COOPERATIVES EUROPE

- Social Partner Program: Consolidation -

REGIONAL SEMINAR STOCKHOLM – SWEDEN

2nd & 3rd October 2008

List of participants:

Anne Santamäki – SOKL association

Lena Widman – KFO
Rainer Schlüter – Cooperatives Europe
Jan Olsson – KFO
Bengt Hedenström – CEEP Brxl / KFS Sweden
Thomas Fröbel – SERUS
Grazina Grudziene – Lithuanian Foodworkers Union
Mika Häkkinen – NFS
Marja Lindblom – PAM
Anders Jonsson – Swedish Municipal Workers Union
Susanne Westhausen – Kooperationen
Mogens Frederiksen – LO
Thomas Janson – TCO
Marc Noel – Cooperativesd Europe

The first out of 4 regional seminars took place in Stockholm the 2nd and 3rd October 2008
and regrouped the Nordic & Baltic countries of the EU (Sweden Finland, Denmark,
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). The objective of these seminars is to make a qualitative
analysis of the experiences and added value provided by the co-operative enterprises
and their employers’ organisations in the social dialogue with the trade unions.
Representatives of the co-operative organisations and trade unions of the countries
concerned are invited to present the situation of social dialogue and industrial relations in
their countries and how it can be developed.

Introduction

Lena Widman, head of the legal department at KFO, welcomed in the name of the
organisation – an independent organisation representing co-operatives from the first till
the last level – the different participants from Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Latvia and
Lithuania. Jan Olsson, consultant at KFO and animator of the seminar, welcomed
individually the participants and introduced them shortly to the group.

Rainer Schlüter, director of Cooperatives Europe, highlighted the objectives of the "Social
Partner Program - Consolidation" (SPP-C): this program, being part of the EU support
program for social dialogue, aims to improve the qualitative knowledge about the
framework and contents of the social dialogue between co-operative enterprises and
workers’ representation at different levels and in different countries of the European
Union; it is a priority for Cooperatives Europe, intending to become a social partner and
participate within the EU cross-sector dialogue.
Further, Rainer Schlüter explained that the program is a follow-up of the successful
previous Social Partner project. This program took place in 2006-2007, demonstrating the
Representativeness and the participation in European sectoral & national SD by the
members of Cooperatives Europe.

The challenges for this new project are therefore to analyse the difference and added
value provided by cooperative organisations, to focus on the work with trade unions and
to determine the themes being discussed in the different national & European sector
social dialogues. Additionally, counterparts for the social dialogue in the different
countries have to be detected, a database of Trade Unionists & Co-operators has to be
built up and a « SD Competence Group » has to be launched, being a reference group for
SD topics related to cooperatives in Europe and supported by a guide on best practices
and a quality report of the different countries.

EU Social Dialogue

Thomas Janson, EESC member Group II and member of the Social Affairs & Citizenship
(SOC) in Sweden, retraced the development of the social dialogue in Europe, having its
roots at the Val Duchesse meetings in the 80s. From first talks, first common positions
have been retraced. In the 21st century, more voluntary agreements are taken, whereas
the strengths of these agreements can be questioned.

Concerning Sweden for example, the ETUC will decide on general worker conditions,
whereas in Denmark exists a very strong bipartite dialogue and in Finland a tripartite one.
In Sweden, the Social dialogue approach is very much a bottom-up approach, with fewer
power given to the European Social dialogue; the content from the European agreements
had very few impact on the Nordic countries, as they are very basic, while in the New
member states, the impact was much higher, as for example the agreement on Telework.

Some deficits remain in the system, as for example the question on how social partners
could get access to the European Commission of Justice. The main preoccupation of the
European social partners remains though how to assure a strong content into the
European agreements. In Sweden, these agreements – which are binding – are very
strong, and the national partners negotiating are powerful.

It followed a discussion on the indecision of the ETUC if it would be favourable to have

one more employer organisation to face; this can be understandable, as there are already
Business Europe and the CEEP on their counterpart. There remains a necessity to have a
strong opponent on the employer side to get good agreements, and one more could make
things more complex. On the other hand, Rainer Schlüter explained that an alliance of
Cooperatives Europe with CEEP could also give a good balance with Business Europe on
the employer’s side; these are aspects which should be discussed and examined.

The results of the former Social Partner program were then presented by Rainer Schlüter
more in detail concerning the representativeness of Cooperatives Europe in the EU –
present in all EU countries and representing around 80% of the organised co-operative
movement, equal to 142 co-operative organisations, 147.500 individual enterprises, 107
million members and 4,4 million jobs – and the participation of the co-operative
organisations within their respective national social dialogue. This participation had been
analysed concerning the implication in the sectoral or intersectoral national SD, the
frequency of participation and the nature of the agreements taken. This opened indeed
the door for the next step of analysis, being the added value the co-operative
organisations bring and could bring into the social dialogue.

Bengt Hedenström, senior advisor at CEEP, retraced some historical facts of the CEEP,
which has been founded in the 60’s. Due to privatisation, there has been a decrease in
the number of members since. The geographical representativeness of the members has
changed also: initially the southern and central European countries were dominant,
whereas today the repartition is rather mixed across Europe. In the working groups of the
CEEP, this new repartition is very visible; the EU tends also sometimes to introduce new
elements in the social dialogue in the new member states without really recognising or
being aware of the existing procedures and structures. Therefore, it is very important to
get closer links between the different actors, namely the employers’ and employees’
organisations.

