Precarious Work in Europe
Causes and consequences for the Agriculture,
Food and Tourism sectors
European Federation of Food,
Agriculture and Tourism
Trade Union
Study carried out by:
Professor Sonia McKay
Nick Clark
Dr Anna Paraskevopoulou
Working Lives Research Institute
London Metropolitan University
www.workinglives.org
On behalf of:
October 2011
The project is carried out with the financial support of the European Commission
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 5
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................. 12
Methodology used in the study ................................................................................................. 13
PART A - BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 15
1. Precarious work in context .................................................................................................... 15
2. What is precarious employment? .......................................................................................... 22
2.1. A framework for the identification of precarious work .............................................. 23
2.2 What causes precarious work?................................................................................ 26
2.3 What are the consequences of letting precarious work grow? ................................. 28
2.4 Are some workers more at risk? .............................................................................. 29
2.5 What data is there on precarious work? .................................................................. 30
2.6 Is precarious work likely to grow? ............................................................................ 34
2.7 How can Europe’s precarious workers be protected? .............................................. 35
PART B – SECTOR ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 52
1. AGRICULTURE.................................................................................................................... 53
1.1. Who are the precarious workers in agriculture? ...................................................... 54
1.2 What risks do agriculture workers face and how can they be protected? ................. 55
1.3 How many people work in agriculture in Europe? .................................................... 57
1.4 What is the future for precarious work in agriculture? .............................................. 60
2. HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, CATERING, TOURISM (HORECA) ......................................... 61
2.1 Who are the precarious workers in the Horeca sector? ........................................... 61
2.2 What risks do Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism workers face and how can
they be protected? ........................................................................................................ 64
2.3 How many people work in Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism in Europe?........ 65
2.4 What is the future for precarious work in Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism?.. 66
3. FOOD, DRINK AND TOBACCO........................................................................................... 68
3.1 Who are the precarious workers in the Food, Drink and Tobacco sector? ............... 68
3.2 What risks do Food, Drink and Tobacco workers face nd how can they be protected?
...................................................................................................................................... 71
3.3 How many people work in Food, Drink and Tobacco in Europe? ............................. 71
3.4 What is the future for precarious work in Food, Drink and Tobacco? ....................... 72
3
PART C – CASE STUDIES ...................................................................................................... 74
AGRICULTURE ........................................................................................................................ 74
HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, CATERING, TOURISM................................................................. 95
FOOD, DRINK AND TOBACCO ............................................................................................. 118
PART D – CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 139
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 139
Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 140
10 Key Principles on Precarious Work to be addressed by European Social Partners and
Policy Makers........................................................................................................................ 145
Annex A: Breakdown of questionnaire responses ................................................................... 152
Annex B: Definitions ............................................................................................................... 155
Annex C: Effat Questionnaire on Precarious Work.................................................................. 156
4
Introduction
The EU is committed to policies intended to make Europe a highly competitive, dynamic,
knowledge-based economy within a framework of progressive social rights. However, this
ambition does not match what trade unions are seeing on the ground. This study shows that
instead they are encountering a growing number of workers whose lives are blighted by low pay,
poor prospects and exclusion from credit markets; workers missing out on protections from the
state (such as social security, welfare schemes and labour law enforcement) and afraid of talking
to trade unions; workers faced with job insecurity that causes them stress and prevents them from
planning their lives and futures. This is the world of precarious work and it not only generates
misery for the workers doing it, it is also infectious: undermining the hard-won terms and
conditions of employment of comparable workers in the same employment markets and
destroying decent jobs provided by competitors in the same sectors.
EFFAT commissioned this study because its member trade unions were reporting their concerns
about increasing incidences of precarious work in the sectors for which they are European social
partners (agriculture, hotels, restaurants, catering, tourism, food, drink and tobacco). Many of
these EFFAT sectors are particularly affected by the problem of precarious work.
Methodology
This study reviews the literature on the topic and the relevant legislative framework and then
surveys the EFFAT trade unions dealing with precarious work in Europe in order to find out their
experiences and what they can tell us about precarious work in their sectors. Unfortunately, the
failure of statistical authorities to collect good comparable data from which to better quantify the
problem restricts the possibility to further analyse the subject with a more quantitative approach.
For this reason the study recommends that the EU should establish a system to statistically
monitor and record precarious work.
What is Precarious Work?
The subject of precarious work is confused by numerous competing and incompatible definitions
being used and promoted by academics, policy makers and other actors. So, to carry out this
study it was important to decide what framework to adopt for the identification of precarious
work. While some have linked precarious work directly to 'atypical' contractual relationships, we
follow the position outlined by Rogers and Rogers in 1989, by accepting that that 'precariousness
is best defined in relation to instability, lack of protection, insecurity and social or economic
vulnerability’, and that it is ‘some combination of these factors which identifies precarious jobs’.
We also drew on the EFFAT Charter on Precarious Work (http://www.precarious-work.eu/) in
order to ensure that our framework was compatible with the concept of precarious work adopted
by EFFAT member unions.
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Absence of choice (over where they work or what they do)
2. Inadequate or low income
3. Inability to make future plans
4. Lack of employment protection
5. Absence of representation and access to justice
Forms of work identified with precarious work by sector (in %)
30
25
20
Agriculture
15
HORECA
FBT
10
5
pl
oy
Un
ed
de
cl
ar
ed
w
or
k
Ex
t ra
s
se
lfem
Bo
gu
s
ig
ra
nt
s
M
Se
as
on
al
Po
st
ed
Ag
en
cy
Su
bco
nt
ra
ct
ed
Te
rm
Te
m
po
ra
ry
d
Fi
xe
Pa
rt
tim
e
0
Temporary Employment, EU & EU15, 1987-2010 (in %)
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
The resulting framework defines whether or not work is precarious based on the circumstances
under which employment is undertaken and the outcomes it provides to workers. Five
characteristics of precarious work are highlighted:
What causes Precarious Work?
Precarious work is generated by employers seeking to minimize labour costs and shift the
economic risks of their businesses onto their workforce. The specific elements contributing to
precarious work are constantly in transformation, as they find new ways to do this.
Privatization, sub-contracting, bogus self-employment and the introduction of 'atypical' work
arrangements, such as contracts that are for very short hours or very short periods of time are all
closely associated with precarious work.
The promotion of flexicurity has encouraged the introduction of many flexible forms of work
correlating to precariousness while the social protection supposed to accompany flexicurity is
generally absent or inadequate to protect workers and households from precariousness. Indeed in
many countries social and welfare protection seems to have weakened for workers, over a period
when the risks of precarious work, and thus the need for such protections, have increased.
The negative social consequences of Precarious Work
Precarious work generates harmful impacts not only for workers themselves but for their
families, for their communities, for those in the same labour markets and for the societies in
which they live. In short, the existence of precarious work is an issue that affects all of us.
The study reports that among the most worrying consequences of precarious work is its impact
on health and well-being.
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
Temporary Employment (%) according to age and sex, EU, 1987-2010
Inequalities in health, derived from employment, are closely linked to other kinds of social
inequalities. Employment circumstances affect opportunities for well-being, exposure to hazards
leading to disease and access to health care. Poor health outcomes for workers’ in precarious
employment are exacerbated by the fact that are less likely to be familiar with their rights, they
are more likely to be fearful about reporting incidents and they may be reluctant to make any
claims against private insurance, due to extreme economic pressures to keep working. Health
risks also arise from the insecurity of employment itself, the uncertainty regarding the terms and
conditions of employment and the need to expend additional effort searching for work and
balancing multiple jobs at multiple worksites. Using the concept of “employment strain”
evidence suggests that precarious workers report overall poorer health and higher levels of stress,
compared to workers in standard relationships.
Precarious employment has also fostered segmented labour markets, which obstruct the
movement of workers to more stable employment, particularly for vulnerable groups including
migrants, women, young workers and the disabled. Workers, in particular young workers who
have been denied access to standard employment conditions, are being pushed in very large
numbers into a mix of precarious work where there is no potential for career development and
unemployment. The consequences of these policies can be seen in the streets of Europe where
young people have been expressing their deeply felt anger about being excluded from the
benefits that regular work provides.
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
Let’s take a look at all working time (Source Eurofound March 2012).
EFFAT sectors have been particularly affected by the growth in precarious work. We present
research findings in relation to three broad sectors:
•
Agriculture
Unions have seen a growth in precarious work in agriculture, with seasonal and migrant
labour experiencing especially high levels of job insecurity, low pay and poor health and
safety. Older workers are believed to be particularly at risk of precarious work. The
hazardous nature of much work in the sector also means that agricultural workers can face
serious health and safety risks when they have heightened reporting fears because of
precariousness.
•
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
Many workers in hotels, restaurants, catering and tourism experience low pay, unsocial
working hours and high incidences of seasonal and temporary work. The sector employs a
large number of young people that are particularly identified with precarious jobs. Risks
particularly identified for workers these sectors include those relating to job insecurity, long
working hours and high incidences of undeclared work.
•
Food, Drink and Tobacco
Within the Food, Drink and Tobacco sector, meat slaughtering and processing operations
have been are particularly identified with high levels of precarious work. The sector is at risk
from social dumping, with labour providers competing to source workers on the lowest
possible pay and cut costs wherever possible. The sector is vulnerable to swings in product
consumption that affect market size and increase risks of job insecurity. Asymmetric power
relations between producers and mass-retailers area has also been identified as a driver of
precarious work in this sector.
Protecting those in precarious work: Trade Unions
Other studies have shown that extensive collective bargaining coverage is the most effective way
to prevent people suffering in low wage work. Our research shows that EFFAT unions have gone
beyond the traditional role of unions and have adopted a range of successful strategies aimed
either at eliminating or regulating precarious work, and to ensure that vulnerable workers are
adequately protected. The case studies, which form PART C of this report, provide examples of
what is being done. Such as:
•
Negotiating collective agreements providing seasonal workers with guarantees of future
employment and other paths into more permanent work;
•
Developing better protection for posted workers and migrant workers through the provision
of information on working conditions in languages of origin, as well as the building of links
between home and host country trade unions;
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTVE SUMMARY -
EFFAT’s Experience of Precarious Work
Using codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility policies as the basis for
agreements on labelling and tracing supply chains to increase job protection for precarious
workers.
Protecting those in precarious work: Legislation & Enforcement
Workers in precarious jobs need the protection of legislation that addresses the characteristics of
precarious work. This report demonstrates that there is already a large body of law that can be
used to combat precariousness, including legislation guaranteeing fundamental rights, health and
safety, and non-discrimination. However, the complexity of this legislation makes it difficult to
master and allows gaps to appear that can be exploited by employers seeking to legitimize
precarious work. The legal frameworks for collective bargaining and minimum wages vary
significantly from country to country – along with the resulting protection for precarious
workers. Finally, sanctions and enforcement mechanisms needed to ensure that precarious
workers receive the full protection of existing laws are all too often missing or inadequate.
The future of Precarious Work in Europe
Precarious work in Europe is unlikely to disappear and is expected to get worse. Other studies
from the United States suggest that coming out of recession may even accelerate this trend. Noncompliance with existing regulations and instruments undermines the Europe 2020 and Lisbon
strategies and has the potential to violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, yet there is no
coherent EU strategy to counteract precarious employment.
Drawing on the lessons from this study EFFAT has proposed ten key principles for combating
precarious work:
1. If it’s the same work it’s the same job, so it must come with the same rights and pay (equal
pay for equal work).
2. It is where you work that counts, not where you are from (the host country principle).
3. All workers in Europe deserve decent minimum wage protection – either through collective
agreements or legislation.
4. Employment relationships must be simplified to create clarity and avoid abuse.
5. All workers should be covered by collective bargaining - it is the most effective way to
prevent people suffering in low wage work.
6. Precarious workers need clear, simple routes into permanent jobs.
7. Europe needs strong and well-funded public employment services, focused on combating
precarious work.
8. Effective regulation is needed for temp agencies and other labour providers - and it must be
well enforced.
9. Employers must be held to account for their subcontracted workers.
10. Precarious workers need to be organised and given a voice.
10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
•
Learning and developing on the job: Employer paid training by country, employees
Source: Eurofound, March 2012
Types of initiatives to support those in precarious work (in %)
15%
4%
10%
24%
Specific training
programmes
Information/Publication
s
Specific web pages/tools
Ad hoc legal
representation
Public campaigns
14%
Organising campaigns
20%
13%
Other initiatives
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
It is surely fair to conclude that adopting these principals in European and national legislation, as
well as collective agreements and the work of social partners, would dramatically improve the
lives of millions of European citizens and do much to remove the blemish of precarious work
from our society.
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
This report brings together the different elements of a study on “Social Inclusion of Precarious
Workers in Agriculture, Food and Tourism”, which was initiated in November 2010 and
completed in September 2011.
The project was funded under the “Grant Agreement for an Action” between the European
Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities and EFFAT - European
Federation of Food, Agriculture, Tourism, Trade Unions (Grant Agreement VS/2010/0412 “Information and Training Measures for Workers’ Organisations”). EFFAT contracted the
Working Lives Research Institute (WLRI) of London Metropolitan University to conduct the
research and to prepare this final report.
The report has four main parts. Part A provides the context in relation to precarious work and
indicates why it is a key issue in employment today. Utilising specific examples, it sets out the
risks that precarious work presents and documents how EFFAT and other trade unions have
responded. It also explains the purpose and objectives of the research and sets out the
methodology utilised. Part B contains an analysis by sector, primarily drawn from a review of
recent literature together with a survey of EFFAT affiliated trade unions. Part C consists of 19
case studies undertaken as part of the research. These explore initiatives taken by the unions in
response to the challenges of precarious work. Part D sets out the main policy recommendations
that emerged from the survey findings, the case study material and in discussions with EFFAT.
They address all of the relevant stakeholders, EU institutions, National governments and
institutions, employers and companies, trade unions, and civil society.
The purpose and objectives of the research
The purpose of the research was to support EFFAT in the execution of its project “Social
Inclusion of Precarious Workers in Agriculture, Food & Tourism”. EFFAT’s overall objectives
were firstly to get an overview of the scope and types of precarious and non-standard work in
these three EFFAT sectors, based on available statistics, existing academic research and
information from its national member organisations. Secondly, EFFAT wished to have a clearer
picture of the existing legal provisions and standards which regulate employment at
international, European and national level and of their implementation in its sectors. A third
objective was to collect information on examples of successful measures, initiatives and
practices used by its member organisations in response to precarious work. The final objectives
were to draw political conclusions and to elaborate proposals for political initiatives and then to
disseminate the findings and exchange information on the good practices.
The report’s authors acknowledge the input, guidance and comments of the EFFAT secretariat,
including Harald Wiedenhofer, Kerstin Howald, Daria Cibrario and Codruta Liliana Filip.
12
Methodology used in the study
Three main research methods were utilised in the study: a literature review, a questionnaire and
case studies. The choice of methods was aimed at ensuring that the study would both capture
existing knowledge on precarious work, while at the same time utilising the knowledge and
experiences of EFFAT and its member organisations. It must of course be pointed out that an
exercise of this kind cannot hope to examine all of the data and literature, particularly that
available at national level.
1a Literature review
For the review of the relevant literature and statistical data, as well as the review of key
legislation, a wide range of data, including that collated by EFFAT or its member organisations,
was referenced. The expertise of EFFAT officials was used to identify relevant literature and
examples of innovative developments in any or all of the sectors. The literature review was
circulated to EFFAT and commented upon. It is incorporated into Section 2 of this report.
1b Questionnaire and identification of the case studies
To conduct a representative survey of EFFAT affiliated members, a questionnaire was designed
by the WLRI research team, in collaboration with the EFFAT secretariat for each sector
participating in this project. A final agreed version of the questionnaire was produced in January
2011 and was made available, through the translation facilities of EFFAT, in five main
languages: English, German, French, Italian and Spanish. The questionnaires were distributed by
EFFAT to affiliated organisations across Europe and followed up by regular reminders sent by
EFFAT. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Annex C. The questionnaire had a high
response rate: Out of a total of 123 EFFAT member organisations, 63 provided an answer. These
member organisations represent 72 % of EFFAT membership. . Inevitably the nature of such
questionnaires means that it is not possible to claim that it provides a robust statistical resource.
The fact that there is insufficient hard data is one of the reasons why the study recommends (see
Section D) that the EU keeps records and establishes a system that will monitor and generate
figures and estimates about precarious work.
An additional source of data was case studies. To determine which case studies should be
undertaken the research team first made a selection based on the data provided in the
questionnaire responses. This gave an initial list of more than 20 potential case studies. The list
was discussed with EFFAT and was also presented at a meeting with EFFAT member
organisations represented. Additional suggestions for case study were made and a final selection
of nineteen cases was agreed for more in-depth study. The aim of the selection was to include
different types of initiatives, in order to give as wide a range as possible of examples of action to
combat precarious work.
Each case study was based on interviews with key trade union representatives or other
stakeholders, generally lasting around 45 minutes each. There were six for each of the three
sectors with one additional cross-European case study. The case studies covered collective
agreements, legislative developments as well as campaigning and organising initiatives and
initiatives involving NGOs. The case studies were co-ordinated by the WRLI research team, with
the co-operation of researchers based in some of the countries selected, and were carried out
mainly in June and July 2011.
13
1c Interview protocols and procedures
The interview protocols and procedures concerning the case studies were developed by the
WLRI research team in consultation with EFFAT. A semi-structured interview schedule was
prepared for use by the interviewers conducting the case studies. A template was also produced,
setting out the main areas to be covered in the completed case study report. These are included in
this report as Annex A and B.
The research protocols for the case study interviews consisted of the following steps:
• Potential interviewers were identified by the WRLI research team, chosen on the basis of
their previous research activity and knowledge of industrial relations;
•
Formal contracts were drawn up specifying their tasks in relation to the case studies;
•
On their acceptance of the contract, the names and contact details of the potential
interviewees were forwarded to the interviewers. The interview schedules and templates
were forwarded at the same time.
•
Interviewers were asked to make early contact with the proposed interviewees, to explain
that a case study had been identified and to arrange a suitable time and date for the
interview;
•
Interviews were conducted either face-to-face or by telephone, dependent on the
availability of the interviewee;
•
Case studies were written up based on the template; and
•
Drafts of the case study were provided to the interviewees for their comment and case
studies were updated in the light of these.
14
PART A - BACKGROUND
1. Precarious work in context
Workers in Europe are experiencing a challenge to their hard won terms and conditions of
employment. Job security, which is key to the ability of working people to reasonably plan, is
under attack and while the number of workers in precarious employment may still be relatively
small in comparison to the overall labour force in Europe, their number is growing steadily.
Unions have expressed concern at some employers using social dumping to further reduce labour
costs and weaken collective bargaining and it is for this reason that EFFAT has stated that it
supports calls for European-level action to guarantee equal rights for all workers doing the same
work at the same location, regardless of whether they are nationals of the country where the
work is undertaken or migrant workers. In 2000 under the Lisbon Treaty the Member States
adopted policies with the stated aim of making the EU the most competitive, dynamic,
knowledge-based economic zone in the world. They promised more and better jobs, with a
strong emphasis on decent work. Yet more than a decade later the reality is that ever growing
numbers of workers in Europe have been pushed into precarious work while, as EFFAT has
contended, despite references to the need to protect vulnerable groups, issues like combating
social dumping, fighting precarious work and protecting vulnerable workers are currently absent
from the Commission’s plan for the period 2010-2014 (the Stockholm Plan). While the
Commission has sponsored a study aimed at translating and concretising flexicurity themes and
goals into tools for social partners across Member States and at identifying good practices in
collective bargaining and collective agreements, these can only provide a partial picture. Thus
while policies aimed at flexibility in the labour market have been promoted, there is little
analysis of the extent of their contribution to the growth in precarious employment. The
European Commission is also committed to promoting worker mobility in order to create jobs
yet, as a study on Mobility in the agricultural sector, commissioned by EFFAT, demonstrates
there are a number of factors which impede mobility including unacceptable social standards, a
lack of provision for pensions and poor hiring practices, sometimes through the use of
uncertified agencies (EFFAT, 2011).
EFFAT contends that the sectors of agriculture, food and tourism have witnessed a decline,
rather than an improvement in the situation of many workers and has argued that in times of
economic crisis and recession many atypical forms of work and many new forms of labour that
are not covered by proper social security schemes have become more common in the labour
market and, for some categories of worker (such as migrants, seasonal or temporary agency
workers), they are accompanied by income levels that are insufficient and are ill-equipped to
provide workers with a secure future career. EFFAT asserts that flexibility has to be jointly
agreed with the social partners, otherwise workers will face less and less security and too much
flexibility. Additionally, while it is accepted by the trade unions that the free movement of
workers is a major achievement of the EU, unfortunately, particularly in the sectors covered in
this study, it is being abused as a source of cheap labour. Consequently many of these workers,
coming from the newer EU countries, are condemned to work and live as second-class workers
in degrading conditions.
15
The questionnaire survey of EFFAT member organisations, conducted as part of this study, helps
understand how precarious work has expanded. In the view of the respondents there had been a
significant rise in precarious work in their sectors over the last decade, with 61 per cent saying
that it had increased at least a little or a lot in their sector, in contrast to just 13 per cent who had
noted a decrease of either a little or a lot. Of most concern is the fact that a third of the
respondents noted that precarious work had increased a lot.
Figure 1: Precarious work trends (in %) – in the last decade
4%
3%
33%
10%
22%
28%
Decreased a lot
Stayed the same
Increased a lot
Decreased a little
Increased a little
Don’t know
Source: Questionnaire data
Broughton et al. (2010), in their study on ‘Flexible forms of work - very atypical contractual
arrangements’, also reported an increase in temporary employment between 1991 and 2005.
Furthermore, a significant proportion of employees (7 per cent) reported having no employment
contract and thus limited ability to enforce rights at work. The evidence thus points to an
increase in precarious work with a number of factors having contributed to this including:
• Changes within the structure and organisation of work (Kalleberg, 2009);
•
Member State policies favouring privatisation and the contracting out of services
(Thornley et al., 2010);
•
Rising unemployment and changes in the mechanisms of job access (Rodgers and
Rodgers, 1989);
•
The growth in project oriented work (McDowell and Chirstopherson, 2009);
•
Economic inequalities (Kretsos, 2010);
•
The impact of the rising numbers of economic migrants (Porthé et al., 2010);
•
The spread of unpaid traineeships & voluntary work as a means of accessing workplace
experience
• Labour market flexibility (ETUC, 2006).
The global economic and financial crisis has impacted on these factors, bringing precarious work
into the mainstream, with the sectors of agriculture, food and Hotels, Restaurants, Catering,
Tourism all having been affected (Longley, 2010; Rossman, 2010; EASHW, 2007). At the same
time it is important to emphasise that precarious work is trans-sectoral and increasingly it is
moving into areas of the labour market that had earlier been considered protected and unaffected
by these wider changes.
16
1.1 How have the trade unions responded to the growth of precarious
work?
Trade unions have demonstrated a preparedness to respond to perceptions of the increase in
precarious work, by attempts to regulate and diminish its negative aspects through collective
bargaining, information and campaigning. But of course, the extent to which they are able to do
this successfully has been impeded by assaults on collective bargaining by employers and by
legal rulings which have questioned the legitimacy of trade unions to organise.
The work of trade unions has assisted in raising the issue of precarious work at national and at
EU level, by pointing to changes in the economic system and its effects on employment. This is
demonstrated in the EFFAT Charter on precarious work which targets its demands on three
fronts, as part of the effort to tackle precariousness and protect precarious workers:
• Employers: to respect existing regulations and bargaining agreements, to involve the
unions, to provide better conditions and fair wages for the workforce, to provide training;
•
Political actors at European and national levels: to develop appropriate policies, to
introduce social clauses into the allocation of contracts, to introduce minimum standards
for employers, to prevent further deregulation of the labour market; and
•
Trade union organisations: to strengthen collective bargaining and to campaign on
European social wage standards, to ensure cross border cooperation.
In its 12-point programme for precarious workers EFFAT commits itself and its member
organisations to a detailed schedule of work towards implementing its Charter. Its strategy has
focused on collective bargaining, new innovative methods such as community organising and
building trade union capacity in countries that need it; on calling for change to the law to end the
fragmentation of the different categories of employment contracts; on revising the law on posted
workers and strengthening the rights of seasonal workers. It has emphasised that the EU
economy cannot develop and function effectively while precarious and insecure work is
growing, involving discussions with employers and with other trade unions at EU level. Indeed
EFFAT took a lead on the issue when in October 2009 it introduced the issue of precarious work
into the Tripartite Social Summit. This focused effort has ensured that the issue of precarious
work is at the fore of its activities. EFFAT has also worked with the ETUC and with the other
European trade union federations in the development of concrete principles such as on the need
to fight against precarious jobs and to promote equality, to safeguard protection for workers or to
pressurise for better jobs. At global level other trade unions have also been active in producing a
wealth of information on the precarious workforce. Examples of this include the work of the
International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF), the International Union of Food workers (IUF),
which in 2006 produced an Organising tool for trade unionists in the fight against precarious
work and UNI, the Global Union for skills and services. This work has involved trade union
trans-national co-operation, and Case Study 6, from Spain, shows how this can be successful, in
building links between the home and destination countries of migrant workers.
Trade unions play a key role in defending workers against the rise of precarious employment. As
one survey respondent noted:
‘The future depends on how we succeed in fighting (employer demands) and in organising
workers’ (Slovakia, agriculture sector).
Unions have also been concluding collective agreements to protect against precarious work. The
questionnaire survey identified a large number of collective agreements that covered workers in
17
forms of employment identified as precarious. In some cases there were specific agreements,
particularly those covering seasonal, temporary agency, posted and sub-contracted workers.
Figure 2: Collective agreements in the three sectors (in %)
Source: Questionnaire data
Agreements on part-time work were reported in Belgium, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and UK; on
temporary agency work from Austria, France, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK;
on subcontracting from Finland, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey; on seasonal workers
from Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Macedonia (FYROM), Poland,
Portugal, Romania and Slovakia; on migrant workers, from Sweden and the UK. Based on the
questionnaire responses, countries that were mainly recipients of migrant workers, many of
whom are employed as temporary agency workers, are more likely to have negotiated specific
agreements. In relation to seasonal workers, in particular, there was evidence of a targeted effort
by trade unions in some countries to protect seasonal workers. Comments from respondents in
relation to the collective agreements particularly highlight the work of unions in developing
appropriate collective agreements concerning precarious work. Below are some examples for
each sector, which illustrate a range of issues that the agreements have covered. PART C of this
report provides details of 19 other initiatives taken by EFFAT member organisations and EFFAT
itself, illustrating good practices.
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism, Finland
The collective agreement for the hotel and restaurant sector includes a provision whereby
an employer cannot hire new workers unless additional hours have been offered to parttime employees. The same provision is also found in Finnish legislation where, in cases
of dispute, the collective agreement provides for the issue to be taken to the Labour
Court. As the agreement was negotiated with the employers’ organisation, the duty to
ensure compliance with the collective agreement falls upon the employer. (See also Case
study 10 on giving access to permanent work for seasonal workers in Spain and Case
study 12 on pension rights for seasonal workers in Croatia).
18
Agriculture, Portugal
The collective agreement gives seasonal workers the same benefits as workers with
regular contracts, so it includes Christmas allowances and holiday pay. (See also Case
study 1 on the Irish mushroom industry agreement).
Agriculture, France
From the beginning of 2010 agricultural workers are covered by an agreement that covers
death, temporary and permanent incapacity and provides access to complementary
healthcare. In certain regions, seasonal workers have equal rights with regard to these.
Individual training contracts (CIF), offering training for up to a year, are open to all with
at least two years’ service in the workplace. In agriculture, rights to participate have been
made more elastic for seasonal workers where otherwise they would not have been able
to claim. They have to show just 12 months of work within four years, even if their work
was discontinuous and with more than one employer. (For further information, see also
Case studies 2 and 3)
Food, Drink and Tobacco, Sweden
The latest collective agreement provides that companies, in principle, cannot replace
permanent workers with workers from labour agencies. If a company is using workers
from agencies they have to follow the collective agreement for the specific branch or
trade. They are not allowed to pay less or give poorer benefits to these workers. (See also
Case study 14 on the registration of gang masters in the meat processing in the UK).
Food, Drink and Tobacco, Denmark
An agreement concerns the resolution of disputes regarding the wages and working
conditions of foreign employees in Denmark. For those enterprises not covered by a
collective agreement, it provides better scope for avoiding workplace stoppages in
connection with the demand to be covered by an agreement. For enterprises that are
covered by an agreement it guards against social dumping. (See also Case study 15 on
regulating agency work through the collective agreement in the Netherlands).
Survey respondents reported that the absence of collective agreements was as a result of three
factors and provided examples of them:
1. Employer attitude: ‘Posted workers should also be covered by collective agreements, but in
many cases, employers try to ignore or refuse to accept taking part in a collective agreement’
(Denmark, multi).
2. Weakness of the law or of its enforcement: ‘Subcontracted workers do have the right to join
a trade union, but in practice the right is limited due to the pressure of the employers and the
weaknesses of job security clauses of the Labour Act’ (Turkey, agriculture).
‘Due to outsourcing in the hotel sector, there is the risk of there no longer being any directly
employed workers, linked to other sectors. What is needed is continuous and more effective
inspections’ (Italy, Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism).
3. Unsuccessful negotiations: ‘For temporary workers, we tried, but we failed to include them
into the collective agreement‘(Netherlands, FBT).
19
EFFAT affiliates were also asked what types of initiatives they had supported. The respondents
identified the provision of information or special publications as the most frequently used type of
initiative. This was followed by the offer of ad hoc legal representation to workers in precarious
jobs, and organising or publicity campaigns.
Figure 3: Types of initiatives to support those in precarious work (in %)
15%
4%
10%
24%
Specific training
programmes
Information/Publ icati on
s
Specific web pages/tools
Ad hoc l egal
representation
Public campaigns
14%
Organising campaigns
20%
13%
Other initiatives
Source: Questionnaire data
Specific examples of the initiatives taken by unions include:
• The provision of information to workers in various languages: Austria, Denmark,
Netherlands, Italy, Finland, Sweden and the UK.
•
Providing information on rights to seasonal workers: Case study 3 (see Section C)
represents a particularly innovative example from France involving the organisation of a
big information campaign some stages of which are specifically aimed at seasonal
workers, where union organisers take a bus around France and make contact with
seasonal workers as they travel around.
•
Making welfare provision available to precarious workers: Italy, Norway.
•
Media campaigns: a Polish initiative on radio and TV entitled ‘Decent Work, Decent
Wages’.
•
Facilitating training provision: most respondents mentioned the availability of training
and this was particularly the case in Norway, Serbia, Finland, UK, and France.
•
Targeted campaigns: the chocolate sector in Germany is one example where a trade
union and employee representatives’ network, www.Cocoanet.eu has been established.
Some unions referred to their websites where they provided information to those in precarious
work, often available in more than one language. Survey respondents also produced information
on collaboration between their union and other organisations. The following types of
collaboration were most frequently mentioned:
20
•
Cooperation with Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs): This included general
cooperation with a range of relevant organisations including migrant associations or
NGOs working with seasonal workers or NGOs in developing countries. Some unions
had played an active role in setting up NGOs. One example from Spain involved cooperation between the union and an NGO with the aim of demonstrating solidarity and
cooperation with organizations of workers and workers in developing countries.
•
Labour inspectorates: The majority of unions reported close collaboration with labour
inspectorates. For example, a Hungarian union reported that it had initiated an
amendment to the law for temporary agency workers and seasonal workers and that it
was in continuous contact with the Hungarian Labour Inspectorate, so as to observe the
Sector Collective Agreement and to combat informal work.
•
Employer associations, trade associations and relevant government bodies: A
number of respondents referred to co-operation with employer organisations. They also
referred to co-operation with bodies like the tax authorities, environmental bodies, the
fire service, the immigration authorities and the police.
•
Trade unions: many of the EFFAT member organisations reported wide-scale cooperation between trade unions at national, European and international level. Some cooperation was cross border, with examples provided in relation to the Nordic countries,
the Baltic States and Russia.
•
Specific collaborations: some respondents mentioned collaboration on issues such as
minimum wages or social dumping. A Norwegian union respondent noted:
‘We cooperate with all institutions who wish to fight social dumping. Over
have especially had good cooperation with Norwegian authorities
inspectorate. We do also have some cooperation with some employers
cooperate with Nordic and international trade union networks' (Norway,
Tobacco).
the last years we
and the labour
and naturally we
Food, Drink and
21
2. What is precarious employment?
To comprehend precarious employment and its impact on workers and on society more
generally, it is necessary to understand what the term covers. In the available literature there are
no consistent conceptualisations or commonly promoted definitions and the issue is further
complicated by the use of a variety of different terms that refer to precarious work, for example,
‘contingent’ work (Evans and Gibb, 2009), ‘atypical’ work or ‘vulnerable’ work. These terms are
sometimes used interchangeably although ‘contingent’ is more commonly used in the USA,
while precarious, atypical or vulnerable are more recognisable in the EU (Evans and Gibb,
2009). Parameters of precarious employment can be based on employment status, forms of
employment, labour market insecurity and social location (Vosco, 2010).
Other terms are useful in conceptualising precariousness such as ‘under-employment’ when a
worker is employed for fewer hours than would be necessary to earn a living wage; ‘veryatypical’ employment which includes contracts of less that six months, less than ten hours per
week or when there is the absence of a written contract (Broughton et al., 2010). EFFAT has
defined precarious work as ‘work where the level of income, protection and social integration of
workers sinks far below the level defined and recognised as standard in contemporary society'.
This definition concludes by stating that ‘work is also precarious if it is subjectively associated
with a loss of meaning, a deficit of recognition or uncertainties regarding planning, and if social
standards are significantly changed to the disadvantage of the workers’ (EFFAT Roadmap,
2010). The EFFAT Charter on precarious work places the focus on the recompense that workers
obtain from their employment, stating that precarious work is ‘Non-standard employment which
is poorly paid, insecure and unprotected and cannot support a household’.
The International Labour Organisation defines precarious employment as ‘work where
employment security, which is considered one of the principal elements of the labour contract, is
lacking’ and states that the term ‘encompasses temporary and fixed-term labour contracts, work
at home and sub-contracting’. A Report to the European parliament, by the Committee on
Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (2010), states that precarious work is ‘non standard forms
of work with any of the following characteristics: little or no job security; without any written
contract; unclear working hours and duties that change according to the employer’s will; a low
level of remuneration, which may be unofficial or unclear; no social protection rights or
employment related benefits; no protection against discrimination; limited or no prospects for
advancement in the labour market; no collective representation of workers; a working
environment that fails to meet minimum health and safety standards; and where employment
security is lacking. This term encompasses temporary and fixed term labour contracts, work at
home, and subcontracting’.
The questionnaire survey asked respondents to select from a list of different forms of
employment those that, in the sectors which they represented, they identified as precarious.
Overall, seasonal work was the most frequently identified, followed by fixed-term and
undeclared work, although as is shown in Part B, there were significant variations in the
responses by sector.
22
Figure 4: Forms of work identified with precarious work (in %)
Source: Questionnaire data
Precarious work can also be ‘work that places people at risk of continuing poverty and injustice
resulting from an imbalance of power in the employer-work relationship’ (Rodgers et al., 2009).
Some definitions place major emphasis on particular forms of work as being of necessity
precarious, for example, temporary or agency work or seasonal work. Taking all of this into
account, the next section moves on to develop a framework for the definition of precarious work.
2.1. A framework for the identification of precarious work
The starting point for the development of such a framework demands a movement away from
defining precarious work as being associated solely with particular contractual work
relationships, for example, temporary work, seasonal work or part-time. The notion that these
forms of what are usually referred to as ‘atypical’ work (although in fact they are typical to some
sectors and occupations) are per se ‘precarious’ is challenged in this study, as it fails to take
account of the agency of workers and their decisions about how they wish to work. For example,
part-time work could be considered as precarious where workers are seeking, but cannot find,
full-time work. But it is not precarious if the workers concerned have sought part-time work and
there are no other conditions that would make it precarious. Similarly, seasonal work that relates
to the nature of the industry may be viewed as acceptable employment, particularly in those
cases where workers have alternative work possibilities outside of the season or where the state
(or the employer) provides adequate social protection during out of work periods. Precariousness
is therefore better defined in relation to instability, lack of protection, insecurity and social or
economic vulnerability’, and it is ‘some combination of these factors which identifies precarious
jobs’ (Rogers and Rogers, 1989: 3). It can also be work that promotes risks – whether they are
economic, social or health risks (Kalleberg, 2009: 2). Job insecurity is known to affect mental
well-being (Siefert et al., 2007) as does the inability to find permanent work when it is what is
wanted (Clarke et al., 2007). This leads to a conclusion that it is the circumstances under which
employment is undertaken and the outcomes it provides to workers that defines whether or not
work is precarious. This puts the focus on how work is chosen and undertaken and what it gives
to workers. Five characteristics of precarious work (which are set out in more detail in the Table
below) are highlighted:
23
1. An absence of choice;
2. Income levels that are too low;
3. Inability to make future plans;
4. Poor health and safety and employment protection; and
5. An absence of representation.
Table 1: Characteristics and indicators of precarious work
Characteristic
precarious work
of
Absence of choice
Inadequate
income
or
Inability to
future plans
Indicators – scenarios
Choice is likely to be absent:
• Where the conditions of work are changed unilaterally by the employer;
• Where workers are contracted-out or out-sourced; or
• Where the availability of work is limited so that individuals have to take
whatever is offered.
low
A wage that cannot provide for the individual or the individual’s family, for
example:
• Unstable earnings
• Irregular payments
• Wages below the minimum wage
• Wages close or below the poverty line
make
When jobs do not offer a sufficient degree of certainty to enable workers to
plan for their futures, for example where:
• Jobs are of limited duration;
• There is a high risk of redundancy;
• There is limited or no training and career development;
• There is limited opportunity to use, retain and improve skills;
• There is no pension scheme or other benefits such as holiday and
sickness allowances, parental or bereavement leave.
Lack of employment
protection
•
•
•
•
Absence
representation
access to justice
of
or
•
•
•
The absence of a written employment contract;
No or limited mechanisms in place, either in terms of the law or
industrial practice to provide protection to workers against
discrimination, unfair dismissal, abuse or poor working conditions;
Where the working environment is hazardous or polluted or dangerous,
so that health and safety is put at risk;
Constructed illegality: undocumented migrant workers, undeclared
work, “envelope” wages (part of wage paid in cash).
Where workers have little or no say over working conditions and wages;
Where workers’ representation is discouraged;
When collective bargaining is absent or weak.
24
Examples of where these occur include:
• Work which does not permit individuals to exercise the types of choices that should be
