Download NL-Netherlands

Public services in the
aftermath of the economic
crisis: how social dialogue
influences changes in public
sector employment relations
in the Netherlands
Peter Leisink
Ulrike Weske
Eva Knies
Introduction
• Focus of the research:
– Impact of the economic crisis and related austerity
measures and of other developments on public sector
employment relations
– Influence of the social dialogue on austerity measures
and their consequences
• Locus of the research: central government, local
government, primary education, hospital
• Method: desk research (documents, internet), interviews
with employer and employee representatives at sectoral
level, casestudies in 2 municipalities
Outline presentation
• Overview of austerity measures
• What is the impact of the economic crisis and austerity
measures on public sector employment relations?
• What is the role of central government?
• What are the consequences of the austerity measures?
• What is the role of the social dialogue?
• Conclusion
Overview of austerity measures
• 3.2 billion Euro 2010 Balkenende cabinet:
– 600 million public sector wage restraint
– 310 million savings on childcare
– 231 million efficiency cuts on government
• 18 billion Euro 2010 Rutte cabinet:
– 1.5 billion cut back on central government
– 870 million wage restraint collective sector
– 500 million cuts on defence
– 300 million cuts on education for children with special
needs
• 12 billion Euro 2012 Rutte cabinet + other parties:
– 1.6 billion cuts including wage freeze for public sector
employees (excluding healthcare)
Drivers
•
Public sector reforms go back to the 1990s (NPM type reforms:
privatization, decentralization, downsizing, better service)
•
The economic and fiscal crisis have led to stepping up current
efforts since 2009: more cut backs and reform programmes
•
Demographic changes and related changes on the labour market
•
Focus on individual sectors:
- implementation of central government’s measures takes place at
sectoral level, where local actors add their own agenda
- the position of central government in influencing employment
relations at sectoral level differs
- sectors differ as regards the impact of demographic changes and
their labour market situation
Role of central government (1)
•
Government and parliament take decisions that interfere directly
in public sector employment relationships (see overview of
austerity measures)
•
Differences between sectors in the degree of direct influence by
central government
– Central government: Minister of the Interior is also employer
– Primary Education: Minister of Education determines wages
and primary employment conditions
– Hospitals: employers and unions are relatively autonomous
– Local government: employers and unions are formally
autonomous; but in practice there is indirect interference from
central government
Role of central government (2)
Very strong central
government
influence
Very weak central
government
influence
Central
government
Local
government
Primary
education
Hospitals
Consequences of austerity
measures
Mix of structural and quantitative measures
• Quantitative measures: wage restraint/freeze; employment cuts
• Rutte cabinet formulated cutback targets in terms of financial
targets: x billion Euro instead of number of jobs (as was
previously done). Yet, job reductions are the main way of
achieving these targets: at least 26.000 jobs until 2015
(amounting to almost 10 per cent of total government jobs)
• Structural measures regarding employment relations driven by
austerity measures and demographic changes:
– Fundamental change in traditional notion of employment
security
• Local government agreement: “from job to job”
• Central government: new social plan: abolishment of LIFOprinciple (which in practice guaranteed employment security for
older workers); introduction of “from job to job” plan
– Measures supporting employees’ employability
• Personal training budget (local goverment)
• Personal lifestage budget (hospitals)
Role of social dialogue
• Influence of social dialogue on austerity measures and their
consequnces differs between sectors
• Unions comply with the principle of political primacy and
concentrate on the consequences of measures and fair
treatment of employees
• Industrial relations actors do not perceive efforts to
marginalize the social dialogue, for instance by bypassing
collective agreements or social actors
• Industrial relations actors regard the current situation as
‘normal’ employment relationships
• The tension between the trend towards increasing flexibility
and the preference of employee representatives for
regulations that provide rights and certainties is important
for the position of unions in the future
Conclusion
• * The economic and fiscal crisis adds to existing reform
programmes; in addition, demographic changes and labour
market prospects impact on employment relations
• * Social dialogue institutions continue to play their role ‘as
normal’
• * Government’s austerity measures impact on wages and
employment
• * Sectors differ in the degree to which central government
can determine employment relationships and can interfere
• * Social dialogue at sectoral level generates ‘innovative’
agreements that replace traditional employment security
with employability arrangements (from job to job support;
career and lifestage budgets)