Social partnership
The term social partnership describes the cooperative relationship between the social partners (especially employers 'and workers' associations) with the aim of resolving conflicting interests through consensus politics and curbing open conflicts. Social partnerships are structured differently in different countries.
Since the post-war period until today, the Austrian social partnership has been regarded as an example of the functioning relationship between entrepreneurs and trade unions. In Switzerland, the labor peace agreement created an instrument for balancing interests even before the beginning of the Second World War . In Germany, the social partnership was assessed more ambiguously. At first it was more a goal of socially engaged groups (social theologians, Christian entrepreneurs, socially liberal politicians and scientists), which was only gradually followed by practice.
A similar term is that of corporatism , a critical term is conflict partnership .
The Austrian model of social partnership
| stand-in | Workers | employer | freelancer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntary |
The ÖGB consists of 7 sub-unions : |
Associations, e.g. B .: | Associations, e.g. B .: |
| Legally |
The political groups of the AK : Agriculture : LAK : Representation: like ÖGB |
The political groups of the WKO :
|
Chambers, e.g. B .: |
Agriculture : LK :
|
The social partners
In Austria the social partnership is formed by five social partners, each representing the interests of different groups of people. The employees are represented by the two interest groups dominated by social democrats , the Chamber of Labor and the Austrian Federation of Trade Unions . The Austrian Chamber of Commerce , which is dominated by Christian Democrats , represents the interests of employers . The fourth interest group, that of the farmers, is the Christian Democrat- dominated Chamber of Agriculture , which is opposed to the Chamber of Agriculture.
- Chamber of Labor (AK), President since 1945 from the SPÖ, represents around 3,200,000 people
- Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB), president of the SPÖ since 1945 , represented exactly 1,211,111 people in 2011
- Austrian Chamber of Commerce (WKO), President of the ÖVP since 1945 , represents around 270,000 people
- Chamber of Agriculture (LK), President of the ÖVP since 1945, represents around 200,000 people
- Chamber of agricultural workers (LAK)
AK, WKO and LK are interest groups, which must exist according to Austrian law, they are stipulated by law. The members of these three organizations (at the AK all employees, at the WKO all businessmen and at the LK all farmers) must be members according to the law, they are compulsory members. Only the ÖGB is a voluntary amalgamation of all of its members into one association. The respective members of the four social partners decide in elections which parliamentary group sets the tone in their interest group. The parliamentary groups can each be assigned to a party (for example the Social Democratic Union (FSG) group is very close to the SPÖ).
After the political parties , it is the four social partners who have the greatest influence in the Austrian political system. They are often involved in the legislative process and can, among other things, examine laws.
(+ 3.32 % p )
(-2.47 % p )
(+ 0.39 % p )
(-0.58 % p )
(-0.66 % p )
(-4.3 % p )
(-1.0 % p )
(+1.0 % p )
(+ 3.3 % p )
(+1.0 % p )
history
The historical background to the development is the experience from the civil war of 1934 between the social democratic and Christian social camps and the grand coalitions of the federal government between 1945 ( Federal Government Figl I ) and 1966 ( Federal Government Klaus I ).
In the 1960s and 1970s, the social partnership developed into an instrument of dialogue that is not limited to the immediate issues between employer and employee, but also includes all economic and social areas. One instrument of the social partnership is the Joint Commission for Price and Wage Issues . The social partners also made their proposals for the parliamentary area.
At the end of the 20th century, the system of social partnership was largely responsible for Austria's reputation as an island of the blessed , on which strike times were measured in seconds per year.
The influence of the social partnership on economic and political developments has decreased in recent years due to economic conditions, social change and increased political pressure. However, it continues to meet with broad approval within the Austrian population.
