|
TRIPARTISM, EMPLOYERS AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS
By
Sriyan de Silva
Senior Specialist in Employers' Activities, ILO
Bangkok
- A. Introduction
- B. Some Characteristics in Asia Relevant to Tripartism
-
C. The Role of Employers' and their Organizations
- Role
- Market and Transition Economy
- Market Interventions
- D. Conditions for Effective Participation in Tripartism
- Conditions
- Keys to Effectiveness
- E. Bipartism and Tripartism
- F. Employers: Bipartism or Tripatism
- G. The Role of the ILO in Strengthening Employers' Organizations
For the purposes of this Paper, the term 'tripartism' is used in the
sense of a process (of cooperation) whereby governments
-
consult and involve representatives of employers and workers in the formulation
of socio-economic policies at the national and industry levels and in particular,
on the legal framework of labour relations and labour-related policy;
-
ensure that the social partners' views and concerns are reflected in the
policies and laws formulated;
-
provide the social partners with opportunities to contribute to socio-economic
progress, and thereby enable them to fulfil a wider role than one of only
providing direct services to their members in relation to matters covered
by the employment relationship.
The tripartite arrangements - both formal and informal - that may be adopted
(consultation fora or bodies) are the means which give effect to the basic
objectives of tripartism.
The following matters need to be emphasized in dealing with the subject
matter:
-
Development policies need to be negotiated in order to balance as many
interests as possible.
-
For this purpose, we need to focus on ensuring the setting up of effective
mechanisms. The practise of tripartism may be cosmetic or effective. If
it is the former, it is a waste of time and resources.
-
Attitudes of governments are important in determining whether tripartism
will be cosmetic or effective.
-
However, the capacity of the social partners to contribute to tripartite
dialogue and to influence policy formulation are equally important in transforming
what may otherwise be a cosmetic exercise into a meaningful and effective
process. Therefore, all the tripartite constituents have a role to play
in ensuring the effectiveness of tripartite consultative mechanisms.
-
Tripartite consultative mechanisms are intended to influence the formulation
of policy on the subject matter with a view to achieving development goals,
and are effective only so long as the other conditions are satisfied.
There is no universal model of tripartism that can be recommended to
every country, because the form it assumes in each country must suit a
variety of national characteristics. However, for tripartism to operate
effectively there are certain basic and necessary conditions. These include
the recognition of the right of employers and workers to belong to organizations
of their own choosing, and the capacity of such organizations to influence
policies on matters which affect the interests of those whom they represent.
In this connection, in the Asian-Pacific region, several features or
characteristics impinge on the practise of tripartism:
-
the business friendly environment in some countries in which employers
operate, stands in marked contrast to the South Asian sub-region and many
economies in transition. Consequently, there has been less need in such
business friendly countries for employers to rely on tripartite dialogue
and structures to influence the policy environment. Several such governments
have shown an overriding concern for economic development as a necessary
condition to creating a capacity to undertake other activities such as
social programmes. These include the governments of Singapore, Malaysia
and Korea.
-
the relative weakness of unions in some countries in terms of membership
and/or political influence;
-
a single union structure in some countries such as in economies in transition,
Singapore and Indonesia;
-
the lack of effective bipartism engendered by a combination of factors
such as strong government intervention in the labour market, weak unions
and employers' organizations in some countries;
-
in many economies in transition unions, which are often identified with
the government, wield a great deal of influence so that it is the employers
who need to use the tripartite process to influence policy to be more conducive
to business growth and development;
-
in some South Asian (Indian sub-continent) countries, employers have been
operating in a relatively business unfriendly environment, while unions
have generally wielded considerable political influence. Consequently,
here too, it is the employers who have most needed the tripartite process
to influence labour policy.
Role
Employers' organizations have two main roles. The first is to influence
the policy and legal environment relative to labour market/labour-related
issues so that they are conducive to business growth and development. This
role is usually discharged in two ways:
-
through tripartite dialogue and influencing their outcomes
-
through bipartite dialogue separately with unions and government
The second role of an employers' organization - not relevant to the subject
of tripartism - is the provision of direct services to members.
An employers' organization should be viewed as both a lobbying and service
organization, with delivery through
-
policies formulated by elected officials in consultation with the staff
-
professionally skilled staff
It is important for employers' organizations to seek to achieve a broad
consensus on national goals and on how best to achieve them. Where there
is no such agreement, the policies as well as legal and other rules are
likely to be the subject of substantial disagreement. For instance, privatization
and the nature and extent of foreign investment are still the subject of
disagreement; such disagreement may be due to different perspectives on
national goals or on the way to achieve them.