Concerning the European social dialogue, the Commission needs to have a strong
interlocutor: there are 2 employers’ organisations, but only 1 employees’ organisation.
Social Economy could be an alternative to the privatisation of the public services; often
public services outsource, but these services are overtaken by multinationals.

The CEEP has for example some white spots in the Nordic countries: in Latvia, Lithuania,
Estonia and Slovenia, as it is often a question of time and capacity. For some countries it
is for example difficult to follow the meetings in English, French or German for some
countries. In some countries, the national members join than individually and some
outsourced public enterprises stay in the CEEP.

Rainer Schlüter underlined that there are 3 main types of cooperative enterprises:
1) The members are the owners and the workers
2) The members are the owners, but they have also employees
3) Bring together self-employed in a business (defend their interests, more on the
business side than on the contract side)

A common point between the CEEP and Cooperatives is therefore for example that the
CEEP stands for the public interest and Cooperatives for the interest of their members:
they are both not under the interest of investors

Thomas Janson stated that it is sometimes better to keep the social dialogue as one.
Rainer Schlüter confirmed by expressing his wish to have something more cross-sectoral,
as too much separation within the different sectors can make it more complicated. There
is also a wish to see one actor representing the whole social economy, but this actor is
not ready yet: Social Economy Europe, the European umbrella organisation for social
economy lacks organised members in many EU countries. Bengt Hedenström remarked
that it is fruitful to have cross-sector Social dialogue and a little bit of sectoral dialogue
besides. The Commission is enhancing more and more the sectoral social dialogue, but
the cross-sector level has to remain strong and fruitful.

Countries’ situations

Grazina Grudziene, representative of the Lithuanian Food-workers Union, explained the

Lithuanian situation of the social dialogue. It is very difficult to build up a social dialogue,
as the issue is not really present yet; there is though a written existence dating from
2003. The actual functioning is a tripartite body, including trade unions, employer
organisations and the state. But the difference between rich and poor is high and it is
difficult to defend the rights of the workers, as there is a lack of solidarity feeling, low
wages and few trade unions. The solution to the overall problems is still seen in a good
government.

The challenges nowadays are the negotiations on sectoral level, as they are only present
at local level; further, the NGOs are aimed to be included, as the government is trying to
separate a tripartite dialogue with the common actors and another one including social
economy actors.

Mika Häkkinen, representative from the NFS (regrouping 22 trade union organisations),
stated that the biggest problem in the Baltic States is the very low participation rate in
the trade unions (15%) and employer organisations (20%). With this situation, there are
no or very few sectoral collective agreements.

The Trade Unions have clearly an image problem, due to their political history; there is
also no right to lay down the work and strike, which withdraws the power of the trade
unions, resulting in an absence of a constructive dialogue. This is a vicious circle as the
social partners can not show that they are needed, which results in a lack of resources, a
decrease in the number of members, etc. In the Baltic countries the public employers are
better organised.

Lena Widman explained that in Sweden, the cooperative organisations were first to have
certain agreements. The first agreement they took was: you can not be worse than any
other business, meaning that the minimum conditions have always to be respected. To go
on strike, within KFO you have to go to a first arbitration and then to a second one if no
solution has been found. If there is still no satisfying solution after the second arbitrage,
there can be a strike; but up to now, this has never happened within KFO, an organisation
of 25000 employees and around 2500 businesses.

Susanne Westhausen, chief executive from Kooperationen, explained the case in

Denmark, where all the co-operators in a cooperative were organised in a union. These
co-operators have since then not the right to strike, which is compensated by extras on
different matters. Only the LO unions have agreements with the cooperatives. The
conflict-solving is also a procedure containing 5 steps. But the problem in Denmark is the
image of the cooperatives: it is not fashionable to work in a cooperative. Therefore the
thinking of a cross-sectoral cooperative development is missing. Mogens Frederiksen,
representative of the LO, explained that the idea of a cooperative enterprise seems to
belong to something in the past, an aspect on which much work has still to be done.

Anders Jonsson, representative of the Swedish Municipal Workers Union, stated that in
Sweden, the switch from a common business into a cooperative was very often a good
experience. The problem is then much more on the second round, where a good
management has to be assured, and a dialogue has to be built up.

Marja Lindblom from the Palvelualojen Ammatiliitto (PAM) explained the Finnish situation,
where no difference exists between usual companies and cooperative enterprises
concerning the social dialogue. In Finland, the agreements are general collective binding
agreements. These centralised integrated bargaining agreements can contain a multitude
of themes as pension, working conditions and others. There is subsequently no real
interest to get a specific place for cooperatives within this dialogue.

Mika Häkkinen intervened that it might be much more interesting therefore to act in the
new member states and in the Baltic States, as more opportunities of concrete work with
the trade unions are possible. This could result in a common project by cooperative
organisations, the public sector and the trade unions undertaken in the Baltic States.

Some conclusions and further steps

Jan Olsson and Rainer Schlüter underlined some outcomes of the seminar and activities
which turned out to be important to undertake in a near future. These are the following:

1) Build up a database of contacts

2) Create a strong counterpart (employer organisation) for the Nordic-Baltic trade
unions
3) Undertake a first common project in the Baltic states to launch and enhance social
dialogue there
4) The consumer cooperatives and trade cooperatives leave some space for action
on the field of social dialogue
5) Check the EWC (European Works Council) issues and sectoral issues