• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >Europeanization of collective bargaining centralization costs and optimal wage bargaining area
【2h】

Europeanization of collective bargaining centralization costs and optimal wage bargaining area

机译：欧洲化集体谈判集中化成本和最优工资谈判领域

页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Treaty of Maastricht (1993) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) strongly institutionalised and formalised the relationship between the social partners at the level of the European Union (EU). It is self-evident that notion of social dialogue also includes collective bargaining, the conclusion of agreements between the social partners. Collective bargaining, however, is a delicate flower. Indeed, quite a number of questions pop up over which opinions, especially between the social partners, diverge. Then there is the reality of the power relationship between the European socials partners; the European trade unions are nearly powerless when it comes to pushing the employers to the bargaining table. The social partners were empowered, within the social dialogue, to negotiate agreements, which the European Commission can subsequently adopt as directives (Article 137 to 139 EC). This formalised process, termed bargained legislationE by Biagi (1999), grants the social partners a mandate to initiate legislation in certain areas. Although many other substantial rights and regulations, such as a labour dispute law, are lacking at the European level, the process of bargained legislation is a stronger instrument to influence legislation than most social partners in the European Union member states have at their disposal (BIAGI 1999). Notwithstanding this potential, however, at the inter-industry level only three agreements, affecting substantial portions of the European workforce, have to date been concluded. These covered minimum standards on parental leave, part time work, and fixed-term work (HORNUNG-DRAUS 2001). Since the European Commission introduced some of these topics into the social dialogue as early as 1990, the number of successful agreements must be considered extremely low, and it is only fair to conclude that the new framework did not boost the Europeanisation of industrial relations.
机译：《马斯特里赫特条约》（1993年）和《阿姆斯特丹条约》（1999年）在欧洲联盟（EU）层面上将社会伙伴之间的关系制度化并正式化。不言而喻，社会对话的概念还包括集体谈判，社会伙伴之间达成协议。但是，集体谈判是一朵精致的花。确实，关于（尤其是社会伙伴之间的）意见分歧，弹出了很多问题。然后是欧洲社会伙伴之间权力关系的现实。在将雇主推到谈判桌前，欧洲工会几乎无能为力。社会合作伙伴在社会对话中被授权谈判协议，欧洲委员会随后可将其作为指令使用（欧盟委员会第137至139条）。这种正式的过程被比亚吉（Biagi，1999）称为议价立法E，赋予社会伙伴一项在某些领域发起立法的任务。尽管在欧洲范围内还缺乏许多其他实质性权利和法规，例如劳动争议法，但讨价还价的立法过程是影响立法的有力工具，比欧盟成员国中大多数社会伙伴拥有的能力要强（BIAGI 1999）。尽管具有这种潜力，但迄今为止，在产业间层面上，仅达成了影响欧洲大部分劳动力的三项协议。这些涵盖了育儿假，兼职工作和定期工作的最低标准（HORNUNG-DRAUS 2001）。自从欧洲委员会早在1990年就将其中一些话题引入社会对话以来，成功协议的数量就必须被认为是极少的，因此可以断定新框架并没有促进劳资关系的欧洲化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号