the fruits of paid labour, for example, where they cannot obtain a mortgage or bank loan
because their contacts are temporary;
•
Work that does not permit individuals to make future plans, in relation to themselves,
their families or for their wider social ambitions, for example, where young workers are
forced to delay starting a family because work is too insecure;
•
Work where individuals have to take what is offered, for example, the “€1 jobs” promoted
in Hartz IV in Germany
•
Work through agencies, in circumstances where workers have no control over when and
where they will work;
•
Work that is involuntary in the sense that workers did not have a sufficient degree of
choice as to whether to accept it or not, for example, in the case of older workers, where
full-time work is sought but the only work available is part-time;
•
Work that is not genuinely self-employed where as a result workers are excluded from
social welfare protection due to their status but where in reality they are ‘economically
dependent workers’ (Perulli, 2003)
•
Work that does not provide an income sufficient to live decently, for example, where
money is permanently short and where workers are forced to rely on credit;
•
Work where hours are not fixed and where they can be varied from zero to any number,
dependent on the employer’s demands. These both limit the ability of workers to follow
their personal interests and pursuits but also create a level of income volatility which
inhibits planning;
•
Work that is hazardous or dangerous or where worker health and safety is ignored, for
example, where temporary workers are not provided with adequate health and safety
training or with the appropriate protective equipment, because the employer does not feel
that the investment is warranted;
•
Work which is carried out without a formal contract or other documents so as to exclude
workers from social, welfare and other entitlements or which prevents them from
challenging employer malpractice; and
•
Work where there is no effective access to collective representation, for example where
workers are afraid to organise collectively because their work is insecure or where they
are not included in bargaining units because they are not part of the permanent
workforce.
The above concepts build on the definition provided in the EFFAT Charter on precarious work.
However, the current ever-expanding nature of precarious work means that it is always necessary
to re-visit definitions and review them. Employers throughout Europe are constantly in a quest
for new forms of contractual relationships so as to avoid their employment obligations; obtain
ever higher levels of flexible working; and cut costs while increasing profits. This means that
relevant stakeholders need to be constantly investigating the expanding and no doubt changing
nature of precarious work.
25
2.2 What causes precarious work?
The growth in precarious work over the last decade has been attributed to a number of causes,
including:
• Large scale privatisation and restructuring programmes, especially but not exclusively
within the countries of Central and Eastern Europe;
•
Deregulation of the labour market leading to casualisation;
•
The changing structure and organisation of work, including technological advances
(Kalleberg, 2009);
•
Growing inequality (Barbier, 2011; Kretsos, 2010)
•
Employer demands for new forms of flexibility and new management forms (Evans and
Gibb, 2009);
•
Weakening union power (Kalleberg, 2009);
•
Global production supply chains;
•
The growth of service dominated economies (McDowell and Christopherson, 2009)
•
New forms of subcontracting and outsourcing (Perulli, 2003); and
•
Migration (both regular and irregular).
A report by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) of an evaluation
mission into the Coca-Cola bottling plants in Columbia, observed that the
impact of subcontracting arrangements affected a large number of workers,
working directly or indirectly for the company, even where such relationships
were in conformity with national labour legislation. The mission found that
subcontracting had direct repercussions on the nature of labour relations in the
enterprise, specifically in terms of the nature of the employment relationship
under which they provide their services (often outsourced) but also in terms of
their working conditions and the manner in which they organised to defend
their interests. It stated:
‘According to the trade union representatives, this situation has been
accompanied by precariousness of conditions of employment and work of these
workers and at the same time, considerable repercussions on labour relations,
such as the decline in the number of trade union members and weakening of
collective bargaining.’
The report therefore recommended that the enterprise should consider ways to
ensure more appropriate contractual conditions for workers engaged in
activities relating to the enterprise’s objectives, so that their working conditions
were comparable to those of the directly employed workers. Outsourcing also
made it difficult for the workers concerned to form or join unions, particularly
those recruited through associated labour cooperatives1.
26
Employer requirements for flexibility can be identified in many of these stated causes of
precarious work. Many employers in Europe have indicated an intention to promote employment
strategies which adopt notions of ‘just in time’ workers, where employment is offered and
refused, dependent on vagaries of the market. This direction has been buttressed by policies,
introduced at EU level, in particular in relation to ‘flexicurity’. In its 2007 Communication on
flexicurity the European Commission promoted what it described as an ‘integrated strategy to
enhance, at the same time, flexibility and security in the labour market (European Commission,
2007). The Commission claimed that flexicurity was ‘about successful moves ("transitions")
during one’s life course’ and that it was ‘not limited to more freedom for companies to recruit or
dismiss’. In particular the document states that:
‘Flexibility is also about flexible work organisations, capable of quickly and effectively
mastering new productive needs and skills, and about facilitating the combination of work
and private responsibilities. Security, on the other hand, is more than just the security to
maintain one's job: it is about equipping people with the skills that enable them to progress in
their working lives, and helping them find new employment. It is also about adequate
unemployment benefits to facilitate transitions. Finally, it encompasses training opportunities
for all workers, especially the low skilled and older workers.’
The concept of flexicurity has had its origins in the Danish model and consisted of social partner
pacts, supported by the State, which sustained contractual arrangements that did appear to
provide both flexibility and security. However, from the start trade unions in Europe, while
understanding a need for flexibility in the labour market, expressed reservations as to whether
the concept, which was specific to a particular political setting and labour market prevailing at
the time, could be applied to different labour markets and political settings and there was concern
at its inability to address key challenges, in particular the expansion of precarious jobs (ETUC,
Tripartite Social Summit, March 2007). The concern was that flexibility was being demanded
from workers but security was, if anything being withdrawn. Indeed almost everywhere State
policies have been directed towards the adoption of more ‘flexible’ patterns of employment,
which in effect have been eroding employment standards while shifting risk from the employer
to the worker (Evans and Gibb 2009). Sheen (2010) argues that it is labour market flexibility that
has:
‘Served to entrap certain groups in an invidious web of precarious employment from which
there are limited exits. The result is a social system in which some groups, such as women,
… have very high exposure to insecurity and risk, as well as low wages and difficult work
conditions, compared to others. This most certainly undermines social solidarity.’
As the ETUC Congress of 2011 stated, flexibility ‘did not create jobs but simply promoted
precarious work; it drives out good jobs and creates high and rising inequalities’, while Seifert
and Tangian ( 2007), in their analysis of the 4th Survey on working conditions, found that
employment flexibility ‘has the strongest negative effect on employability’. EFFAT reports that
at its Food General Assembly in 2011, Dutch and Danish unions indicated that flexicurity was
not working for a number of reasons. In the Netherlands, the three year term contracts deemed as
flexible were being used in succession, becoming another instrument of precarious work. In
Denmark it was because the social cushioning and outplacement service was deemed too
expensive.
27
2.3 What are the consequences of letting precarious work grow?
Precarious work creates negative consequences for the labour market, for workers themselves,
and for society more generally. The existence of precarious work does more than limit the
potential of individual workers; it impacts on their families and their communities and in turn
affects all of us. It has fostered a segmented labour market which does not allow for movement
between it and stable employment, particularly for vulnerable groups including migrants,
women, young workers and the disabled (Duell, 2004). Workers and, in particular, young
workers have been denied access to standard employment conditions, having been pushed in
very large numbers into temporary work, unpaid internships and into work where there is no
potential for career development. The consequences of these policies can be seen in the streets of
Greece, Portugal, France and the UK, where young people have expressed their anger at their
exclusion from the benefits that regular work provides.
Precarious work has created a sense of insecurity and fear that goes beyond those directly within
its ambit so that all workers experience work as potentially instable and insecure (Broughton et
al., 2010). As the First Findings from the 5th European Working Conditions Survey shows, 39
per cent of workers on fixed-term contracts and 53 per cent of temporary agency workers are
concerned about their job security, compared to 11 per cent of workers on permanent contracts.
Insecurity in turn results in long term disengagement from the society (Evans and Gibb, 2009;
Castel 2003). And as Guy Standing has noted:
‘A labour market based on precarious labour produces high transaction costs for those on the
margins. These costs include the time it takes to apply for benefits if they become unemployed,
the lack of income in that period, the time and costs associated with searching for jobs, the
time and cost in learning new labour routines, and the time and cost involved in adjusting
activities outside jobs to accommodate the demands of new temporary jobs.’ (Standing,
2011:48)
However, among the most worrying consequences of precarious work is its impact on health
and well-being. A report to the World Health Organisation (Benach et al., 2007) notes that
inequalities in health, derived from employment, are closely linked to other kinds of social
inequalities and that the regulation of employment relations can redistribute resources affecting
social stratification and also have an impact on the life experiences of different social groups,
including opportunities for well-being, exposure to hazards leading to disease, and access to
health care. It states that workers´ welfare depends on both the functioning of the labour market
and the social protection policies implemented by the state, modifying social stratification and
therefore social inequalities, and that there is a strong association between labour market
inequality and unfavourable population health outcomes.
There is therefore now a significant body of research (Clarke et al., 2007; Kinnunen et al, 2011;
Siefert et al., 2007, Hesmondhalgh, 2009; Porthé et al., 2009) which demonstrates that insecurity
at work leads to mental health problems (Artazoz et al.,2005; Kim et al., 2006). Further, research
by Pham et al. (2011) suggests that medical staff who are working on temporary contracts are
more likely to cause medication errors. No one can afford to ignore the growth of precarious
work if these are its consequences.
There are a number of identifiable health negative consequences of precarious work:
• Research by Mayhew and Quilan (2001) in Australia shows that workers, in precarious
employment, are less likely to be familiar with their rights, they are more fearful in
28
reporting any incidents and they may be reluctant to make any claims if they are privately
insured, due to economic pressures to keep working.
•
Research in Canada by Lewchuck, de Wolff and King (2003) suggests that workers in
precarious employment also face qualitative health risks that are not specific to one
workplace. Using the concept of “employment strain” their evidence suggests that
precarious workers report overall poorer health and higher levels of stress, compared to
workers in standard relationships. These health risks are a product of the insecurity of
employment itself, the uncertainty regarding the terms and conditions of employment and
the need to expend additional effort searching for work and balancing multiple jobs at
multiple worksites.
•
Precarious employment is more likely to exacerbate occupational violence problems
(Mayhew and Quilan, 2001).
•
Workers in precarious jobs share many labour market characteristics with the
unemployed, such as lower qualifications or low income. These factors are strongly
associated with adverse health outcomes (Benach and Muntaner, 2007).
•
Undocumented migrants in precarious work are more exposed to health and safety risks
as they are less likely to report any incidents (McKay et al., 2006).
2.4 Are some workers more at risk?
Many groups of workers now find themselves in precarious forms of employment. As precarious
work becomes more widespread it takes in more diverse groups. Standing (2011) notes its impact
on women, young workers, older workers, disabled workers and on those who have been
criminalized. The literature thus identifies specific groups as more likely to be working in
precarious conditions. Most frequently suggested are young workers (Kretsos, 2010; Bradley
and van Hoof, 2005; Pizzuti, 2009), women workers (Fudge and Owens, 2006; Jonsson and
Nyberg (2010; Scarponi, 2010; Sheen, 2010), older workers (D’Amours, 2010), migrants and,
agency workers (Elcioglu, 2010). For example the 2011-12 work programme of the European
Sector Social Dialogue Committee on Temporary Agency Work focuses on women, migrants,
low skilled and older people ‘as representing those who in the temporary agency work sector,
might be in a precarious situation’.
Precarious work has been particularly associated with female employment and women remain
over-represented among precarious workers, as the 2010 report to the European Parliament on
Precarious women workers demonstrates (European Parliament, 2010). Women across Europe
are more likely to work part-time than are men, but are also more likely to be working as
involuntary part-time workers.
In a study of data from the European Social Survey (ESS), Hazans examined the distribution of
those working without formal employment contracts (“informality”), and found that “the loweducated, the young (especially students), the elderly, and persons with disabilities are more
likely to work informally”, and that both Hotels and Restaurants, and Agriculture featured
amongst the five sectors demonstrating the highest levels of informality (Hazans 2011).
In relation to older workers, a study by D’Amours (2010) suggests that a majority of workers
who had left their long-term work after the age of 50 and taken a precarious job had experienced
both job insecurity and a lack of social protection. Among migrant workers it is undocumented
migrants who are usually most associated with precarious work (Bhalla and McCormick, 2009).
29
Porthé et al. (2009) in a study of undocumented workers in four Spanish towns found that they
perceived their work as including ‘high job instability; disempowerment due to lack of legal
protection; high vulnerability exacerbated by their legal and immigrant status; perceived
insufficient wages and lower wages than co-workers; limited social benefits and difficulty in
exercising their rights; and finally, long hours and fast-paced work’. Migrant workers also have
higher unemployment rates than native workers (Eurostat, 2006) and non-EU workers tend to
have even lower labour market participation than workers from other EU countries, while
migrants and female migrants have been identified as particularly vulnerable (Eurofound, 2007).
In terms of working conditions, the wages of migrant workers are noticeably lower than those of
the local people and do not always correspond with previous working experiences or
qualifications (TUC, 2003). Similarly, a study by the Swedish union Kommunal, found that in
2006 migrant workers, on average, were earning a salary that corresponded to a third of that
provided under the collective agreement. Other studies have shown that migrant workers do
more shift work, especially undesirable shifts, work long hours and are less likely to have
holidays or sick leave. Migrants also work in occupations that can be exposed to occupational
risks, while they have fewer opportunities for training and advancement (EASHW, 2007).
Finally migrant workers are less likely to complain or report incidents, as they may be more
fearful of the consequences (McKay et al., 2006).
There are other factors that make some workers more at risk of falling into precarious work. Its
high association with low-skilled employment means that those workers who have not acquired
relevant skills or who do not have qualifications that would give them access to standard work
get trapped into precarious work.
2.5 What data is there on precarious work?
The wide-ranging nature of precarious work, together with the fact that at least some of it occurs
in the informal sectors of the economy, means that the available statistical data is necessarily
limited, although EFFAT estimates that with respect to seasonal work alone there are over four
million cross border seasonal workers in Europe. The impact of recession has resulted in a
decline in some forms of employment – for example temporary and agency work – but this has
not been in a context where that work has transferred into standard work.
In general where there are estimations they are based on calculating the numbers of workers in
different forms of employment relationship. As Rubery (1989:49) has indicated ‘the only way in
which we can investigate precarious work is to look at the employment forms which are
expected to be in some sense precarious‘. Data from the Employment in Europe 2010 report
shows that over the period 1999 to 2007 (just before the start of the economic recession) the
fixed-term form increased its share of employment from 13.4 per cent to 14.8 per cent. Part-time
work also increased its share from 17.6 to 21.6 per cent. Taking the two together, their share of
total employment rose from 31 to 36.4 per cent. While not all of these jobs will necessarily have
been precarious, a rise in their number is associated with a growth in precarious work, although
estimating the size of the precarious workforce in this way inevitably has limitations.
Young people, in particular, are identified as being in precarious work and this is borne out by
the numbers in temporary and agency work. Figure 5 shows that young workers aged between
15-24 continue to be most affected, with an almost 40 per cent share of temporary employment
throughout the period 2001-2009.
Figure 5: Share of permanent and temporary employment in Europe for 15-24 year olds
(2000-2009)
30
80
Europe Share
of permanent
employment
60
40
Europe Share
of temporary
employment
20
0
1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10
Source: OECD, 20101
1 Data extracted from OECD stats :
http://www.oecd.org/statsportal/0,2639,en_2825_293564_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
31
This period also coincided with a high increase in migration throughout most of the EU, both
through the movements of workers within Europe, whether independently or by reasons of
posting, and through migration from third countries. Total migration in the EU increased over the
years 2000-2006, although it has declined since then. In 2006 the number of immigrants was
nearly a quarter higher than in 2002 (Eurostat. 2008). Migration is linked, in particular, with
agency employment (McKay, 2009) which also grew in the period, as data from the employers’
association for temporary agencies (CIETT) demonstrate in Figure 6.
Figure 6: The temporary agency workforce (1996-2006)
000's avge daily FTE
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: CIETT figures
In a study of cross border agency
working, Clark (2009) reported that social partners in the
EU
Rest of world
Netherlands identified Horticulture and Food as being amongst the most significant users of cross
border agency workers. Of course precarious work does not necessarily correlate only with these
employment forms. Precariousness can arise from a combination of factors, only some of which
can be measured statistically. Taking the five characteristics of precarious work identified in
this study: absence of choice; inadequate or low income; inability to make future plans; lack of
employment protection; absence of representation or access to representation, the available data
can be reviewed.
Absence of choice occurs where the form of work is involuntary. Figure 7 shows there are high
levels of involuntary work among Europe’s part-time workforce and that while the number of
female involuntary part-timers is higher than for males, involuntary part-time work is growing at
a faster rate among men.
Figure 7: Involuntary part-time workers 2000-2009
5000
4000
3000
Europe (female)
2000
Europe (male)
1000
0
1
3
5
7
9
Source: OECD, 20102
2
Data extracted from OECD stats
http://www.oecd.org/statsportal/0,2639,en_2825_293564_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
32
The second characteristic of precarious work is inadequate or low income. The European
Commission’s 2020 strategy has the declared aims of lifting at least 20 million people out of the
risk of poverty and exclusion and of ensuring that 75 per cent of the working age population is in
employment. Poverty and social exclusion are indicators of precarious work. Eurostat data shows
that 23.1 per cent of the population of the EU 27 Member States fall into the ‘at risk-of-poverty’
category (based on their disposable income being under 60 per cent of the national median).
There are examples of employers providing all or some of the workers’ wage in cash payments,
undeclared to the authorities, in order to evade social security or taxation. In a study based on
Eurobarometer data, Kedir et al. found that 5 per cent of the EU-27 workers surveyed had at least
some of their wage paid in this way. Construction and hotels and catering were singled out as
industrial sectors in which this practice was widespread (Kedir et al., 2011).
The third characteristic relates to an inability to make long term plans. The Eurofound Quality
of life survey 2007 shows that more respondents in that year thought that they were likely to lose
their jobs compared to four years earlier and that women were more likely to be in this position
than men (see Figure 8).
Figure 8: Percentage of employed people (18-65 years old) in EU-15 who think it is very
likely or quite likely that they will lose their job in the next six months
9
8.5
8
EU-15
7.5
7
6.5
Male
Female
2003
Male
Female
2007
Source: Eurofound, Quality of life survey 2003, 2007
A perception that work is carried out in dangerous or unhealthy conditions points to a lack of
employment protection, the fourth characteristic of precarious work. There is considerable
evidence of an increase in the proportions of workers who agree or strongly agree that they do
work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions (see Figure 9).
33
Figure 9: Share of people who "strongly agree" or "agree" that they work in dangerous or
unhealthy conditions
30
25
20
15
EU-25
10
5
0
Male
Female
2003
Male
Female
2007
Source: Eurofound, Quality of life survey 2003, 2007
The fifth indicator of precarious work is absence of representation or access to it. In 2008
trade union density in Europe stood at around 35 to 36 per cent, representing a ‘clear downward
trend in trade union density across Europe, compared to 2003 (Trade unions in Europe 2003-07,
Eurofound). This decline in representation levels means that higher proportions of workers are
without access to representation.
2.6 Is precarious work likely to grow?
While the rise in unemployment since 2008 may have had the effect of reducing the number of
workers in precarious work all of the indicators suggest that when Europe comes out of
recession, more workers will be taken into precarious work. In particular, if the last economic
recession in the early 1990s is anything to go by, the number of workers in temporary and in
agency work will increase. Studies of agency labour in the USA found that most of the growth in
the number of agency workers there occurred during recovery from the last recession. Although
agency workers were the first to be hit by that recession (as has happened again in the current
recession) employment agencies in the USA (at the time better-established than they were in
Europe) came out of the last recession larger than when they went into it, leading to the
likelihood that agency labour becomes structurally more dominant as a result of recession. This
suggests that the share of employment occupied by agencies is likely to be greater when Europe
emerges from its current recession and that precarious work will grow (McKay, 2009).
More than half (54 per cent) of those responding to the questionnaire survey thought that
precarious work would increase either a little or a lot. In contrast just 14 per cent thought that it
would decrease a little as shown in Figure 10.
34
Figure 10: Precarious work trends (in %) – over the next five years
10%
14%
25%
22%
29%
Will decrease a little
Will increase a little
Don’t know
Will stay the same
Will increase a lot
Source: Questionnaire data
Respondents pointed to a continuing increase in migration and the growing numbers in
undeclared work, together with the economic crisis, as likely to cause a growth in the numbers.
2.7 How can Europe’s precarious workers be protected?
There is a vast range of legal regulation, both at EU and at international level that is relevant to
the issue of precarious work and has the potential to protect precarious workers. It is not the case
that there is an absence of legislation, the question is whether governments choose to implement
and enforce it to the benefit of workers. While there is not a specific law addressing precarious
workers as a category, the nature of precarious work, as explored in previous sections of this
report, means that it is possible to protect precarious workers through laws that, while generally
applicable, can cover the specific circumstances of precarious work. The Case study examples
demonstrate how the law can be used, for example, Case study 14 on the gangmasters’ law in the
UK and Case study 5 on the impact of the equality law in Spain. Other examples, from the Case
studies, include the use of a regulatory body in the Netherlands and the anti-wage dumping law
in Austria (Case study 17).
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is potentially a key instrument in the
battle against precarious work and is considered below. The section then goes on to cover the
general legal framework at EU level as well as the legal instruments and codes of conduct at
European and International level.
35
2.7.1 The Charter of Fundamental Rights
‘The EU Charter will have an impact not only on the EU's institutions, but perhaps even
more, on the Member States, also bound by the Charter through the doctrine of supremacy of
EU law. The inclusion of fundamental rights concerning individual employment and collective
industrial relations in an EU Charter may well confer on them a constitutional status within
national legal orders’. (Bercusson,2009)
The first draft of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was adopted on 2
October 2000 but its legal status was unclear and did not have full legal effect until the entry into
force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009 and it is from that point that Bercusson’s
assessment begins to have real resonance. The Charter applies whenever Member States
implement Union law and furthermore all Union institutions (e.g. the European Commission, the
Council and the European Parliament) must respect the rights enshrined in the Charter. These
are: human dignity; equality; solidarity; democracy; and the rule of law. While the Charter
covers a wide range of fundamental rights’ issues, there are some articles that are specifically
relevant in the discussion of precarious work. These are set out below with a brief outline as to
how they might be used to protect precarious workers:
• Art. 7: Respect for private and family life – This right is compromised through long or
unsocial hours, affecting the right of individuals to enjoy their private and family life. Art
7 might be used to challenge the working conditions of precarious workers, where
requirements for mobility affect the right to family life or where the level of earnings
make it difficult to establish a family.
•
Art. 12: Freedom of Association – This right is compromised not just where there is a
denial of the right to freedom of association but also where the nature of the work makes
it impossible to freely exercise the right. It could be used to protect precarious workers
where the nature of their work denies or limits Art. 12 rights.
•
Art 15: Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work – ‘to pursue a
freely chosen or accepted occupation; to equivalent working conditions – Where work is
undertaken under duress or where there is a lack of choice then Art 15 could be used to
protect precarious workers in these circumstances.
•
Art. 21: Non-discrimination on any ground – the available data suggests that women are
more likely to experience precarious employment. It may be possible to show that
precarious work per se is discriminatory.
•
Art. 23: Equality between men and women in all areas, including employment, work and
pay – There may be cases where it can be shown that precarious work promotes
inequality and thus Art. 23 could be used to protect workers affected.
•
Art. 27: Rights to information and consultation for workers and their representatives –
workers in precarious employment are less likely to be in a position to exercise rights to
information and consultation due to the unstable nature of their work. Art. 27 could be
used to challenge the absence of information and consultation.
•
Art. 28: Right of collective bargaining and right to take collective action – workers in
precarious employment are less likely to be covered by collective bargaining and less
36
likely to be in a position to take collective action. Art 28 could be used to challenge the
absence of the right to collective bargaining.
•
Art. 30: Protection against unjustified dismissal – where legal rules exclude those in
precarious forms of employment or where the nature of their employment relationships
mean that workers are less likely to assert their dismissal rights, then Art. 30 could be
used to protect workers in such cases.
•
Art. 31: Right to fair and just working conditions; to maximum working hours; to breaks
and holidays – these rights are closely linked to the right to be covered by collective
bargaining and to fair terms and conditions and Art 31 could be used to challenge the
absence of such rights to precarious workers.
Additionally there are specific groups of workers who come under the protection of the Charter
and who are over-represented among precarious workers. They include:
• Art. 32: Protection of young people at work – working conditions appropriate to age
• Art. 33: Maternity rights
• Art. 34: Right to social security benefits
• Art. 47: Right to an effective remedy
On 19 October 2010 the European Commission implemented a new strategy to ensure that the
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was effectively implemented. This requires that it verifies
that all EU laws are in compliance. The strategy also states that the Commission will provide
citizens with information and that it will publish an annual report on the Charter’s application to
monitor the progress achieved. The first annual report was published in April 2011 and affirms
that the Charter shows that fundamental rights are relevant across a wide range of policies and
that public interest in the Charter runs high. However, the report also highlights that the Charter
is frequently misunderstood3.
The Charter in practice
In the last few years the judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Communities have
demonstrated a greater willingness to make direct reference to the rights enshrined in the Charter
and it is now established, through decisions of the court, that it will consider the Charter when
making its rulings in employment cases. In the Viking case Advocate-General Maduro relied on
the Charter and in the Laval case the Advocate General also made reference to the Charter. In
total there have been more than 26 citations of the Charter by the court and it has recently relied
on the Charter to invalidate secondary legislation.
2.7.2 European directives on employment rights
The Charter is just one legal instrument which may be relevant to the context of precarious work.
The European Union has adopted a wide range of legal instruments which have been transposed
into national laws that deal with employment law issues. In this brief review it is not possible to
deal with all of the relevant instruments in detail, but listed below are the principal directives
which could be used to protect precarious workers:
3
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/386&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiL
anguage=en
37
For EFFAT a particular danger lies in the adoption of a new category of ‘inactive periods of on
call time’ which might permit employers in the Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism sector to
declare periods when there are no guests as covered by such a definition.
‘The EU Council is on its way to give to the European social model a harmful step back by
keeping in place the individual ‘opt-out’, whereby employers can agree with individual
workers not to apply maximum working hours; and by defining so-called inactive parts of oncall duty as not being working time, even when the worker has to be available in the
workplace. EFFAT’s sectors are directly affected, particularly the workers from hotels and
restaurants whose health is seriously at stake.’
The use by some employers of zero hours contracts has the effect of excluding from the
calculation of working time periods of time when the individual is not working - although, in the
UK, an employment tribunal in 2010 ruled that a move of workers on to zero hours contracts
amounted to an unfair dismissal.
2.7.3 Health and safety regulation and precarious work
In addition to the above directives, which focus on the employment relationship, there is a large
body of specific health and safety law at EU level which may also be made to protect precarious
workers and given the identification of precarious work with poor health and safety, key legal
instruments include:
• Council Directive 89/391/EC June 1989 on measures to encourage improvements in the
safety and health of workers at work
•
Council Directive 89/555/EEC concerning minimum safety and health requirements for
the use of work equipment
•
Council Directive 89/656/EC on the obligation to provide and ensure the wearing of
personal protective clothing
•
Council Directive 90/269/EC on manual handling
•
Council Directive 98/24/EC on risks related to chemical agents at work: others on
carcinogens, explosive atmospheres, noise (European Agency for Health and Safety
(2010).
The World Health Organisation published a report in 2008 that addresses work, in particular
atypical and precarious working. This also refers to reports demonstrating the link between
precarious and atypical employment and poorer physical and mental health issues: poor mental
health outcomes associated with precarious employment (see also: Artazoz et al., 2005; Kim et
al., 2006). The European Commission recommends to national governments that they use policy
and legislation to reduce insecurity among people in precarious work arrangements, in particular
in relation to downsizing, subcontracting and outsourcing. It points to particular health problems
that arise due to financial pressures on subcontractors, disorganisation or the fracturing of
occupational health and safety management; and inadequate regulatory controls (Broughton,
2010). Furthermore workers who perceive work insecurity, experience significant adverse effects
on their physical and mental health (Ferrie et al. 2002).
The large body of EU law detailed above is limited in its effective application, in part due to the
measures that employers have taken to shield themselves from the law. At a conference held in
the UK in January 2010, Beyond Labour Regulation, leading labour market and legal academics
referred to the difficulties which sub-contracting, secondary employment and bogus self38
employment had created in attempts to enforce employment rights. Cotton (2010), points to
externalisation as ‘useful in encapsulating the change that is taking place, signifying the distance
that is placed between employer and the employee in the shift towards indirect employment’.
She noted:
‘It is precisely the hidden and unclear nature of much precarious employment that makes the
issue of legal strategies so difficult. In part because of the complexity of the nature of
precarious work and the difficulties in regulating an unclear employment relationship.’
Companies were often set up as an attempt to avoid legislation, particularly the legal protections.
Additionally it was noted that the development of changes in precarious work arrangements is
always rapid compared to the slow process of establishing laws and standards. This means that
changes in the nature of employment relationships are always far ahead of the law’s attempts to
regulate them.
39
2.7.4 Regulations governing forms of work associated with precariousness
Seasonal work
The European Commission in 2010 presented a proposal for a directive on seasonal employment.
The proposal was aimed at establishing a common procedure for entry and residence in the EU
and defines the rights of seasonal workers from third-countries. The legal basis for the proposed
directive is Art. 79(2)(a) and (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The
directive would establish common rules for the admittance of non-EU seasonal workers and is
estimated to affect some 100,000 seasonal workers annually. It is not clear what proportion of all
seasonal work in the EU this might represent, since national differences in definitions of seasonal
working make compiling statistics difficult. However, in France alone, the Ministry of
Agriculture and Fishery estimates that 900,000 temporary contracts are signed each year.
Cecilia Malmström, European Commissioner for Home Affairs, on presenting the proposal on
seasonal employment, commented:
‘Employers in the EU are increasingly dependent on people from countries outside of Europe
to take up jobs in sectors such as agriculture, horticulture and tourism, as fewer and fewer
EU citizens are available for this type of seasonal work. At the same time, we need to provide
these seasonal workers, who are often vulnerable and exposed, with better conditions and a
secure legal status in order to protect them from exploitation. This new directive will do just
that, and I am confident that today's proposal will contribute to an effective management of
migration flows for seasonal migration.’
The proposed directive concerns non-EU citizens coming to an EU Member State for the
purposes of seasonal employment on EU territory. Under the proposal their work will be carried
out during one or more fixed-term work contracts, concluded directly between the non-EU
worker and the employer established in a Member State. The proposal introduces a special
procedure for the entry and residence of third-country seasonal workers and defines their rights,
while at the same time providing incentives for circular migration to prevent a temporary stay
from becoming permanent. The purpose of the directive is to establish a flexible procedure,
based on common EU rules, for the entry, temporary residence and employment of third country
seasonal workers and to define the rights of those admitted. In particular, the proposal:
•
Establishes a simpler entry procedure for the admission of non-EU seasonal workers
based on common definitions and criteria, such as the existence of a work contract or a
binding job offer that specifies a salary;
•
Requires proof that the worker has sufficient resources for the duration of stay;
•
Obliges employers to demonstrate that adequate accommodation is available;
•
Sets a standard seasonal work time limit throughout the EU (six months’ permit per
calendar year) after which time workers must return to home country;
•
Provides for a ‘multi-seasonal permit’ for three years or a ‘facilitated’ re-entry procedure
in subsequent seasons for re-admission;
•
Defines the legal provisions applicable to the working conditions of seasonal workers;
•
Entitles seasonal workers to equal treatment with nationals of the Member States in
determined fields (freedom of association and affiliation, social security schemes,
40
income-related acquired statutory pensions, access to goods and services, co-ordination
of social security systems and payment of statutory pensions etc);
•
Leaves EU Member States free to apply a labour market test and to decide how many
seasonal workers they admit; the proposal does not create a right to admission;
•
Gives Member States the authority to approve applications from third country nationals
and to issue them with a work permit.
Decisions on admission are to be taken within 30 days of application and written reasons must be
given for any refusal. Member States must ensure that sanctions are applicable to employers in
breach of the directive and that there is a procedure for seasonal workers (or third parties acting
on their behalf) to pursue complaints concerning compliance with the Directive. This latter
requirement may provide opportunities for trade unions to take cases on behalf of their members.
The proposed directive defines a seasonal worker as one whose employment is ‘dependent on the
passing of the seasons’ and includes within that definition highly skilled workers. It is not clear
whether work would be limited to the original work contract or whether, within the period of the
permit, workers could transfer to different employers. One outcome of the directive would mean
that Member States would be required to provide better social security access to seasonal third
country nationals than they do at present.
Trade unions have expressed concern over the proposed directive arguing that in only ensuring
minimum terms and conditions of employment it opens the door to large-scale organised social
dumping and fraud (ETUC statement, October 2010). The statement notes:
‘Workers from third countries are extremely vulnerable to exploitation; it must be ensured
that it is not to their detriment and to the detriment of the local workers, as well as the
migrant workers inside the EU, that companies can take advantage of the single market. A
race to the bottom concerning wages, working conditions and employment and social security
by importing cheap labour into the EU and putting strain on the local workforce and the
industrial relations systems is unacceptable and only legislative proposals ensuring the
contrary can be supported by ETUC.’
EFFAT, together with other European trade unions federations has participated in the writing of
a joint letter to the members of the European Parliament and members of the national
parliaments from all the EU Member States about the current proposal. This document is being
discussed by the European Parliament, the Permanent EU Representations and the national
parliaments. The position of EFFAT's agricultural sector is that, in its current form, the draft
directive correlates with the failed concept of 'circular migration' in that it makes provision for
limited periods of residence in EU Member States and subsequent return to an individual's
country of origin. The European Federation of Building and Woodworkers states:
‘The directive makes no provision for seasonal workers to opt to reside permanently in a host
country and seeks to hinder any sustainable or positive developments in the long term as
regards migration and the integration of workers and their families. The spirit of the directive
discriminates against seasonal workers, classing them merely as a 'disposable' workforce,
thus flying in the face of international standards. Further work on the directive is needed
under the auspices of the DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. The
directive in its current form will not enhance the working conditions of seasonal workers from
third countries in terms of social security, housing and wages.’
41
According to EFFAT the fragmentation of the employment relationship by the EU regulations is
actually creating a lot of uncertainty, gaps and opportunities to circumvent legislation and is
creating inequality based on different treatment for different employment relationships.
42
Posted workers
An experts’ report commissioned by EFFAT on Posted workers in Agriculture has examined in
detail the legal framework regarding posted workers, observing that the idea of posted workers,
who they are and what they do, is ‘poorly apprehended’ but that it is often ‘synonymous with
precarious work and with the growth of unscrupulous organisations that hire workers in order to
send them to other countries without observing existing regulations’. Cremers (2009) found four
different features of posting-related recruitment. Two of these consisted of what are described as
‘normal’ posting or ‘perfectly legal’ posting, however, two fell into the definition of
‘questionable practices of legal posting’ and different types of ‘fake’ posting. The latter two were
associated with the underpayment of wages, long working hours, health and safety risks and poor
accommodation and welfare provisions.
Intra-corporate transfers (ICTs)
In addition to Council Directive 96/71/EC (see above) a second separate proposal to improve
‘intra-corporate’ transfers within companies will affect a far smaller pool of workers (16,000 to
20,000 people), but is expected to have significant benefits for the EU economy, according to
Malmström. The Commission proposes to create a common set of rules for a new fast-track entry
procedure (30 days’ time-limit, combined residence/work permit) for a targeted group of highly
specialised staff (‘manager’, ‘specialist’ and ‘graduate trainee') from non-EU countries. The
proposal also aims at establishing more attractive residence conditions for these staff and their
families and an easier system for non-EU transferees to facilitate their mobility within the EU.
This would be complemented by a clear legal status including the same working conditions as
workers posted by an EU company. EU Member States would remain competent to decide on
numbers of transferees and provisions are foreseen to ensure the temporary feature of the
migrations (three years maximum for specialists and managers, one year for graduate trainees).
The proposed directive has the aim of facilitating the temporary transfer of third-country national
skilled workers from companies located outside the EU to branches or subsidiaries in EU
Member States. Malmström has stated:
‘We need a European approach on labour migration that allows our economies to receive the
migrants they need. Multinational companies operating in Europe need access to the right
people, with the right skills, at the right time, but such key personnel are not always available
locally. The need for these companies to be able to temporarily transfer workers to and within
the EU has become more crucial in recent years. These intra-corporate transferees bring with
them specialist knowledge and skills to Europe, which in turn contributes to strengthening the
European economy and attracting further investments in Member States.’
Intra-corporate transferees are considered a highly relevant category of workers for the EU
economy: they are typically described as specialists and managers, possessing sought-after
knowledge specific to the company, for whom no substitute could be found. According to
proponents of the new directive, the transfer of these qualified employees to the EU has the
potential of increasing investment flows, strengthening management effectiveness, expanding
EU exports, and enhancing the competitiveness of EU entities in overseas markets as well as the
competitiveness of the Union as a whole, which could help to achieve the objectives of the
Europe 2020 Strategy. It is argued that barriers to such temporary migrations remain and that
companies outside the EU are faced with a multitude of different rules and procedures when they
want to send key staff to their subsidiaries within the different EU Member States and that
43
procedures for getting work permits in some EU countries are slow and complex and intracorporate transferees face difficulties in moving between Member States.
44
Migrant workers
A proposal for a single permit law to simplify procedures for residence and work permits for
legal immigrants was rejected by the European Parliament in December 2010. The European
Commission now has to decide whether to withdraw the proposal, present a new one, or try to
keep the current proposal alive. The proposal had been presented to the European Parliament in
October 2010 and the Parliament had asked the Commission to negotiate with the social partners
to ensure that work-related migration became a topic for social policy rather than for security.
The single work permit directive, together with another economic immigration directive -- the
so-called "blue card" for highly skilled migrants -- was meant to facilitate immigration of nonEU citizens to fill gaps in the European Union labour market. In March 2011 a number of NGOs
presented their submission on the proposed revision. While in principle being in favour of such a
directive they are concerned that it:
• Excludes various categories of regularly residing third-country nationals from its scope of
application;
•
Permits EU Member States to limit the equality of treatment in comparison with workers
who are EU citizens; and that it
•
Does not have a provision permitting third-country nationals living and working regularly
in a Member State to have access to effective remedies and compensation for abuses they
may be victims of.
2.7.5 International regulation
International Labour Organisation (ILO)
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) is a significant body at international level
promoting the dignity of workers and highlighting their entitlements to individual and collective
employment rights. In relation specifically to precarious work it adopted Recommendation 198
on the Employment Relationship in June 2006. This recommended that governments formulate
and adopt national policies that establish the existence of an employment relationship,
distinguishing between employed and self-employed workers and combating disguised
employment relationships. While this was a Recommendation only, its importance lies in
drawing attention to the difficulty of identifying the employer, which is particularly problematic
for workers in precarious work.
In 1998 the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work identified four
"principles" as "core" or "fundamental: Freedom of association and collective bargaining,
discrimination, forced labour, and child labour.
ILO Convention 181, the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 and accompanying
Recommendation (No. 188) was an almost forgotten convention but revived at the end of 2009
by the International Organisation of Employers and the International Trade Union Congress. It
requires that governments take measures to ensure adequate protection for agency workers and
importantly for agencies to be officially registered (Cotton, 2010).
