Transcript Kein Folientitel - Pan-European Regional Council

ITUC/PERC – OGB European Conference: Europe
– 20 years of Transformation. What next?
Vienna, 15-17 September 2010
Public and Social Economy in the Economic Crisis:
Impact on the Labour Market and Sustainable
Development
Presentation by D-r Ivan Kokalov
EPSU
European Federation of Public Service Unions – EPSU
Fédération Syndicale Européenne des Services Publics – FSESP
Europäischer Gewerkschaftsverband Öffentlicher Dienst – EGÖD
 250 affiliated trade unions with 8 million paying
members
 68,5 % of our members are women
 4 sectors: Health & Social Services; Local & Regional
Government; National & European Administrations;
Utilities (gas, electricity, water, waste)
 EPSU = recognized European Social Partner
Organisation
Economic Crisis - Multiple
causes
 Neo-liberal politics with prevailing concept of laissez-faire
financial capitalism, leading to a general shift in income
distribution at the expense of workers and low-income groups =
economic model of inequality
 Deregulation of public services and public goods, privatization
(including of originally public banks) acerbate crisis
 Private bankers greed, motivated by short-term interest in selling
high risk-financial products, motivated by bonus payments
 At the same time: climate crisis, energy crisis (oil will become
scarce, 1,7 trillion Euros investment necessary into European
energy infrastructure), global food crisis
Economic Crisis – Impact (1)
 Initially impact on industry, e.g automobile industry and private
services, e.g. banking
 Governments poured in billions as saving measures
 Now public services are used to balance the books, with many
years of austerity to be expected
 Low and middle income earners, nurses, teachers, firefighters,
refuse collectors, child care workers, prison officers, police, tax
inspectors, customs officers, administrators, etc.
 Women in public services – likely increase of gender pay gap as
a further result of outsourcing, undoing recent progress
Economic Crisis – Impact (2)
 Pay freezes or cuts in Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania,
Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, UK, Ukraine, Bulgaria
Table: Wage cuts and pay determination mechanisms in the public sector (2009-2010)
Country
Cut of nominal wages in %,
wage freeze (year of decision &
freezes/cuts discussed/proposed
by government
Sector/s
Pay determination
mechanism in public
sector:
-Collective bargaining
(CB)
- Unilateral state
decision (USD)
Collective action
(sector)
IA=industrial action,
including strike action
D=demonstration,
mass rally
Bulgari
a
+ 0% (2010)
Ministries and
publicly funded
bodies
-CB for some public
employees (excl. civil
servants)
-
Greece
-7%
-12%-20% (2010)
+0% (2011-2012)
Civil servants
-
IA (public sector strike,
Dec.08; Feb.09;
Apr.2010;
General strike), May
2010
D+IA(all sectors); June
2010
Table: Wage cuts and pay determination
mechanisms in the public sector (2009-2010)
Sources: Eurofound 2007 ; Traxler , Eurofound 2010, Planet Labour 2010, EPSU
Countr
y
Hungar
Cut of nominal wages in %,
wage freeze
Pay determination
mechanism in public
sector:
-Collective bargaining
(CB)
- Unilateral state decision
(USD)
Collective action
(sector)
IA=industrial action,
including strike
action
D=demonstration,
mass rally
General public
sector
CB
D (Nov. 08)
IA (strike in parts of
public
sector, Dec. 09 -Jan.
09)
-5 to 7% as levy inversely
All public
related to level of income (2009) Public
sector sector
workers
- 25% (2010)
- 5% to 8% as cuts inversely
employees
related to level of income (2010)
CB
+ 0% (2010-2011)
CB ( national and local
government), Pay Review
Bodies - health, education,
prisons
IA (public sector
strike,
Feb.
IA (public sector strike,
09; 09;
Nov.09;
incl. May
Oct.
Feb.2010;
strikes in
2010)
parts
of public
IA
(public
sectorsector,
strike,
Jan.March 2010)
March 2010)
D (public sector strike,
+ 0%
Sector/s
y
Ireland
Romani
a
UK
Public sector
employees
CB, USD
Economic Crisis – Impact (2)
 Non-respect of collective agreements – opening up of existing
agreements, Slovenia, Croatia
 Pension reform: Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Spain, Bulgaria
 No replacement of public service workers: France only replacing
1 in 3 that go, Greece 1 in 5, Spain 1 in 10
 IMF packages with Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Iceland,
Latvia, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine
 EU procedures on deficits against several countries and
Commission intervention in pay determination in Hungary, Latvia,
Romania and Greece
Return to Business as usual
Commissioner Olli Rehn letter of 29 / 3 / 2010:
‘Sustaining high government deficits over a prolonged
period is detrimental to growth, welfare and
employment…
In contrast: Commissioner Joaquin Almunia in letter of
10 / 12 / 2009: cutting public wages or public
employment is not considered as a priority by the
Commission as they both contribute to stabilize the
economy in the face of aggregate demand shocks.
