1 / 34

Types and levels of workers‘ participation at plant level Empirical evidence from Germany

Types and levels of workers‘ participation at plant level Empirical evidence from Germany Ludger Pries. 1. Spread of different interest representation patterns 2. Issues, types and levels of participation 3. Conclusions and recomendations. Sample: N = 3254, unweighted data.

hanne
Télécharger la présentation

Types and levels of workers‘ participation at plant level Empirical evidence from Germany

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Types and levels of workers‘ participation at plant level Empirical evidence from Germany Ludger Pries 1. Spread of different interest representation patterns 2. Issues, types and levels of participation 3. Conclusions and recomendations

  2. Sample: N = 3254, unweighted data Plants with Works Council (WC) and Other Representation Body (ORB) Other Representation Body (ORB) Group speaker/repres., Employee committee Round Table etc. 12,1 % 9,9 % 40,7 % 37,3 % Legal framework based repr. bodies: works councils (WC), employee representation (‘MAV’) No Interest Representation 1. Spread of different interest representation patterns

  3. Distribution by employees 43% 61% 18% 13% 40% 27% 56% 45% 1. Spread of different interest representation patterns • 30 % of plants and 18% of employees have collective bargaining agreement but no WC

  4. Distribution by employees 30% 22% 52% 12% 36% 48% 42% 58% 1. Spread of different interest representation patterns Types of ORB • Joint Bodies with management prevail • Almost ¼ of all ORB are elected and only workers composed • Elected and only workers ORB more frequently in big plants, joint and asigned ORB more frequently in small plants N = 343

  5. 2. Issues, types and levels of participation

  6. 2. Issues, types and levels of participation View of Repr. Body  Plants 10 to 99 empl.  Plants 100 empl. and more 

  7. 2. Issues, types and levels of participation Participation in investment planning Works Councils 43,02 2,62 13,08 41,28 Empl. elected ORB 57,26 0,85 12,82 29,06 Appointed ORB 47,76 1,49 17,91 32,84 Joint elect. ORB 42,45 22,64 14,15 20,75 Joint appoint. ORB 41,92 15,66 17,68 24,75 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Consultation Co-decision Information No participation

  8. Participation in payment norms Works Councils 20,29 25,18 24,46 30,07 Empl. elected ORB 41,03 6,84 28,21 23,93 Appointed ORB 48,48 1,52 36,36 13,64 Com. elect. ORB 46,23 6,60 26,42 20,75 Com.appoint. ORB 52,28 15,23 14,21 18,27 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Consultation Co-decision Information No participation 2. Issues, types and levels of participation

  9. 2. Issues, types and levels of participation Percentage of strong co-decision according to issue and type of representation

  10. ORB (18,8 %) No collective repr. (59,6 %) 4,0% 1,8% 2,8% WC (21,6 %) BETRIEBSGEWICHTET (N=3254) • 6 % heutiger BR-loser Betriebe hatten schon einmal einen BR. • 20 % der heutigen BR-Betriebe hatten zuvor bereits ein AVO. • Keine erhöhte Wahrscheinlichkeit, über ein AVO zum BR zu kommen 3. Conclusions and recommendations

  11. 3. Conclusions and recommendations 1. Quite complex structure of formal/legally based and informal/voluntary mechanisms 2. Legal framework is central point of reference 3. Informal/voluntary participation mechanisms reveal a broad scope from WC-prevention to innovative HRM 4. A combination of legal framing and flexible mechanism of negotiating participation figures at plant level (EWC) 5. How could public assistance and reviews be installed? 6. How could stakeholders‘ participation be considered?

  12. 2. Issues, types and levels of participation • geringe Unterschiede im Beteiligungsniveau bei „weichen Regulierungsthemen“

  13. Entscheidungskompetenzen im Vergleich

  14. 3. Regulierungsmuster IV-Formen 3.2 Arbeitszeitregeln: Beteiligungsstärke im Vergleich

  15. Works Councils Other Repr. Bodies No. employees Age of plant (log.) Off shored plant Group national Group abroad Owner/manager direct. Collect.barg.agreemt East Gemany % women % under 35 % over 50 % high qualified %  400 €/month % subcontr. Workers Working atmosph. (1-5) Mainly team work Monthly information Indiv.incentive systems Mining/energy/disposal Feeding/restaurants Consumer goods Invest./durable goods Construction Personal/security/clean. Health/social services Nagelkerkes r2 No. of cases +++: signif. at 0.01; ++: signif. at 0.05; +: signif. at 0.10; Not significant: technicians (‘Facharbeiter’), unqualified, part-time, fixed term empl., other 9 sectors 3. Spread of different interest representation patterns Factors increasing WC probability: • plant size, group belong. • plant age • managmt direct. • qualification,age empl. • collect.barg.agreemt • % unionisation Factors increasing ORB probability: • plant size • age of employees • info.-communic. strategy Few differences to plants without collective repres.