There is a significant number of legal instruments at international level which seek to set
standards on the employment relationships to challenge poor practice. These include:
45
•
ILO Convention 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949
and ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise Convention 1948.
•
ILO Conventions and Recommendations on gender equality and decent work.
•
Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) an auditable standard for a third-party verification
system setting out the voluntary requirements to be met by employers in the workplace,
including workers’ rights, workplace conditions and management systems. The
normative elements of this standard being based on national law, international human
rights’ norms and the Conventions of the ILO. Of particular relevance to precarious work
are its clauses on health and safety, freedom of association, remuneration and
management systems.
•
Similarly the Fair Labor Workplace Code of Conduct defines labour standards that aim to
achieve decent and humane working conditions. As with SA8000 and Ruggie’s
framework they are based on ILO standards (see Section 2.7.6 below).
2.7.6 Codes of conduct and other non-legally binding mechanisms
Codes of conduct are non-legally enforceable norms that are non-binding and merely persuasive.
Examples include those attached to Council Recommendations – sexual harassment, equal pay,
race discrimination, childcare and the equitable wage (Eurofound, 2007).
International Framework Agreements (IFAs) have been adopted as a means of clearly
distinguishing the negotiated agreements from the type of voluntary codes of conduct that
corporations were increasingly adopting unilaterally to ostensibly demonstrate their commitment
to corporate social responsibility (CSR) (see below). Around 20 have been signed in recent years
between multinationals and Global Union Federations. Effectively, the idea of partnership
agreements, increasingly popular as an industrial relations tool within individual countries, has
been extended into the global arena (Bibby, 2002). One of the pioneers of such framework
agreements was the French-based multinational Danone which first began negotiations with the
IUF, the global union representing food and allied workers, as long ago as 1985 and has in the
years since then signed separate agreements covering trade union rights, training and
consultation. The Danone agreement covers around 100,000 workers working in the food
processing sector. IUF also has an agreement with the hotel chain Accor, owner of the Ibis,
Novotel and Mercure brands. This covers around 147,000 workers working in the hotel sector.
Other
joint
initiatives
include;
in
the
sugar
sector
EFFAT-CEFS:
http://www.eurosugar.org/en/resp.html; and in the hospitality sector EFFAT-HOTREC:
http://www.effat.eu/files/84ad335536804b74dda233c28cc4fcb8_1149596219.pdf. The Code of
Conduct for the Sugar industry covers a range of issues with specific attention to human rights,
where it states that the industry will comply with ILO principles. It also covers education and
training; the promotion of safe working conditions; social dialogue; fair pay and working
conditions; social dialogue in cases of restructuring; and socially responsible behaviour in
relation to its suppliers.
Within the forestry sub sector of agriculture, ISEAL, the global association for social and
environmental standards systems has a Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and
Environmental
Standards
on
the
basis
of
the
major
stakeholders:
http://www.fsc.org/policy_standards.html. Other codes of conduct cover important issues like
labelling, as for example in the agreement concluded on Fair seasonal work in the German
46
Agriculture sector (Case study 4); and in Ireland, in the Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
sector, with the conclusion of a Fair Hotels Agreement (Case study 7).
47
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies
Corporate Social Responsibility may be a unilateral declaration of intent, formulated and
conceived by management, whereby a responsible business should consider the effect of its
activities on society, although the position of EFFAT is that these should not be unilateral
declarations, as the EFFAT-FERCO agreement makes clear:
‘As CSR initiatives are more likely to have a sustainable impact if major stakeholders are
involved, the planning, implementation and assessment of CSR measures should be jointly
undertaken by management, employee representatives and trade unions, …’
On 31 January 2007, EFFAT and the European Federation of Contract Catering Organisations
(FERCO) signed the ‘FERCO-EFFAT Agreement on Corporate Social Responsibility in the
Contract Catering sector which states: ‘Contract Catering companies are not only responsible for
their products and services, but also for the conditions under which these are produced. Thus
these initiatives and instruments may be seen as tools to improve social dialogue policy and
practice in sectors where institutionalised management-labour relations are still not a common
feature but also where they can serve as an additional tool to commit companies and employers
to social responsibility. Both management and workers have identified at least the following joint
added values to IFAs: to reduce social dumping; to increase adherence to core labour standards;
to raise competitiveness in international markets; to secure good and better workplaces; and to
create alternative dispute resolution mechanisms’. The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
statement for the Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism sector has the aim of going beyond the
legal minimums in relation to equal opportunities and non-discrimination, working conditions
and work organisation, vocational and continuous training, health and safety, restructuring and
social dialogue, also looking at the drivers and obstacles to CSR.
Another example of a CSR policy in the sectors covered by EFFAT is the Global code of ethics
for tourism. Whilst this mainly deals with the issue of sustainable and responsible tourism, Art 9
covers the rights of workers and entrepreneurs in the tourism industry. It states: ‘(1) Fundamental
rights of salaried and self-employed workers in the tourism industry and related industries should
be guaranteed under the supervision of the national and local administrations, both of states of
origin and of host countries. Particular care is to be given to the seasonality of their activity, the
global dimension of their industry and the flexibility often required of them. (2) Rights to
training; adequate social protection; a limit to job insecurity; specific status for social security to
seasonal workers. (3) Entitlement to develop a professional activity; (4) Facilitation of
movement of exchanges of experience’. The code also calls for the recognition of the World
Travel Organisation and proposes that disputes concerning the application or interpretation of the
code are to be referred to an impartial third body – designated as the World Committee on
Tourism Ethics, where the trade unions are represented by the International Union of Food,
Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF).
OECD guidelines
The OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Companies are recommendations addressed by
government to multinational companies. They were revised in May 2011. They cover not only
employee relations but also behaviour towards national governments and consumers. The
updated Guidelines contain a number of positive new elements including a chapter on Human
Rights, the unequivocal application of the Guidelines to suppliers and other business
relationships, the broadened scope of the Employment chapter, stronger rules governing the
48
functioning of the National Contact Points (NCPs) and an enhanced role for the OECD in
implementing the Guidelines. They call on multinational enterprises to respect human rights in
their dealings with employees. Furthermore they state that the employment and industrial
relations provisions of the Guidelines must be brought into full alignment with the ILO Decent
Work Agenda, in particular, as regards precarious work and the need for a living wage, they call
on multinationals to:
•
Respect the internationally recognised human rights of those affected by their activities:
•
Encourage local capacity building through close co-operation with the local community, including
business interests, as well as developing the enterprise’s activities in domestic and foreign markets,
consistent with the need for sound commercial practice;
•
Encourage human capital formation, in particular by creating employment opportunities and
facilitating training opportunities for employees; and
•
Refrain from seeking or accepting exemptions not contemplated in the statutory or regulatory
framework related to human rights, environmental, health, safety, labour, taxation, financial
incentives, or other issues.
On 13 December 2010 the OECD undertook a special consultation with representatives of 42
countries to discuss the issue of human rights, employment and labour, due diligence, supply
chains and procedural provisions.
To help promote the Guidelines, the OECD has created a network of National Contact Points
(NCP). Member State signatories to the guidelines are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Austria, Belgium, Czech Rep., Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Cases of companies’ non-respect of the OECD Guidelines can be brought to the knowledge of
the relevant NCP which can start a complaint procedure, consisting of an initial assessment,
conciliation/mediation/examination and a final statement.
In June 2011 the UN Human Rights Council endorsed the Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights proposed by UN Special Representative Ruggie. This framework on business and
human rights is based on three pillars:
• The state duty to protect against human rights’ abuses by third parties, including
businesses;
•
The corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and
•
Greater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and non-judicial.
Rights at work and collective bargaining at national level
As well as providing good examples in relation to collective bargaining, respondents to the
survey provided some examples of existing or forthcoming national laws that might address
precarious working conditions. The respondents identified areas where legislation in place was
considered as beneficial to precarious workers:
• In relation to pay protection, a new Austrian law, effective from May 2011, provides
part-time workers with a right to overtime pay.
•
In relation to contract type, a Norwegian respondent indicated that their legislation
prioritises permanent contracts.
49
•
In relation to undocumented workers there is provision for the regularisation of
undocumented workers in Spain, Italy and, in France.
•
In relation to temporary workers the right to time off for training in France.
•
In relation to statutory welfare benefits, the legislation on voucher systems, which in Italy
are aimed at providing social welfare rights to casual workers.
•
A proposed law to improve registration systems and controls in relation to the posting of
workers, bogus self-employment and undeclared work in Denmark.
•
Recent legislation which places serious limits on the sub-contracting of workers in
Turkey.
The majority of respondents to the survey reported that in most countries there was a limited
entitlement to all types of rights as shown in Table 2. The main reason for the existence of these
rights was identified as the presence of collective agreements or a strong union presence in the
workplace. There were more entitlements in the areas of health and safety training, general
training, equal pay for equal work and collective bargaining. Fewer entitlements were in accident
insurance, unemployment insurance and health insurance. Precarious workers were reported to
have limited or no entitlement to pensions, access to employment stabilization mechanisms and
seniority rights and unemployment insurance.
Table 2: Types of rights for precarious workers (no of respondents)
No entitlement
Limited entitlement
for
for
precarious workers precarious workers
Right to join and to be represented by a trade union
(freedom of association)
Collective bargaining (coverage and protection by
collective bargaining agreements, right to be part of
bargaining unit)
7
29
7
31
Health insurance
9
27
Pension insurance
10
28
Unemployment insurance
13
27
Accident insurance
12
22
Equal pay for equal work
10
32
Access to employment stabilization mechanisms and
seniority rights
13
29
Health and safety training and protection equipment
at the workplace
8
34
Training
12
33
Source: Questionnaire data
50
Conclusion
This overview of the relevant legislative and regulatory framework demonstrates that there is
already a significant body of law at EU level which could be used to provide protection to
workers in precarious work situations and to deliver equal treatment and decent work to all
workers. However, there are also significant hurdles arising from a combination of weak
enforcement and workers’ fears over raising issues of rights at work in a context of precarity.
This fosters the creation of two-tier workforces that operate so as to exclude some workers from
the full protection of the legislation.
51
PART B – SECTOR ANALYSIS
This section looks in detail at the three sectors and at their experiences of precarious work. It
reports some key statistical data while also utilising information obtained form the questionnaire
survey to EFFAT member organisations.
Respondents by sector identified different forms of work as precarious and this was closely
related to the predominance of that form in the sector. So for example, seasonal work
predominates in agriculture; part-time work in Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism; and
agency work in the Food, Drink and Tobacco sector. Thus the perception of where
precariousness is found also reflects both the size of that particular group and the difficulties
presented in organising such workers. The reasons for the differentiation between sectors is
likely to reflect structural issues such as the varying patterns of labour demand over time,
enterprise size, skill requirements and collective bargaining arrangements. Further work would
be needed to determine which factors are most important.
Figure 11: Forms of work identified with precarious work by sector (in %)
30
25
20
Agriculture
15
HORECA
FBT
10
5
B
og
us
se
lfem
pl
oy
Un
ed
de
cl
ar
ed
w
or
k
xt
ra
s
E
ig
ra
nt
s
M
na
l
as
o
Se
os
te
d
P
ub
-c
on
tra
ct
ed
Ag
en
cy
S
rm
Te
po
ra
ry
Fi
xe
d
Te
m
P
ar
tt
im
e
0
Source: Questionnaire data
In terms of what is likely to happen to precarious work in the future, responses varied by sector.
Those from the Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism and agriculture sectors believed that
precarious work would grow a lot; while a majority in the Food, Drink and Tobacco sector
thought that it would either stay the same or even decrease a little. Thus the growth in precarious
work may be uneven, with some sectors experiencing higher increases than others and may
require different strategies to deal with this. Furthermore, there may be even be differences
within the sectors themselves.
52
Figure 12: Precarious work trends per sector (in %) – over the next five years
Don’t know
Will increase a
lot
Will increase a
little
FBT
HORECA
Will stay the
same
Agriculture
all
Will decrease a
little
Will decrease a
lot
0
10
20
30
40
50
Source: Questionnaire data
There are also country specific differences and while precarious work needs to be addressed
everywhere, it is clear that it is an issue that presents greater challenges in some Member States
compared to others. Where there are effective sector collective agreements it is easier to protect
against the growth of precarious work.
1. AGRICULTURE
Mechanical and technological advances have resulted in dramatic changes in the agricultural
sector in recent years. However, despite this, it continues to be based on a traditional working
model which is leading to more precarious work as well as to discrimination in areas of social
welfare. Its particular, reliance on seasonal work, on migrant labour and on the exploitation of
female labour, are major factors contributing to this situation. For this reason, in 2002, the IUF
and the German IG BAU adopted a Charter of Rights for Migrant Workers in Agriculture, which
demands decent work and equal treatment for migrant workers, regardless of their status.
Additionally, in the view of EFFAT, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has perpetuated
such social injustice by failing to consider workers as one of the policy’s target groups. It is for
this reason that EFFAT is supporting and demanding the reform of CAP.
There is no reason why seasonal workers in the sector should be in precarious work. Indeed,
where they have good job protection and adequate social security to cover their needs in periods
when there is no work, they are not precarious. (For an example of this, see Case study 1 on the
mushroom workers in Ireland). But the reality of seasonal work, for many of Europe’s
agricultural workers, is that it is precarious. Migrant seasonal workers, in particular, have low
access to pension schemes with inadequate arrangements regarding the transferability of
pensions. They often do not have access to the information that they need to know their rights, in
particular those regarding health and safety. Seasonal work, for many migrants, provides poor
personal economic prospects, uncertainty regarding the care of their families, not to mention
poor provision of accommodation during their working period. That is why initiatives like that of
the French trade unions in agriculture, who, in 2008, produced information flyers specifically
aimed at seasonal workers, informing them of the rights, can be effective in addressing
precarious work. (See also Case study 2 on the use of the information coach in France).
53
1.1. Who are the precarious workers in agriculture?
Based on the survey responses precarious workers in agriculture are seasonal, undeclared and
migrant workers, as Figure 13 below shows.
Figure 13: Forms of employment identified as precarious in the Agriculture sub-sectors (in
%)
30
25
Agriculture
20
Horticulture
15
Forestry
10
Aquaculture
5
Bo
gu
s
Ex
tra
s
se
lf em
pl
oy
ed
Un
de
cl
ar
ed
w
or
k
ig
ra
nt
s
M
Se
as
on
al
Po
st
ed
Ag
en
cy
Su
bco
nt
ra
ct
ed
po
ra
ry
xe
d
Te
m
Fi
Pa
rt
tim
e
Te
rm
0
Source: Questionnaire data
Using Broughton’s definition, agriculture (along with hotels and restaurants) has the highest
concentration of ‘very atypical’ workers (Broughton et al., 2010), in particular workers in lowskilled jobs. Overall working conditions are, as a recent EFFAT study on Mobility in the
agricultural sector found, ’poor or even very poor, given the behaviour of some employers
whose main objective is to maximise profit (companies recruiting in their own country and
sending workers to a host country), or to reduce operating costs (non-compliance with rights),
which in turn leads to unfair competition’. The report found that these working conditions,
coupled with unclear information on welfare and social security issues, have represented
obstacles in the mobility of workers, both at national and cross country level. Investigating
migrant labour in Europe’s fruit and olive harvests, Lawrence found workers living ‘on meagre
wages, forced to survive in conditions that would fail to meet the UN’s basic standards for
refugee camps’ (The Guardian, 19 December 2006). Our survey respondents considered that
workers affected slightly or very much by precarious work were women, young workers or older
workers, with very little to choose between them:
Table 3: Categories of workers in Agriculture more vulnerable to precarious work (Nos)
Women
Agriculture
Not affected
Slightly affected
Very much affected
15
22
30
Young people less than 25
Agriculture
Not affected
Slightly affected
very much affected
15
21
31
Slightly affected
Very much affected
Mature workers 50+
Not affected
54
Agriculture
14
19
32
Source: Questionnaire data
Within the sector trade union density and organisation is not uniform, and this and the coverage
of collective bargaining agreements have an additional impact. Where union membership levels
and/or collective bargaining coverage are low, countries tend to fall within all five indicators
referred to at the outset.
1.2 What risks do agriculture workers face and how can they be
protected?
The agricultural sector is one of the most hazardous in Europe for workers (European Agency for
Safety and Health at Work). For example, workers using tractor-driven sprayers to apply plant
protection products on crops are exposed to serious risks to their health. Fatalities in the sector
remain high, with falls from a height; livestock related fatalities; being trapped by falling
materials; and drowning or asphyxiation all being identified as key hazards (OSHA, 2011).
Additionally the patenting of nanoencapsulated pesticides could affect health, as well as the jobs
of many workers in agriculture (and indeed in the food industry). Nanotechnologies and
manufactured nanomaterials may have considerable development and application potential but
they also raise the level of risks to workers in the sector, as there is still no way of providing a
comprehensive assessment of their health and safety risks. EFFAT’s position is that workers
engaged in research, development, manufacture, packaging, handling and transport, will be most
exposed and therefore are most at risk of any harmful effects. It therefore demands that health
and safety at work must have priority in any nonmaterial’s surveillance system.
Migrant workers coming to work in agriculture also face enormous risks, as the deaths at sea of
migrant workers attempting to reach Europe continue to demonstrate. For this reason EFFAT
adopted a resolution: The Mediterranean Sea - a region for peace and solidarity which addresses
the complex series of factors which cause migration, including the lack of jobs and economic
prospects at home and calls for these to be addressed.
The nature of the industry and the risks that it presents means that there is already EU wide
legislation to oblige employers to protect the health of their workers. For example, Article 6 of
framework Council Directive 89/391/EC of 12th June 1989, states that agricultural employers
must take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers: avoiding risks,
evaluating risks which cannot be avoided, combating risks at source and choosing adapted work
equipment. Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7th April 1998, on risks related to chemical agents
(Art. 5) states that the employer must provide suitable equipment for work with chemical agents.
At EU level the social partners in agriculture have reached agreements on measures to improve
health and safety for workers in the sector. A framework agreement on the improvement of paid
employment in agriculture recommends that the social partners should engage in collective
bargaining over preventing occupational risks specific to the sector. An EU level agreement on
the reduction of workers' exposure to the risk of work-related musculo-skeletal disorders in
agriculture was also adopted in 2005. However, the growth of precarious work in the sector is a
challenge to health and safety, as workers who are in precarious employment are less likely to be
represented and are thus also less likely to challenge employer practices that may put them at
risk.
The sector is also heavily reliant on EU subsidies and while Hein (2005), in his feasibility study
on sanctions against farmers, viewed these as an ineffective method of achieving compliance, he
was of the view that were the Commission to include national occupational standards within the
55
criteria to be met for the awarding of subsidies, it would be an effective method of enforcing
compliance.
56
1.3 How many people work in agriculture in Europe?
The nature of the agriculture sector means that it is more difficult to provide an accurate
assessment of the numbers employed in it, due to a range of factors, in particular the seasonal
nature of the work, which causes very widespread variations in employment levels in the course
of a year. In addition temporary agency labour deployed within agriculture may be identified as
working in business services. Agri-info Portal data (see Table 4) demonstrates the importance of
seasonal employment to the sector4.
Table 4: Agri-info data 2007
Employers
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Switzerland
Cyprus
Czech Rep
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Spain
Finland
France
UK
Greece
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Iceland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
10,597
4,471
5,000
50,000
15,000
3,000
100,000
141,256
78,000
292,626**
60,000
246,758
1,035**
3,500
23,388
127
Employees
Full-time
18,600
9,000
44,000
18,400
5,200
176,000
530,000
35,000
15,000
125,000
5,000
276,443
192,000
10,000
35,000
86,850
4,250
500
68,000
3,000
3,641
28,000
300
80,000
1,500
92,000
35,000
128,000
24,000
3,708
Seasonal
9,100
10,000
100,000
12,300
8,000
5,100
300,000
12,000
2,500
600,000
10,000
1,170,079
120,000
100,000
2,000
7,040
15,000
n/a
850,000
19,000
200
22,400
300
400,000
20,000
37,500
105,000
35,000
19,000
n/a
4
Full-time employees are defined as workers employed by the company for eight months or longer and
seasonal/precarious are workers employed for less than eight months For more information see agri-info.eu.
57
Slovakia
Turkey
Total
3,940
1,038,698
70,000
700,000
2,823,392
5,000
522,000
4,509,519
Source: Agri.info (2007-2009)
Eurostat data suggests that employment in agriculture decreased by 25 per cent between 2000
and 2009 (Eurostat, 66/2010) but that in the same period production increased by four per cent
(Eurostat, 18/2010), suggesting that work in agriculture has intensified, as well as being more
mechanised. The European Labour Force Survey also shows that there has been a substantial
decrease in the number of employees in the sector, although not everywhere is this the case.
Indeed in Finland, Greece, Sweden, Turkey and the UK employment in agriculture increased
between 2007 and 2009. In France and Slovenia employment decreased between 2007 and 2008
but then increased again in 2009, demonstrating the volatile nature of employment in the sector.
Table 5: Employment in Agriculture
2007
2008
2009
% inc/(decrease) over
3 year period
Austria
231277
220050
214325
(7)
Belgium
81300
69050
65750
(19)
Czech Republic
176255
158787
153787
(13)
Denmark
83400
72850
70700
(15)
Estonia
30900
25325
24025
(23)
Finland
112775
114600
118564
+5
France
879850
704125
752200
(15)
Germany
858975
690075
648800
(25)
Greece
519725
516850
536550
+3
Hungary
183000
169250
175750
(4)
Iceland
10500
8600
8675
(18)
Ireland
116900
112125
95600
(18)
Italy
923750
895250
874361
(5)
Luxembourg
3750
3350
2875
(23)
Netherlands
241825
223600
218075
(10)
Norway
69750
69500
67250
(4)
Poland
2246750
2206250
2107250
(7)
Portugal
601400
581227.5
564755
(6)
Slovak Republic
99275
96275
84900
(14)
Slovenia
96350
85175
88975
(8)
Spain
925525
818900
786050
(15)
Sweden
87333
101200
97583
+10
Switzerland
157413
159277
152709
(2)
Turkey
4871500
5022250
5252250
+7
Time
Country
58
TOTAL
398500
423500
455500
+12.5
14007979
13547442
13617260
(3)
Source: OECD, February 2011
59
Although the figures recorded by agri-info differ from the figures officially recorded, pointing to
differences in data sources and in definitions of ‘employees’, in five countries the official
statistics appear to under-represent the numbers employed and the size of the seasonal labour
force seems to make the difference, in particular for France and Italy.
Table 6: Countries where official statistics may represent an under-estimate
Country
OECD stats*
Agri-info stats*
Czech Republic
162,943
181,100
Germany
732616
830,000
France
778,725
1,446,522
Italy
897,787
918,000
Luxembourg
3,325
3,841
Netherlands
227,833
480,000
*Averaged over the period 2007-09
1.4 What is the future for precarious work in agriculture?
Survey respondents from the agriculture sector were of the view that precarious work would
continue to grow but that it would affect some areas more than others. Horticulture was
identified as a sub-sector where precarious work would increase significantly, whereas
aquaculture was seen as more likely to stay as it was. This differentiation within the sector is
important as it indicates that trends for the sector are not uniform and that unions believe that
some areas will be more challenged through the growth of precarious work than others.
Figure 14: Precarious work trends in agriculture (in %)
45
40
35
Agriculture all
30
25
Agriculture
20
Horticulture
15
10
Forestry
5
Aquaculture
0
Will
decrease a
little
Will stay the Will increase Will increase
same
a little
a lot
Don’t know
Source: Questionnaire data
60
2. HOTELS, RESTARUANTS, CATERING, TOURISM (HORECA)
Workers in the Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism sector can be in precarious work,
particularly if they are temporary, casual or seasonal workers. At its Tourism Sector Meeting in
Budapest in April 2011 EFFAT member organisations adopted a series of practices and
initiatives to combat precarious work in the sector. These included a call for provisions in
collective agreements to limit or prevent precarious work and for the particular targeting of low
paid and precarious workers within such agreements. Taking best practice examples, like those
of McDonalds in Austria (see Case Study 9) and the Fair Hotels initiative in Ireland (see Case
Study 7) delegates also supported the call for collective agreements to apply to all categories of
workers and for social partner joint monitoring of the application of agreements. Specifically the
meeting called for the extension of the length of seasonal employment; for the licensing of hotel
and restaurant owners; for the social labelling of hotels; and for the adoption of social criteria
into hotel classifications systems.
2.1 Who are the precarious workers in the Hotels, Restaurants,
Catering, Tourism sector?
Workers in Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism are likely to be low paid, working unsocial
hours with few opportunities for skills’ or career development. Income in tourism is on average
20 per cent lower than in other sectors, while a striking number of the working poor is employed
in hospitality.
Figure 15: Income level: comparison between the Hotel and restaurant sector and other
sectors
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Low est
Low
Hotels and restaurants
High
Highest
All sectors
Source: Eurostat, 2009
In most EU countries the sector records a higher proportion of workers in precarious situations,
either because they are working seasonally, with no protection when not in work, or they are
women working part time on low wages, as both women and part-time work are overrepresented in the sector. Added to this around 30 per cent of the workforce is on temporary
contracts.
The survey respondents from Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism also identified part-time,
temporary and undeclared work in the sector as precarious. But again there were differences in
61
relation to sub parts of the sector, with catering identifying temporary agency work as most
likely to be precarious, while for restaurants and hotels it was part-time work.
Figure 16: Forms of employment identified with precarious work in the Hotels,
Restaurants, Catering, Tourism sub sectors (in %)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hotels
Catering
or
k
ed
s
la
ec
nd
s
gu
Bo
U
se
l f-
em
re
d
pl
w
oy
tr a
Ex
ts
ig
M
as
ra
n
on
al
ed
st
Su
b-
Se
ra
co
nt
Ag
y
ra
r
po
Te
m
Po
ed
ct
cy
en
Te
d
xe
Fi
Pa
rt
ti m
rm
e
Restaurants
Source: Questionnaire data
Women are clustered in the low skilled, low paid end of the sector and many of the lowest paid
and lowest status jobs in hotels are dominated by women (Paraskevopoulou et al., 2011). There
is a below average percentage of women managers partly reflecting its deep-rooted division of
labour (Lucas and Mansfield, 2008)
Figure 17: Employment characteristics by gender for 2008
Source: Eurostat, 2009
The sector also employs a large number of young people, as well as students working without
social security cover and migrant workers on exceptionally low pay. (Eurofound, 2004). More
recent national studies in UK and France have identified hotels and restaurants as significant
employers of student labour – often during term time as well as vacations (Bérail, 2007, Atfield
et al., 2011).
The sector also employs a high proportion of young workers, while at the same time it is less
likely to employ those in the 55+ age group. Studies identify the prevalence of age
discrimination (Martin and Gardiner, 2007).
62
Figure 18: Employment characteristics, Hotel and Restaurants, by age
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
less than 24 years
25-39 years
40-54 years
Hotels and restaurants
55 years
All sectors
Source: Eurofound, 2008a
Self-employment is higher in the sector than the average, while permanent employment is lower.
Figure 19: Employment characteristics, hotel and restaurants, by type of contract and type
of employment
90
80
70
60
50
Hotels and restaurants
40
All sectors
30
20
Em
ployee
Self-
Employment contract
em
ployed
Non-
perm
anent
0
Perm
anent
10
Type of Employment
Eurofound, 2008a
Survey respondents were also asked to identify which groups of people they considered as
particularly vulnerable, choosing from women, young workers or older workers. In Hotels,
Restaurants, Catering, Tourism the responses overwhelmingly identified young workers as very
much affected and vulnerable to precarious work. They viewed women workers and older
workers as at similar levels of risk.
Table 6: Categories of workers in HORECA more vulnerable to precarious work (Nos)
Women
HORECA
Not affected
Slightly affected
Very much affected
2
5
10
Young people less than 25
HORECA
Not affected
Slightly affected
Very much affected
4
16
36
Not affected
Slightly affected
Very much affected
2
5
10
Mature workers 50+
HORECA
Source: Questionnaire data
63
In terms of income, the wages of workers in Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism are
significantly lower than the average for other sectors. Thus, in terms of the five indicators
identified in PART A of this report, Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism demonstrates a
higher likely level of precarious work. This makes precarious work a large-scale problem and
challenge for the sector.
2.2 What risks do Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism workers face
and how can they be protected?
Workers in Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism face the high risk of job insecurity. The sector
is very dependent of external factors, which it is not within its ability to control. Economic
recession, for example, hit the sector particularly hard post 2007, with business closures and
contraction having an impact on jobs. Workers in the sector also work very long hours,
particularly when in season, and long working hours are associated with health risks, as is
undeclared work (Brenner, 2006) which is prevalent in the sector. Many workers in the sector are
mobile and one of the factors that impacts on their ability to work is the extent to which their
skills and qualifications can be recognised, particularly when they cross borders to work. This is
one of the issues addressed by EFFAT and highlighted below.
As a measure aimed at protecting workers in relation to long working hours, the ILO Working
conditions (hotels and restaurants) Convention 1991 (No. 172) and its associated Convention on
Working Conditions (Hotels and Restaurants) Convention, 1991 (No. 172) together with
Recommendation No. 179 deal with issues related to working time (overtime regulations and rest
periods as well as the reconciliation of working time with family life), regular remuneration, and
the promotion of training schemes, in cooperation with employers' and workers' organizations.
The ILO has also been responsible for the organisation of tripartite sectoral meetings on the
effects on new technologies on those working in the sector and on globalisation and its impact on
the sector.
In the context of the sectoral social dialogue committee (SSDC) for the European hotel and
restaurant sector a number of joint declarations have been reached by EFFAT and the employer
organisation HOTREC. The parties signed the groundbreaking joint “EFFAT - HOTREC Joint
declaration on EU-Enlargement”5 in 2002, in anticipation of EU enlargement, which
acknowledged that the same regulations, as laid down in law and/or collective agreements,
should be applied to any worker at a given location, whether they are nationals of EU Member
States or of the candidate countries. The declaration also condemned undeclared work and
supported any initiatives from affiliated organisations aimed at avoiding exploitation and social
dumping. Although such joint declarations are not legally binding, the parties report that they
have been able to use it to monitor the cross border flow of workers, where this was viewed at
leading to the unfair treatment of migrant workers and to social dumping.
On 3 December 2010, following a joint survey on the scope of and reasons for undeclared work
in the hospitality sector, the parties signed a Joint EFFAT-HOREC Statement on Undeclared
Work in the European Hotel and Restaurant Sector. EFFAT regards this joint statement as
sending a political signal from the social partners, in one of the sectors with the highest rates of
undeclared work. The statement supports a range of social partner initiatives, including joint
information campaigns and awareness raising; joint engagement in measures to prevent and
combat undeclared work; collection and dissemination of examples of successful measures to
5
Joint Declaration on EU Enlargement, 22 November 2002
64
combat undeclared work in the sector, including feeding them into the Eurofound 'knowledge
bank' of cases6; joint declarations, calling for the alleviation of fiscal and administrative burdens
and of taxation on the workforce / non-wage costs; simplification of administrative procedures
relating to recruitment and to the management of companies; incentives for regular work; and
adequate inspection and sanction mechanisms.
EFFAT and HOTREC have also been working on a ‘European Qualification and Skills' Passport
(QSP) for the sector. They agree that such a passport would allow workers to document their
qualifications and skills, acquired through education and vocational training and on the job;
allow employers to assess the skills and experiences of job candidates from their own and other
EU countries; facilitate a better match of offer and demand on the labour market; and enhance
the mobility of workers within the European Union. The parties have translated the skills' lists
for each area of services into the languages of the pilot countries; and are seeking funding for the
rolling out and testing of the QSP. Countries interested in participating in the experimentation
phase of the QSP have been identified. For the sector it is clear that if workers who want to work
in other countries possess such a passport, which documents their qualifications and skills
acquired on the job, it would make it easier for them to be paid based on their competencies, as
well as making it easier for trade unions to support them in that.
2.3 How many people work in Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
in Europe?
The Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism sector has witnessed considerable growth in recent
years and it thus plays an important role as a key sector for employment and for future growth.
Whereas the employment growth rate in 2003/04 was just 0.6 per cent in the overall EU
economy, it was 4.0 per cent in the Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism sector (EASHW,
2008). In terms of the general structural characteristics of the industry, the hotel and restaurant
sector consists of 1.7 million businesses, employing over nine million people across the EU-27
countries (see Table 7). And this figure represents 8.3 percent of the non-financial markets
(Eurostat, 2009). Tourism is considered as the third largest socio-economic activity in the EU,
after the trade and distribution and construction sectors, and is estimated to generate over 10 per
cent of the EU’s GDP and to provide approximately 12 per cent of all jobs (European
Commission, 2010a).
Table 7: Number of enterprises and number of employees in the Tourist sector in 2006 (in
1000s)
Number of
enterprises (000s)
Number
of
persons
employed (000s)
Hotels and restaurants
1 682
9 266
Hotels; camping sites, other provision of
short-stay accommodation
259
2 287
Restaurants; bars; canteens and catering
1 423
6 978
Source: Eurostat 2009
In terms of country distribution, the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and France represent those with
the largest share of the sector in the EU, with 70 per cent of the total EU workforce.
6
Tackling undeclared work in the European Union
65
Table 8: Top 5 EU countries in terms of employment and value-added
No of employees (in 1000)
Value added
in (EU millions)
EU 27
9 266
181 912
UK
1 927
(21%)
41 710
(23%)
Germany
1 316
(14%)
23 225
(13%)
Spain
1 259
(13%)
25 172
(14%)
Italy
1 155
(12%)
21 993
(12%)
France
915
(10%)
28 529
(16%)
Source: Eurostat 2009
However, In spite of the increasing presence of large hotel chains and franchises and the success
of fast-food restaurants, more than 90 per cent of companies in the sector are small businesses,
usually family run, each employing around ten employees or less.
2.4 What is the future for precarious work in Hotels, Restaurants,
Catering, Tourism?
Respondents to the survey believed that precarious work in Hotels, Restaurants, Catering,
Tourism would increase over the next five years and, compared to the other two sectors, there
was less variation in terms of where they thought that the increases would occur. Although it was
felt to be marginally more likely in restaurants, hotels and catering also produced high levels of
response.
Figure 20: Precarious work trends (%) – in the next five years
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
HORECA
Hotels
Catering
Restaurants
Will stay
Wil l
Will
Don’t know
Will
decrease a the same increase a increase a
l ittle
littl e
l ot
Source: Questionnaire data
66
Significantly a very low proportion of respondents believed that precarious work would decrease
or stay the same.
67
3. FOOD, DRINK AND TOBACCO
Precarious work in Food, Drink and Tobacco is on the increase, particularly in the European
Meat sector and in other labour-intensive food sub-sectors is on the increase, according to
EFFAT. The EFFAT Roadmap to combat social dumping in the European Meat Industry notes
that social dumping is ‘a complex issue that can be attributed to multiple factors’, including
migration, precarious work, inadequate legislation and implementation, workplace
discrimination, abusive practices by some employment agencies, inadequate work inspections,
irresponsible employers, bogus self-employment, obstacles to unionisation and criminal gang
masters. The Roadmap commits EFFAT member organisations to promoting new organising
models; providing information to workers; social dialogue and trade union collaborations; and to
a full agenda on collective bargaining issues which address and combat precarious work. The
Position of the General Assembly of the EFFAT Food Trade Unions at its meeting held in Alvor
in May 2011, noted that social dumping had led to the creation of large numbers of vulnerable
workers; that it encouraged the spread of gang-masters; that it undermined decent work and
social inclusion; caused closures, collective redundancies and relocations; and that it was causing
serious economic and labour market distortions – in particular that it posed a threat to the quality
of EU meat products, leading to a growth in tax evasion and undermining on collective
bargaining and on trade union organisation. This strong warning, as to what is happening in the
sector, is of concern not just to EFFAT members but to all EU citizens.
At the same time particular national contexts are important in influencing the quality of jobs in
the sector. For example, in France, a high level of collective bargaining coverage, together with
effective employment protection legislation, where all the national rules apply without
derogations, ensure that the sector is characterised by a quite low proportion of low-wage
workers on average, according to a study of the meat sector by Caroli et al. (2009).
Responding to the challenge of precarious work, unions in EFFAT have concluded agreements,
such as those in the canned vegetables and fish sector in Spain (see Case study 19) and on
combating social dumping in Denmark (Case study 16).
3.1 Who are the precarious workers in the Food, Drink and Tobacco
sector?
Precarious workers in this sector are more likely to be low skilled, with low rates of pay. They
are also more likely to move jobs more frequently. The sector has a higher than average
concentration of employees with only primary education (10.2 per cent compared with an
average of 5.3 per cent for all sectors). The survey respondents pointed to a more even
distribution of fixed-term, temporary agency, sub-contracted, seasonal and undeclared work
across the five sub-sectors Food, Drink and Tobacco than was the case for Hotels, Restaurants,
Catering, Tourism and Agriculture. In the chocolate industry, seasonal workers were considered
as more likely to be in precarious work; in the beverages and dairy sub-sectors it was temporary
agency workers; and in the meat industry and tobacco, it was fixed-term workers.
68
Figure 21: Forms of employment identified as precarious in the Food, Drink and Tobacco
sub-sectors (in %)
25
20
15
10
5
Meat
Dairy
Chocolate
Beverages
or
k
w
ar
ed
Un
de
cl
Bo
gu
s
se
lf em
pl
o
ye
d
Ex
tra
s
ig
ra
nt
s
M
Se
as
on
al
Po
st
ed
Su
bco
nt
ra
ct
ed
Ag
en
cy
po
ra
ry
d
Te
m
Fi
xe
Pa
rt
tim
e
Te
rm
0
Tobacco
Source: Questionnaire data
In terms of income levels, it has a higher proportion of workers falling into the medium–low
income band (36.9%) than the average for all sectors (23.9 per cent). Similarly, a much lower
proportion of workers is in the highest income category (14.9%) again in comparison to all
sectors (24.3 per cent).
Figure 22: Income level: comparison between the Food, Drink and Tobacco sector and
other sectors
Source: Eurofound, Fourth European conditions Survey, 2005
Working conditions vary within the sector. In some areas, where unionisation levels are high, the
sector operates under good standards. However, there are other areas where conditions are very
poor. An Inquiry into the meat and poultry processing sectors, by the Equality and Human Rights
Commission in the UK for example, found cases of pregnant women being forced to stand for
long hours in factory production lines without breaks and having to perform heavy lifting under
threat of dismissal; meat factory workers having frozen hamburgers "like stones" thrown at them
by line managers; women with heavy periods being refused toilet breaks so that they bled on
their clothes on the production lines; workers with bladder problems refused breaks so that they
urinated on themselves; and workers exposed to verbal and physical abuse (Lawrence, 2010).
69
According to another study, almost 50% of workers in meat processing in Germany are lowwaged (Grunert et al., 2009).
Job turnover is considerably higher than for other sectors, 37 per cent compared to the average of
27 per cent (Eurofound, 2008). However, there is a higher incidence of permanent contracts,
compared to the other two EFFAT sectors studied and there is a smaller proportion of workers
who are self-employed people in the sector, as Figure 23 indicates.
Figure 23: Employment contract and type of employment (%)
Source: Eurofound, Fourth European conditions Survey, 2005
In terms of demographic distribution female employment is higher for the Food, Drink and
Tobacco sector. Compared to the overall manufacturing sector, female employment in the Food,
Drink and Tobacco sector (39 per cent) is much higher than the total in manufacturing (28 per
cent) while 12 per cent of employees are part-time, compared to seven per cent in the overall
sector (European Commission, 2008).
As in the other two sectors, survey respondents were also asked to identify which groups of
people they considered as particularly vulnerable, choosing from women, young workers or older
workers. In Food, Drink and Tobacco they were slightly more likely to identify young workers
as very much affected and vulnerable to precarious work. Older workers were the next category
identified as very much affected, however they were less likely to be identified as ‘slightly
affected’, compared to women workers
Table 9: Categories of workers in Food, Drink and Tobacco more vulnerable to precarious
work (Nos)
Women
FDT
Not affected
Slightly affected
Very much affected
41
28
20
Young people less than 25
FDT
Not affected
Slightly affected
Very much affected
31
34
28
Not affected
Slightly affected
Very much affected
40
25
24
Mature workers 50+
FDT
Source: Questionnaire data
Taking the above into account, workers in FBT would come within at least four of the five
indicators of precarious work identified in PART A of this report,
70
3.2 What risks do Food, Drink and Tobacco workers face and how can
they be protected?
Workers in Food, Drink and Tobacco risk being involved in food contamination if they work in
an environment where health and safety and, in particular, where good hygiene is not promoted.
The absence of good hygiene standards put both them, and the eventual consumers of what they
produce, at risk. That is why within the food sector a major focus of the legislation has been on
the promotion of food safety, with European Community Food Hygiene Regulations replacing
the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995.
A significant area of change has been in the requirement for food businesses to have a
documented food safety management system, showing what is done to ensure the food provided
is safe to eat, and this must be written down. Cooperation between European trade unions
(extension of the joint declaration against social and wage dumping made in Hamburg in spring
2005), as well as the establishment of cooperation aiming at improving food safety between
EFFAT and the national trade unions active in the meat sector, represent an important element in
the protection of workers in the sector.
3.3 How many people work in Food, Drink and Tobacco in Europe?
The Food, Drink and Tobacco sector is one of the largest manufacturing sectors within the EU,
with an annual turnover of €965 billion. It is also an important European exporter, with export
values currently standing at around €58 billion. However, the export market is facing increasing
competition from the growing markets of China and Brazil (European Commission, 2008). The
structure the Food, Drink and Tobacco industry is fragmented, consisting of around 310,000
industries, with a high number of small businesses that serve mainly local, regional and national
markets (CIAA (now Food, Drink Europe), 2009). The food sub-sector itself consists of around
17 million different holdings/enterprises, that generate 750 billion euro of value added,
equivalent to around six per cent of the GDP of the EU27 (Eurostat, 2011). There are a relatively
small number of large companies in the sector in Europe; these include Nestle, Unilever, Diageo,
Danone, InBev, Cadbury, Heineken, Lactalis and Associated British Foods (Eurostat, 2009).
The Food, Drink and Tobacco sector is also a key employer in Europe, with more than four
million workers within the EU (Eurostat, 2009). The sector is divided into three main subsectors, food (with a 78 per cent turnover share), beverages (14 per cent turnover share) and
tobacco (eight per cent turnover share) (European Commission, 2008). The Table provides
employment data in the different sub-sectors:
Table 10: Number of enterprises and employees in the EU FDT sector
Enterprises
Persons employed
Food, Drink and Tobacco (Total)
308,600 (100%)
4,700,000 (100%)
Food products and beverages
308,300 (99.9%)
4,644,900 (98.8%)
Meat and meat products
44,000 (14.3%)
1,000,000 (21.3%)
Processed and preserved fish and fish products
4,000 (1.3%)
129,400 (2.8%)
Dairy products
13,000 (4.2%)
400,000 (8.5%0
Bread, sugar, confectionary and other food products
192,400 (62%)
2,059,000 (43.8%)
Miscellaneous food products
32,300 (10.5%)
603,300 (12.8%)
71
Drink
22,000 (7.1%)
460,000 (9.8%)
Tobacco products
300 (0.1%)
64,000 (1.4%)
Source: Eurostat, 2009