How to counter the market bias?
Public Services in the EU (1)
 Macro-economic policy, e.g. the Quality Public Finance Initiative
– small government, low taxation levels
 Liberalisation of ‘network’ industries, attempts to open up the
waste and water sectors
 ‘Divide and rule’ between Services of General Interest (SGI),
Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI), Social Services of
General Interest (SSGI), non-economic Services of General
Interest…
 Public services and cooperation as the ‘exception’ to the rule of
competition and profit-seeking,
 Regulation in business interest, e.g. Services Directive, Better
Regulation Agenda, EU trade policy.
How to counter the market bias?
Public Services in the EU (2)
 2007 Commission Communication on SGI was linked to the Single
Market Review
 Public procurement as the way to provide ‘essential public services and
 ‘Dragging feet’ on the inclusion of social criteria in public procurement
contracts
 Bias against ‘in-house’ provision of public services and inter-municipal
cooperation
 Consumerism vs. solidarity? EU patient mobility rather than improve
national health systems
 November 2009 Commission publishes Green Paper on ‘Developing
Public Private Partnerships’, only setting out arguments in favour of
PPPs, it does not offer a balanced assessment
EPSU Strategy: Quality Public
Services – Quality of Life (1)
 Use Lisbon Treaty provisions, Article 14, Public Services
Protocol, Fundamental Rights Charter and Local Government
Autonomy Clause to develop positive framework for public
services
 Terms of Public Services Protocol, i.e. high level of quality, safety
and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal
access and of user rights as benchmarking tool
 Primacy of public service obligations over market compliance
 Extend definition of ‘in-house’ to social economy providers if they
reinvest benefits into maintenance and improving operating
structures and abide by public service principles
EPSU Strategy: Quality Public
Services – Quality of Life (2)
 Collate evidence on privatization models gone wrong, such as
with PPPs, in cooperation with www.psiru.org
 Encourage public-public cooperation
 Press for sufficient public spending on public services, progress
taxation and tax efficiency, financial transaction tax, Eurobonds
 Accent on solutions through social dialogue, e.g. Joint Statement
of Social Partners in Local and Regional Government on the
economic crises of February 2010 http://www.epsu.org/a/6212
 Build alliances, e.g. ‘Spring Alliance’ open letter to the European
Council: Put people and planet first.
 http://www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/03-2210_final_letter_to_European_Council.pdf
EPSU Strategy: Quality Public
Services – Quality of Life (3)
Financing,
Organisation,
Delivery
of services
Equality,
Cohesion,
Social inclusion
quality public
services =
quality public
sector !
Wages,
Skills, working
conditions
Transparency,
participation
of users
and social
partners
A New economic policy for
Europe
EPSU promotes an Economic Policy for Europe which
includes:
1. A change in the role of the European Central Bank
2. A revised Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)
3. Strengthened European Economic governance
The ECB, SGP and the strengthen European Economic
Governance are related to the Euro-zone. They will have
broader implications as their measures affect other countries.
An example is the SGPs 3% budget deficit norm. It is also
used in non-Euro-zone countries and especially those that
strive towards EU membership.
ITUC/PERC – OGB European Conference:
Europe – 20 years of Transformation. What next?
Vienna, 15-17 September 2010
Public services are more vital
than ever. They are not just an important stabilizing
mechanism but provide essential
support to the millions of citizens who are suffering
the worse consequences of the Crisis.
ITUC/PERC – OGB European Conference:
Europe – 20 years of Transformation. What next?
Vienna, 15-17 September 2010
Public and Social Economy in the Economic Crisis:
Impact on the Labour Market and Sustainable
Development
by D-r Ivan Kokalov, EPSU
[email protected]
Thank you for your attention!
European Federation of Public Service Unions – EPSU
Fédération Syndicale Européenne des Services Publics – FSESP
Europäischer Gewerkschaftsverband Öffentlicher Dienst – EGÖD