  16. Judgement of Management & Employee Repres. of mutual cooperation Works Council Manage-ment view Other Repres. Body Works Council WC/ ORB view Other Repres. Body Good Partly/partly Very bad Very good Bad • Generally, positive judgement of cooperation • Overall more positive judgement (of management and ORB) for ORB 4. Output of different interest representation patterns

  17. 4. Output of different interest representation patterns „Changes have to be implemented against empl.body‘s resistance“ Manage-ment view WC/ ORB view „Empl.body participates actively with proposals in changes“ Manage-ment view WC/ ORB view Correct Almost incorrect Completely incorrect Completely correct • Almost active participation and own proposals of employee/workers‘ representation in changes at plant level

  18. 4. Output of different interest representation patterns Management views to the statement: „Unions contribute to positive conflict resolution at plant level“ Union density in plant More than half of employees Less than half of employees Only few employees No union members in plant Completely correct Correct Almost incorrect Completely incorrect • Unions are estimated more positively by managers when union density is high • Same positive judgement towards collect.barg.agreements when plant is subject to CBA • Level of positive estimation in general lower in plants with ORB

  19. 4. Output of different interest representation patterns Plants 10 – 99 empl. Plants  100 empl. Interest represent. Body NO ORB WC Interest represent. Body NO ORB WC Regular weekly working hours Dismissals last 3 years Job security agree-ments at plant level Written agreements • More favourable work and employment conditions in plants with WC • Differences smaller in big plants

  20. 4. Output of different interest representation patterns Level Global Europe Nat./reg. sectoral Company Plant Work area ILO Core Conventions/Minimum Standards GC, CSR Label/Index IFA OECD-GL Campaign GUF World WC Social Dialogue UNICE ETUC European WC BDA Collective bargaining DGB Unions Employer Associations Group WC (KBR) Supervisory board level co-determination Other Regu-lation Bodies Comp. WC (GBR) Works Council (BR) Individual regulation Elect. workpl. union reps. employer/management teams/workers

  21. Hohe Branchendifferenzierung beim Zusammenwirken von TV und BR • Lücke zwischen Tarifbindung und BR-Existenz besonders ausgeprägt im Gastgewerbe und bei den einfachen unternehmensnahen Dienstleistungen BISS: vorläufige Berechnungen, N=3254

  22. 2.11 Betriebsmerkmale unterschiedlicher IV-Formen BISS: vorläufige Berechnungen, N=3254

  23. mehr als zwei Drittel aller Betriebsräte bringen sich aktiv ein • nur ca. 16 Prozent der Betriebe Durchsetzung gegen BR-Widerstand • am Weitesten mit über 60 Prozent verbreitet ist der ‚Typ‘ des ‚aktiven Mitgestalters‘ N = 1594

  24. Spread of interest representation forms by sector (Company- and employee weighting) in percent Source: RUB; BISS 2006, n=3254 (Rounding errors possible)

  25. Output: Ressourcenausstattung im Vergleich • Schlechtere Ressourcenausstattung der AVOs - jedoch keine geringere Zufriedenheit bei befragten Vertretern! BISS: vorläufige Berechnungen, N=147/1254, Ungewichtete Daten

  26. 3.1 Arbeitszeitregeln: Beteiligungsstärke im Vergleich  Betriebe mit 10 bis 99 Beschäftigten   Betriebe mit 100 und mehr Beschäftigten  • Kaum Unterschiede zwischen Aussagen der BR und der GL • Aussagen der AVOs unterscheiden sich teilweise erheblich

  27. 4. Regulierungsoutput IV-Formen 4.4 Regulierungsoutput in Wahrnehmung nach Ländern • Bei gesetzlichen Vertretungen IV- Sicht positiver als Management-Sicht, bei anderen Vertretungen nicht BISS: vorläufige Berechnungen Ungewichtete Daten

  28. 2. Verbreitung/Kontext IV-Formen 2.2 Verbreitung von IV-Formen nach Betriebsgröße • Nach Beschäftigten etwas höherer Anteil gesetzlicher Vertretungen • etwas geringerer Anteil anderer Vertretungsorgane BISS: vorläufige Berechnungen, N=3254

  29. 2. Verbreitung/Kontext IV-Formen 2.3 Verbreitung von IV-Formen nach Branchen • Vertretungsquoten nach Branche sind stark von der Betriebsgrößenstruktur der Branche gefärbt... BISS: vorläufige Berechnungen, N=3254

  30. 3. Regulierungsmuster IV-Formen 3.2 Arbeitszeitregeln: Beteiligungsstärke im Vergleich

  31. Grundgesamtheit Stichprobe 19,2 32,4 • Überrepräsentanz Ostbetriebe 13,7 1,0 • Überrepräsentanz Großbetriebe 5,0 1,8 • Überrepräsentanz interessierender Branchen

More Related