The countries with the largest number of employees in the sector are Germany, France, Italy,
Poland and the UK, who together account for 59 per cent of all employment in the sector in the
EU
Figure 24: EU countries with the largest number of FDT employees in %
Countries with largest number of persons eployed in FBT
9
18
9
10
Germany
13
France
Italy
Poland
UK
Source: Eurostat, 2009
3.4 What is the future for precarious work in Food, Drink and Tobacco?
The sector contains a large number of small and medium sized businesses. However, changing
consumer habits make the future for the sector less certain. Health-targeted policies have
resulted, for example, in a fall in the annual consumption of sugar in Europe from 38.8 kilos per
head in 2005 to 37.9 in 2009 (Südzuker, 2010). In relation to tobacco, OECD data (2011) shows
that, save in France and in Poland, European consumption has fallen. A contracting market puts
pressure on businesses to cut costs and would thus contribute to a growth of precarious work in
the sector. Most respondents to the survey believed that precarious work in the meat sector
would increase at least a little over the next five years. With reference to the tobacco sub-sector
there were different positions, with about the same number expecting a decrease as expected an
increase. In Chocolate the expectation was that the level of precarious working would stay the
same or increase a little. But in general, compared to Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism and
Agriculture, respondents had a more positive outlook with regard to the future growth of
precarious work.
Figure 25: Precarious work trends (in %) – in the next five years: the FDT sector
compared with the FDT sub sectors
72
60
50
FBT
40
Meat
Dairy
30
Chocolate
Beverages
20
Tobacco
10
0
Will decrease a
little
Will stay the
same
Will increase a
little
Will increase a
lot
Don’t know
Source: Questionnaire data
73
PART C – CASE STUDIES
AGRICULTURE
Case study 1:
Winning equality for workers in the mushroom industry
Country:
Ireland
Sector:
Agriculture
___________________________________________________________
Background
SIPTU, the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical union is the largest trade union in
Ireland, with a membership of more than 200,000. It covers virtually every category of
employment across almost every sector of the Irish economy. The SIPTU Manufacturing
Division represents 50,000 workers in Ireland across many industries including Agriculture,
Meat Processing, Dairying, Mushrooms, Food and Drink, Industrial Production, Electronics,
Engineering, Pharmaceuticals, Chemicals, Medical Devices and manufacturing generally. The
Manufacturing Division negotiates collectively with companies, both directly and at sectoral
level. The Agri Business, Dairy & Meat is one of the five sectors in the manufacturing division
and covers the mushroom industry. A full-time manufacturing divisional officer is responsible
for the sector but the union also employs specialist organisers with language knowledge useful
for communication with workers in the mushroom industry. SIPTU’s membership had seen a fall
following the economic recession of 2007, with some construction-related sectors particularly
hard hit. However the manufacturing sector has recently shown a significant recovery and
although the number of new jobs created has not made up for the previous loss of members, the
union is recruiting in some sectors, in particular in meat and in mushrooms – the latter being the
subject of this case study.
Context
Ireland has always had a small mushroom industry, mainly based around individual farmer
producers. However in the last decade the industry has grown significantly. In particular some
larger employers had expanded their activities around the mushroom industry. From an estimated
workforce of around 1,200 it has grown to around 3,000 workers. The campaign to secure a
collective agreement covering workers in the mushroom industry began following approaches to
SIPTU by individual workers who were facing exploitation at work. These workers suffered low
wages and abusive conditions, including overcrowding in accommodation provided by the
employer. The workers who approached the union were mainly female and migrant (an estimated
95%) Many had been in Ireland for a number of years and intended to stay. They were often
older than the migrant labour force as a whole and less well placed to change jobs. Often they
had families and children back in their home countries that they were supporting through their
work. They found it difficult to enforce whatever employment rights they had. At the same time
it has remained a sector where they feel relatively safe and also know that if they leave to return
home there will still be work for them when they go back to Ireland.
74
Employers had also been using strategies to reduce labour costs, for example, registering in the
South of Ireland, while conducting their business and utilising workers in the North, so as to
avoid social welfare payments and in some cases to fraudulently avoid tax.
SIPTU eventually concluded a collective agreement with the employers which covers the major
employers in the sector. How this came about and what it delivers is the subject of this case
study.
The campaign was initiated in 2008 with the union launching a campaign
highlighting the pay rights to which mushroom workers were entitled. It also
supported claims to employment tribunals which were won by the workers. In
2008 its original recruitment campaign was launched, recruiting some 900
members. One organiser from the department was assigned to the campaign. The
campaign’s objectives were to increase union density and structure; to develop
new and existing worksite leaders; and to re-assess the industry-wide terms and
conditions. In 2010 the campaign was revisited and re-designed and an organiser
from the Strategic Organising Department was assigned to also work on the
campaign. Some 742 workers were consulted with 50 visits to farms completed
and 116 worker meetings held. 135 new members have been recruited and 16
workplace representatives have been accredited. Today there are at more than 20
Registered Employment Agreements with individual farms in the Mushroom
industry that ensure that members receive no less than the minimum rates of pay
and terms and conditions of employment contained in the agreements.
Previously there were cases like that of a worker earning as little as €200 a week
Outcomes
The initiative has involved discussions with the employers and work with NGOs over a number
of years. The union has also worked with the National Employment Relations Agency (NERA)
to ensure that poor treatment in the industry is eliminated. The agreements with employers give
workers covered, the guarantee of a minimum working week of 30 hours and a maximum of 48.
Pay has improved substantially. An agreement between Dimbrawn Mushrooms and SIPTU,
registered in 2007, is now generally applicable throughout the industry and covers pay, hours,
holiday, sick pay, rest periods and overtime pay7. The union has worked with the equality
authorities and produced leaflets in different languages highlighting workers’ rights in the
industry. Additionally it has ensured that workers not covered by them get their rights under the
agriculture scheme which sets down basic terms and conditions. Workers earn around €10 an
hour and have reasonable holiday entitlements, giving them the opportunity to return home. They
are covered for sickness. Health and safety has been improved and the use of harmful chemicals
has ceased. Workers receive health and safety training; bullying and harassment is no longer
tolerated; working hours have improved. Union membership has grown significantly and the
density level is at over 50%.
Organising this group of workers has required significant resources. The union initially had
appointed one organiser with a knowledge of Russian and Latvian but the amount of work that
needed to be done in providing one to one support and advice to the workers concerned has led
to the appointment of a second organiser. Workers in those areas where the collective agreement
does not apply still have issues over annual leave, pay, health and safety and knowledge of
7
See: http://www.employmentrights.ie/en/informationforemployees/industryspecificinformation/mushrooms/
75
employment rights. In total three officials are involved in the project and the union sees its work
in this area as long term.
Major challenges faced by the union include, the prevalence of small employers, high levels of
turnover among some sections of the workforce, particularly those with English language skills
who can move on; communication difficulties as many workers do not speak English; the fact
that many workers were frightened to confront their employer. The size of the migrant workforce
had meant that workers who were arriving in Ireland could insert themselves in the sector
without having to learn English. But this also trapped them within the industry and had kept
them on lower wages.
The union now offers training in the English language and is now moving to a position where
this will enable the workers themselves to begin to deal with the day to day problems that
members are continuing to face at work. The appointment of a second organiser with appropriate
language skills has made the job of organising this group of workers easier. In an interview with
one of the organisers she expressed the view that having two people had made the work that they
could do much more effective. However, the organiser made it clear that collective agreements
need constantly to be monitored if they are to be effective and this requires significant input, at
the moment from full-time officials.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
The workers concerned have achieved a significant improvement in their terms and conditions
and the fear factor which was there in the past has been countered through the organising
activities of the union.
As indicated above the union has had an increase in its membership in the industry and is
continuing to recruit. The number of employers covered by the agreement is continuing to rise as
new organising activities are undertaken. The target is to achieve an 80-90 per cent density leve
l for union membership; something which the senior union organiser believes can be achieved,
particularly if the strategy of building the capacity of workers to take over from the full-time
officials is successful.
The main changes identified by the union are an increase membership and collective bargaining
coverage and a reduction of abusive practices in the sector.
This is not seen by the union as a one-off initiative. It has already invested five years of
organising activity into this group of workers and intends to continue to grow membership and
collective bargaining in the area. Ten farms, which had already signed up to the RA were revisited for organising purposes in the first half of 2011 and training for lay organisers was to be
completed by July 2011.
One of the things that the union’s initiative has done is to make it more aware of the power of the
supermarkets to bring their muscle to bear against employers in the food sector. In particular the
union worked with the supermarket Tesco and found this contact useful in securing agreements
with the food suppliers. Involving the end chain users has therefore become one of the strategies
of the union’s organising campaigns. The union has also increased its involvement with the
Ethical Trading Initiative.
SIPTU is clearly committed to its strategy for the mushroom sector. The fact that it has achieved
membership increases is important to it. Is also aware of the fact that this is an industry that
cannot easily be transferred elsewhere and that employers have to come to some form of
settlement to ensure that they have the workers that they need.
76
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews were conducted with SIPTU officials.
Additional resources:
Siptu website: www.siptu.ie
Agreement, effective currently between the union and a mushroom employer in Tipperary, see:
http://www.siptu.ie/divisions/manufacturing/.
The website of the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) was also consulted, see:
http://www.employmentrights.ie/en/.
77
Case study 2:
Extending rights to seasonal agricultural workers through a
collective agreement
Country:
France
Sector:
Agriculture
___________________________________________________________
Background
France has five main representative trade union confederations, and each has its own national
federations covering different sectors of the economy. In the case of the agricultural sector the
five confederations and their sector unions are: La Fédération générale agroalimentaire CFDT,
La Fédération générale des travailleurs de l'agriculture, de l'alimentation et des secteurs
connexes FO, La Fédération des syndicats chrétiens des organismes et professions de
l'agriculture CFTC, Le Syndicat national des cadres d'entreprises agricoles CFE/CGC, La
Fédération nationale agroalimentaire et forestière CGT. These unions negotiated the collective
agreement on seasonal workers with five employer organisations: the Fédération nationale des
syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), the Fédération nationale des entrepreneurs de
travaux agricoles ruraux et forestiers (FNETARF), the Fédération nationale des coopératives
d'utilisation de matériel agricole (FNCUMA), the Union syndicale des rouisseurs teilleurs de lin
de France (USRTL), and the Union nationale des entreprises du paysage (UNEP). These
employers' organisations sometimes have overlapping memberships, where some farmers or
agribusinesses affiliate to more than one local organisation.
Context
The official total numbers working in agriculture in France fell from 1 million in 1998 to 928,000
in 2002, while the proportion of employees on permanent contracts remained around 40 per
cent. However, in addition to the approximately 368,000 employees reported in 2002 the
industry also employed some three quarters of a million seasonal workers, working alongside
the permanent employees, and while the numbers of permanent staff have been falling, the
numbers of seasonal workers has been rising.
Negotiations leading to the signing of some 200 agreements across France take place primarily
at regional or departmental levels, and the outcomes of these agreements are usually extended
to all employment relations in the sector in that region or department by an order from the
Ministry of Labour. However, in periods when the Socialist Party either held the presidency (as
in 1981), or the prime minister position (2002), the highly fragmented employers are under
greater pressure to reach national agreements, which can then also be extended to all
agricultural workers – in whole or in part.
In July 2002, just after the end of a five-year period of Socialist government under the politically
conservative Chirac presidency, the five employer organisations and all five trade union
confederations completed their negotiations and signed up to a rare special national agreement8
specifically about seasonal workers and those who worked in agriculture on fixed term contracts
generally.
This agreement reflected the interests of many employers. French employer organisations tend
to reflect the more stable employers who wish to provide greater motivation for good workers to
8
Accord national du 18 juillet 2002 sur les saisonniers, sur diverses dispositions sur les contrats à durée déterminée
et sur l’organisation de la gestion prévisionnelle de l’emploi en agriculture.
78
return to them every year. The employers are also concerned that their national image should
be as ‘good practice’ employers who are ready to take steps to ‘take into account all the specific
problems of seasonal agricultural workers. There may also have been political pressure on the
employers prior to the May 2002 to move to a general agreement in the wake of the earlier
negotiations that took place around the 1998 and 2000 laws reducing the legal length of the
working week. Those ‘Aubry’ laws had led to the national agricultural sector agreement of 19
September 2001 covering the establishment of special working-time ‘savings accounts’ for
permanent employees in the sector, who could work longer hours, or through their lunch breaks,
and accumulate days off in lieu at other periods of the year or to assist early retirement for
workers aged over 50.
The unions were also interested in reaching a new national agreement. In part this was to
secure better conditions for the seasonal agricultural workers because they were becoming a
growing and more permanent feature of agricultural production, and because it was clear that
improving their status and access to employment rights was effectively helping defend the rights
and working conditions of the permanent workers. In part, too, it was because the unions have a
direct interest in signing sector-wide agreements because this reinforces their status in the eyes
of both the agricultural workforce and the French public authorities. It confirms that they are
being recognised and accepted as the appropriate representatives of all agricultural workers –
permanent and seasonal.
Outcomes
The agreement included the need for a more formal approach to the induction process of
seasonal workers. This should be the first contact between the employer and the workers, and it
was agreed that a seasonal workers’ booklet should be produced and issued to each worker. This
should indicate the nature of the fixed contract, the working hours and overtime hours, the
maximum length of working hours and the conditions under which these could be extended and
additional rest days used in compensation. This should also provide information on accident
prevention and safety and on the nature of risks where they were particularly severe. It should
also indicate that machines should not be used without the approval of the employer. Other
details must also be included: the workers’ rights to unemployment benefit and to accident
insurance, pensions and occupational health doctors. And it should give addresses of the relevant
organisations within the region. The agreement also specified that the induction should last for
half an hour for new workers and for a lesser time for previous seasonal workers.
The uncertainty about working hours and the pace of change in the sector also saw the agreement
set up a joint employer and union research body called PROVEA (Association Prospectives,
Recherches, Orientation et Valorisation de la gestion prévisionnelle de l'Emploi en Agriculture).
Initially this was funded through a 0.2 per cent levy on all agricultural employers, but after being
challenged in the courts, the extension was declared void, and the levy only now covers the
members of signatory employers’ organisations. The funding received is redistributed to the
signatory organisations to conduct the research and debates on the issues, with three quarters
going to the employer organisations and one quarter to the trade unions. This last helps explain
why all the trade union federations signed this agreement – something that is not always the case
with national agreements.
The major breakthrough in the agreement, however, was in providing seasonal
workers with rights to access training. Under the French Labour Code, all
employees who have worked for 24 months consecutively for an employer with
10 or more workers or for three years for an employer with less than ten workers
can apply for and take a training course - independent of the company’s own
training - programmes for a period of up to a maximum of one year. The absence
is paid for by sector training funds. These are set up in each region and
contributed to by all companies with ten or more workers.
79
80
Prior to the 2002 agreement, this Individual Right to Training Absence (or CIF - congé
individuel de formation), was thus not available to seasonal agricultural workers, who never
worked for more than eight months consecutively for a single employer, and rarely even for
more than four months. The agreement negotiated therefore decided that in agriculture any
employee could request a training period: on the basis of a number of fixed term contracts with
one or more employers in the sector covered by this agreement; If they had a total of 12 months
employment during the previous four years of which four months (consecutive or not) had been
worked during the previous two years. Thus on the basis of this agreement seasonal workers
gained the right to request financial support from the two relevant national sectoral training
organisations covering agro business, the CPNE (Commission Paritaire Nationale de l’Emploi),
and agriculture, the FAFSEA (Fonds national d'Assurance Formation des Salariés des
Exploitations et entreprises Agricoles).
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
The union considers the agreement very important for seasonal workers. First, it clearly
recognises the special situation of seasonal workers for the first time. Second, it commits the
employers to helping fund research into their conditions. Third, it actually extends a real benefit
in terms of training rights to seasonal workers who had previously not been entitled to them –
despite needing training, and despite in many instances having been working for the same
employer for very many years..
While the CIF right to training is often a paper right that is rarely exercised – since even for
permanent employees the employers have many ways of pressurising workers not to apply, or to
find reasons not to permit these absences - the CFDT considers the agreement is a major advance
in seasonal workers’ rights. It is aware of at least ten workers who have successfully applied in
recent years under this new provision, and it publicises this right to all seasonal workers in the
campaign work it carries out in agriculture. The union considers this agreement an important step
forward for seasonal workers.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews were conducted with FGA-CFDT.
Additional resources:
French websites of the Government on the CIF (www.travail-emploi-sante.gouv.fr/informations-pratiques,89/fichespratiques,91/formation-professionnelle,118/le-conge-individuel-de-formation,1070.html#sommaire_2)
CNPE (www.cpne-fcd.org/cpne/index.php)
FAFSEA (www.fafsea.com/index.html)
81
Case study 3:
Campaigning coach informs seasonal agricultural workers of
their rights
Country:
France
Sector:
Agriculture
___________________________________________________________
Background
France has five main representative trade union confederations, and each has its own national
federations covering different sectors of the economy. In the case of the agricultural sector the
five confederations and their sector unions are: La Fédération générale agroalimentaire CFDT,
La Fédération générale des travailleurs de l'agriculture, de l'alimentation et des secteurs
connexes FO, La Fédération des syndicats chrétiens des organismes et professions de
l'agriculture CFTC, Le Syndicat national des cadres d'entreprises agricoles CFE/CGC, La
Fédération nationale agroalimentaire et forestière CGT.
Context
The official total numbers working in agriculture in France fell from 1 million in 1998 to
852,000 in 2007, while the proportion of employees remained around 40 per cent. However, in
addition to these approximately 350,000 employees, the industry employs roughly 800,000
seasonal workers, whose average contract length is just 22 days. Just under half of these seasonal
workers (45 per cent) are women. These seasonal workers are employed alongside the permanent
employees. In the very largest market gardening companies, for example, there may be between
200 and 300 permanent workers who are joined for the harvest period by as many as 1,000
seasonal workers.
Most of these seasonal workers are employed only for a few of the summer months each year,
and while a growing proportion of them are migrant workers from Eastern Europe or from the
Mediterranean area, a new phenomenon is the emergence of retired workers returning as
seasonal workers in order to make ends meet.
The big challenges the unions face in trying to secure better conditions for these workers concern
their accommodation, their proper payment for overtime hours and the proper recognition of
their employment rights.
A new law introduced from January 1 2010 has made it still more preferable for employers to
avoid their responsibilities and to use seasonal short term contract workers rather than
permanent employees or longer term workers. The new decree extended the then exemption of
employers with fewer than 50 workers from social housing and training levies to allow all
employers with less than 20 employees complete exemption from themselves paying social
security for all ‘occasional’ workers. These are now defined as those who work for a total of less
than four months (119 days) a year. Forty per cent of all contracts for seasonal workers are now
less than 30 days in length, and employers have become increasingly ready to issue a new
contract at the end of that period, if necessary, and then even a third; but never to go further to
the point where they would incur real social security responsibilities. Their responsibilities for
employers’ contributions to training and retirement for the workers were taken over by the MSA,
the agricultural and rural welfare organisation (la protection sociale du monde agricole et rural).
Given the low average number of workers on each farm, trade union membership density is
much lower than the already low French average. Figures are very difficult to ascertain
82
accurately, but overall density is estimated at somewhere between 3 and 3.5 per cent, with the
FGA-CFDT having perhaps as many as 40 per cent of the total, closely followed by the FNAFCGT.
Despite this level of trade union membership there are approximately 200 collective agreements
in agriculture. These agreements are entirely negotiated at regional and departmental levels,
and under a 1992 agreement with the employers the unions are encouraged to find three
individual members actually employed and working in the sector to attend up to three
negotiating meetings every year. They are paid by their employer during the (usually) one day
they spend negotiating, and for their travel and subsistence, and their employer is reimbursed
for their time off. Each of the unions tries to ensure that they have the requisite number of
negotiators present, thereby demonstrating to the employers and the other unions that they are
properly representative of their workforce.
With perhaps fewer than 10,000 trade union members among the whole of the permanent
agricultural workforce, and a specific power imbalance favouring the employer, it is not
surprising that trade union membership among seasonal workers who are largely in constant
movement is effectively non-existent.
The problems faced by the unions in relation to representing seasonal workers are considerable.
These include: a workforce that might only work for one or two months in one place and in
others (such as the Lourdes tourist centre) for up to eight months; a workforce that may be
dependent upon their employer for housing and subsistence; a workforce whose employment
rights may not be fully understood or recognised. The issues here concern whether overtime is
fully paid, whether the employer has paid the appropriate unemployment insurance and other
social security payments, and what happens at the end of the period of employment.
The CFDT decided nationally to try and provide information to seasonal
workers across France by organising a campaigning bus. The initiative meant
that the CFDT increased its visibility to all workers in the country towns,
seaside resorts and tourist centres the bus visited, but it also drew the
attention of local employers to the fact that the CFDT was active in the
locality – helping to strengthen its local legitimacy when bargaining with the
local authorities or with local employers. The CFDT estimate there are
around 1.2 million seasonal workers, but there are no official statistics, and
The national CFDT’s first Seasonal Workers Information Bus Campaign took place in 2008.
the profile of these workers varies enormously from sector to sector.
This year’s 38-stage campaign began on July 1 2011 with a publicity launch of the bus at the
Eiffel Tower in Paris.
During the summer months the union has mounted information campaigns aimed at seasonal
workers since 1999 but the bus initiative began just four years ago.
Outcomes
The Bus Information Initiative involves a coach painted in bright orange criss-crossing 16 of
France’s regions. In each of 38 stages it is joined by local activists, who distribute an information
pack about workers’ rights, general union leaflets and generally offer advice.
The Bus itself is a relatively new initiative, although the union has been campaigning in the
summer months for twelve years. The initiative provides the union with a focus. In each stage
10-30 activists gather to help create a day’s campaigning. These are often filmed and put on
You-tube and the union website, so they remain alive after the bus has gone on its way.
83
In the five stages sponsored by the FGA-CFDT a special 20-page leaflet is distributed. This
informs all agricultural workers and in particular seasonal workers what their rights are: in
relation to the employment contract, the length of work, how much they should be paid, what
should be on their pay slip, how meals and accommodation are taken into account, safety at
work, general employment rights, and what happens at the end of the contract. The last section of
the pamphlet make the case for joining the FGA-CFDT and it ends with a union application
form.
The costs of the coach itself are met by the national CFDT organisation in Paris. The national
CFDT also ensures that different groups are involved in the campaign, such as its youth section.
But each department and each union that takes responsibility for a particular stage of the
campaign produces materials that it has requested. So although the central resources are used to
get the coach on the road, when it gets to each new stage it becomes the responsibility of local
full-timers and volunteer activists.
The only problem is that while FGA-CFDT tries to make sure that the bus is scheduled to arrive
at the same time as agricultural seasonal workers are carrying out the harvest, this is not always
possible due to the complex requirements of routing, and the fact that even the harvest may vary
by 2-3 weeks according to the weather.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
Those seasonal workers who are precarious can benefit from this information when they receive
it. In some cases workers have thus been armed to confront their employer.
The union considers this a highly successful method of promoting itself to seasonal workers and
existing agricultural workers. Some recruitment takes place, but the biggest influence the union
thinks is in persuading employers to not get too far out of line in the way they treat their workers.
The union feels that its presence has a higher status in the eyes of workers and of the employers
than before this initiative. Hence the initiative is continuing and has the full support of the FGACFDT.
The FGA-CFDT finds this initiative highly useful, and would recommend it to other unions
faced with similar problems of accessing a large, seasonal and often mobile workforce.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
For this case study interviews have been conducted with the FGA-CFDT
Additional resources:
Consulted the EUKlems database on employment in France, and the Seasonal Workers guidebook, 2011 edition,
produced by the FGA-CFDT.
Interrogated the CFDT website and four U-tube videos dealing with the campaign. See:
http://www.cfdt.fr/rewrite/article/34738/les-actualites/saisonniers/campagne-saisonniers--c-est-reparti-!.htm
84
Case study 4:
Fair Seasonal Work
Country:
Germany
Sector:
Agriculture
___________________________________________________________
Background
IG Bauen, Agrar und Umwelt is the result of a merger between previously independent trade
unions. The core sectors presented by the union are construction, agriculture, forestry, gardening
and landscaping. A new sector which has become increasingly important is facility management
and especially facility cleaning. The union has about 300,000 members. Membership has been
declining, especially in construction and partly in agriculture and forestry (among other reasons,
as a result of the privatisation of forests). Other sectors such as facility management win new
members. As a result the structure of the membership also changes. The proportion of women
and workers with migrant background is increasing, partly as a result of the growth of facility
cleaning.
Context
Precarious work plays an important role for the union. Agriculture has a high percentage of
seasonal workers. According to one estimate, the number of seasonal workers is twice as high as
regular workers in the agriculture sector (about 350,000 seasonal workers per year come to
Germany to work in the agriculture sector). There is also undeclared work in the agriculture
sector but the union estimates that the number of undeclared workers is rather low – although,
there is no data on undeclared work. Most seasonal workers in agriculture come from Poland and
it has been difficult for the union to establish contacts with these workers. A precondition for
them to speak to trade union representatives is that the unions use a (native) Polish interpreter.
Sometimes the union receives complaints from seasonal workers, but they are rarely addressed
directly to the union. At least in one case the complaints were transmitted by a catholic priest.
The main complaint of the seasonal workers concern health and safety issues. The harvesting of
asparagus can cause skin irritations if the workers do not wear protective clothing such as special
gloves. Workers also complain about the general situation of seasonal workers in the countryside
and the lack of access to shops to buy food or other goods. Interestingly wages are usually not an
issue. Despite repeated attempts it has proved extremely difficult to organise seasonal workers
who live and work in Germany for only three months a year. More progress has been made with
respect to permanent agricultural staff. The problem of organising seasonal workers lead the
union to contemplate alternative ways of enforcing minimum employment standards.
At the start of each farming season the German media publishes one or two reports about the
poor working conditions of seasonal workers in Germany. Since these reports might negatively
impact on all producers in the sector, the union thought that there might be an interest in a
certification process which attests the certified company to provide fair standards for seasonal
workers. This was the basic idea about the ‘Fair Seasonal Work’ initiative.
Outcomes
The initiative ‘Fair Seasonal Work’ started in December 2006 and lasted for 18 months. The goal
was to convince agricultural producers who use seasonal workers to take part in a voluntary
85
certification process. At the end of the process the respective producers would be certified as
providing fair seasonal work. The initiative was based on a joint project between IG Bau, Agrar
und Umwelt and PECO, an institute specialising in the promotion of sustainable regional
development (the institute has close relationships to the union an some its staff also work for the
union, even only on a voluntary base). The initiative was co-funded by the European
Commission (approximately 200,000 euro) and the union (approximately 50,000 euro). Some of
the funds were used to employ full-time staff to carry out the project. The certification process
took into account six main areas of social concern:
- Working Time and Leave
-
Occupational Health and Safety
-
Accommodation
-
Appropriate Income
-
Employment Contracts
-
Co-determination/Participation
Certified producers were expected to adhere to the Working Time Act which provides a number
of exceptions for the agricultural sector but still imposes some limits with respect to the working
time of agricultural workers. For occupational health and safety, German legislation requires
employers to instruct all employees about possible sources of danger and to provide them with
appropriate protective clothing should the need arise. The producers had to provide seasonal
workers with an appropriate home while there are in Germany. The certificate guaranteed
minimum standards with respect to the quality of the building (construction), living space,
kitchen and sanitary facilities. Appropriate income refers to the collective wages set out in the
applicable collective agreement (there are several agreements in the agricultural sector). Seasonal
workers have a right to a written employment contract and certified producers issue such
contracts. Co-determination refers to the legal right to elect a works council representative. Most
agricultural enterprises are too small to elect a works council, but seasonal workers can
nevertheless elect a spokesperson.
The initiative was supported by the employers’ association and the association of
farmers. It also managed to attract substantial media attention. However, despite
the considerable interest, not one of the more than a hundred producers contacted
during the project actually agreed to be certified. Many were initially
sympathetic but in the end declined to participate. The main reason for this low
participation was that producers could not guarantee that they would always
comply with the regulations set out in the Working Time Act. Since many
seasonal workers are paid piece rates, they usually earn the minimum wage rates
set out in the collective agreements. The election of a spokesperson was also
controversial, but the other issues (occupational health and safety,
accommodation,
employmentbenefits
contract) and
were innovation
largely uncontested.
Evaluation,
challenges,
The initiative was initially considered as a failure as not one producer was actually certified.
Reasons include the lukewarm support of the employers’ organisation, the general hostility
towards trade unions and a lack of incentives or sanctions to pressure producers to take part in
the certification process. The initiative received widespread support, but as long as the producers
86
do not see an advantage or the need to join the project they were not prepared to make such a
step.
However, although the initiative itself was not successful, it provided the trade union with
detailed information about the situation of seasonal workers in Germany. It also succeeded in
raising public awareness of the problem. As a result, the project organisers were approached by a
major European food certification agency. The agency was founded in 1997 by leading European
retail companies in order to certify the quality of the products and the production methods of
food suppliers. Since 2007 EUREP (Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group) was renamed
GLOBAL GAP in recognition of the growing scale of its operations. By the end of 2008 the
agency certified 94,000 suppliers in 80 countries. While initially the scope of the certification
process was limited to quality and environmental issues, the retailers also became interested in
covering social issues because of the negative newspaper reports mentioned before.
The subsequent negotiations were not always easy. As an institution which is mostly funded by
corporations, GLOBAL GAP had certain reservations in relation to working with trade unions.
The trade unions, on the other hand, had to defend why in some cases their criteria went beyond
the legal standards (e.g. wages). Still, despite different views the dialogue was fruitful and in the
end GLOBAL GAP adopted most of the criteria used for the ‘Fair Seasonal Work’ label. One of
the criteria which GLOBAL GAP did not adopt was the payment of wages. While the trade
union has applied this principle to all employers, regardless if they are part of an employer
organisation which signed a collective agreement, GLOBAL GAP applies this principle only to
those employers who are part of a collective employer organisation. For the others there are no
minimum standards with regard to wages (Germany has no legal minimum wage). Another
major downside of this model is that the union will no longer have a say in the certification
process. The certification process will be carried out by GLOBAL GAP alone. It was only
agreed that the trade union will be consulted in case of disputes arising from the interpretation of
the standards.
Recommending the initiative
Despite the initial failure the union still believes that certification processes are a useful tool to
improve the situation of seasonal workers. However, a certification initiative supported only by
the trade unions and with no committed allies in the employer camp or supporter among major
customers is unlikely to be effective. From this perspective GLOBAL GAP is a useful partner,
but a lot, of course, depends on how the certification process works out in practice and there are
some concerns that social certification might conflict with other goals such as low prices. After
all, GLOBAL GAP is sponsored by large retailers who want to make profits.
On the other hand the cooperation with GLOBAL GAP opens up the possibility of developing
European wide social standards for certification processes. GLOBAL GAP has an interest in
expanding the same approach to other countries. Negotiations are under way but so far without a
concrete result. Given the EHEC crisis and growing problems with hygiene standards, the union
argues that the development of adequate social standards is more urgent than ever before. A
possible source for the EHEC bacteria could, for example, be a lack of adequate toilets for
seasonal workers. More generally, the unions want to emphasise the link between social and
hygienic standards.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews conducted with Industriegewerkschaft Bau-Agrar-Umwelt and PECO Institute and EFFAT
87
Additional resources:
Internet webpage and newspaper reports
88
Case study 5:
The Spanish Equality Act
Country:
Spain
Sector:
Agriculture
___________________________________________________________
Background
In Spain unions are internally organised both sectorally (federations) and geographically
(territorial branches). The main generalist Spanish trade unions are Comisiones Obreras
(CCOO), Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT) and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO). In addition
to generalist trade unions, there are also unions only active in one sector. Not all the trade unions
have a Spanish-wide dimension. This is the case, for instance, of the Unió de Pagesos (Catalonia)
and the Sindicato Andaluz de los Trabajadores (Andalusia), two important trade unions in the
agricultural sector. Some trade unions are linked to political parties (CCOO and UGT), whilst
others are independent from any political party.
Context
The Equality Act was passed by the Spanish government in March 2007 and sets out legislation
for gender equality. The law arises from article 14 of Spanish Constitution, which states the right
to equality and non-discrimination only on the grounds of gender. However, this old legislation
is considered as outdated and inadequate as gender inequality issues still persist, for example,
gender violence, gender-based wage discrimination, higher levels of unemployment for women,
a weak presence of women in high ranks in the cultural, social, political and economic life,
difficulties related to work-life conciliation, to name but a few. The aims of the law are; to
eradicate all forms of direct and indirect gender discrimination in the fields of employment and
training, education, health, housing, artistic creation, sport and so on and to promote equality in a
proactive way.
Although there is no explicit reference to precarious work in the Act, in practice it can contribute
to its reduction by promoting measures particularly favourable to female workers as, although
there is no accurate data about the gender or the age composition of precarious work in Spain, it
is widely assumed that it affects more women than men. One of the measures the Act includes
requires the implementation of equality plans9, and this could certainly contribute to decreasing
the incidence of precarious work, by making it compulsory that women and men are treated
equally at workplace.
In this regard, the Act must be regarded as a new legal tool to tackle job precariousness in Spain,
both within enterprises and at the institutional level. The Act also reinforces the role of trade
unions in making proposals for enterprises to promote job stability.
Outcomes
COOO believes that this law could contribute to a decrease in precarious work in Spain through
two measures: a. the obligation on enterprises with more than 250 employees to negotiate and
implement equality plans and b. the provision of incentives for employers to recruit workers on
9
See Chapter Three of the Act.
89
contracts of indeterminate length. In this way the Act benefits both female and male workers
with precarious contracts.
Regarding the first measure, the law also recommends the introduction of equality plans in
medium-sized and small companies, on a voluntary basis.
Nevertheless, it has to be stressed that the law does not apply to those workers who are working
in the underground economy and who are considered as the most precarious of them all. Workers
who have neither a formal employment contract, social security nor any legal protection are
invisible although they are commonly employed in the agricultural sector, although less so in the
food sector. Being invisible as these workers are, there is no official data about the extent of the
underground economy in Spain as a whole or in a given sector such as agriculture or food.
Nevertheless, unofficial data estimate that the underground economy represents over 20% of the
Spanish GDP. Regarding the countries of origin of the workers employed in the agricultural
sector on an irregular basis, most of them come from the South Saharan area.
The law can only benefit precarious workers in a legal employment situation, who are mainly
those working involuntarily in either part-time or fixed-term jobs in all sorts of frameworks,
including seasonal jobs. Most of them are third-country migrants in a regular or irregular
situation10, women on a part-time basis, young people in their first job and relatively old
workers.
There has been no internal opposition to the law within the CCOO, but it has been opposed by
many enterprises in Spain, although the exact number is not known. Despite those enterprises
with more than 250 employees being obliged to issue equality plans, some of them prefer to pay
a fine than negotiate with the trade unions to issue equality plans. The union’s response consists
of denouncing these enterprises to the labour inspection. Each time that a given enterprise is
denounced, it is punished with a higher fine. In fact, the main drawback regarding the topic of
equality is the low level of awareness-raising in Spain concerning gender equality. CCOO is
constantly working to increase awareness both internally and externally and even has an equality
plan of its own.
Other problems concern the existence of gaps in the text of the law, which are expected to be
solved through the implementation of new legal regulations, which are currently being drawn up.
As an example of such gaps, the law does not made it compulsory that trade unions sign the
equality plans they may have cooperated in designing. In fact, for these plans to be valid, only
the signature of the company is legally required, so that even its own employees may be not
aware of its contents if the company does not publicise them.
Precarious work can be understood in relation to recruitment, promotion and training and worklife reconciliation including all those employees working involuntarily on partial-time, fixedterm, seasonal, rotational contracts, etc. In terms of recruitment, the law provides for a number of
short-time contracts to lead to contracts of indeterminate length and for a number of part-time
contracts to be transformed into full-time contracts. In terms of work-conciliation measures,
CCOO is of the opinion that male workers must make a greater use of them that has been the
case so far in Spain.
Since the approval of the law, the CCOO has appointed at least one person
working on a full-time basis in each Autonomous Community1 on topics related
to equality. The law has also moved the CCOO to bring about changes which
have led to a higher presence of women in the top ranks of the union.
10
As said before, workers in an irregular situation, however, can not be expected to benefit from this law.
90
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
The social improvements that the law brings about must be consolidated, however, through
collective bargaining. In the agricultural sector, this law is also to benefit female farm workers
by developing the legal figure of the joint ownership in land in order to ensure that women’s
rights are fully recognised in this sector.
For the trade unions, the law has represented an opportunity to gain a greater insight into
precarious work and to achieve a higher influence in policy making. Their level of co-operation
with other unions both at national and European levels has also increased.
CCOO considers that this law is an innovative initiative both at the Spanish and at the European
levels and is of the view that no similar law exists in other European countries. This does not
mean, however, that Spain is in a more advanced position, because at least in some European
countries there is a greater awareness concerning equality and gender-related issues than in
Spain. However, COOO is of the opinion that a similar law should be passed in all the European
countries.
It must also be regarded as a progressive law in terms of social and labour rights and must be
conductive to wage equality in sectors where wage differences between women and men are very
acute.
The law should contribute to making Spain a fairer and more egalitarian country, although
through an obligation imposed on enterprises. The impact of the Law, however, has been uneven,
meaning that it has been very positive in those sectors with a strong union presence (big
enterprises in the industrial sector, big and medium-sized enterprises in the agricultural and food
sectors, public enterprises dealing with the prevention and extinction of forest fires), but much
more modest in small companies.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews were conducted with the trade union CCOO.
Additional resources:
The Equality Act at: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/03/23/pdfs/A12611-12645.pdf.
91
Case study 6:
The Institute for Development Cooperation Association
Country:
Spain
Sector:
Agriculture
___________________________________________________________
Background
In Spain unions are internally organised both sectorally (federations) and geographically
(territorial branches). Federations gather those workers who belong to a given sector (education,
for instance), while territorial branches can exist both at regional and even at provincial level.
The main generalist Spanish trade unions are Comisiones Obreras (CCOO), Unión General de
Trabajadores (UGT) and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO).In addition to generalist trade unions,
there are also unions only active in one sector.
Context
The Instituto Social de Cooperación al Desarrollo (ISCOD) (Union Agency for Development
Aid) was launched by UGT in 1990 to channel solidarity and co-operation with workers’
organisations in developing countries by contributing to make the voice of these workers heard
in the social dialogue processes. Therefore, its main aim is to contribute to the creation of a
strong unionism in these countries in order to achieve a well-balanced growth.
Its core principles are:
-
-
-
That democratic strengthening and good governance require the involvement of workers’
organisations in social dialogue;
Development aid in developing countries must go beyond specific on-the-spot interventions
so it can encompass awareness-raising activities aimed at the population of developed
countries;
The liberty and independence of workers’ organisations is of the utmost importance to
guarantee their social legitimisation;
The consolidation of democratic processes and the participation of trade unions in such
processes are key elements to attain a sound and harmonising development;
Development must be fair and sustainable, with trade unions as key actors in wealth
redistribution;
Trade unions are one of the key pillars of social dialogue; and