Criticism of the Austrian social partnership
After 1945, an attempt was first made to legally integrate the Austrian social partnership into the democratic institutional system. The five wage-price agreements were followed in 1951 by the establishment of the so-called Economic Directorate , which, however , was declared unconstitutional in 1952 by a ruling by the Austrian Constitutional Court . For this reason, the Joint Commission was founded as an informal body in 1957. Due to the pre-parliamentary, non-public decision-making character of the social partnership and the proportionality principle inherent in it due to the party-political coloring of the interest groups ("The winner does not take it all." Winners don't get everything. ”) The social partnership was criticized from the start, primarily by the associations and political groups that were not part of it. This criticism intensified in the 1980s both from the left (Greens, KPÖ, writers like Robert Menasse ) and from the right ( FPÖ , BZÖ - above all Jörg Haider ).
The critics saw in the social partnership a kind of non-transparent "horse-trading" with partly undemocratically elected representatives of the interest groups, which kills the process of political confrontation, does not allow any opposition and degenerates the discussion in the Austrian parliament into a conflict-free pro forma act. Ultimately, the criticism was based not least on the fact that the communist, green and liberal camp were largely excluded from the process of social partnership and are still to this day (the interest groups are occupied by the large camps in the center). So it came about that the social partnership with the government participation of the FPÖ lost massively in importance. Nevertheless, many Austrians today still regard the social partnership as a positive institution, despite its considerable legitimation and transparency deficits.
Likewise, to this day the social partnership is accused by the left of having prevented the emergence of a “strike culture” or a strike awareness in Austria. The consensus between employee and employer representatives and the two major political camps (SPÖ / ÖVP) has undermined class struggle awareness.
Social partnership in Switzerland
As mentioned at the beginning, in the light of the fascist threat with the peace agreement in the metal and machine industry, an agreement was reached between employers and workers in Switzerland as early as 1937 , with which all combat measures were banned and mechanisms for resolving wage conflicts were established. With the rapprochement of the social partners in the field of work, the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland changed from a class struggle and opposition to a reformist party, in that it affirmed the existing state (1935) and committed itself to national military defense (1937). The peace agreement was the cornerstone for a golden era in the Swiss machine industry and helped the Swiss economy to prosper in the post-war period.
In today's Swiss social partnership, the term means the agreement of the social partners within the framework of collective labor agreements (collective agreements). The social partners enjoy great autonomy in drawing them up; the state only acts as an arbitrator. But the consensus-based model is also on the decline in Switzerland. The social partners increasingly perceive the renunciation of combat measures as a weakening of their own position. Above all, the actions of the UNIA stand out, some of which no longer want to adhere to the "peace obligations" (no strike during negotiations, no strike during contract periods) (blockade of an SBB construction site, although a collective labor contract negotiated with UNIA was in place).
Social partnership in Germany
In Germany, the term social partner is used for the parties to the collective bargaining agreement - trade unions on the one hand and employers' associations on the other. The cooperation between them in the joint regulation of wage and working conditions through collective agreements is called “social partnership” . However, this usage is by no means generally accepted. Critics consider it "a glossing over phrase", since both organizations represent conflicting interests. They prefer “ antagonistic cooperation ” or “ conflict partnership ” as a pointed counter-term .
Social partnership and social market economy
According to Eduard Gaugler , the concept of social partnership contains “principles of Catholic social teaching (orientation towards the common good, personal, solidarity and subsidiarity principles) and is closely linked to the structural elements of a free economic and social order as well as the social market economy.” Labor lawyer and publicist Bernd Rüthers represents the thesis: “Social market economy and social partnership belong together. One is a necessary foundation of the other. "
In a joint Internet portal, the Federal Employers' Association of the Chemical Industry and the Mining, Chemical and Energy Industrial Union introduce themselves as chemical social partners who have committed themselves to "responsible action in the social market economy" in a social partner agreement. Subsequently, a social partner academy was founded for further training in the fields of demographic change, business ethics and professional training.
European social partners
The European social partners are employers' associations and trade unions . The European social partners include BUSINESSEUROPE (formerly UNICE), the European Central Association of the Public Economy (CEEP) and / or UEAPME as the umbrella organization for the skilled trades and small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as the European Trade Union Confederation .
