoral and cross-industry Social Dialogue, along with a hundred or so interviews with the relevant players. Some of the main questions raised by the authors include: what is meant by sectoral Social Dialogue? How does it differ from crossindustry Social Dialogue? What type of negotiations take place? What are the aims and strategies of employers' organisations? Are the agreements implemented and, if not, why not? What difference has EU enlargement made in this area and what else might change? Is it possible to devise a typology of sectors? Without claiming to have definitive answers for all these questions, this volume offers some useful food for thought at a time when sectoral Social Dialogue is tentatively asserting its position Europewide.
-
European Social Dialogue at a Crossroads
2003Co-Authors: Philippe PochetAbstract:Over the past ten years, the European Social Dialogue has evolved a great deal, at least if we consider its procedural nature. First, the implementation of Social accords has led to the adoption of three negotiated pieces of legislation. Second, this on-going development is leading to truly autonomous agreements between the Social partners (excluding the European Commission and the European Council).
Raymond Parsons - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The emergence of institutionalised Social Dialogue in South Africa
The South African Journal of Economics, 2007Co-Authors: Raymond ParsonsAbstract:This paper looks at the conceptual framework of Social Dialogue, investment in Social capital and some international definitions of Social Dialogue as background to developments in this sphere in South Africa. Social Dialogue is viewed as a mechanism for problem-solving and reducing transaction costs. The paper considers the ramifications of the 1979 Wiehahn Report on labour relations, as well as the nature of Social Dialogue in the apartheid era and its workplace origins. Institutionally, the stepping stones to the emergence of the NEF and Nedlac are discussed, together with some of the issues involved in, and formal outcomes of, Nedlac over the past eleven years in public policy choices. It closes with an evaluation of institutionalised Social Dialogue in South Africa and its future.
-
Steps towards Social Dialogue and the development of NEDLAC in a democratic South Africa 1979–2001
South African Journal of Economic History, 2001Co-Authors: Raymond ParsonsAbstract:This article briefly covers the conceptual framework of Social Dialogue; investment in Social capital; and some international definitions of Social Dialogue as background to developments in this sphere in South Africa. Social Dialogue principles and interpretations. High-trust and low-trust societies. Social Dialogue as a mechanism for problem-solving and reducing transaction costs. The nature of Social Dialogue in the apartheid era and its workplace origins.
Evelyne Léonard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The European sectoral Social Dialogue: questions of representation and membership
Industrial Relations Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Evelyne Léonard, Emmanuelle Perin, Philippe PochetAbstract:In the debates on the European Social Dialogue as a potential level of supranational industrial relations, the key questions of representations and mandates are often neglected. To what extent can the European sectoral Social Dialogue act for national constituencies across 27 Member States in the perspective of collective action by European associations? This article addresses this question by the means of three dimensions: the representation of heterogeneous members, the various degrees of national players' commitment in the European committees and finally, the definition of a common agenda among members.
-
European sectoral Social Dialogue: an analytical framework
European Journal of Industrial Relations, 2008Co-Authors: Evelyne LéonardAbstract:The European sectoral Social Dialogue involves complex relationships between the players directly or indirectly involved, and between the European level and the member organizations in national industrial relations systems. This article proposes a synthetic analytical framework to highlight these relationships, showing that the sectoral Social Dialogue constitutes a very specific `system of action'
-
Whatever Happened to Social Dialogue? From Partnership to Managerialism in the EU Employment Agenda
European Journal of Industrial Relations, 2007Co-Authors: Michael Gold, Peter Cressey, Evelyne LéonardAbstract:There has been a major bifurcation in the level and form of Social Dialogue between employers and unions within the EU. The intersectoral and sectoral Social Dialogue launched by the Val Duchesse process in 1985 now runs in parallel with domestic forms that are merely reacting to agendas established by the Commission and the Council. This article, based on interviews with employer, union and government representatives across six EU member states, argues that the European Employment Strategy is converting Social Dialogue into a managerialist process by decentralizing it to national level and co-opting the Social partners into taking responsibility for meeting employment targets over which they have had no influence.
Erdem Cam - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Legal Framework and Scope of Social Dialogue at Workplace Level in Turkey
Social Dialogue and Democracy in the Workplace, 2019Co-Authors: Erdem CamAbstract:Before analysing the Social Dialogue at the workplace level in Turkey, it is necessary to observe the position of Social Dialogue at the workplace level within the structure of Turkish labour relations. Within working life, because there are Social Dialogue practices on various platforms, so the structure of the system should be examined from a holistic perspective. For this purpose, in this chapter, a figure indicating the Social Dialogue mechanisms in Turkey has been provided. When examining Fig. 5.1, it can be seen that there are several structures that were established based on bilateral or tripartite participation principles to ensure Social Dialogue in working life. However, these structures are very intermingled and include only unionized workers or unionized officials amongst the registered employees. This figure does not represent the Turkish working life completely. Therefore, it is necessary to reveal reasons behind the low level of existing Social Dialogue in Turkey, which was identified in the EU and ILO documents, although such a wide organization has been established. Importantly, employees who cannot take part in the organization’s representation come under the umbrella of the existing Social Dialogue system via bilateral Social Dialogue.
-
Reason for Researching Social Dialogue at the Workplace
Social Dialogue and Democracy in the Workplace, 2018Co-Authors: Erdem CamAbstract:The primary focus of this study is investigating attitudes held by Social partners in Turkey towards various mechanisms of Social Dialogue at the workplace level and the underlying reasons for these attitudes. This subject is being examined because Social partners in Turkey have different perspectives on mechanisms that will facilitate Social Dialogue in the workplace, which can be unified in certain points but remain separated in others. This distinction presents the different approach patterns for Turkish labour relations. To demonstrate the requirement to analyse the views of Social partners, the following example can be given: just after worker representation was enacted in Turkey, three workers’ confederations demonstrated against this practice; however, Social partner representatives, whose ideas were sought during field research, expressed different views on this matter.