Trade unions are key actors to ensure an economic growth that increases social investment
and favours progress in living conditions.
Outcomes
Since its creation, ISCOD has developed a number of projects and programmes in Africa, Latin
America and the Balkans, by working in a number of interconnected areas: union training; codevelopment; the labour market; multiplying actors; and education for development. None of its
activities has met any opposition within the trade union.
Union training is one of the transversal strands of ISCOD, together with gender policies and the
promotion of the participation of young workers in union organisations. The aim of the training
schemes developed by ISCOD is to contribute to good governance in developing countries by
advancing the role of union organisations as social actors.
92
In the area of co-development, ISCOD focuses on four aspects: the relationship between
migration and development; the economic and social processes that generate an interconnection
between individuals and workers from different countries; the creation of networks of influence
arising from the flows of capital and persons; and the benefits of co-development actions in
terms of union growth.
Regarding the labour market, ISCOD carries out projects and actions in developing countries
with a view to reinforcing the capacities of workers’ organisations to have an influence in labour
market policies, by guaranteeing their modernisation in order to raise productivity and workers’
earnings.
ISCOD looks for ways to have a greater influence on those actors that have powers in terms of
social transformation (trade unions in the field of education, mass media, journalism
organisations, etc.)
Education for development, is aimed at informing and sensitising people about the existing
inequalities in terms of power and wealth distribution among individuals and countries. Work in
this area should involve progress towards the primacy of values such as solidarity and respect.
Among other specific projects ISCOD is currently delivering a training course aimed at social
and labour trainers; is carrying out a project of union integration and strengthening in Central
America; and is managing a programme of juvenile prevention in two neighbourhoods of
Bogotá, Colombia.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
ISCOD has delivered, in the areas it operates in, through training and
counselling for workers, a better understanding of what precarious work is.
The union has also achieved a higher influence in policy making and
expanded its co-operation with other trade unions at national and European
level workers to be able to manage more effectively situations of labour
vulnerability. In this way, precarious workers in these countries are gaining
expertise in labour market issues and in the area of decent work as well as
learning how best to defend their labour rights. The initiative is also
For the trade union, the initiative has contributed to a better understanding of what precarious
contributing to avoid the emergence of new precarious situations.
work is. The union also achieved a higher influence in policy making and expanded its cooperation with other trade unions at national and European level
ISCOD is a permanent initiative that will continue carrying out its activities and focus on
workers’ training. The initiative has a specific perspective of helping particularly vulnerable
workers such as women and will promote the participation of young workers within the workers’
organisations.
Although it has its own specific character, this initiative is consistent with the regular union’s
opposition to job instability in Spain and to the provision of quality jobs assuring safe and stable
employment with associated rights.
Since its creation, ISCOD has developed nearly 500 projects in the areas of development aid and
awareness-raising. Latin America and particularly Central America has been the main focus of
these projects, but ISCOD’s action has extended to other world areas such as the Philippines,
Morocco, Mozambique, Senegal and other African countries, Bosnia and Serbia.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews with officials from UGT.
93
Additional resources:
ISCOD website: http://www.iscod.org/inicio.aspx.
94
HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, CATERING, TOURISM
Case study 7:
Labelling in the hotels’ sector – towards a fair hotels
standard
Country:
Ireland
Sector:
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
___________________________________________________________
Background
SIPTU, the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical union is the largest trade union in
Ireland, with a membership of more than 200,000. It covers virtually every category of
employment across almost every sector of the Irish economy. It represents workers in the hotels
sector and in 2010 had agreements with 50 hotels which recognised the right of workers to be in
a trade union and which provided terms and conditions as set out in collective agreements. A
full-time official is responsible for the sector. Trade union density in the sector had been
declining.
Context
The origins of the Fair Hotels initiative are in a decision taken by the Irish Congress of Trade
Unions (ICTU), the umbrella organisation for trade unions in Ireland which made it a policy
issue that trade unions should use their purchasing power to support fair hotels – those hotels that
sustained their members’ employment through engaging in collective bargaining. SIPTU
estimated that the purchasing power of the trade unions, through the organisation of their
conferences and so forth, amounted to 44,390 bed nights for 17,000 conference delegates over
the next three years and that if other expenses were taken into account it is even higher. The
initiative was not based on a collective agreement but on a Fair Hotel Protocol Agreement.
Hotels, which collectively bargain with trade unions, have signed the Protocol and trade unions
in turn have committed themselves to using those hotels and to publicising them to their
members and more widely. The Fair hotels website lists all of the participating hotels.
The initiative was launched 2010 with SIPTU putting the ICTU decision into practice. In the
previous years there had been a growth of the hotels sector as the construction boom of the pre2007 recession had encouraged speculation so that there are now more than 1,000 hotels in
Ireland. However, while their number increased dramatically, the employment terms for hotel
workers deteriorated Unskilled staff had been hired and the quality of the product offered
declined. In addition a report by the National Employment Relations Agency (NERA) found that
some 73 per cent of the hotels that did not collectively bargain had breached employment laws.
For the union it was thus essential that something was done to reverse the trend.
Outcomes
This was a new direction for the union and one which has seen it using its purchasing power to
win concessions from employers. The primary objective of the initiative is to support and
promote quality employment in the hotel industry in Ireland. This means working to publicise
95
both to their members – as potential users of hotel accommodation – and more widely on the
value of staying in union-friendly hotels. The website states that ‘Fair hotels’ are those which:
-
Treat their staff fairly; understanding that the hotels sector is a people industry and that
to attract and retain a skilled and committed workforce, staff must know that their work is
valued;
-
Pay a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work – a wage to support workers and their families;
-
Respect the fundamental right to a voice at work and collectively bargain with workers;
-
Promote worker voice in health and safety to minimise health and safety risks at work;
and
-
Promote quality jobs – that is jobs that are worth protecting.
The SIPTU Hotels and Catering Sector worked jointly with the SIPTU Strategic Organising
Department on the campaign. The union sees this as a long-term campaign which should not be
dependent on funds of a temporary nature, but which involves a cultural change and is a key
feature of the union’s organising strategy. What it has required is a new type of organising which
seeks to enhance the business of fair employers, by encouraging union members to spend their
money ethically. This means that their purchasing power is not used to support bad practices and
that unions and their members can act in a socially responsible way. SIPTU officials contacted
all those hotels where the union had a collective agreement – 50 hotels – and spoke to the
representatives of each of them. It explained that it would support the hotels in making sure that
they promoted good employment conditions. It has produced a special brochure which lists all of
the participating hotels and disseminates this both to its members, to other trade unions and more
widely.
There are a number of clearly identifiable outcomes from the initiative.
• SIPTU has secured ten new recognition agreements with hotel employers,
increasing the number of hotels with collective bargaining from around 50
to around 60, a 20 per cent increase;
•
It has extended its collective bargaining coverage to another 1,000 hotel
workers; and
•
It has used new methods of dissemination, including a dedicated website, a
weekly on-line paper which goes to 10,000 individuals who have signed
up to receive it, as well as its own monthly newspaper which is circulated
directly into more than 1,000 workplaces.
Union representatives contacted for the study did not identify any specific obstacles and certainly
did not encounter opposition to the initiative from within the union. This may be explained by
the fact that it is a policy adopted by the entire trade union movement in Ireland and also because
it reflects the general growth in initiatives based on social responsibility.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
96
The primary benefit for precarious workers is the extension of a collective agreement and union
representation to them in their workplace. It also gives the trade union the opportunity to gain
influence and leverage in a key sector of the economy.
For the trade union the principle benefit is in the potential to increase its membership and in the
creation of ten new collective agreements. Some hotels, which in the past had secured business
from trade unions that had organised meetings in their premises, have lost that business because
they refuse to bargain with trade unions.
Furthermore, the initiative allows the trade union to engage with employers in a new forum. The
trade union realised that is can use its purchasing power and that of the more than 850,000 trade
union members in Ireland to support employers who are prepared to collectively bargain with it.
The work with the initiative is continuing, while the Fair hotels campaign has increased the
union’s leverage to obtain collective bargaining, the union recognises that more work needs to be
done. However, trade union density levels have improved and given that only a year has passed
since the introduction of the initiative, the union is pleased with the relatively large-scale
increase in collective agreements.
There are now also 32 NGO organisations that have endorsed and are committed to supporting
Fair hotels and will only use Fair hotels for their activities, after the union formally approached
them and asked them to participate. For the NGOs the benefit was in also being seen as using
their purchasing power in a socially responsible way. One of the particular aspects of the
initiative is that it has led to closer working between SIPTU and the NGO sector. The union
realised that NGOs could provide a different type of expertise than that available to it, while
NGO organisations recognised the value of being badged as trade union friendly. They have
learned to collaborate more effectively and it has encouraged SIPTU to consider collaborations
outside the trade union field whenever it can identify like-minded organisations. This benefits
both the trade union and the NGO. The initiative is supported internationally by trade unions
representing more than 30m workers. All those who have endorsed the initiative are identified on
the Fair Hotels website.
The union is very committed to ensuring that the initiative is publicised and wants to encourage
similar initiatives in other countries. The union also organised for trade union general secretaries
in Ireland to meet with employers signed up to Fair hotels and as a result quite a number of
hotels secured additional business. The union has learned how to collaborate more effectively
with like-minded organisations and the work with the NGOs was a natural development from
this perspective. However, SIPTU sees its job also in the building of capacity among hotel
workers themselves so that they eventually can takeover and run the initiative.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews were conducted with officials from SIPTU
Additional resources
- SIPTU website: http://www.siptu.ie/;
- The Fair Hotels website: http://www.fairhotels.ie.
- List of Fair Hotels supporters: http://www.fairhotels.ie/support/endorsements.482.html
97
Case study 8:
Protecting precarious workers and creating bridges to stable
work though collective bargaining
Country:
Italy
Sector:
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
___________________________________________________________
Background
In Italy three unions organise in the tourism sector: FILCAMS-CGIL, FISASCAT-CISL and
UILTuCS-UIL. FILCAMS-CGIL is the Italian Federation of Commerce, Hotels, Canteens and
Services and is affiliated to CGIL. FISASCAT is the Italian Federation of Trade and Tourism,
affiliated to CISL. UILTuCS is the Italian Union for Workers in Tourism, Commerce and
Services and is affiliated to UIL.FILCAMS has a long-term strategy on precarious work,
focusing in particular on bogus self-employment. FISACAT has, as one of its strategic
orientations, a focus on negotiated flexibility and on negotiating on part-time work to promote
work/life balance policies. UILTuCS has a specific focus on precarious workers and on women.
Context
In Italy precariousness is structural within the tourism sector. The sector national collective
agreement notes that the tourism market is characterized by strong fluctuations in demand which
are not programmable. Job access in the sector is in fact strongly linked to seasonality and
employers are at liberty to offer forms of contract that are considered precarious, like temporary,
seasonal and casual contracts.
Outcome
All the trade unions in the tourism sector agree on the need to develop and implement specific
initiatives in relation to precarious workers, as they operate as a kind of bridge between the
unemployed and workers with permanent contracts. Thus, trade union policies are aimed at
protecting precarious workers and at creating the conditions that allow them to move on to stable
employment. In particular there has been a range of social partner initiatives aimed at protecting
seasonal workers and combating undeclared workers. This started when, just over ten years ago,
all three unions created specific internal structures designed to organise and to provide
representation for workers with new atypical contracts and in particular for temporary agency
staff. These bodies have two principle aims: to press for recognition of the rights of these
atypical workers and to give them protection; and to provide services in the areas of, for
example, tax, social security and training. According to the national collective agreement for the
tourism sector, the three union federations FILCAMS, FISASCAT and UILTUCS and the
employers’ associations are developing initiatives and actions to support precarious workers,
such as the provision for a right to be re-employed where work is available, as well as provisions
related to training. The social partners have also set up a joint committee at national level to
analyse specific problems related to precarious, seasonal and part-time workers.
There is also a social partner agreement to maintain the two types of unemployment benefits
granted by government between the end of a labour contract and the beginning of a new one. A
“reduced” benefit is available to those who have worked as dependent workers for at least 78
days in a year and have at least two years’ unemployment insurance contributions. Ordinary
98
unemployment benefit is available to workers who have paid at least one weekly contribution in a
two-year-period prior to the date of application and also have paid at least 52 weekly
unemployment insurance contributions during the two years prior to the date of termination of
the labour contract. These benefits are fundamental to the guarantee of wage continuity. The
“reduced” benefit is particularly important for precarious workers with temporary contracts, who
often are unable to meet the conditions for “ordinary” benefit.
Another important initiative has been the social partner agreement to cover the costs of
translating the key elements of the collective agreements into the main languages of migrant
workers, so that workers know what the agreement covers. The social partners in the sector have
also reached agreement on the minimum number of hours for part-time workers that are set at 18
hours a week. A maximum for overtime has also been agreed at no more than 250 hours a year
for all categories of workers, with overtime compensated through additional rest days.
A hotel in Milan provides a good example of what has been achieved in the Hotels,
Restaurants, Catering, Tourism sector. A group of porters of foreign nationality
worked as associates of the cooperative society that provided all the services for the
hotel. They received low wages and were exploited and they had to endure bad
working conditions. After three years these workers joined the union and started to
organise against their poor working conditions. The union was able to take up the
case and as a result won a new contract that meant that they were employed under
the terms of the national agreement for the tourism sector.
Rights are also laid down in territorial agreements, such as that for thermal workers in Abano
Terme and in regional agreements, such as the agreement signed with the Region of Sardinia
which prioritises the shift from seasonal to permanent work together with a reduction in the
number of seasonal workers. This agreement is part of Sardinia’s supporting measures for the
tourism sector which began in 2005 and which provide incentives to encourage employers to
convert seasonal workers into workers with permanent contracts. In 2011 the regional Councillor
of Labour implemented a “long summer” programme, financed through ESF funding. This
extends the holiday period in Sardinia by covering the insurance contributions of enterprises in
the tourism sector in the periods immediately before and after the “real” holiday period.
Altogether, more than 5,000 employees in the tourism sector in Sardinia – in particular seasonal
workers in hotels, camping sites, lidos etc. - should benefit from the programme, to which the
regional government has contributed around nine million euro.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
The large range of different initiatives relating to precarious work demonstrates that Italian
unions organising in the Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism have recognised the positive
benefits of collective agreements that support workers in precarious contracts and which seek to
provide an avenue for them to move into stable work. The unions report that the initiatives
introduced have been well-received by workers who acknowledge that they have gained concrete
benefits regarding their contractual situation, for example the agreements make provision for the
transfer from temporary to permanent work
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews have been conducted with FILCAMS-CGIL and FISASCAT-CISL
Additional resources:
99
National collective agreement for the tourism industry, dated 3rd February 2008.
Hypothesis of agreement for the national collective agreement for the tourism sector, 9 July 2010.
Circular no 17 of Ministry of Labour, dated 16 June 2006”.
Synthesis of hypothesis of agreement for the national collective agreement for the tourism sector available at the
following link:
http://www.filcams.cgil.it/stampa.nsf/INFilcamsWeb/2b4ef0852f17029dc1257766003e5d1d/$file/Infilcams_turismo
_contratto_Confindustria.pdf?OpenElement
Observatory on tourism sector – prospects of development and critical situations, 12/13 May 2010, available at the
following link http://www.fisascat.it/Upload/Docs/turismo_rev3.pdf
100
Case study 9:
The McDonald’s Agreement improving working conditions
Country:
Austria
Sector:
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
___________________________________________________________
Background
In December 2006, three trade unions, representing employees in the railway sector and bluecollar workers in the commerce, transport, hotels and catering, and personal services sectors,
merged to establish the trade union Vida. Vida has more than 150,000 members and is the fourth
largest affiliate of the Austrian Trade Union Federation (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund,
ÖGB). Vida consists of three sections, one of which, the private services section, organises
employees in occupations related to tourism. Precarious employment plays an important role for
union activities.
Context
In the hotel and restaurant sector the main forms include seasonal workers, part-time workers
and workers on marginal part-time. The union views contracts which deprive workers of
overtime pay as a form of precarious employment. Another major form of precarious
employment is undeclared work. Overall the union estimates that between 60 and 80 per cent of
its membership in the tourist sector is affected by some form of precariousness, including young
and old, men and women, workers with Austrian citizenship and migrants.
Employers use such practices to save on taxes and social security contributions. It is particularly
widespread in the hotel and restaurant sector because it is relatively easy to conceal earnings. For
the workers this means lower benefits when they become unemployed, ill, or when they retire.
To sum up, the union assumes that in up to 70 per cent of the jobs in the tourism sector existing
regulations are violated. The most frequent complaints by members concern not being paid for
overtime, holiday supplements and severance payments.
The union has experienced difficulties in organising precarious workers. A particular problem is
seasonal workers, who stay only for a couple of weeks or months and do not see their future in
Austria. But even seasonal workers with Austrian citizenship are difficult to organise because
most of them are young and want to make as much money as possible during the working
season. Generally labour turnover is high in the sector. The union has launched several
organizing drives, but membership has been in decline for some years.
Outcomes
With approximately 8,000 employees McDonald’s is a major player in the hotel and restaurant
sector in Austria. Jobs and skills at fast food restaurants differ significantly from traditional
restaurants. Workers are often unskilled when they start working in fast food. The company has
generally been hostile to trade unions, however, in Austria this has not been the case. Following
the Austrian social partnership tradition, the management of McDonalds Austria and Vida
established a good working relationship which ultimately resulted in the signing of a companywide collective agreement. Before the negotiations on the collective agreement started, the two
parties cooperated in the development of a new apprenticeship scheme. Graduates of this scheme
101
learn ‘system gastronomy’ (Fachmann/frau Systemgastronomie), the fast food qualification, and
of the more than 400 apprentices who are trained in the profession, almost half of them come
from McDonald’s.
The importance of the development of the new apprenticeship scheme for collective bargaining
was that McDonald’s management and the trade union were united against the reservations by
the employer’s organisation (the Chamber of Commerce) which mainly represents traditional
restaurants and hotels. The agreement acknowledges that system gastronomy
(Systemgastronomie) is different from the traditional hotel and restaurant sector and therefore
needs specific training and a separate collective agreement was crucial for the negotiations which
led to the signing of an agreement in 2005. The trade union views the agreement as “mile stone.”
In 2010-2011 it was revised and the new agreement came into force in May 2011. The agreement
covers all of the 174 McDonald’s restaurants in Austria, including the franchised restaurants.
The agreement has improved the working conditions of the company workforce in Austria by
providing for training and by improving terms and conditions. Workers move up the pay scale
quicker and have better rights to breaks and holidays. The pay system is transparent. Annual
wage increases are based on the collective agreement for the hotel and restaurant sector.
However, the agreement provides for a number of improvements for the workforce workers
compared to what is set down in the sector agreement. The main achievements include:
-
Higher wages for unskilled workers, especially from the second year of employment
-
Higher wages for skilled workers
-
Higher wages for apprentices and the coverage of education expenses
-
Higher supplements for night work
-
Entitlement to at least one work-free Sunday per month with the previous or next (week)
day also being work-free
-
More transparent calculation of wage supplements, which are likely to result in higher
benefits
-
More transparent overtime regulations
-
More transparent calculations of wages and benefits for part-time workers
Table 1: Minimum monthly wages (in euro) according to the regular sector agreement and
the McDonald’s agreement
1-12 months
After
months
Sector agreement
1,205
McDonald’s
agreement
1,211
12
After six years
After 11 years
After
years
1,205
1,235
1,265
1,296
1,275
1,247
1,272
1,308
16
Unskilled worker
102
Skilled worker
Sector agreement
1,325
McDonald’s
agreement
1,419
-
1,358
1,391
1,424
1,462
1,490
1,533
103
The McDonald’s agreement includes a number of improvements on wages: unskilled workers
start with six euro more per month than unskilled workers paid according to the general
agreement for workers in the hotel and restaurant industry. The main advantage of the
McDonald’s agreement is that unskilled workers receive a significant pay rise after one year
working at McDonald’s. Employees with an apprenticeship in system gastronomy at
McDonald’s earn about seven per cent more than skilled cooks paid according to the sector
agreement (i.e. cooks who completed a cooking apprenticeship). However, the biggest difference
is in the remuneration of apprentices, who at McDonald’s start with a monthly salary of 600 euro
whereas apprentices paid according to the agreement for the sector are paid only 534 euro (a
difference of twelve percent). The difference increases in the second and third year of
apprenticeship to almost 25 per cent. In addition McDonald’s pays for accommodation and
subsistence costs for the time which the apprentices spend at school, away from their regular
place of living. Other hotels and restaurants subtract these costs from salaries.
Table 2: Wages for apprentices according to the sector agreement and the McDonald’s
agreement
First year
Second year
Third year
Sector agreement
534
560
728
McDonald’s
agreement
600
700
900
The collective agreement for hotels and restaurants requires employers to pay a night work
supplement of 20 euro per month (for work between 10 pm and 6 am). The McDonald’s
agreement provides for a supplement of 2 euro per hour. As a result McDonald’s workers receive
more than required by the agreement when they work more than ten hours at night per month.
When they work 20 hours they receive twice as much in night work premium.
McDonald workers are entitled to at least one work-free Sunday per month coupled with a workfree weekday. According to the trade union, it is not unusual for workers in the hotel and
restaurant sector to work every Sunday, especially during the high season (an exception is
apprentices who are entitled to two work-free Sundays per month).
The other improvement in the McDonald’s agreement mainly concerns more transparent
regulations and calculations. The 13th and 14th salaries which are additional payments made in
the summer and Christmas holiday period, for example, are calculated according to actual wages,
whereas in hotel and restaurant sector it can be lower than the actual wages. The collective
agreement between McDonald’s and Vida also strengthened the relationship between the
management and the trade union. The cooperation not only led to the development of the new
apprenticeship; McDonald’s’ management agreed to inform its employees about the trade union
and distribute membership folders. McDonald’s also assured that employees who join the union
will not be disadvantaged and the company will cooperate in collecting union dues.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
The union sees the agreement as a major success. The company provides better pay and working
conditions than the rest of the sector. Precarious employees benefit from significantly higher
104
wages after the first year of employment – rather than after the sixth year when the majority of
workers would already have changed employer. Precarious workers also benefit from
qualification and career possibilities. The union is particularly proud of the significant
improvements for apprentices.
The union sees the agreement as putting pressure on other employers in the sector to improve
employment conditions – including for apprentices. The long-term goal is to establish a separate
sector agreement for system gastronomy (Systemgastronomie).
As a result of the agreement the employer has supported the union in organizing workers –
including those employed by the franchise contractors. Despite management’s support for the
union, a works council has still to be elected, although the union is confident that one will be
established in the near future.
The union sees the agreement as a success and recommends it as a useful example for improving
the situation of precarious workers, subject to national contexts and the systems of industrial
relations.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews with Vida trade union
Additional resources:
Various documents, including collective agreements
Newspaper reports.
105
Case study 10:
Developing a model of permanent seasonal work
Country:
Spain
Sector:
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
___________________________________________________________
Background
In Spain unions are organised both sectorally (federations) and geographically (territorial
branches). Federations organise those workers who belong to a given sector, while territorial
branches can exist both at regional and even at provincial level. The main general Spanish trade
unions are Comisiones Obreras (CCOO), Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT) and Unión
Sindical Obrera (USO).In addition to generalist trade unions, there are also unions only active in
one sector.
Context
A ’Contrato fijo discontinuo‘ (a near-permanent contract) is an employment contract that offers
permanent work over a fixed period, lasting for less than the entire year. It covers seasonal jobs
that are automatically renewed for the same workers on an annual basis, typically for the summer
season. In order to distinguish it from strictly temporary work, jobs provided under the ‘Contrato
fijo discontinuo’ must be offered, first, to the same workers year after year, and only then to
other workers if the former refuse them. This sort of employment contract offers a method of
establishing and maintaining a quota of permanent staff in the enterprises involved. However,
there is no rule stipulating the percentages of workers that have to benefit from the sort of
employment contract within enterprises in the sectors.
Although the main difference with strictly temporary jobs lies in the regular renewal of the
’contracto fijo discontinuo‘ each year, it also has a medium-term impact, in that it leads to better
pay and working conditions. It also entitles workers to benefits, such as retirement and
unemployment benefits.
This type of employment contract was mentioned for the first time in Spain in the Industrial
Relations Act (1976)11, but it was not until 1992 that it became part of collective bargaining
following pressure from trade unions to achieve an entitlement for unemployment benefit for
seasonal workers.
According to the trade unions, it is the most appropriate type of employment contract for
seasonal jobs, given that it can be renewed every year, as is often desired the case in the sectors
of agriculture and tourism. By using this sort of employment contract, which is applied to both
native and migrant workers, the same workers can be recruited every year for the period
concerned, and if any workers are not recruited in a given year, this is considered as amounting
to an unfair dismissal.
According to some experts12, there have been two initial problems with this type of contract,
which a number of successive labour rules have attempted to correct. The first was the conflict
11
See http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdl17-1977.html.
See Goerlich Peset, José María (s.d.), Trabajadores fijos periódicos y trabajadores fijos discontinuos, ¿el final de
una larga discusión?, available at: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/empleo/anexos/ccarl/35_96.pdf
12
106
between the unfixed-term nature of the contract and the temporary nature of the jobs delivered
within its framework. The second problem was its somewhat unclear de-limitation between jobs
covered by it and part-time jobs at a given point in time when the law considered that part-time
jobs were all of those that were for a fixed period of time. Therefore, both problems arose from
the misleading definition of the ‘contrato fijo discontinuo’, which, over time, has been
considered either as a variation on temporary jobs, or a variation on part-time jobs, and treated
accordingly.
Outcomes
The ’Contrato fijo discontinuo’ is a type of employment contract that has been in existence for a
considerable period in Spain but has not been extensively used because many employers see it as
disadvantageous to their interests. It was launched by the Spanish government after a long
negotiation with the main Spanish trade unions. Spanish unions state that they are constantly
asking the government to make provision for recruitment models that reduce seasonally-based
temporality in the tourist sector. The “Contrato fijo discontinuo” is a good example of such a
model, which could also be used in other sectors, such as agriculture and trade, which are also
quite seasonal.
According to the trade unions, this type of contract is not adequately supported by the
governments and enterprises but nevertheless has not met with opposition from the social
partners. According to the Spanish government, it is considered an expensive model in terms of
social security contributions, while employers do not like the obligation of recruiting the same
workers over successive years.
Such reticence over this type of contract is demonstrated by figures provided by the trade unions
and the Economically Active Population Survey (EPAS), conducted by the ‘Instituto Nacional de
Estadística’ (INE), which certainly show that it is not extensively used. In the first quarter of
2011, the ‘Contrato fijo discontinuo’ represented two per cent of all the employment contracts in
operation in Spain, while in a typically seasonal sector, such as tourism, it would amount to
around six per cent.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
For precarious workers this type of employment contract guarantees social and economic
stability in sectors that are intrinsically seasonal such as agriculture and tourism. The three main
benefits for workers include achieving a stable regular job, having access to social benefits such
as unemployment benefit and retirement benefit and having better prospects for planning their
lives. This sort of contract potentially also has a positive psychological effect on workers, in
contrast to where workers only have access to precarious seasonal work.
Regarding wages, these workers are in low-skilled, low paid jobs and it is likely that they would
be unable to find sufficient sums to cover the areas of work they represent. Workers do not earn
enough to be able to cover their expenses for the entire year and therefore they have to look for
other sources of income. Nevertheless, once they have accumulated twelve months’ in
employment within six years of employment, they are entitled to receive unemployment benefit
for four months, which can lift some of the financial worry.
According to the trade unions, employers should also consider this model of employment
contract as advantageous because they can save money and effort in training. In addition,
according to the unions the other positive effect is that workers feel more secure and are less
107
anxious in constantly searching for new employment. Consequently, having a permanent staff
over the years guarantees the delivery of a quality job, which is an interesting asset in a very
competitive sector, as is the case of tourism in Spain.
The implementation of this employment model is to be considered as a tool to reduce the
inequality in the tourism labour market between permanent workers with full rights and
precarious workers with fewer rights.
Trade unions are currently working to introduce this employment model into other collective
agreements.
The UGT considers that this initiative would be very useful at the European level, as it could be
used to regulate migratory flows. When foreign workers applying to work in the tourist sector
they are recruited more casually and they usually remain in the host country looking for work in
other sectors when the tourist season has ended.
According to the UGT, workers recruited through this type of contract, are more likely to return
to their country of origin until the next season. It is a fully innovative initiative, where it can
modify some labour-related issues linked to precariousness. It does not seem to exist in other
European countries, at least with the same provision of rights.
The trade unions have concluded some provincial collective agreements in the tourist sector that
can be put forward as examples of good practice in having implemented this sort of employment
contract beyond its basic stipulations. This is the case for the collective agreements in the
Balearic Islands13, Málaga (Andalusia)14 and Tenerife (Canary Islands)15.
The first collective agreement states that when there is a permanent job vacancy in an enterprise,
workers who have been working in it under a ‘Contrato fijo discontinuo’ will have a preference
over external candidates.
The second collective agreement introduces a mandatory quota of unfixed-term jobs, including
those under the category ’Contrado fijo discontinuo’, in all the tourist enterprises in the province
that have more than a stipulated number of workers. Thus, for enterprises with between nine and
20 workers, the percentage of unfixed-term jobs must be at least 58 per cent; for those with
between 21 and 29 workers, the percentage raises to 68 per cent; and for those with more than 30
workers, the percentage is 80 per cent.
The third collective agreement also introduces a mandatory quota unfixed-term jobs, including
those under the category ‘Contrado fijo discontinuo’, according to the following categorisation:
for enterprises with between one and ten workers, the percentage of unfixed-term jobs must be at
least 20 per cent; for those with between 11 and 30 workers, the percentage rises to 50 per cent;
and for those with more than 31 workers, the percentage is 60 per cent.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews were conducted with officials from UGT and CCOO.
Additional resources:
- For
further
information
on
the
“Contrato
fijo
discontinuo”
http://www.mtin.es/es/guia/texto/guia_4/contenidos/guia_4_11_2.htm (Spanish Ministry of Labour).
see:
13
See http://www.fphib.es/resources/XIIIconvenio_colectivo_hosteleria.pdf.
See http://malaga.cnt.es/IMG/pdf/hosteco.pdf.
15
See http://www.fcchtccoocanarias.org/pdfprincipal/BopConvenioTenerife-11[1].pdf.
14
108
-
-
http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/averroes/html/adjuntos/2007/09/21/0009/tema5/tema5.html
(Andalusian
government).
Labour
statistics
were
consulted
on
the
website
of
the
INE
at:
http://www.ine.es/jaxiBD/menu.do?L=1&divi=EPA&his=1&type=db.
Goerlich Peset, José María (s.d.), Trabajadores fijos periódicos y trabajadores fijos discontinuos, ¿el final de
una larga discusión?, available at: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/empleo/anexos/ccarl/35_96.pdf.
109
Case study 11:
Annualising working time in the Finnish Ski Resorts
Country:
Finland
Sector:
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
___________________________________________________________
Background
There are three main trade union confederations in Finland, the Central Organisation of Finnish
Trade Unions (SAK), the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK) and the
Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA). The role of the
unions in Finland is to negotiate collective agreements, establishing rates of pay, working hours,
holidays and other terms of employment. The Service Union United (PAM) is affiliated to SAK
and covers people working in the private services’ sector.
Context
The ski season in Finland runs between October and May and before the introduction of
annualised hours, employees had short and fixed-term contracts that covered the ski season
period but were unemployed the rest of the time. The arrangement initially ran as an experiment
in the ski resort of Ruka in 2003 and involved extending daily working hours during the high
season to twelve hours per day and 150 hours per three weeks. The additional time worked was
then used for employees to get their full pay while taking their holidays during the low season.
After the completion of the one year trial period in Ruka, the scheme was adopted by other ski
resorts. It is an initiative based on the partnership between trade unions and employer
organisations and according to the union, everyone benefits from it. The scheme is voluntary
both for employers and employees.
Outcomes
The annualisation of working time in ski resorts in Finland is set out in a collective agreement
that must be respected by all employers even if they are not members of the employers’
association – and in any case there are only a small number of ski resorts that they are not
members. The agreement was negotiated by the Service Union United (PAM) in partnership with
the Ski Resort Employers’ Associations in order promote permanent contracts for workers within
a sector that relies mainly on fixed term and seasonal employment. The ski resort agreement was
negotiated in the late 1980s but the particular agreement on annualised hours came into force in
2003. The initiative started in the ski resort of Ruka.
The idea for this system came from the Ruka ski resort itself when a shop steward
discussed the possibilities with the employer. It was preferable for workers to have
year long permanent employment and it was from the workers’ side that
negotiations started on the annualisation of working time. The negotiations were
initiated by the PAM- union while EFFAT assisted in the dissemination of
information about the initiative. Many PAM members were seasonal workers and
considered full-time employment as advantageous. The scheme started in the ski
resorts and then expanded into hotels and other sectors.
110
In terms of the negotiations, the union did not meet any particular obstacles in materialising this
scheme because it was of mutual interest to employers and employees. The negotiations for
setting up the scheme lasted over a year as there was a lot of planning involved. The employers
needed some permanent workers as this way they could rely on their skills and experience. They
continue to use seasonal workers but they view this base of permanent workforce as beneficial
and for this reason they entered the negotiations.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
The system is beneficial to workers as it provides them with a permanent job which provides a
stable annual income and long and uninterrupted vacations in the low season between June and
October. This mainly economic benefit is that it helps workers plan for their future. A permanent
status also allows workers to access bank loans much easier, which is an additional benefit.
The scheme is also beneficial for the union as it has contributed to an increase of membership. In
addition the partnership between the union and the employers’ organisation has made it easier to
conduct future negotiations, especially from the employers’ side, as they know that most of the
people that are working for them are members of the union. Finally, the scheme has been
beneficial to the union as it has allowed it to become more active in policy making.
The agreement is revised each year in annual negotiations. The union has run information
campaigns about the scheme so as to inform workers about the results of their negotiations. One
obstacle encountered by the union during the negotiations was balancing working time with the
strenuous working conditions that ski resort businesses require. The work is physically
demanding, a lot of work is carried out in the snow and workers need to have good knowledge of
the machines and equipment used. Therefore the twelve hour working day can itself be very
stressful and not all workers are able to do it. A Health and Safety officer was initially involved
in the Ruka experiment and completed a medical study monitoring the physical demands of the
job. As a result, a term was included in the agreement that allows employees that feel they
cannot cope to opt out of the scheme after completing one month and to remain as seasonal
workers.
The union would recommend this work framework for seasonal workers as it can provide good
flexibility. It views it as good both for workers and employers and for this reason the union
believes that it is beneficial.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews with members of the relevant trade unions
Additional resources:
- EIRO
online,
(2009),
Finland:
Industrial
relations
profile,
EIRO
on
line,
(http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/finland.htm)
- Pillinger J (2006) Challenging Times: Innovative Ways of Organising Working Time, CES/ETUC
- French R., Rayner C., Rees, G., and Rumbles, S. (2008), Organizational Behaviour, John Wiley & Sons
- http://www.pam.fi/en/Pages/Default.aspx
- ILO information sheet (2004) at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--travail/documents/publication/wmcs_travail_is_13.pdf
111
Case study 12:
The de-precariousation of seasonal work in Croatia
Country:
Croatia
Sector:
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
___________________________________________________________
Background
There are five trade union confederations in Croatia: the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of
Croatia (Savez samostalnih sindikata Hrvatske – SSSH); the Independent Trade Unions of
Croatia (Nezavisni hrvatski sindikati – NHS); the Association of Croatian Trade Unions (Matica
hrvatskih sindikata); the Croatian Association of Trade Unions (Hrvatska udruga sindikata –
HUS); and the Association of Workers’ Trade Unions of Croatia (Udruga radničkih sindikata
Hrvatske – URSH). The Autonomous Trade Union of Tourism and Services Croatia (STUH) is
affiliated to the national confederation SSSH. At European and international level it is affiliated
to EFFAT and to the IUF.
Context
Labour relations in Croatia are governed by the Labour Code which has been in force since 1996
and is based on a civil concept of working relations. The Labour Code also regulates the
foundation, registration and functioning of trade unions, but not the rules of representation for
trade union confederations at a higher level (Milicevic Pezelj (2011).
The collective agreement for seasonal workers was negotiated by the STUH trade union and the
employers’ association and covers the whole of Croatia, in the sectors of tourism and catering. It
was signed in 2002 and represented a new direction for the union. It came about as the result of a
large number of workers on fixed-term contracts being employed by hotels in the coastal area,
mainly during the summer season. They worked in the same hotels every year and the union
decided to act to protect them by including them within the collective agreement.
Outcomes
The STUH considers the negotiation of the collective agreement a success, as in a business
which is predominantly seasonal it is now possible to draw up an employment contract, on a
fixed-term basis, for permanent seasonal jobs. This means that all issues relevant to such
employment are regulated by the collective agreement. The areas that the agreement covers
include:
-
The conditions regulating employer contributions for medical and pension insurance and the
period they cover;
-
The deadline by which the employer has to let the employee know if the employment
contract is to be renewed;
-
The deadline by which the employee must declare her or his interest in renewal, which must
not be less than eight days from the date of the employer’s offer; and
-
The arrangements under which the employee may have to repay the employer contributions
where the offer of renewal has been rejected.
112
A good practice example highlighted by the union is the case of seasonal
workers in the Riviera Poreč d.d. which is one of the largest hotels in
Croatia within the hotel group Valamar. During the summer season the
hotel employs 1,200 workers, but this number drops to 460 during the rest
of the year. In 2005 a collective agreement for permanent seasonal
workers was introduced, initially addressing permanent members of staff
who had been made redundant but for whom there was some seasonal
work. Its success led the company to agree to its revision in 2008 as a way
of maintaining a well trained workforce. The number of permanent
seasonals has grown each year creating transitional types of contracts for
employees who know that they will eventually gain permanent work
Figures in the following table show now the numbers covered by the new
agreement have grown.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
27
25
24
48
83
105
110
The 2002 agreement mainly covers the Istria area and to date it has proved difficult to extend it
beyond that area. The union effort is therefore now concentrated on attempting to get it extended
and its strategy for this has been to organise those workers, who have been employed on a series
of fixed term contracts, by the same employer, for more than three successive years, with the aim
of putting pressure on the employers.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
The direct benefit for seasonal workers is that they are guaranteed employment from year to
year, as well as being entitled to medical and pension insurance. The stability which the work
guarantees also means that they can access bank loans to cover mortgages on property, helping to
ensure their future security. There are also benefits for the union as it has seen an increase in
membership and has also acquired a good reputation amongst the workers. The union regards the
collective agreement as a success and would recommend it as a good solution for seasonal
workers.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews with the STUC union
Additional resources:
Lončar, L. (2011) Stepping up collective bargaining coordination to fight precarious work in EFFAT sector, STUH,
Good Practice example, Paper presented at a conference
Websites:
- ILO: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/budapest/info/country/croatia.htm
113
-
-
Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia, (2010) Information and consultation rights of workers in
Croatia
available
at
:
http://www.informiaproject.org/language/en/uploads/files/materials__0/events__dc60207f07fa79ade21f3d1add
7180d6.pdf
Milicevic - Pezelj, A (2011) Annual Review 2010 on Labour Relations and Social Dialogue in South East
Europe:Croatia available at http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/belgrad/07858.pdf
114
Case study 13:
Club Mediterrannee-EFFAT-IUF Agreement on the
respect for fundamental rights at work and transnational
