Ulf Edström

On pages 14 – 15 union responses to relocation and offshoring are classified in three approaches – a traditional, an interventionist/restrictive and a proactive one. As a union representative I would argue that we apply all these three approaches – but that the various tasks rather are distributed among our trade union organizations dependent on at which levels the different decisions are taken (at company, branch, local region, nationally or at european or global level).

In general, I support the description and conclusion made by the authors on the need of social dialogue. Maybe they also should have raised the matter of worker representation in company boards as a way of promoting dialogue, trust and information sharing. They also note on page 6 that the Nordic countries have been able so far to combine a competitive economy with a developed welfare state and in which sound industrial relations have been of key importance.

Let me point to two aspects of vital importance for obtaining “flexicurity”. When a country has a general social welfare system and where the rights and benefits of the workers concerned will not disappear or be reduced dramatically if their company is closing down – then workers and trade unions will be more inclined to accept structural changes. Another special feature, in my country, is the fact that many of the labour laws can be adapted/replaced through collective agreements at branch levels – offering a possibility to adapt to the specific circumstances prevailent. Actually 3 months ago all the trade unions in the five Nordic countries requested this to be a future option in EU labour legislation.

The question of  social dialogue is of course an on-going matter and now we start new negotiations covering the whole private sector of the Swedish labour market between the trade unions and the employers on possible changes in our Master collective agreement – naturally with divergent views and expectations. But the guiding principle that still seem to be upheld is that the social partners themselves should take responsibility and regulate as far as possible labour market matters (including minimum wages) between themselves instead of having governmental regulations or interference. But this presupposes the presence of strong trade unions (and employers organizations) and a high coverage of the collective agreements. And, as has been apparent recently, it also presupposes that the EU Commission and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will reverse its present policy of undermining our right to fully bargain collectively and exercise the freedoms granted by the ILOs fundamental conventions no. 87 and 98 on freedom of association also in cases of posting of workers cross-border.

This seminar is about the European social model in the context of globalization. But what is absent in almost all papers submitted are any references to international labour standards adopted by the ILO. If the EU and its Member States want to convince others that developed (european) social policies are needed in the global economy – it would indeed be relevant to refer to, compare with and highlight ILOs universal minimum labour standards. The EU and its institutions themselves should be more aware of and take into account the up-to-date ILOs standards which already are binding most EU Member States. Let me add that in May we had a Nordic tripartite seminar organized by the Swedish Government and the ILO Committee to deal specifically with the issue on the potential conflict of competences between the EU and the ILO.

Another example: Here we are discussing strengthening the European Works Councils in managing change. But we are also discussing in the ILO if we should choose as a future subject for the ILOs Labour Conference the question of the right to information and consultation of workers with regard to restructuring due to globalization.

Thank You!

2008-07-01/ Ulf Edström/ LO-Sweden