Berndt Keller

Atypical Employment and Flexicurity

Hitherto, discussion of flexicurity has focused on normal employment (Normalarbeitsverh„ltnis), with atypical work receiving only cursory attention. This paper attempts to remedy this conceptual oversight by identifying strategies for reducing the social risks. We begin by analysing the two components that make up flexicurity. Therefore, we draw on the conceptual framework of forms of flexibilization. As far as social security is concerned, we propose a set of criteria that take into account shortterm and long-term effects. We then describe the different forms of atypical work and their development since the 1980s. It is necessary to establish which individuals are particularly affected. Then we discuss the extent to which the individual forms are not just atypical but also precarious. Finally, we offer further reflections on the concept of flexicurity.

The New European Social Dialogue: Old Wine in New Bottles?

This article analyses the Protocol on Social Policy and its Agreement and the social chapter of the Amsterdam Treaty not only in a legal, but mainly in an empirical perspective. The first part consists of a short summary of the basics of the new procedural rules (qualified majority voting versus unanimity, consultation and negotiations of the social partners) and the status of the corporate actors (ETUC, UNICE). In the second part, the first attempts at using the provisions of the Protocol are examined (European Works Councils, parental leave, burden of proof of sex discrimination, part-time work, information and consultation). Different problems emerging in the implementation processes of the results of legal enactment and voluntary agreements are the focus of the following analysis (interpretation and application of differing legal provisions, representativity of the signatory parties, problems of package deals, democratic legitimization). In the concluding section, the main findings are summarized (scope of ambivalent results), and a more or less pessimistic outlook on future perspectives is given.

Social Dialogues: An Interim Report on Recent Results and Prospects

Recent contributions focused on the interprofessional (Keller and Sorries, 1998a) and sectoral levels of social dialogues (Keller and Sorries, 1999a) and included major structural aspects—more general as well as more specific ones—of this fairly important subject of European social policy. In contrast to the interprofessional or macro level (Falkner, 1998, among others), the sectoral level has received, despite its obvious importance for the development of supranational, ‘European’ industrial relations (Traxler, 1996), next to no attention by scholars and the wider public. In this article we will summarise more recent results as well as non-results at both levels and speculate on prospective developments.1 The chapter on the sectoral dialogue will be more comprehensive because recently, more initiatives by the Commission as well as activities by the social partners have taken place on this level. We will explicitly differentiate not only between these two levels but also between at least two different stages of development, i.e. before and after Maastricht: At the interprofessional level, the Social Protocol and Agreement, that had basically been negotiated by the social partners themselves, was first annexed to the Maastricht Treaty in the early 1990s and later on, after the end of the opt-out of the UK, included into the Amsterdam Treaty (Articles 136–139). It was supposed to launch a qualitatively new era of development and replace the phase of purely informal, non-binding declarations of intent (social dialogue ‘a la Val Duchesse’). This goal was to be achieved by giving the opportunity to voluntarily conclude binding framework agreements and replace proposed legislation by the Commission. Under the general label of subsidiarity, which was revitalised in the Maastricht Treaty (now Article 5), the impact of the peak associations of social partners was supposed to be increased and improved to a large degree: They have to be consulted twice on all social policy initiatives, generally ‘on the possible direction of community action’ as well as, more specifically, ‘on the content of the envisaged proposal’. Furthermore,

Sectoral Social Dialogues: New Opportunities or More Impasses?

No abstract available.

The establishment of the European Company : the first cases from an industrial relations perspective

This article presents the first systematic empirical analysis of all European Companies established at the time of writing, and focuses on industrial relations issues and the negotiated rules of employee involvement in particular. It elaborates on the election procedures, the special negotiation body and the mechanisms of employee information and consultation and board-level representation. Some tentative conclusions consider the likely impact on the development of European industrial relations.

The European Company Statute: Employee Involvement - and Beyond

Employee representation in managerial decision-making in its broader sense has to distinguish between two basic forms. At the ’lower’ (or plant) level different forms exist across the European Union (ETUC 1998, EIRR 2001 a and b for details). Mostly we find works councils or workplace committees, in some cases also union delegates and/or shop stewards. At the ’upper’ (or company) level, Member States provisions on employees’ board-level involvement also differ to a considerable or even wider degree: There are so-called monistic as well as dualistic systems of corporate governance or, in another terminology, single-tier versus dual-tier systems of management structure and employee involvement on the board. In the latter variant, activities and performance of the management board are monitored and controlled by an additional organ, the supervisory board (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal). This basic distinction is missing within the first form, the socalled board (or board of directors) system (Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden, also Italy and the UK). Some countries (such as Finland and France) are characterised by a combination of both systems (Timmesfeld, 1994; Group of Experts, 1997; Schulten et al., 1998 for details). All in all, differences in existing national regulations at the ’upper’ level are even greater than at the ’lower’ level as far as scope, management and supervisory structure, coverage, degree and intensity of employee involvement are concerned—not to mention the enormous variety of national ’customs and practices’ that have developed over time and are definitely going to persist (Carley, 1998). At the supranational level, this great diversity of ’joint regulation’ is of particular interest. The Directive ’On the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees’ (94/95 EG) (hereafter

Sectoral social dialogue at EU level: Problems and prospects of implementation

This article addresses current issues and relevant prospects of EU social dialogues at sectoral level. It examines fundamental difficulties ‘post-Lisbon’, especially as regards implementation, including procedures for follow-up and monitoring. The article also deals with the Commission’s most recent Staff Working Document on sectoral social dialogue, raises major caveats and elaborates on various prospects of most recent voluntary results (‘autonomous agreements’ and ‘process-oriented texts’).

Atypical employment in Germany. Forms, development, patterns1

This article deals with recent developments of atypical employment in Germany, its present extent and current patterns. In its introductory remarks it differentiates between standard employment and atypical forms. It then describes the development and structures, enabling an analysis of the long-term consequences. It goes on to introduce a crucial distinction between atypical and precarious employment on the basis of explicitly defined criteria. The article ends by presenting certain explanations to a large extent missing in existing research.

Perspektiven europäischer Kollektivverhandlungen - vor und nach Maastricht

Zusammenfassung Nach einleitenden Vorbemerkungen werden zunächst die verschiedenen institutionellen, rechtlichen und politischen Voraussetzungen sowie vorhersehbare Implementationsprobleme behandelt. Aufgrund dieser Faktoren ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, daß ein europäisches Kollektivverhandlungssystem entsteht, als gering einzustufen. Dann steht die aktuelle Frage im Mittelpunkt, ob der Maastrichter Vertrag die Voraussetzungen überbetrieblicher Verhandlungen bzw. des Sozialdialogs entscheidend verändert hat. Die Frage wird verneint. Anschließend werden Gründe, Varianten und Konsequenzen eines konzernzentrierten, transnationalen Systems von Kollektivverhandlungen behandelt. Diese Lösung ist als wahrscheinlichste Alternative anzusehen. Zum Schluß werden die zentralen Ergebnisse zusammengefaßt.

The continuation of early austerity measures : the special case of Germany

The article deals with the consequences of austerity measures at municipal level in Germany. The first part describes the institutional framework, looking at the development and structure of employment, legal peculiarities, financial conditions and their more recent developments. The second part analyses employment relations, including employers’ organizations and unions, the collective bargaining structure and recent changes to it as well as measures of privatization. Finally, some preliminary conclusions are listed. From a comparative perspective, Germany constitutes a special case, with austerity measures having been initiated and causing lasting job losses long before the financial and debt crisis.