mobility of employees
Country:
Cross-European
Sector:
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
___________________________________________________________
Background
Club Mediterrannee was founded in France in the 1950s and is now a multinational company in
the tourism sector. Two thirds of the company’s activities are in Europe, and 70 percent of its
clients are from Europe. The company employs around 20,000 staff, the majority of whom are
seasonal workers. The ‘Agreement regarding respect for fundamental rights at work and the
transnational mobility of Club Méditerranée employees in Europe and Africa’ concluded by Club
Mediterrannee and EFFAT-IUF is an example of a company agreement that promotes socially
responsible practices in transnational companies. It was signed in 2004 and initially was
experimental and limited to the issue of the mobility of Turkish origin workers. In 2009 it was
extended to cover Europe-Africa.
Context
The social partners had been in discussion with Club Méditerranée since the 1980s. Trade unions
in France first became involved in making arrangements concerning the mobility of Club
Méditerranée workers from Tunisia and Morocco to France, with meetings taking place between
the company and International Union of Food workers (IUF). In 1996, a European Social
Dialogue Committee (ESDC) was set up set up at ClubMed, as a consequence of negotiations
between corporate management, EFFAT (then known as ECF-IUF) and the trade union
organisations in the countries concerned. The ski resorts of Club Med in France had problems in
finding workers locally and wanted to bring in workers from other countries from within the
company. EFFAT/IUF did not oppose such mobility but wanted to see it based on the respect of
workers’ rights and executed and monitored by jointly agreed rules.
Outcomes
The original Club Méditerranée agreement signed in 2004 was based on the principles set out in
the International Labour Organisation Conventions and on respect for fundamental rights at
work. The 2004 agreement was experimental and, following its success, a revised agreement was
signed in 2009. The agreement still encompasses the main principles but it also extended the
geographical area of worker mobility to include Tunisia, Morocco, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Egypt
and the Mauritius. The agreement provides for qualified staff from the summer holiday resorts to
also work in the winter resorts of Club Méditerranée. It is important to note that this mobility is
voluntary. In this way the agreement is considered as good for both the company, which benefits
from qualified and stable staff all year round, and for employees, as it gives better job security.
In addition the agreement is considered timely as it gives better coverage during a period of
economic crisis. It is based on the following principles:
First, respect for ILO conventions:
115
-
Respect for trade unions;
-
Communication with the trade union organizations as required by national legislation;
-
Non-toleration of any form of forced or compulsory labour;
-
Respect for the effective abolition of child labour; and
-
The principle of equal opportunities in employment: non-discrimination on the grounds
of race, gender, political or religious views.
Second, it provides social guarantees in relation to:
-
Priority of employment to local workers;
-
The same working conditions for all; and
-
A minimum notice period of 15 days.
Third, it monitors whether the provisions of the agreement are respected and whether the
working conditions of mobile workers are satisfactory. The Agreement states that the IUFEFFAT representative may enter the workplace to see if the agreement is being applied.
According to a representative: ’Each year I go to the Alps to see if there are any problems and
then I make a report to EFFAT and to the general manager’ (Interview with the Secrétaire du
Comité Européen de Dialogue Social).
While the agreement is regarded as successful, seasonal workers still experience some problems
such as difficulty in accessing social or family benefits; problems with integration, mainly due to
language barriers; and some problems to do with the workplace environment itself, as there are
only few leisure facilities for the staff in the alpine villages.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovations
The initiative has covered around 400 ClubMed workers annually who work the summer in
Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco and the winter in France. It has provided staff representatives in
the workers’ countries of origin with the right to information on selection criteria and conditions
of mobility. It provides employment, pay and social security rights, based on host country
entitlements and ensures that mobile workers are provided with information and are formally
welcomed. EFFAT-IUF representatives visit migrant staff to assure proper implementation and
respect of the agreement and a joint committee on the implementation of the agreement has been
established. The initiative is considered exemplary because it results in a high staff retention rate
which leads to higher quality service; reduces job insecurity for the staff; and offers union
support for the staff. Furthermore, cooperation and solidarity on a transnational level has been
achieved while at the same time it is an example of the successful negotiation of company
agreements.
The initiative is recommended for sectors with seasonal workforces and is considered as an
example of successful social partnership that promotes the sustainable and socially responsible
employment of mobile workers across Europe and Africa.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews with the Comité Européen de Dialogue Social and EFFAT
Additional resources:
- Howald, K (2006) Facilitating mobility - Innovative stakeholder partnerships for the integration of migrant
workers in tourism, conference presentation, 5th European Tourism Forum, Limassol, Cyprus, 16-17/11/2006
116
-
-
Juyaux C and Tessier K, Accord relatif au respect des droits fondamentaux au travail et à la mobilité des
salariés
GE
du
Club
Med,
presentation
available
at
www.etlcnetwork.eu/.../presentation_christian_juyaux_club_med_fr.pdf
International Labour Office (ILO), (2010) Restructuring enterprises through social dialogue and labourmanagement agreements: Social responsibility practices in times of crisis, ILO
117
FOOD, DRINK AND TOBACCO
Case study 14:
Using the law to protect vulnerable temporary agency
workers
Country:
UK
Sector:
Food, Drink and Tobacco
___________________________________________________________
Background
In the UK trade unions are organised on sector, general and industry specific lines. Most trade
unions are affiliated to the Trades Union Congress, the umbrella organisation for trade unions.
This case study covers a major initiative for a new national law and at its impact, particularly in
the meat and poultry sector.
Context
This case study looks at how a new law has regulated the activities of gangmasters and improve
the conditions of precarious workers. A ‘gangmaster’ is someone who supplies groups of
workers to do temporary work, usually for an end user employer in the food processing and
agriculture sectors. Gangmasters therefore operate as labour suppliers, putting together a team of
workers and sending them out to work. The contractual nature of the relationship between the
gangmaster, worker and end user is often unclear and workers supplied in this way can find it
difficult to pursue their employment rights. This is why a law which guarantees that they will be
protected against abuse is so important.
The origins of the legislation in question – the Gangmasters Licensing Act 2004 - lie in a
combination of two events. The first was a long-standing strategy to improve the conditions of
workers employed through gangmasters, by the trade union T&GWU (now part of UNITE) and
Member of Parliament (MP) Jim Sheridan, who was supported by the union. The second was the
tragic deaths of at least 22 cockle pickers, who, in February 2004, drowned in Morecombe Bay
in the North of England.
In late 2003 Sheridan had succeeded in winning a place in a ballot amongst MPs, allowing him
to propose a ‘private member’s bill’ – a route though which MPs can suggest new laws which
are not necessarily supported by the government. Based on his knowledge of abuses in the
industry and working closely with UNITE, Sheridan choose to propose a law to regulate
gangmasters. Private member’s bills are rarely successful and indeed Sheridan had attempted in
the past to push for similar legalisation without success. However, a month after he made the
proposal, the deaths of the cockle pickers occurred and suddenly gangmaster abuses were in the
public eye. Although no one will ever know exactly what occurred leading up to their deaths, it
is clear that the workers had been sent on to the shore to pick the cockles without any instruction
on the dangerous tides in the area, where the sea would come in very quickly. The workers who
died had come from China as undocumented migrants and were paid by what they collected.
Filling a full bag with cockles (which could take an hour) earned them little over €1.50 and
overall earnings were therefore very low.
Their deaths shocked the parliament into acting and led to it adopting Jim Sheridan’s proposed
legislation, as it was clear that a specific form of protection was needed and the new law was
118
quickly passed and came into force soon after. It is questionable whether, without the
combination of the determination of Sheridan and UNITE and the tragic deaths, that there ever
would have been a law, as the labour suppliers themselves were generally opposed to it.
119
Outcomes
The law established the Gangmasters’ Licensing Authority (GLA)16 which has the job of
regulating those who supply labour or use workers to provide services in agriculture, forestry,
horticulture, shellfish gathering and food processing and packaging, through the issue of licences
and through inspections. All labour providers operating in the sectors must be licensed by the
GLA which has the power, not only to give licences, but to revoke them. Labour providers pay a
fee for the licence and this is related to the size of their turnover, with those with under £1m
paying £400 a year and those with a turnover of over £10m paying £2,600 a year. The fee is
payable every year on renewal. To obtain a licence, labour providers must show that they are
complying with legal minimum standards in relation to employment and must keep adequate
employment records.
It is a criminal offence for a gangmaster to operate in the regulated sectors without being
licensed, and perhaps more significantly, it is an offence for a labour user in the sector (such as a
farm or packhouse) to use an unlicensed gangmaster.
One of the most effective measures that the GLA can take is that it publicises a list of all those
agencies it has de-registered and who therefore can no longer operate in the sector17.
The GLA’s operations are overseen by a board comprised of those nominated by stakeholders
such as government departments, NGOs, farmers, retailers, labour providers and trade unions
(who hold four seats).
The legislation gives unions the opportunity to monitor the use of agency workers in the
workplace, and it means that local union representatives can take the opportunity to meet
regularly with their employers to check the documentation of the labour providers and to make
sure that they are licensed. It also means that unions can be confident that the labour providers
supplying workers are not breaking the law and that agency workers are being properly treated.
Additionally it has encouraged unions and employers to address precarious work. An example is
an agreement in 2010 between UNITE and the supermarket ASDA to combat discrimination
against migrant workers in the poultry sector, under which ASDA requires of its suppliers that
they pay migrants equally for the same work and that they eradicate cultures of bullying and
harassment.
As an indication of how the GLA works, in the first six months of 2011 it inspected more than 60
labour providers and revoked 25 licences. This method of inspection and revocation has resulted
in wide scale improvements to the rights of workers in the sectors covered, as once a provider
loses the licence they can no longer supply labour within the sectors. The system therefore is
regarded as working relatively well.
However, the fact that the GLA is limited to regulating workers only in the sectors listed above is
believed to have contributed to the movement of the worst providers out of these sectors and into
others which are currently not subject to GLA regulations. This is inevitable given that the
legislation represented a compromise between the aspirations of Sheridan and UNITE, which
was for a system that would apply to all sectors, and the majority in the parliament which
16
17
For information on the GLA see: http://gla.defra.gov.uk/)
See: http://gla.defra.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?id=1013810
120
accepted that there had to be a response to the Morecombe Bay tragedy, but wanted the law to be
restricted to clearly defined sectors or sub-sectors.
Within the meat processing sector (and the poultry sector in particular) the most significant role
for the legislation is in the regulation of agency workers who are mainly migrants, predominantly
from Central and Eastern Europe and who experience real insecurity about their employment as
they have few opportunities to move from agency to directly employed work. It is also more
difficult for them to enforce employment rights, where there is no identifiable employer. Without
the law there would be a great risk of ‘social dumping’ as the only other protection that there is
where union organisation is sufficiently strong to enforce better terms and conditions and
unionisation among agency workers is generally low.
Monitoring the use of labour providers in workplaces requires considerable union resources but
for the unions the main obstacles remain the restrictions which the legislation imposes in terms
of coverage. That is why the unions are continuing to call for a change to the law to make
licensing apply in all sectors.
Unions have also secured important advances through their work in
collaboration with the Ethical Trading Initiative, an alliance of companies,
trade unions and voluntary organisations working in partnership to improve
the working lives of people. This involvement was the backdrop to a formal
Enquiry into the meat and poultry processing sectors by the Equality and
Human Rights Commission, whose final report revealed evidence of the
widespread mistreatment and exploitation of migrant and agency workers in
the sector, and made recommendations to the key bodies - supermarkets,
agencies, processing firms, government, regulators and unions – which the
ECHC believed would encourage a systemic change in behaviour. These
included adopting measures that increased job security, protecting workers
against discrimination; addressing the lack of understanding of employment
rights; helping vulnerable workers to raise their concerns; and promoting
integration measures.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovations
Precarious workers in the sectors covered by the legislation have clearly benefited from the
legislation. They are now employed by organisations subject to scrutiny from the regulatory
authority and they must be paid at least at the national minimum rates - £6.08 per hour from 1
October 2011. In an area of employment where it was almost the ‘norm’ that the most vulnerable
workers got paid less than the legal minimum, the legislation has more or less prevented this.
Publishing the names of the labour providers who are not in compliance with the legislation
gives unions a way of placing checks on which agencies the employer uses and this has been
used to good effect in well-organised workplaces.
Trade unions in the UK are now considering how they might be able to use the new law on
agency workers effective from October 2011, to complement the work of the GLA. A Task force
set up after the enquiry into the meat and poultry sector continues to meet. The TUC is also
preparing a bargaining guide around equal treatment for agency workers, to come out in October
121
2011. This encourages the social partners to negotiate equality for agency workers by going
beyond the terms of the new law, which only gives a right to equal treatment after 12 weeks’
employment. It calls for pay parity from day one and for a right of agency workers to transfer to
direct employment after 12 weeks. The legislation potentially gives trade unions new rights to
information and consultation which could be exploited.
One particular identifiable initiative that has come out of the legislation and the work of the trade
unions in the meat and poultry sector is the development of effective co-operative working
between the unions, the Ethical Trading Initiative and the large supermarket chains, who, aware
of the need to maintain their reputations, to ethically source their products, are now more willing
to talk to trade unions.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews were held with Unite and the TUC.
Additional resources:
- Additional information was obtained from Mick Duncan, Senior Regional Organiser for Unite.
- The websites of the EHRC (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/), the GLA (http://gla.defra.gov.uk/), the
TUC (http://www.tuc.org.uk/) and of Unite (http://www.unitetheunion.org/), as well as that of the UK
Department for Business, Skills and Entreprise (BIS) (http://www.bis.gov.uk/) were also consulted.
122
Case study 15:
Enforcing the terms of the collective agreement for agency
workers through a regulatory body
Country:
Netherlands
Sector:
Food, Drink and Tobacco
___________________________________________________________
Background
There are three main trade union confederations in the Netherlands: the Dutch Trade Union
Federation (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, FNV) with 15 affiliated trade unions; the
Christian Trade Union Federation (Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond, CNV), with 11 affiliated
trade unions; and the Federation for Managerial and Professional Staff (Vakcentrale voor
Middelbaar en Hoger Personeel, MHP) with about 175,000 affiliated members (EIRO online,
2009). Trade union membership is 20 to 25 percent and this figure has remained stable in the last
decade.
The FNV is the largest of the three and was formed in 1976 as the result of the merging of the
Netherlands Federation of Trade Unions (NVV) and the Catholic Federation of Dutch Trade
Unions (NKV). Today it has over 470,000 members, covering the sectors of retail, services,
industry, metal, agriculture, temporary agency work and transport sectors.
Context
The case study looks the at the social partners’ initiative on Collective Labour Agreements
(CLA) and the establishment of the Stichting Naleving CAO voor Uitzendkrachten (SNCU:
Foundation Compliance CLA for Temporary workers). This is a regulatory organisation that
controls and monitors compliance with the Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) for temporary
agency18 employees and the Social Fund Collective Agreement for the temporary employment
sector – this covers sectors that employ temporary agency workers. The case study also focuses
on the sub sector of meat covered by the FNV Bondgenoten.
Since the 1990s an increasing number of agencies in the Netherlands had been supplying
workers on less favourable terms and not complying with the CLA and/or national law. The
workers they were supplying were mainly migrants from Poland. The need for regulation became
increasingly evident and employer organisations and trade unions held discussions for the
creation of an independent and neutral body that would safeguard the application of the CLA in
the temporary agency sector. The social partners for this collaboration included the employer
organisations the Algemene Bond Uitzendondernemingen (ABU) which represents over 60 per
cent of the market and the De Nederlandse Bond van Bemiddelings- en Uitzendondernemingen
(NBBU). Trade union participants included the FNV Bondgenoten, the CNV Dienstenbond, the
LBV and the UNIE. For the employers the main argument put forward was the need to eliminate
unfair competition, create a level playing field, eliminating those employers that did not obey the
rules and paid their workers less than the going rate. For the trade unions the aim was to reduce
workers’ exploitation and guarantee working conditions, such as the minimum wage, the
distribution of a proper contract and contributions to the pension fund.
18
Temporary agency employment is considered a sector in itself in the Netherlands and it covers employees in all
sectors that are being employed through an agency.
123
The SNCU was established in 2004 by the social partners, including legitimate temporary work
agencies and trade unions, to monitor compliance with the collective agreement. Its aim has been
to prevent the growth of illegal intermediaries who provide temporary workers at below cost
price, costing the agency work sector an estimated 10 per cent of turnover. The main objectives
of the SNCU are the prevention of unfair competition in employment conditions; the prevention
of the exploitation of employees; protection of the image of the flex-industry; and the building
up a strong lobbying-position towards politics. Both the trade unions and the employer
organisations sit on the SNCU board. It is primarily an offender focused and not victim focused
organisation, but it does provide information to workers and to agencies on collective agreements
and on the regulations for employment terms and conditions. It remains independent and is
financed by the Stichting Fonds Uitzendbranche (SFU), a funding foundation for the temporary
employment sector. One of the results, when the SNCU prosecutes an agency, is that it forces the
agency to make ‘restore-payments’ (compensation-payments) to those workers who have been
disadvantaged. During the re-investigation, the SNCU checks whether those restore-payments
really have been made. If the agency does not cooperate properly during the investigation, it
must pay compensation. This amount of money is then paid into the monetary fund of the SNCU,
and is then deducted from the SFU budget which is given to the SNCU. The SNCU team
currently consists of eleven members.
Turning to the meat sector, in terms of its workforce: it employs a mainly male workforce
undertaking what is considered as heavy, strenuous work where the majority of workers suffer
back problems at some stage in their lives. From this point of view all workers in the meat sector
can be considered as particularly vulnerable. The industry tends to rely heavily on temporary
agency workers, the majority of whom are migrants (around 60 - 80 per cent) mainly from
Poland. In terms of work conditions: temporary agency workers are low paid, work irregular
working hours; work in more unhealthy and unsafe work; and find it more difficult to make
complaints. Wages are much lower in neighbouring Germany and there have been employer
reallocations and job losses. Two plants have already closed and coupled with very low prices in
pork meat, the sector is in decline. This leads to a loss in union membership despite the fact that
union density has stayed stable at 22 per cent.
Outcomes
The main purpose of the SNCU is to check that proper labour practices and
procedures are being followed by the labour agencies. The SNCU collects
evidence provided by employers, trade unions or other parties and if
necessary, it carries out on-site inspections where it is suspected that the
collective agreement has not been complied with and over the first two years
of its operation had imposed fines totalling €2.6 million and successfully
took 12 court cases against agencies. Individual workers can report suspected
breach of the collective agreement and the foundation then carries out an
incident enquiry. Temporary work agencies have to comply with the SNCU
investigations since the collective agreement applies across the industry.
While this initiative is seen as a relatively successful collaboration, it initially faced obstacles. In
some cases non-compliant agencies were nevertheless members of the participating employer
124
organisations. The small and medium business sector initially opposed the idea of the SNCU
because it wanted to cut costs but at the same time was against unfair competition. An added
problem is that the sector is acknowledged as one that is difficult to organise and most of the
workforce is not unionised
To overcome these challenges, the FNV union concentrates its efforts on negotiating with
employers, including agencies, so as to reach agreement on terms and conditions directly.
However, given the difficulties in organising workers within the agency sector the union is also
active in raising awareness with members of parliament and finds this route helpful because
usually some members are interested in taking the matter forward and on putting pressure on
employers or in starting discussions on limiting the opportunities for non-compliant agencies,
while lobbying with government to change national law to prevent abusive agencies. So overall,
there has been a lot of collective bargaining and political lobbying on the issue. SNCU itself has
also increased its profile by frequently addressing the media.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovations
The establishment of the SNCU benefits temporary agency workers mainly in an indirect way
i.e. it forces agencies that do not comply with the CLA to compensate workers. In this way
individual workers are protected. In more general terms, the existence of the organisation helps
eliminate agencies that promote precarious work conditions and thus contributes to fairer
working practices in the temporary agency sector. A more direct benefit for workers is the advice
service that is offered by the SNCU to workers or interested parties that contact its offices.
Advice is also offered in Polish, as the majority of complaints received by the SNCU come from
Polish workers.
The initiative is beneficial to the Union as it helps reduce precarious work but also because it
generates discussions and increases public awareness on the issue of the unfair working
conditions of temporary agency workers. The cooperation between the three different partners is
also beneficial as it helps with the exchange of data that makes investigations more efficient.
Participation in social partnership has helped the union to develop more strategies to fight more
effectively for the enforcement of the CLAs. For the SNCU, the concentrated effort on Polish
workers (offering advice by bilingual staff for example) has lead to the reduction in the number
of phone calls received by Polish workers by ten percent.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
This case study is based on telephone interviews with FNV BG and the SNCU. Additional resources:
- EIRO online (2008), The Netherlands: Temporary agency work and collective bargaining, EIRO online
(http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2008/10/articles/nl0810029i.htm)
- FNV company monitor, (2009), The implications of flexibilisation of work for workers and trade unions,
Colofon, FNV company monitor
- Klijn,
J,
(2011),
‘Precarious
work
in
the
Netherlands
National and sector level agreements’, unpublished conference presentation
- Van het Kaar, R (2009), The Netherlands: Industrial relations profile, EIRO online
(http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/netherlands.htm)
- Websites:
- http://www.sncu.nl/EN/HowDoesSNCUWork.aspx
- http://www.fnvbondgenoten.nl/
125
Case study 16:
Winning a collective agreement against social dumping in
Denmark
Country:
Denmark
Sector:
Food, Drink and Tobacco
___________________________________________________________
Background
The United Federation of Danish Workers (3F) is the largest trade union in Denmark with
around 362,000 members. It was created in 2005 after the merging of the General Workers'
Union (SiD), the Women Workers' Union (KAD) and the National Restaurant Trade Union
(RBF) in 2006. The union covers mainly the private sector but a large proportion of its
membership is from the public sector as well, organising in the sectors of industry, transport,
public sector such as regional and local authorities, building and construction, the green sector such as forest, farm and dairy workers, and the private sector such as cleaners in private cleaning
companies or in the hotel and catering industry as chefs, cooks, waiters, receptionists and maids.
The union’s activity is also at international level ensuring that Danish companies that relocate to
countries without adequate employment protection also respect fundamental rights. The union
has also established collaborations with local and national unions in other countries
Context
Unions in Denmark consider social dumping in Denmark as the result of:
-
Wage discrimination between local and/or permanent workers and migrant and/or
temporary workers;
-
The lack of regulation which makes third country migrants more vulnerable;
-
An increase in atypical work especially in workplaces that are not union organised.
These problems have become more prominent as in recent years there has been a 20 per cent
decrease in union membership. Overall it is estimated that one in five jobs are atypical, without
taking into account part-time workers. Workers, especially from the agriculture and cleaning
sectors, regularly approach unions with various complaints that relate to precarious work, for
example underpayment of wages or high accommodation costs.
Collective agreements in Denmark are legally enforceable and any non-compliance is dealt with
through the Labour Court which can impose a special financial penalty. The obligations under a
collective agreement are binding not only upon a signatory organization but also upon its
individual members. However, where rights that are set out in the collective agreement are not
observed then they have to be pursued by the signatory to the agreement - in the case of workers,
by their trade union. Agreements can be industry wide or local but cover all workers in the unit
of the agreement.
126
Outcomes
Collective bargaining in 2007 included provisions to tackle social dumping
especially for migrant workers. Wages and pension rights for migrants were
improved, including back-dating of pension rights for those who had previously
been excluded, which meant that their service was taken into account. The recent
economic crisis has led to increased levels of unemployment for local workers
and the loss of contracts for small Danish businesses. As a result in 2010 and
2011, unions (also supported by the smaller companies) put pressure on
employer organisations to act against low wages and unfair competition from
employers who were undercutting on pay and conditions. In 2010 they secured
an agreement with BYG (The Danish Construction Association) which provides
a framework for early meetings in cases of a dispute. This provision has been
used in more than 100 cases and in all save two, it has led to a resolution of the
dispute. Another agreement with the Danish Handcraft Association concluded in
2011, places a binding obligation on the employer to insure that subcontractors
are covered by a collective agreement. It sets out a procedure for cases to go to
the Labour Court which can fine the employer for breach.
The 2010 collective agreements provide that new employees are to be included within the
pension scheme after two months of employment rather than the previous nine months. This
change contributes to the prevention of wage dumping but also acts against the use of short term
contracts which has been a way of employers avoiding pension contributions.
The resources necessary for the introduction of the special social dumping agreements in 2010
were considered substantial by the unions both in terms of finances, human resources and local
support. The union sees this initiative, however, as a major breakthrough, as instead of following
a more traditional group strategy consisting of many requirements, it focused on the single theme
of social dumping. This proposal gained support within the union membership, as it was
considered a more realistic strategy, with the potential for reaching agreement amongst all parties
concerned. The advent of the economic crisis placed an extra focus on the consequences of social
dumping, while the new negotiating structure provided a more favourable position for collective
bargaining. The main opposition that the union met for this proposal came from non-organised
employers.
The government had promised the trade unions that it would tackle social dumping by
introducing additional protections to ensure equal wages and equal rights for all workers
including temporary agency workers. This is highlighted in the report by the LO (the Danish
TUC) which also reports eighteen specific recommendations on stronger collective agreements,
pensions etc.
The 3F union took a series of actions for the negotiation and implementation of the collective
agreements on social dumping, focusing its efforts on equal pay. The union ensured the presence
of shop stewards in most workplaces so as to have first hand information that all terms and
conditions applied were in compliance with the collective agreements.
127
Evaluations, challenges, benefits and innovation
The new initiatives are seen as beneficial for all workers (both local and migrant), as they
provide equal rights and equal working conditions. They have resulted in more effective
collective agreements and more bargaining power, stronger cooperation to implement the terms
of the agreements and the provision of additional benefits relevant to prevent social dumping,
such as equal pension rights and the same allowances for holidays and other relevant breaks. The
collective agreements on social dumping have led to stronger cooperation.
Workers have benefited directly from the new collective agreements on social
dumping. The agreements have also been beneficial to the 3F union on three
main levels:
•
At an organisational level: the union gained a lot of knowledge on how
to organise itself and its members and on how to be active. Above all,
the trade union notes its valuable experience of being closer to its
members, their needs and their actions and away from office work;
•
At a policy-making level: the concentrated collective bargaining
process on social dumping has helped the union to open up its focus on
new areas for example on pensions. It also enabled it to take into
consideration the importance of work-life balance and implications for
families as well as the implications on different forms of employment
(for example part-time work).
•
The collective bargaining experience on social dumping enhanced the
union’s cooperation with other unions with principle gains in the area of
Further action is being taken by the union as the result of the social dumping agreements. The
union aims at focusing on where the problem is, i.e. of specific employers that do not cooperate.
The union has also extended its cooperation with other organisations such as the police or the
government’s taxation office to tackle issues arising more efficiently. Finally, the union is now
more organised on what type of action it takes itself and what action other organisations can also
take
The union has set up working groups focusing on aspects of organising. Although this took up a
lot of resources it allowed the union to raise member awareness of what a second class labour
market means. It also raised awareness of the issue more generally within Danish society.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews with officials from the 3F union.
Additional sources:
- Preisler, M (2011), EU directive on temporary agency work could reduce social dumping, Nordic labour
Journal, http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/temporary-workers/article.2011-04-01.4693831011
- http://forsiden.3f.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20060419&Kategori=OM3F&Lopenr=60419074&Ref=AR&p
rofile=2665
- http://forsiden.3f.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20070904&Kategori=ENGLISH&Lopenr=70904022&Ref=A
R&profile=2725
128
-
-
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2011/03/articles/dk1103019i.htm
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2010/03/articles/dk1003031i.htm,
http://www.bwint.org/default.asp?index=3553
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2011/03/articles/dk1103019i.htm,
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2010/03/articles/dk1003031i.htm,
http://www.bwint.org/default.asp?index=3553
(http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2010/03/articles/dk1003031i.htm)
(http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2010/03/articles/dk1003041i.htm
129
Case study 17:
The anti-wage dumping law in Austria – protecting
vulnerable workers
Country:
Austria
Sector:
Food, Drink and Tobacco
___________________________________________________________
Background
Austria has a comprehensive system of labour regulation with more than 90 per cent of
dependent employees being covered by a collective agreement. The collective agreements
include minimum wages for different categories of workers and are legally binding. There are
violations against minimum wage regulations, but according to the Austrian Trade Union
Federation, it has prevented systematic wage dumping. There are fears that with the labour
market opening this will no longer be the case. As a result, the trade unions for some time have
been demanding the adoption of adequate measures to make sure that the existing system
remains effective, while the employer side had rejected a tightening of the existing system.
Context
On 1 May 2011 the transition period with restrictions on the employment of workers from the ten
new member states, which had joined the EU in 2004, expired. Workers from these countries can
now work in Austria as migrants or posted workers without an Austrian working permit. The
reasons given for the transition period included concerns about an increase in unemployment and
possible pressure on wages, resulting from the substantial wage differences between Austria and
the EU8. The differences may have narrowed in the last seven years, but they are still significant.
As a result the authors of a recent study estimate that the opening of Austrian labour markets for
workers from these countries would attract between 21,000 and 26,000 new employees. Most are
expected to be working in the construction and tourism industries.
Before the adoption of the new law, workers who were paid less than requested by the collective
agreement had to file a suit with a civil court. Employers who were found guilty by the court had
to compensate the plaintiff for the difference between the actual and the mandatory wage rate
and they had to pay additional social security contributions to the social insurance funds, but
there were no additional fines. Hence the worst that could happen to a violator was that it had to
pay the amount of money which it tried to save in the first place. Because they had to file a suit
with a civil court, many workers who received less pay than they were entitled to decided not to
take action. No wonder that the Chamber of Commerce, which represents most employers in
Austria, did not want to change the system.
The employers’ attitude changed with the opening of the market. Since companies from the ten
new member states can provide their services in Austria with their own workers, the members of
the Chamber of Commerce became increasingly concerned that they would not comply with
Austrian labour standards and would price Austrian firms out of the market. In principle,
Austrian collective agreements also apply to posted workers, which means that they must be paid
according to Austrian minimum wages. Yet it is extremely unlikely that foreign workers who
work in Austria for a couple of weeks or months and then return to their homelands will sue the
employers for a violation of Austrian law. The Chamber of Commerce would have liked to see
the introduction of special measures for competitors from the new member states, but EU
130
legislation forbids discrimination against companies from other EU member states. Hence in
order to protect its members from unfair competition, the Chamber of Commerce had to accept
the introduction of fines and the tightening of the control system.
Negotiations on an anti-wage dumping law started in 2008. The social partners declared a joint
agreement (“Arbeitsmarkt – Zukunft 2010. Vereinbarung der Sozialpartner mit der
Bundesregierung zur Jugendbeschäftigung und zur Deckung des Facharbeiterkräftebedarfs) that
adequate measures against social dumping should be adopted before the expiry of the transition
period. The negotiations that followed were repeatedly delayed. The critical phase started in
2010 and ended with a social partner agreement on the fight against wage and social dumping.
The results were presented at a social partner meeting in Bad Ischl in Upper Austria in October
2010. The agreement was transposed into the anti-wage and social dumping bill (“Lohn- und
Sozialdumping-Bekämpfungsgesetz”) and adopted by the Austrian Parliament in late March so
that the law could take effect on 1 May 2011.
Outcomes
The legislation has two main parts:
-
The introduction of fines on companies which pay less than the minimum wage foreseen
in the applicable collective agreements
-
The establishment of a new control system, with more resources and more effective
control rights.
With the new legislation the payment of lower than required wages is no longer a matter of civil
law. Employers who underpay workers are now violating administrative law. This has two
important consequences: firstly, the authorities can take legal action even if the affected workers
do not want to sue the employer(s); and secondly, employers who are found guilty, by the
administrative court, do not only have to pay the difference between what they paid and what
they had to pay – plus the additional social security contributions. They also have to pay a
penalty.
Fines range between 1,000 and 10,000 euro per employee who has received less than they are
entitled to. In cases of recurrence or if more than three workers are concerned, the fine increases
to between 2,000 and 20,000 euro and in cases where this is not the first violation and where
more than three workers are concerned to between 4,000 and 50,000 euro. In the case of
marginal infringements (geringfügiges Verschulden), companies are not fined but they still have
to compensate the affected workers, regardless of how small the difference is. Violations expire
after twelve months.
In the case of Austrian employers the social insurance funds can easily document the wages
actually paid (save in the case of self-employed workers). In the case of foreign companies, the
legislation requires employers to document wages and working hours and present the record to
the authorities, if asked. The law also states that the respective documents must be available in
German.
For Austrian firms the relevant social insurance funds are responsible for controlling the amount
of wages actually paid. For posted workers it is more difficult to produce the necessary
information. For this purpose a special institution – the competence centre for the fight against
wage and social dumping – was created at the Vienna branch of the statutory health insurance.
The competence centre will play a critical role in producing the evidence of violations which will
131
then be processed by the administrative courts. As such, the competence centre will also closely
cooperate with the finance police (formerly KIAB - Kontrolle illegaler
Arbeitnehmerbeschäftigung) who carry out control activities at work sites. All the authorities
involved in an investigation have the right to access the relevant documents.
A special problem is the control of the assignment to different wages categories. An employer
may disadvantage an employee not by paying less than required by the minimum wage, but by
assigning the employee to a lower wage category. The assignment to different wage categories is
not always straight-forward. As a result the authorities can involve the social partners to clarify
contested assignments. Another problem in the legislation is that the investigation is limited to
the payment of basic wages. Additional benefits are not taken into account even if the employees
are legally entitled to receive them.
While the new law gives the authorities much better instruments to take action against employers
who pay less than the collectively agreed minimum wages, the union believes that effect of the
measure will greatly depend on how it will be applied. There as yet have been no reported
infringements and the effectiveness of the law will depend on the resources that the government
will make available. However, the unions believe that they will make it easier to bring
infringements to the attention of the authorities, for example, in cases such as when a restaurant
worker is contacting the union because of irregularities in her or his pay slip.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
The Austrian Trade Union Federation sees the anti-dumping legislation as a
milestone and major achievement. It makes the practice of paying less than
required according to the collective agreement a serious infringement.
Employers will no longer get away by simply paying the outstanding sum if
they are found guilty. They will have to pay a fine for disregarding existing
regulations and the fine can be substantial if violations recur and if
employers do it systematically – i.e. when more than three workers are
affected. The unions expect that the new control system will be effective. It
will make it much more easy to pass on complaints from members
(previously complaints had to be submitted to several different authorities).
While the legislation is primarily directed against foreign companies, the
unions hope that it will help to solve existing irregularities and prevent future
violations committed by Austrian employers as well.
The legislation was only possible in connection with the market opening. The legislation not
only helps workers to receive the wages they are entitled to; it also protects (Austrian) companies
from unfair (foreign) competition. Without the second benefit it would have been highly unlikely
that the Chamber of Commerce would have accepted the introduction of fines for wage
violations. And because EU legislation forbids discrimination against companies from other
member states, the regulation had to apply in the same way to foreign and Austrian companies.
The legislation requires that all employers must document wages and working hours and present
the record to the authorities if asked. The law also states that the respective documents must be
available in German. If companies repeatedly violate the legislation, the law gives the authorities
132
the power to ban them from providing services in Austria.The interesting aspect of the new law
is that the Austrian companies accepted the threat of they too being fined, in exchange for
protection from unfair competition.
It is too early to evaluate this measure and it remains to be seen if it is as effective as it was
hoped for by the trade unions. Much will depend on how the control activities are carried out and
how effective the different authorities are in working together in executing the legislation. The
legislation has a potentially positive effect for precarious workers, as it will make it more
difficult and risky to pay less than required in the collective agreements.
The unions strongly support the law and see it as essential to protect the labour market from the
threat of social dumping caused by its opening up to the new member states. As such the
Austrian unions recommend the measure for other countries, but of course the usefulness
depends on the national context.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Interviews with the Austrian Trade Union Federation and with the Vida trade union
Additional resources:
- Various documents including the legislation and preceding social partner agreements.
- EIRO report and newspaper reports.
133
Case study 18:
Stabilizing employment in the Italian food industry
Country:
Italy
Sector:
Food, Drink and Tobacco
___________________________________________________________
Background
In the food sector the most representative trade union federations are FLAI-CGIL, FAI-CISL and
UILA-UIL. The employers’ side is represented by Federalimentare. FLAI (Italian federation of
agro-industrial workers) is a sectoral union affiliated to CGIL that organizes the agricultural and
food sector workers. In 2009 FLAI had over 283,000 members. At company level FLAI, is
represented in the unitary workplace union structures (RSU). These are representative bodies for
all those employed in an individual work/production unit or in a particular geographical area. In
the Italian food sector, unions and employers have asserted in national collective agreements
(such as the food industry agreement) that realizing the improvement of working conditions,
productivity, effectiveness, employment and workers’ protection are among their priorities for
action.
Context
The food sector is considered an important part of the Italian economy and is also highly
representative of the “made in Italy” label within global markets. From the point of view of
employment conditions, as in all sectors of the Italian economic system, the Biagi law (law
30/2003) applies and legitimates the use of contractual types that depart from the classical
requirements and connotations of subordinate work. These include temporary, sub-contracted,
posted, part-time, casual, undeclared and seasonal work. In addition, Italy, like all other Western
countries has been facing a strong economic crisis for at least three years now and this has
encouraged employers to offer precarious work.
Since 2006 there have been several initiatives and projects, in particular at company level to fight
precariousness. These initiatives include programmes of specific job training, information
campaigns, web pages, specific support instruments, legal services, public campaigns to raise
awareness and union campaigns related to nearly all types of precarious work. This case study
sets out a number of initiatives taken by unions in Food, Drink and Tobacco.
According to union data, a majority of workers in the agricultural and fishing sector have a fixed
term contract and nearly one in ten is a non-EU citizen. There are possibly as many as another
300,000 undeclared workers. Precarious workers usually have limited rights with regard to health
coverage, unemployment benefits and insurances against injuries. Furthermore, in most cases
there is no equal pay for precarious workers and few possibilities for stable employment.
Outcomes
In the food industry unions have been calling for posted workers to be employed on the basis of
Italian collective agreements and not on the basis of the norms valid in the country in which the
posting company or agency has its seat. This led to the signing of a ground-breaking companylevel agreement with the biscuit producer Colussi in May 2011 which states that in conformity
with legislation introduced in 2000 ‘all working conditions applied to Italian workers must be
applied also to trans-nationally posted workers’. The Colussi management raised no objections to
134
the clause being included in the company-level agreement and the unions intend to negotiate
similar provisions in other company-level agreements, such as those at Granarolo and Ferrero.
Union strategies are thus aimed at treating posted workers according to Italian norms. This is
considered an important political point. Trade unions want to avoid a competition based on
dumping strategies and unfair competition.
At sectoral level, a 2009 collective agreement for the food sector has made provision, with effect
from January 2011, for a supplementary health fund, not only for permanent workers, but for all
workers who have a temporary contract that lasts at for at least nine months. It states: ’the
bargaining parties [..] agree to activate, from 01 January 2011, a supplementary health fund for
workers with an open-ended contract and for workers with a temporary contract of at least nine
months in one calendar year’ and health and welfare funds to which both workers and the
employers contribute on the basis of a level of contribution established by the collective
agreement, have been set up.
Moreover, the social partners at company level have also adopted measures aimed at supporting
precarious workers.