The European social partners have the right to be heard on the social policy of the European Union . This is what Art. 146 para. 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (formerly Art. 126 para. 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC)) provide that with regard to the promotion of employment "to national practices in relation to the responsibility of the social partners ”. According to Art. 150 TFEU, the Employment Committee hears the social partners in fulfilling its mandate. In addition, the member states can delegate the implementation of minimum standard directives in accordance with Article 153 (2) (b) TFEU to the social partners in accordance with Article 153 (3 ) TFEU. According to Art. 154 TFEU, the Commission has the task of promoting consultation of the social partners at Community level. So see Art. 154 , Art. 155 and Art. 160 TFEU a dialogue between social partners at European level, involving the Commission.
In the social dialogue, according to Art. 155 TFEU (formerly Art. 139 EGV), the umbrella organizations of employers and employees have a significant creative influence on European social policy. This form of influence is also understood as corporatism .
See also
literature
- Clemens Jesenitschnig: Gerhard Lehmbruch - Scientist and Work. A critical appreciation . Tectum, Marburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-8288-2509-3 , chap. 4 (on the development of the social science analysis of the Austrian social partnership from a comparative perspective)
- Alfred Klose : A way to social partnership. The Austrian model. Publishing house for history and politics, Vienna 1970.
- Herbert Pribyl : Social partnership in Austria. 1991.
- Birger P. Priddat : Performance of the social partnership in the social market economy. Codetermination and cooperation . Metropolis, Marburg 2011.
- Ernst Wimmer : Social partnership from a Marxist point of view. KPÖ, Globus Verlag, Vienna 1979.
- Petra Weber : Failed Social Partnership - Republic at Risk? Industrial relations, labor disputes and the welfare state. Germany and France in comparison (1918-1933 / 39) . Oldenbourg, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-486-59214-6 .
Web links
- www.sozialpartner.at - Portal of the Austrian social partnership
- Entry on social partnership in the Austria Forum (in the AEIOU Austria Lexicon )
- Social partnership in the political dictionary for young people
Individual evidence
- ^ According to the AK office in Brussels.
- ^ From the membership statistics of the ÖGB .
- ↑ see chronology of the social partnership . ( Memento of December 21, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 86 kB)
- ^ Horst Sanmann: Social partners . In: Concise Dictionary of Economics , Volume 7, Stuttgart 1977, p. 52.
- ^ Gerhard Himmelmann: tariff autonomy . In: Concise dictionary of the political system of the Federal Republic . on-line
- ↑ Walther Müller-Jentsch (Ed.): Conflict partnership. Actors and institutions of industrial relations . 3. Edition. Rainer Hampp Verlag, Munich / Mering 1999, p. 8 ff.
- ^ Eduard Gaugler: Social partnership . In: Lexikon der Wirtschaftsethik , Herder, Freiburg 1993, p. 991.
- ↑ Bernd Rüthers: On the value of social partnership . In: FAZ , January 6, 2011
- ↑ chemie-sozialpartner.de
- ↑ Walther Müller-Jentsch: Employers' associations between conflict and social partnerships. In: Wolfgang Schroeder / Bernhard Weßels (eds.): Handbook of employers' and business associations in Germany. 2nd Edition. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, pp. 565-586, here pp. 572 f.
- ↑ Walther Müller-Jentsch: Employers' associations between conflict and social partnerships. In: Wolfgang Schroeder / Bernhard Weßels (eds.): Handbook of employers' and business associations in Germany. 2nd Edition. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, pp. 565–586, here p. 573.
- ↑ See e.g. B. bildungsspiegel.de ( page no longer available , search in web archives ) and europa.eu
- ↑ Holger Huget: Democratization of the EU: Normative democracy theory and governance practice in the European multilevel system. VS Verlag, 2007, ISBN 978-3-531-15295-0 . In it: Chapter "Multi-level governance", p. 241 ff.