In the case of Ferrero, the company-level agreement for the period 2006-2010
contains a provision saying that, if there are vacancies with regard to permanent
positions, the company will favour the hiring of precarious workers such as
seasonal, fixed-term and posted workers already employed by Ferrero. In
accordance with this provision, during the period from 2006-2010 about 250
precarious workers have been offered an open-ended contract, through a ranking
based on length of service or other appropriate criteria.
Furthermore, the collective agreement signed in 2009 contains a provision
which since 22 September 2009 gives all seasonal workers precedence over
potential new seasonal workers.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
There has been a large increase in precarious work over the last ten years. This is particularly
true for the cheese and milk industry, the chocolate industry, as well as for the meat industry.
Furthermore, there is a concentration of precarious work among female and young workers under
25 and the unions believe that precarious work in Italy will increase further.
In many cases it has been possible to convert precarious employment contracts into permanent
contracts. Thanks to these paths of stabilization the unions have gained experience in the area of
precarious work, increased their membership and in particular that among precarious workers.
Furthermore, they assess the increasing cooperation with the other unions at the national and
European level very positively. In the context of difficult labour market conditions trade union
initiatives have addressed young workers and women workers in particular with the aim of
promoting stable employment conditions.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
The main source of information was interviews with FAI-CISL and FLAI-CGIL officers, Marco Gentile, FLAICGIL, national headquarters, department of industry, Rome and Ermanno Bonaldo, trade union officer, FAI-CISL,
national headquarters, Rome.
Additional resources:
- Integrative company-level agreement Colussi S.p.a – period 2011-2013.
135
-
Directive
2006/123/CE
‘Bolkestein’
(available
at
http://eurlex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V3&T2=2006&T3=123&RechType=RECH_naturel&Submit=Cercare)
National collective agreement for agricultural workers and nursery gardeners period 1 st January 2006 – 31
December 2009.
National collective agreement for the food industry, period 1st June 2003 – 31 May 2007.
Agreement of renewal for the national collective agreement for the food industry, dated 22 September 2009.
Number
1-3
of
“FAI
Proposte”,
January-March
2011
available
at
http://www.fai.cisl.it/default.asp?cod=&t=58&dett=2675&pag=0.
Economic outcomes of agricultural firms 2008, ISTAT (Italian Institute of Statistics) available at
http://www.istat.it/salastampa/comunicati/non_calendario/20110214_00/.
Data gathering of work-force 2010, ISTAT (Italian Institute of Statistics) available at
http://www.istat.it/dati/dataset/20110422_00/.
136
Case study 19:
Providing stability to casual workers in the sectors of
canned fish and canned vegetables
Country:
Spain
Sector:
Food, Drink and Tobacco
___________________________________________________________
Background
In Spain unions are internally organised both sectorally (federations) and geographically
(territorial branches). Federations organise those workers who belong to a given sector while
territorial branches can exist both at regional and even at provincial level. The main generalist
Spanish trade unions are Comisiones Obreras (CCOO), Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT)
and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO).In addition to the generalist trade unions, there are also unions
only active in one sector.
Context
Two collective agreements, one in the sector of canned fish and the other in canned vegetables
are important in relation to precarious workers, addressing the issue of casual work, by providing
rights to employment stability. The agreements were signed between the main Spanish trade
unions, CCOO and UGT, and the main employers in the respective sectors. They both initially
covered the period extending until 31 of December of 2010, but the respective texts stated that if
none of the signatory parts denounce the agreements they would be renewed for at least one
further year and this has happened
Outcomes
The two food sector agreements addressed precarious work by looking at
what processes could be applied to give casual workers more job security,
both by extending the length of temporary contracts to nine months in every
12 and, in the case of the first agreement, by providing a procedure for their
transition into permanent work, where available.
Canned vegetables is a sector in Spain with low union density, due to the extent of casualisation.
It has a large migrant labour force, whose situation has meant that workers have sometimes been
reluctant to take up union activities or to make complaints. The agreement represents a
movement away from arrangements which left workers in a situation where they did not have
any job security and therefore could not plan their lives. It introduces a ‘contrato fijo
discontinuo’ (a formal type of near-permanent’ contract) into a sector which has been markedly
seasonal, with seasons extending for up to nine months. It specifically addresses women and
older casual workers, by giving them a first right to be considered when permanent work is
available. It acknowledges seniority as a transparent method of recruitment into permanent posts.
The agreement also ensures that casual workers have the right to be represented by a trade union
and gives those casuals employed through an employment agency the right to equal treatment, in
terms of pay and conditions with directly employed workers.
137
The collective agreement in the canned fish sector also combats precarious work but has
different strategies which focus, in particular, on protecting young precarious workers as well as
women workers, through work/life balance measures. In this sector too working conditions are
tough. The agreement also provides for the use of the ‘contrato fijo discontinuo’ to convert
casual jobs into jobs with some job security, although it does not provide for their further
conversion into permanent jobs. However, it does commit the sector to only resorting to the use
of temporary recruitment agencies in exceptional circumstances as, for example where there are
a significant number of vacancies that it is not otherwise possible to fill. It limits the numbers
who can be recruited under a ‘contrato en prácticas’ (work-experience contract), thus protecting
young workers who are usually in precarious forms of employment and often employed under
contracts which give them no real employment rights. An important element of this agreement is
the introduction of measures of reconciliation of work and family life, aimed at protecting
women against having to take precarious jobs, as a way of being able to deal with family duties.
As with the canned vegetables agreement, the canned fish agreement explicitly asserts that all
workers in the sector have a right to union representation.
Evaluation, challenges, benefits and innovation
These agreements introduce a measure of job stability into a sector which had heavily relied on
casual workers employed with no rights. By giving them the right to a specific contract that has
employment rights attached to it and which is collectively negotiated, the agreements tackle
precarious work effectively. Both collective agreements have been successful in achieving higher
job stability in this sector, which has at the same time provided employers, in the sector, with the
flexibility they need to manage production cycles. In the case of canned vegetables, the clauses
related to equality and the contents of the collective agreement were subjected to a long process
of collective bargaining with the employers in this sector, involving a large number of meetings
with employers. In the case of canned fish, the unions have achieved wage equalisation between
predominantly male and predominantly female groups in the sector, although difficult
negotiations are continuing.
The agreements have made a difference regarding social and labour rights and in terms of wage
levels in sectors where wage differences between permanent and casuals workers had been large
and they both represent a way of adapting collective bargaining to the current economic
situation, dominated by an acute crisis.
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
For this case study, interviews were conducted with CCOO trade union officials Silvia Conde and
José Fuentes Cabello.
Additional resources:
- http://www.agroalimentaria.ccoo.es/comunes/temp/recursos/21/808144.pdf.
- http://www.agroalimentaria.ccoo.es/comunes/temp/recursos/21/549021.pdf.
138
PART D – CONCLUSIONS & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PART D – CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This report has highlighted how precarious work has spread in the three sectors covered in the
study and how its consequences have been a rise in job instability, uncertainty about the future;
fear of raising concerns at work; and serious risks to health and safety, for workers and for
consumers. The study demonstrates that precarious work can be challenged but that it needs the
political will to do so, and it needs the involvement of all the social actors. including trade
unions, employers, suppliers, national governments and the European Commission, if the rising
tide of precarious work is to be turned around, so as to make it clear that it has no place in a
Europe committed to fundamental rights, to fairness at work and to equality of opportunity.
There also is a continuing role for Europe’s media which has addressed inequality at the
workplace through its investigations of employer malpractice. Without the involvement of all
these key actors, the ever-growing numbers of workers employed in precarious and sub-standard
jobs can only represent more workers without hope and without a vision of a better future.
Europe cannot effectively build nor compete globally on this basis. Indeed it is a short-lived and
unsustainable model. Europe’s industries, including Agriculture, Food and Tourism, can only
compete on quality and this will only be delivered where employment is of a sufficiently high
standard to guarantee equally good quality products. Good social conditions promote good
quality products. Poor social conditions foster poor work, sometimes with dangerous outcomes.
In particular the health of Europe’s citizens is dependent on the food that it consumes and poor
standards in agriculture and in food production have an impact that goes beyond the workforce.
And of course workers are consumers too and therefore in demanding decent terms and
conditions they are voicing concerns not just for themselves, but for their families and wider
society.
The study has pointed to a number of factors that have encouraged the growth of precarious
work. The policy-driven imperatives of privatisation and sub-contracting have created two-tier
workforces, often working side by side, but on different terms and conditions. This is not
conducive to social integration, and when these workforces (as so often is the case) are also
differentiated by gender, age, ethnicity and national origins, they encourage divisiveness and
damage cohesion.
This study has shown that precarious work, if not checked, will continue to grow and that more
workers will be drawn into it since precarious work is not confined to specific sectors. Instead it
contaminates the whole of the labour market, as many employers seek to expand its base in their
search to cut costs and escape legal regulation. That is why it is important to continually stress
that precarious work is trans-sectoral and increasingly it is moving into areas of the labour
market that had earlier been considered protected and unaffected by these wider changes. If steps
are not taken to address this issue then young workers, in particular, will find it increasingly
difficult to obtain work that allows them to plan for their futures. Migrant workers will be
allocated always to the lowest paid jobs under the worst conditions, feeding into racist
139
discourses. Women will be employed on temporary and casual contacts and unable to provide
economically for themselves, placing them at risk from domestic and societal violence.
There is however an alternative. This report has shown that it is possible to challenge precarious
work and to create conditions which genuinely give workers opportunities to move away from
uncertainty. In particular, many of the agreements highlighted that have addressed the concerns
of seasonal workers point to how this might be tackled. Giving seasonal workers the right to
work year on year; ensuring that social insurance contributions are covered for the whole year;
bringing seasonal workers into pension schemes; giving workers the opportunity to transfer into
permanent work where available and under transparent conditions; and re-organising how work
is covered, to provide longer periods of employment, have all been used as ways of removing or
reducing precariousness from seasonal work.
Casual and agency work are strongly associated with precarious work, offering poorer terms and
conditions to workers where there are no agreements between unions, agencies and employers.
Workers posted to work in other EU countries also often suffer from worse terms and conditions
than apply in the countries where they work and current EU law does not address this disparity
of treatment helping foster divisions between workers.
It is sometimes asserted that job creation is dependent on the growth of temporary work.
However, this is not the case. It is permanent work with a guarantee of stable earnings that
sustains worker consumption and establishes the conditions for further job creation. Temporary
work does the opposite. At most it encourages short-termism and a lack of the degree of planning
which is needed to ensure sustainable growth.
The real victims in the growth of precarious work are younger workers who can only find jobs at
minimum (or below) wages, and even then on temporary short-term contracts. We all need to ask
if this is the best way forward, when 37.5 per cent of young workers in the EU-25 have
temporary contracts, with nearly two in three young people in Spain (59.4 per cent) in temporary
work (OSHA, 2010). It is for all of these reasons that EFFAT sees as its major demand that there
should be equal treatment and no discrimination.
Recommendations
The recommendations listed below address all the key stakeholders.
1. General recommendations
• Triangular working relationships are more likely to encourage forms of precarious
employment, particularly in those cases where the employer is not easily identified or
where relationships between employer and end user are not clearly defined. While
Directive 2008/104/EC on Temporary Agency Work is aimed at guaranteeing no less
favourable treatment to agency workers, the complexity of the working relationships
implied in agency sourced labour demands concerted action from both the trade unions
and the end user employer, as well as the agency. This might be advanced through the
development of three way contracts to which all parties are bound or through the
promotion of external regulatory regimes. (Case studies 14, 15, 18 and 19 provide
examples of the regulation or limitation of agency work).
•
It is clear that legislation by itself, whether at national or at EU level, cannot be effective
in protecting workers from precarious work, if the enforcement mechanisms in place are
non-existent or difficult to access. Access to employment rights is dependent on (a)
worker confidence at not being subject to victimisation; (b) worker knowledge about
rights; and (c) worker access to representation to obtain such rights. Providing effective
140
enforcement mechanisms and representation rights so that workers may access their
social rights is therefore a key element in the fight against precarious work.
•
The study recommends a concerted effort by all the parties that focuses on health and
safety, to include sector social dialogue, legislative advances and campaigns addressing
union members, as an effective method of winning protection for workers in precarious
employment.
•
The study found that the concept of precarious work remains contested and that it is
important to continue to monitor its developments and the new forms that it might take.
This means that the topic should continue to form part of the agendas of all of the social
actors.
•
Precarious work does not offer workers the opportunities for training which they need to
move into more stable work. There is an urgent need to improve the training of workers
in the sectors of Agriculture, Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism and Food, Drink and
Tobacco to enable them to improve their skills and qualifications and to assist in the
modernisation of the sectors. All key actors identified in this report have a role in the
improvement of training.
•
All the key actors should have an interest in ensuring that workers are not forced into
accepting forms of work involuntarily, because the form that they want is not available.
This means that social welfare systems should not be based around the model of the
worker being obliged to accept any work, but should recognise that matching workers’
skills to the jobs that they do is beneficial to society in general.
2. Stakeholder specific recommendations
2a. EU institutions
There is the need for a common minimum floor of rights in the EU, and in particular for a level
of minimum wages in all countries, either mandated by law or negotiated by the social partners.
Pay levels that are too low to enable workers to plan for their and their families’ futures foster
precariousness. A number of the case studies in this report provide examples of how trade unions
have organised to guarantee minimum pay. To ensure that these measures are effective, the
European Commission should:
• Establish a common rule as to the level of minimum wages. The Council of Europe’s
decency threshold of minimum wages, as 60 per cent of average earnings, would be a
useful starting point.
•
Draw up a proposal for a Directive on basic social rights including minimum wages;
social security coverage; and employment status.
•
Establish conditions in relation to occupational mobility that would guarantee equal pay
and equal conditions to seasonal workers and enable them to transfer to permanent work.
•
Draw up a proposal for EU wide arrangements to cover the pension scheme entitlements
for mobile work, including the provision of pension accrual rights for workers who are in
fragmented employment relationships and common rights to accumulate pension
entitlements for posted and migrant workers.
•
Co-ordinate support within countries of origin to create work and social opportunities so
as to provide opportunities for work for those who are currently unable to find it locally.
141
•
Improve data collection so as to have sufficient data to be able to assess changes in the
labour force, and in particular to alert the social partners to the emergence of new forms
of precarious work. It is recommended that the EU keeps records and establishes a
system that will monitor and generate figures and estimations about precarious work; and
•
There are strong arguments that all subsidies and public monies should be linked to the
promotion of decent work.
2b. National governments and institutions
National governments have a key role in eliminating precarious work. It is not sufficient that
they relegate this to be dealt with at EU level and as something to which they will respond only
if obliged to. Key areas that might be addressed by national government institutions include:
• A revision of national laws on employment relationships, to remove any uncertainty
which arises about different forms of employment relationships, by extending
employment rights equally regardless of employment type.
•
An end to the legal differentiation between workers and the self-employed where the
latter are not genuinely in business on their own account.
•
The establishment of a right to equal pay for equal work, regardless of contract status.
•
The extension of fundamental employment rights – to minimum pay; health and safety
provision; representation – to all working within the member state, regardless of their
employment status, including covering those without full documentation.
•
Legislation to control the supply of labour through the use of temporary work agencies,
by requiring the registration of any such agencies with a competent public authority that
hold the powers of inspection and of enforcement, including their removal from the
register.
•
The promotion of collective bargaining either through specific legislation that
implements international standards or by promoting collective bargaining through
decisions that they take in relation to public procurement.
•
Introducing legal measures that oblige employers to negotiate collective agreements with
trade unions, covering all workers in the public sector, including those workers whose
jobs have been privatised or contracted out.
•
Establishing effective enforcement mechanisms that can ensure that employment and
social welfare rights are complied with.
•
Setting down legal standards regarding the accommodation provisions for seasonal,
mobile and posted workers, with an inspection regime to ensure that the accommodation
is of sufficiently good quality.
2c Employers and companies
To ensure they provide decent work for their employees employers should:
• Actively engage with trade unions in collective bargaining, in particular in bargaining
over employment contracts, their duration, and the routes from temporary into permanent
work.
142
•
Conduct equality audits to ensure that their actions have not discriminated against
workers on any grounds protected under EU law.
•
Establish transparent routes for the promotion of seasonal workers into permanent and
higher graded jobs.
•
If employing posted, migrant workers or mobile national workers, employers should
provide decent and suitable accommodation and register that accommodation for
inspection by the competent public authorities.
•
Provide formal written contracts to all those who work directly for them, setting out the
core terms and conditions, the procedures for pursuing grievances and contact details for
representatives. Such documents should be made available in the worker’s home
language.
•
Consider the procedures they utilise to recognise skills and qualifications, so that workers
are able to know what they are being assessed on and what they need to do to
demonstrate their skills and qualifications.
•
Comply with ILO and other international labour standards
2d Trade unions
Trade unions should:
• Enter into dialogue with employers over the introduction of schemes aimed at stabilising
employment. The case studies provide a range of initiatives where seasonal and
temporary workers have been assisted into standard and secure jobs.
•
Encourage sustainable development and make this part of their collective bargaining
agenda. They also need to publicise better the initiatives that they have taken in this area.
•
Organise all workers in the sector and workplace, regardless of whether they are
temporary or permanent, seasonal, casual or established. Provide information on workers’
rights in the relevant languages; consider different methods of organisation to
communicate with different types of workers.
•
Use their purchasing power to obtain improvements for workers and work jointly with
third parties who have the power to enforce change on employers, for example
supermarkets in the case of food production.
•
Encourage solidarity, particularly when it is inter-generational, across gender or across
ethnic group;
•
Work with labour and other inspectorates, particularly where they are focusing on
abusive working conditions;
•
Build effective partnerships, including partnerships with civil society organisations like
NGOs, with suppliers like the supermarkets and with sister trade unions particularly at
European and International level.
2e Civil society
• The study has identified areas of social welfare rights which, when absent, create
conditions of precarious work. It is a function of civil society to promote adequate
welfare provision for those out of work, particularly if in seasonal employment.
143
•
NGOs have specialist knowledge which can be beneficial to the social partners and
should be encouraged to work with them and to provide advice on areas of work that they
are expert in.
144
10 Key Principles on Precarious Work
to be addressed by European Social Partners and Policy Makers
1. If it’s the same work it’s the same job, so it must come with the same rights and pay.
Equal pay and conditions must be provided for equal work, regardless of the employment
contract, the origin, the nationality or the gender of the workers.
2. It is where you work that counts, not where you are from. The host country principle
must be implemented everywhere in the EU. Every worker must have the entitlement to
benefit from the rights and social conditions of the country where s/he works. Exporting
lower pay and conditions along with workers is economically and socially harmful to
individuals, families, companies and communities. It undermines social dialogue and it leads
to unfair competition and social dumping.
3. All workers in Europe deserve decent minimum wage protection. All European countries
should have minimum wages covering everyone; either bargained by the social partners or
mandated by legislation, and they must be respected, defended and enforced.
4. Employment relationships must be simplified. Precarious employment is encouraged by
the fragmented and complicated rules regulating employment relations in the EU. This
situation creates social exclusion, discrimination, lack of transparency, administrative and
transactional costs, as well as opportunities to evade social legislation. We need clear, simple
and fair rules at the EU level, in line with ILO standards, the EU Social Charter and the
Decent Work agenda.
5. Precarious workers should be moved into permanent jobs. We need mechanisms to
transition precarious workers into permanent positions and to break the barriers that socially
exclude precarious workers from the “first tier workforce”. This divide disproportionally
affects vulnerable categories of workers such as young people, women, migrant, posted and
seasonal workers.
6. All employers need to engage in collective bargaining. Employers have a fundamental
duty to engage constructively in collective bargaining with trade unions. Governments should
support this with measures including capacity building for social partners and social
dialogue, and they must promote universal coverage of collective agreements in order to
secure equal treatment and social inclusion.
7. Investment in strong public employment services is essential. Public employment services
must be preserved and strengthened to ensure that they can monitor the movement of
workers’ in Europe and work to ensure compliance with labour and social legislation
combating unfair and illegal practices. Private employment agencies are not suitable for these
roles.
8. Effective, well enforced regulation is needed for temp agencies. Temporary employment
agencies must be made to comply with decent minimum standards. The implementation of
the Temporary Agency Work Directive must be carefully monitored and complemented with
white/black listing mechanisms and clear, effective sanctions in cases of abuse.
9. Employers must be held to account for subcontracted workers. Companies that use
subcontractors must ensure decent working conditions for all workers in their supply chains.
It cannot be an excuse that unfairly treated workers are not employed directly by them. They
145
need to insist on decent standards, with effective penalties for subcontractors that fail to meet
them.
10. Precarious workers must be organised and given a voice. It is the duty of trade unions to
fight the erosion of solidarity caused by precarious employment conditions, to organize
precarious workers, to represent them, to incorporate their interests into collective
agreements and to implement those.
146
References
Anderson, R.,Mikuliç, B., Vermeylen, G., Lyly-Yrjänäinen M., Zigante, V., (2009), Second European Quality of
Life Survey – Overview, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Artazoz, L. Benach, J. Borrell, C and Cortes, L. (2005) ‘Social inequalities in the impact of flexible employment on
different domains of psychosocial health’ Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59:761-76;
Bhalla, A. S. and McCormick, P. (2009) Poverty Among. Immigrant Children in Europe, Basingstoke, Palgrave,
Macmillan
Barbier, J.C.(2011), Employment precariousness in a European cross--‐national perspective, a sociological view
over thirty years of research, Presentation to the May 2011 seminar “Destandardisation of employment”, Köln
University
Benach J., and Muntaner, C. (2007) ‘Precarious employment and health: developing a research agenda’, J
Epidemiology and Community Health 61:276-277
Benach, J. Muntaner, C. and Santana, V. (2007) Employment conditions and health inequalities, Final report to the
WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) Employment Conditions Knowledge Network
(EMCONET)
Bercusson, B. (2009) European labour law, 2 nd Edition, Cambridge University Press pp. 384-400.
Bibby, A. (2002) ‘Multinationals adopt Framework Agreements’ People Management, 2002
Bradley, H. and J. van Hoof (2005) `Fractured Transitions: The Changing Context of Young Peoples' Labour
Market Situations in Europe', in H. Bradley and J. van Hoof (eds) Young People in Europe, pp 99-113. Bristol: The
Policy Press
Brenner, M. (2006) Impact of Macroeconomic factors on mortality in Europe and the OECD – Final Report,
European Commission.
Broughton, A., Biletta, I. and Kullander, M. (2010), Very atypical forms of work, Dublin, Eurofound, European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), available online at:
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0812019s/index.htm
Broughton, A. (2010) Key elements of fair employment and decent work, European Foundation for Living and
Working Conditions.
Caroli, E., Gautié, J., Lloyd, C., Lamanthe, A. and James, S (2010), ‘Delivering flexibility: Contrasting patterns in
the French and the UK food processing industry’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 2010, volume 48, issue 2,
pages 284-309
Caroli, E. Gautié, J. Lamanthe (2009) ‘High relative wages and high work intensity: The French food processing
model in international perspective’, Paris School of Economics, Working Paper No. 2009-23.
Castel, R. (2003). From manual workers to wage laborers: transformation of the social question. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2008) Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action
on the social determinants of health, World Health Organisation.
Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (2010) Report on precarious women workers, European
Parliament, A7-0264/2010, July 2010
Confederation of the food and drink industry of the EU (CIAA), (2009), Data trends of the European Food and
Drink Industry, CIAA
Cotton, E. (2010) Contract and agency labour, Working paper, Middlesex University Business School.
Cremers, J. (2009) In search of cheap labour in Europe, CLR Studies 6
D'Amours, 2009 M. D'Amours, ‘Non-standard employment after age 50: How precarious is it?’, Industrial
Relations, 64 2 (2009), pp. 209–229
Duell M (2004) ‘Defining and assessing precarious employment in Europe: a review of main studies and surveys’,
Discussion paper in Economix, Research and Consulting, Munich
147
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EASHW). Literature Study on Migrant Workers, Bilbao, Spain,
November 2007. Available at: http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/literature_reviews/migrant_workers
EFFAT (2009a) What is precarious work, Precarious work home page
EFFAT (2009) Social justice from farm to fork – Fight precarious work, EFFAT charter on precarious work
http://www.effat.be/files/congress2009/3en.pdf
EFFAT (2011), Identifying obstacles to mobility for workers in agriculture and rural service companies: finding
and developing alternatives, EFFAT
Elcioglu, E.F. (2010). ‘Producing Precarity: the temporary staffing agency in the labor market’, Qualitative
Sociology, 33(2), pp 117-136
European Commission (2007) Towards Common Principles of Flexicurity: more and better jobs through flexibility
and security
European Commission (2008): Sectoral Innovation Systems in Europe: The Case of Food, Beverage and Tobacco
Sector,
Europe
INNOVA
/
PRO
INNO
Final
Report,
http://www.europeinnova.eu/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=24913&name=DLFE-2660.pdf
European Commission (2010) Employment in Europe 2010, Publications Office of the European Union
European Commission (2010 a), Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for
tourism in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union
European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC) (2004), European Restructuring Monitor quarterly, Issue 1,
Spring 2004
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EASHW) (2008), Protecting workers in hotels, restaurants and
catering, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EASHW) (2008) Working safely in a multicultural
HORECA sector, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, (available at:
http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/forum/17_HORECA, accessed, 3-12-2010)
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2010) Safe maintenance – food and drink manufacturing, E-Facts
52, http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/e-facts/efact52.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2010) Changes over
time – First findings from the fifth European Working Conditions Survey, Eurofound, Dublin at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1074.htm - accessed on 15 January 2010)
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), (2007) Codes of
conduct, European industrial relations dictionary. European, Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2007): Employment and working
conditions of migrant workers
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/ewco/tn0701038s/tn0701038s.pdf
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2004) EU hotel and
restaurant sector: Work and employment conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2004) Sector futures:
The future of the food and drink sector, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2008) Food, beverages
and tobacco, Fact sheet, EF/08/14/EN 3 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2008a) Hotels and
restaurants, Fact Sheet, EF/08/14/EN 4 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2010)
Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Catering sector, Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2010) European
industrial relations dictionary, Eurofound, Dublin.
148
Eurostat (2004) The food industry in Europe, Eurostat, 39/2004, Statistics in Focus
Eurostat (2005) Employment in hotels and restaurants in the enlarged EU still growing, Eurostat 32/2005, Statistics
in focus
Eurostat 2006: Statistics in focus: Non-national populations in the EU Member States. Population and social
conditions No 8: 2006.
Eurostat (2008) ‘Employment gender gap in the EU is narrowing Labour market trends 2000-2007’, Eurostat
99/2008, Statistics in Focus
Eurostat (2009), ‘More than 9 million persons employed in the hotels and restaurants sector in the EU’, Eurostat,
101/2009, Statistics in Focus
Eurostat, , (2010) ’EU Agricultural Income down 11.6% in 2009‘, Eurostat 18/2010, Statistics in Focus
Eurostat, (2009) Agricultural statistics, Main results, 2007–08, Eurostat, Pocketbooks
Eurostat, (2009a) European Business, Facts and Figures 2009, Statistics books
Eurostat, (2010) Agricultural statistics, Main results, 2008–09, Eurostat, Pocketbooks
Eurostat, (2011), Statistics on the food chain: From farm to fork, Eurostat Newsletter, 93/2011
Evans, J and Gibb E. (2009) Moving from Precarious Employment to Decent Work, Geneva: ILO
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) (2009), Quality of Jobs at Risk, An overview from the ETUC on the
Incidence and Rise of Precarious Work in Europe, ETUC (available at: http://www.etuc.org/a/4723, accessed on the
1 December 2010)
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) (2007), Tripartite Social Summit: the ETUC steps up the pressure for
decent jobs and adequate wages, ETUC (available at: http://www.etuc.org/a/3405)
Evans J. and Gibb, E. (2009) Moving from precarious employment to decent work, International Labour Office;
Global Union Research Network
Ferrie, J.E., Shipley, M., Stansfeld, S. and Marmot, M., (2002) ‘Effects of chronic job insecurity and change of job
security on self-reported health, minor psychiatry morbidity, psychological measures, and health related behaviours
in British civil servants: the Whitehall II study’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 56, 2002, pp.
450–454
Guerrier, Y. (1986), Hotel management: an unsuitable job for a woman?, Service Industries Journal, 6(2) pp. 227-40
Gash, V. (2008) ‘Bridge or trap? Temporary workers’ transitions to unemployment and to the standard employment
contract’, European Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 651–668
Ferrie, J.E., Shipley, M., Stansfeld, S. and Marmot, M. (2002) ‘Effects of chronic job insecurity and change of job
security on self-reported health, minor psychiatry morbidity, psychological measures and health related behaviours
in British civil servants: the Whitehall II study’ Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56:450-454.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010), The State of Food and Agriculture 201011 Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development, FAO
Fudge, J. and Owens, R. (eds) (2006) Precarious Work, Women and the New Economy: The
Challenge to Legal Norms, Oxford, Hart
Hein, A. (2005) Feasibility study regarding the possibility of the imposition of sanctions against farmers in the event
of non-compliance with national occupational and safety standards for their employees, EFFAT.
Hevenstone, D. (2010) ’National Context and Atypical Employment‘ International Sociology 24:3.
International Labour Organisation (1997) ‘Part-time Work: Solution or Trap?’, International Labour Review,
Volume 136, No. 4, 1-18
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations
(IUF), (2006), Outsourcing and Casualization in the Food and Beverage Industry,: An organising Tool for
Unionists, IUF.
IUF (2006) Outsourcing and casualisation in the food and beverage industry
149
Jonsson, I. and Nyberg, A.(2009) ’Sweden: Precarious Work and Precarious Unemployment‘, in L. Vosko,
M. MacDonald & I. Campbell (eds.) Gender and the Contours of Precarious Employment. London and
New York
Kalleberg A (2009) ‘Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition’, American
Sociological Review 74:1 pp.1-22
Kim, I-H, Muntaner, C., Khang, Y_H., Paek, D and Cho, S_I. (2006) ‘The relationship between non-standard
working and mental health in a representative sample of the South Korean population’ Social Science and Medicine,
68:566-574
Kinnunen, U., Ma¨kikangas, A., Mauno, S., Siponen, K. and Na¨tti, J. (2011), ’Perceived employability:
investigating outcomes among involuntary and voluntary temporary employees compared to permanent employees‘,
Career Development International, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 140-60
Klein Hesselink, J., Houtman, I., van den Berg, R., van den Bossche, S. and van den Heuvel, F. (2004), Eurofound,
EU hotel and restaurant sector: Work and employment conditions, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities, available online: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0398.htm
Kretsos, L., (2010) ‘The persistent pandemic of precariousness: Young People at Work’ in J. Tremmel (ed.): A
Young Generation Under Pressure? March, New York: Springer
Lawrence, F. and McVeigh, K. (2010) ‘I’m not a slave, I just can’t speak English – life in the meat industry’ The
Guardian, 13 March 2010
Lawrence, F. (2006) ‘Bitter harvest’, The Guardian, 19 December 2006
Lewchuck, W. de Wolf, A. King, A. and Polanyi, M. (2003) ‘From job strain to employment strain: health effects of
precarious employment’, Just Labour, Vol 3 (Fall, 2003)
Longley. S (2010) Agricultural workers still struggle for their rights, GRAIN, January 2010 available at:
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4077-agricultural-workers-still-struggle-for-their-rights.
Martin E, Gardiner K, (2007) ’Exploring the UK hospitality industry and age discrimination‘, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 19 Issue: 4, pp.309 - 318
Mayhew C. and Quinlan, M (2001) ‘The Effects of Changing Patterns of Employment on reporting Occupational
Injuries and making Worker compensation Claims’, Society Science Monitor, Vol. 5, Issue 1 (available at:
http://ssmon.chb.kth.se/vol5/1mayhew.pdf)
McDowell, L. and Christopherson, S. (2009) ‘Transforming Work: New Forms of Employment and Their
Regulation’, Special Issue: Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2(3). Includes Editorial Statement
and article on same, pp. 333 and pp. 333–342
McKay, S., Craw, M., Chopra, D (2006) Migrant workers in England and Wales. An assessment of migrant worker
health and safety risks, Health and Safety Executive, Working Lives Research Institute
McKay, S. (2009) Agency and migrant workers, Institute of Employment Rights, London.
McKay, S. and Markova, E. ‘The operation and management of agency workers in conditions of vulnerability’,
British Journal of Industrial Relations, volume 41, issue 5, 2010, pages 446-460
Lucas, R. and S. Mansfield (2008) Staff shortages and immigration in the hospitality sector, (London: Migration
Advisory Committee report)
OECD (2002) ‘Taking the Measure of Temporary Employment’, Employment Outlook, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, Paris.
OSHA (2010) Young workers – facts and figures, OSHA, Bilbao.
Paraskevopoulou A., Markova, E. Williams, A, Shaw G (2011) ‘Migration and Innovation at the Bottom End:
Understanding the Role of Migrant Managers in Small Hotels in the Global City’, Mobilities, (forthcoming)
Pizzuti, FR (2009) Il destino di una generazione – Precarietà presente, povertà futura, in Quale Stato, 2009, n. 3-4
Perulli, A. (2003) Economically Dependent/Quasi Subordinate (Parasubordinate) Employment: Legal, Social and
Economic Aspects. A Report for DG Employment and Social Affairs. Brussels: European Commission.
Pollert, A., (1988) ‘The flexible firm fixation or fact?’ Work, Employment and Society, 2, no.3, p.!281-316
150
Porthé, V., Ahonen, E., Vázquez ML, Pope, C., Agudelo, A., García, A., Amable, M., Benavides, F., Benach, J.
(2010) American journal of industrial medicine 2010;53(4):417-24
Rogers, A., Bridget, A., Clark, N. (2009), Recession, Vulnerable Workers and Immigration: Background
report,
COMPAS
http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/pdfs/Labour%20Mrkt%20and%20Recession%20Full%20Repo
rt.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2010)
Rodgers, G. and Rodgers, J. (1989) (eds.), Precarious Jobs in Labour Market Regulation; the Growth of Atypical
Employment in Western Europe, International Institute of Labour Studies
Rossman, P (2010) What 'financialisation' means for food workers, GRAIN, January 2010 available at:
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4078-what-financialisation-means-for-food-workers
Rubery, J., (1989): ‘Precarious forms of work in the UK’, in: Rodgers, G.; Rodgers, J., ed.: Precarious Jobs in
Labour Market Regulation: The Growth of Atypical Employment in Western Europe, International Institute for
Labour Studies, Geneva.
Smith, D. (1991) ’European Food Safety Forum‘, British Food Journal, Vol. 93: 6, pp.32 – 33
Thornley, C., Jefferys, S. and Appay, B. (eds) (2010), Globalisation and Precarious Forms of Production and
Employment: Challenges for Workers and Unions, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Tsianos, V. and Papadopoulos, D. (2007) ‘Precarity: a Savage Journey to the Heart of Embodied Capitalism’,
Immaterial Labour, Kings College London
Trades Union Congress (TUC) 2003: Overworked, underpaid and over here: Migrant workers in Britain.
Sargeant, M (2009), Health and safety of vulnerable workers in a changing world of work, Working Paper n. 101,
ADAPT.
Scarponi, S. (2010) Precarietà e tutela del lavoro femminile, in Lavoro e diritto, 2010, n. 3
Sheen V (2010) ‘Precarious employment, workfare and social protection for disadvantaged women in Australia:
international implications’, in Eyebiyi E, Herrmann P and Sheen V (eds) Global Crossroads in Social Welfare,
Studies in Comparative Social Pedagogies and International Social Work and Social Policy, Vol. XI , Bremen:
Europäischer Hochschulverlag GmbH & Co. KG
Seifert, A.M., K. Messing, J. Riel and C. Chatigny. 2007. ’Precarious Employment Conditions Affect Work Content
in Education and Social Work: Results of Work Analyses’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 30(5–6):
299–310
Seifert, H. and A. Tangian (2007) Reconciling social security with flexibility — empirical findings for Europe.
Diskussionspapier 154, Hans Böckler Stiftung, Düsseldorf. http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_wsi_diskp_154_e.pdf
Smith, David (1991) ‘European food safety forum’, British Food Journal, 93(6):32-33
Standing, G. 2011. The Precariat - the new dangerous class.” Policy Network.May.
Vosko,
L.
2010.ManagingtheMargins:Gender,Citizenship,andtheInternationalRegulationofPrecariousEmployment.Oxford,NewYork
Websites:
www.agri-info.eu
www.effat.eu
www.eurofound.europa.eu
www.eurofound.europa.eu
http://www.etuc.org/a/4723
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home
http://www.iuf.org/women/
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/sectors/food/emp-wages.htm
151
Annexes
Annex A: Breakdown of questionnaire responses
Country
Trade Union Respondent
Albania
Trade Union federation of Workers in Agriculture, Food, Forestry and
Environment
Austria
VIDA
Austria
PRO-GE
Belgium
CSC Alimentation et Services
Bulgaria
NF Trade, Customs, Services and Tourism PODKREPA
Bulgaria
National Federation Agriculture and Forest - KT Podkrepa
Bulgaria
National Federation Food & Beverages Workers PODKREPA
Bulgaria
FITU FOOD
Croatia
TRADE UNION OF TOURISM AND CATERING OF CROATIA
(STUH)
Czech Republic
OSPZV-ASO CR,
Czech Republic
CMOS pohostivstvi hotelu a cestovniho ruchu
Denmark
Denmark, Food Workers’ Union NNF
Denmark
3F –Fagligt Fælles Forbund
Finland
Ammattiliitto Pro
Finland
Service Union United, PAM
Finland
SEL Finland
France
FGA/CFDT
France
CFDT France
France
FGA-CFDT France
France
FGA-CFDT
France
FGA-FO
Germany
NGG Germany
Germany
IG Bauen-Agrar-Umwelt
Hungary
VISZ (Trade Union of Hotel Catering and Tourism) / Hungary
Hungary
HDSZ Ungarn
Iceland
SGS
Italy
FLAI CGIL ITALIA ROMA
Italy
FLAI CGIL Italia
152
Italy
ITALIA- FISASCAT CISL FILCAMS-CGIL and UILTuCS-UIL
Italy
FILCAMS CGIL ITALIA
Italy
UILA-UIL ITALIA
Ireland
SIPTU
Lithuania
Trade Union of Lithuanian Food Producers
Macedonia (FYRO
Agro Trade Union/ Macedonia
Malta
GWU
Montenegro
Trade Union of Agriculture, Food and Tobacco Inductry
Netherlands
FNV Bondgenoten, The Netherlands
Netherlands
FNV Bondgenoten the Netherlands
Netherlands
FNV Bondgenoten the Netherlands
Norway
Fellesforbundet
Norway
Norsk Nærings- og Nytelsesmiddelarbeiderforbund, Norway
Poland
NSZZ "Solidarnosc", Poland
Portugal
SETAA – Sindicato da Agricultura Alimentacao e Florestas – Portugal
Portugal
FESAHT – Federaçao dos Sindicatos de Agricultura, Alimentacao,
Bebidas, Hotelaria e Turismo de Portu
Romania
AGROSTAR
Romania
CERES
Serbia
The Autonomous Trade Union of Agriculture, Food, Tobacco Industry
and Waterworks of Serbia
Slovakia
Trade Union of Employees in Commerce and Tourism, Slovakia
Slovakia
Odborovy zvaz pracovnikov po nohospodarstva na Slovensku
Slovenia
Sindikat Kmetijstva In Zivilske Industrije Slovenije
Slovenia
KZI
Spain
CHTJ – UGT ESPAÑA
Spain
FECOHT-CCOO
Spain
Federación Agroalimentaria de CCOO
Spain
Federación Agroalimentaria UGT España
Sweden
Swedish Municipal Workers´ Union, Kommunal, Sweden
Sweden
Food workers Union in Sweden
Sweden
Hotel and Restaurant Worker’s Union
Turkey
TOLEYIS-TURKEY
153
Turkey
TARIM-IS / Turkey
UK
Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union, United Kingdom
UK
USDAW UK
UK
GMB, ENGLAND
154
Annex B: Definitions
DISCLAIMER: These definitions are provided for guidance and for the purpose of facilitating
the completion of the questionnaire. They are by no means exhaustive and do not claim to
capture all possible forms of employment that can be labelled as “precarious”.
Precarious work: there is no single definition, but “precarious work” can reasonably be described
as work which e.g.
• does not provide sufficient income to have a decent standard of living
• does not enable an individual to work as many hours as he/she would like
• does not have coverage by a collective agreement
• does not give the right to join or to be represented by a trade union
• does not give access to health, pension, unemployment or accident insurance
• does not guarantee equal pay for equal work
• does not ensure adequate health and safety protection
• does not give workers access to training to enable them to progress in their work
• does not provide access to the same career opportunities as enjoyed by permanent
workers
Bogus self-employment: work that is labelled as 'self-employed' for tax and/or social insurance
purposes, but is in fact undertaken under the direct control or guidance of an employer
‘Extras’: workers who are called in by an employer upon need, often ad hoc, to complement the
permanent workforce, on an hourly or daily basis, e.g. for the catering of events
Fixed-term work: work where the employment contract or relationship is directly entered into
with an employer and which is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific
date, completing a specific task, or the occurrence of a specific event
Migrant work: work performed by people who leave their country of origin to work in another
country
Part-time work: when working hours, calculated on a weekly basis or on average over a period of
employment of up to one year, are less than the normal hours of a comparable full-time worker
Posted work: work performed by people who are sent by an undertaking for a limited period to
carry out work in the territory of an EU Member State other than the State in which they
normally work
Seasonal work: work which by its nature is performed for a limited period during a specific time
of the year, for example, to harvest a crop, to work in the tourism sector in the peak season, or to
produce a seasonal food product
Subcontracted work: work that is contracted out to a different employer, workers are thus
employed by a subcontractor undertaking, even if in the past they were directly employed by the
recipient of their work
Temporary agency work: work that is performed under an employment contract or relationship
with a temporary work agency, with a view to being assigned to a user undertaking and to work
temporarily under its supervision or direction
Undeclared work: work for which tax and/or social insurance are not paid fully or partly
155
Annex C: Effat Questionnaire on Precarious Work
EFFAT project on precarious work
Questionnaire
Please complete this questionnaire as fully as possible and send it - by 15 February 2011 at the latest - to: Dr Anna
Paraskevopoulou:
[email protected],
copy to EFFAT: [email protected].
You should save the questionnaire as a Word document, fill it in on the PC and either send it back in electronic form
or Fax it to +442073203031, with a copy to +32 2 218 30 18.
Attached you will find a short glossary with definitions of the terms used in the study. Should you have any
questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the EFFAT Secretariat: Tel: +32 2
218 77 30, Email: [email protected] or [email protected].
1. About you
a. Name of person responding:
b. Function / job title:
c. Trade union / country:
d. Contact details:
Address:
Tel no:
E-mail:
2. About precarious work in your sectors
a. Which of these forms of work does your trade union regard as precarious in your sectors of competence?
Please tick no more than three for each sector. You can add a percentage next to the box if you have the data
Tempora
Bogus
FixedSeasonal
SubPartry
Posted
Seasona Migran
self
term
migrant
contract
time
agency
work
l work
t work
employ
work
work
ed work
work
- ment
Undeclar
ed
work
Agriculture










Horticulture










Forestry










Fishing










Hotels










Catering










Restaurants










Meat










Dairy










Chocolate










Beverages










Tobacco










……………










…………..










Others:
156
………….










Do you have any additional comments on this point? Please describe
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
b. Over the last decade how has precarious work in your trade union’s sectors of competence evolved?
Please tick the appropriate category. You can add a percentage next to the box if you have the data.
Decreased
a lot
Decreased
a little
Stayed
same
Agriculture


Horticulture

Forestry
the
Increased
a little
Increased
a lot
Don’t
know















Fishing






Hotels






Catering






Restaurants






Meat






Dairy






Chocolate






Beverages






Tobacco






…………






…………






…………






Others:
Do you have any additional comments on this point? Please describe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
157
c. What does your trade union think will happen to precarious work in your sectors of competence over the next five
years?
Please tick the appropriate category. You can add a percentage next to the box if you have the data
Will decrease Will decrease Will stay the Will increase Will
increase
a lot
a little
same
a little
a lot
Don’t
know
Agriculture






Horticulture






Forestry






Fishing






Hotels






Catering






Restaurants






Meat






Dairy






Chocolate






Beverages






Tobacco






………………






………………






………………






Others:
Do you have any additional comments in relation to the past or future for precarious work in your sectors of
competence? Please describe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
d. To which of the following rights do precarious workers have limited or no access?
Tick as many as apply
No entitlement for Limited entitlement
Don’t know
precarious workers
for precarious workers
Right to join and to be represented by a
trade union (freedom of association)



Collective bargaining (coverage and
protection by collective bargaining
agreements, right to be part of bargaining
unit)



Health insurance



Pension insurance



158
Unemployment insurance



Accident insurance



Equal pay for equal work



Access to employment stabilization
mechanisms and seniority rights



Health and safety training and protection
equipment at the workplace



Training



Please give some examples.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
e. To what extent are women, young people aged less than 25, mature workers aged more than 50 and migrants more
affected than others by precarious employment?
For each category please indicate if they are: 1 = not affected; 2 = slightly affected; 3 = very much affected;
You can add a percentage next to the box if you have the data.
More
than
Women
Less than 25 years
Migrants
Don’t know
50 years
Agriculture





Horticulture





Forestry





Fishing





Hotels





Catering





Restaurants





Meat





Dairy





Chocolate





Beverages





Tobacco





……………





……………





……………





Others:
Do you have any additional comments on this point? Please describe.
159
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
160
3. Achievements/Good practices
a. Have you concluded any collective agreements that protect / cover any of the following groups of workers?
Please tick the appropriate categories.
Yes, specific agreement
Yes, general agreement
No
Part-time workers



Fixed-term workers



Temporary agency workers



Sub contracted workers



Posted workers



Seasonal workers



Migrant workers



Seasonal migrant workers



Self-employed workers



b. Can you provide any good examples of provisions in collective agreements used in combating precarious work?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
c. Can you provide some good examples of existing or upcoming national laws that will regulate, limit or eliminate
precarious work?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
d. Can you indicate which following specific initiatives your trade union has taken so far to fight precarious work
and within which category (i.e. part-time, fixed-time, agency, bogus self employed, migrant, seasonal, undeclared)?
Tick as many as apply
Tempor
Bogus
Fixed
Specific
Seasonal
SubPartt
Posted Seasonal Migran
ary
self
Undec
term
trade
union
migrant
contract
ime
work
work
t work
agency
employ lared
work
initiatives
work
ed work
work
ment
Specific training
programmes










Information/
publications










Specific
web
pages/tools










Ad hoc legal
representation










Public
campaigns










Organising
campaigns










Please provide any additional information (including documents, web links, etc).
161
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Cooperation with allied organisations / institutions
a. Does your union cooperate with other trade unions, with NGOs, labour inspectorates or any other allied
institutions on the issue of precarious work? Please describe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. Demands and proposals
a. What are your union’s demands and proposals for future collective agreements in order to combat or limit
precarious work? Please describe
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
b. What are your union’s demands and proposals for a better legal protection of precarious workers at national level?
Please describe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
c. What are your union’s demands and proposals for European legislation and initiatives for a better protection of
precarious workers? Please describe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
6. Open question
If there is any other issue or piece of information that you think would be useful but which has not been provided in
the answers, please write it here:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Should you have any other relevant data, statistics, research studies, websites, links, etc. that can be helpful for the
purpose of this project, please do not hesitate to attach it to the questionnaire and send it to Dr Anna
Paraskevopoulou at: [email protected].
Thank you very much for your support!
162
Interview schedule for case studies:
Precarious Work in Agriculture, Food and HORECA sectors
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the final stage of the project on precarious workers in the sectors of
agriculture, food and HORECA. The research has been commissioned by the European Federation of Trade Unions
in the Food, Agriculture and Tourism (EFFAT). The aim of the case studies is explore further some of the issues
raised during the survey in order to give a fuller picture of precarious work within the three sectors.
With your permission the interview will be recorded in order to allow us to be sure of taking down everything you
say. We will not put your name in the written report of the interview, although we will name the trade unions in each
of the case study. We may like to use quotations from the interview on this basis and we will ask you consent to the
use of the material in this way. The duration of the interview will be approximately one hour.
(Establish that the interviewer is agreeable to the recording of the interview and these conditions)
Respondent details
Name of Respondent
Name of Trade Union/Federation/Confederation
Sector
Sub sector(s)
Trade union position
Number of Years in current position
Number of Years with the union
A. Background information on the trade union and the industrial relations context in terms
of precarious workers
1.
What is your job/position in the union and do you deal directly or indirectly with issues related to precarious
workers?
2.
What are the main issues facing the union at the present time?
3.
Can you provide some background about the union’s membership and organisation?
Prompts:
Membership declining/growing
Composition of the membership changing
4.
How does your union define precarious work and what type of workers do you characterise as precarious
workers?
Prompt: Part time - Fixed term - Temporary agency - Sub-contracted – Posted - Seasonal Work – Migrant ‘Extras’ - Bogus self-employed – Undeclared
5.
What is the percentage of membership for precarious workers?
6.
Are there any categories you consider as most vulnerable such as women, young workers or older workers?
7.
Do you have any data on the composition of precarious workers in your union?
Percentage of women
Percentage of young workers
Percentage of older workers
8.
How widespread is precarious work in your sector in your country and what are the trends for the future?
163
9.
Do you have workers members than come with complaints as a result of their precarious position?
10. What type of complaints do you receive most regularly?
B. About the initiative (USE AS APPROPRIATE: Collective agreements - National Laws –
Cooperation - Initiatives)
11. Could you give me some more specific information about the initiative?
12. When was it introduced?
13. Is it a new initiative or a continuation of a previous initiative or action?
14. What type of resources were utilised for the initiative to materialise?
In terms of:
Finances
Time scale
Staff involved
15. What were the obstacles in introducing and materialising this initiative?
16. Did you meet any opposition to the initiative within the union?
17. How did you overcome any of the challenges?
C. How does the union evaluate the initiative
18. What were the benefits for precarious workers?
19. If I ask to identify three main benefits could you please name them for me?
20. What was the benefit for the union in terms of:
Gaining experience in the area of precarious work
Increase of membership
Increase of membership of precarious workers
Influence in policy making
Increase cooperation with other unions nationally or at European level
21. Did the union make any changes after the introduction of the initiative? If yes what type of changes and how
were these changes been received by the union members?
22. Is the initiative continuing?
If yes: in the same form as it was first introduced?
If no: What is this the case?
23. Did the initiative lead to any further action?
If yes: what type of action
If no: Why is this the case?
D. Would the union recommend the initiative as useful?
24. If useful could you please give the main areas that it has been useful for?
25. Would you describe the initiative as innovative?
If yes: in what way?
26. Could you please provide any examples of good practice that came out of the initiative?
27. How would you summarise the impact of the initiative at national or local level?
Ask for copies of any policy positions/statement and one or two graphic examples relevant to the case study, for
example, photos/leaflets/posters or any other graphic representation. These may be used to illustrate the case study
in the final published report. If permission is needed to use these you should obtain it first.
164
Thank you for your participation
165
Case study:
Precarious Work in Agriculture, Food and HORECA sectors
Country ………….
Country expert (name) ………………………………………….
Title of the case study …………………………………….
Sector (please tick one of the following)
Agriculture
o
Hotels, Restaurants, Catering, Tourism
o
Food, Drink and Tobacco
o
Sub sector:......................................................
Main theme covered in the case study (please tick one of the following)
Collective agreements
o
National Laws
o
Cooperation
o
Initiatives
o
The case study must be no more than 6 pages in length (about 2,500 words) and must be written in English and in an
accessible style. You should provide a suggested title to the case study and the study should contain the following
sub headings:
Background to the initiative described in the case study
What does the imitative consist of; who was it aimed at; what measures were introduced to bring it about
What are the outcomes of the initiative?
How does the union evaluate the initiative: what were the challenges, the benefits and any innovations?)
Would the union recommend the initiative as useful?
You should send the case to WLRI together with one or two graphic examples relevant to the case study, for
example, photos/leaflets/posters or any other graphic representation. These may be used to illustrate the case study
in the final published report. If permission is needed to use these you should obtain it first.
Section 1: CASE STUDY Background/CONTEXT (max. 600 words)
Please describe very briefly what you have uncovered on the background/context of the case study. The issues you
should cover include:
1.1 A short background to the union structure in the country
1.2 Origins of the theme:
For collective agreements, cooperation and initiative: How did it came about - was it the union’s idea or a result of
cooperation with other union/NGO/Equality body
For national law: how did the national law or initiative came about
1.3 When it was introduced
166
Section 2: What are the outcomes of the initiative (max. 700 words)
This section should cover:
2.1. A detailed description of the initiative; was the initiative a new direction for the union or a continuation from a
previous initiative;
2.2. What resources were utilised to make the initiative happen – both financial and in terms of staff/officer
involvement;
2.3. What, if any, were the obstacles in introducing and materialising the initiative? Was there any opposition to the
initiative within the union?
2.4. How did the union overcome any challenges?
Section 3: How does the union evaluate the initiative: what were the challenges,
the benefits and any innovations) (max. 700 words)
Here provide some information on how the union has evaluated the initiative. You can include the following:
3.1 What was the benefit for precarious workers?
3.2 What was the benefit for the union (did membership increase as a result, was the union able to influence policy
making, did it lead to a new collective agreement)
3.3 What changes did the union achieve after the introduction of the initiative?
3.4 Is the initiative continuing?
3.5 Did the experience lead to further action?
Section 4: WOULD THE UNION RECOMMEND THE INTITATIVE AS USEFUL (MAX
500 WORDS)
4.1 Provide impact and success stories
Annex 1: Sources used in the case study
Provide a short paragraph, which sets out which persons you have contacted for the case study, together with any
other sources used to obtain the case study information. In particular provide web addresses of any sites that have
additional information on the initiative you are case studying.
167