Market and Transition Economy
In a market economy the role of providing direct services to members
would usually be the more important role of the two, because the policy
environment is - especially today - less likely to be a problem than competitiveness.
This is only relative, and even in a market economy an employers' organization
usually finds many issues on which it needs to lobby on behalf of its members.
In an economy in transition to a market economy, the legal and policy
environment is a major issue for employers, so that the lobbying role is
initially more important. Gradually, however, employers come to expect
direct services from the employers' organization, in addition to lobbying
for an environment conducive to their development.
Market Interventions
In whichever type of economy, but more particularly in economies in
transition, there is an on-going debate on regulation versus deregulation
of the labour market. The debate is often misconceived when expressed in
this way, because the true issue is between regulations
-
which obstruct the smooth functioning and development of the market, and
-
those which are needed for the proper functioning of markets.
Therefore the issue is not whether or not there should be government intervention,
but what interventions are appropriate and facilitative. In addition, there
are minmum rules needed to promote social, and not only economic, objectives
and progress.
The type of interventions needed for the propoer functioning of the
market are numerous By way of example, they include:
-
rules for the efficient operation of financial markets
-
education and training policies
-
industrial relations
-
protection of property
-
enforcement of contracts
-
rule of law and a legal system consistent with a market system, e.g. a
system of courts dispensing justice on objective principles
-
rules against monopolies which also foster competition.
Conditions
Employers' organizations can discharge their roles and participate effectively
in tripartism only if certain pre-conditions are fulfilled.
First, employers need to unite and make their organization representative
of employer interests. It is less effective where individual employers
seek to influence policy and legislation. If the organization is not adequately
representative, its views will tend to be ignored since they would not
be considered as reflecting the views and concerns of employers as a whole.
Second, the organization should be highly 'professional' - it should
have the means (staff, knowledge, skills) to prepare, support and debate
positions. In order to be 'professional', a high level of staff skills
and capacities is necessary. These requirements are also relevant in making
the organization representative through increased membership. In a democracy,
employers' organizations, unlike workers' organizations, will not be listened
to or taken cognizance of especially by politicians, on the basis of votes
which the organization could influence. Therefore employers' organizations
in such countries have to depend on their representativeness and professionalism,
though no doubt their political connections (like those of unions) also
count.
Third, labour and social policy, like economic policy, has to be formulated
on relevant facts and data. Consequently, employers' organizations must
possess the ability to support their positions with relevant data and information
which is possible where such organizations have the capacity for research
and information collection, and for analysis of that information. This
is important not only to influence the other two constituents in a particular
policy direction, but also to win public support for their position on
any given issue.
Fourth, sound bipartite relations with representatives of employees
enhance the possibility of achieving a consensus on national development
goals, the means to achieve them, and on labour relations issues which
are addressed through tripartite processes.
Fifth, governments should be willing to consult with employers and take
into account their concerns.
Keys to Effectiveness
Therefore, some of the keys to the effectiveness of an employers' organization
are the following:
-
the ability to assess and influence the external environment, which
requires a collaborative effort among members, the policy board and staff
-
the identification and provision of services members need
-
investment in staff (i.e. proper recruitment, training and development)
to ensure skilled/professional staff
-
the provision of up todate, well researched and well analysed information,
the possession of knowledge and its application.
The state of bipartite relations has an impact on the effectiveness
of tripartism. However, it is necessary to be clear about what is meant
by bipartism in this connection. In many Asian countries bipartism has
been viewed as the relationship between each of the social partners separately
with the government and public authorities. This view has been engendered
by factors such as the power of some governments which have no equivalent
in the West, the politicization of unions, or the power of employers in
business friendly countries. This is not the sense in which the term bipartism
is used. Bipartism in this context means the relationship (dialogue, dealings,
negotiation) between the organizations of employers and employees, at the
enterprise, industry and national levels.
Apart from the number of parties in the two relationships, there are
several points of distinction between them. First, tripartism operates
at the national, industry or provincial levels. It cannot operate at the
enterprise level. The fact that laws are applicable at the enterprise level
does not imply that tripartism operates at that level, in the same way
that though the State prescribes rules relating to marriage, it does not
mean that the marriage relationship involves State participation. Even
though labour inspection is a process undertaken by the State with a view
to ensuring the observance of laws and rules required to be observed by
enterprises, or at the enterprise level, it is not tripartism. Bipartism,
on the other hand, operates at all three levels, more particularly and
frequently at the enterprise level.
A second distinction is based on the subject matter. In tripartite dialogue
issues addressed are policy-oriented. This is also the case in bipartite
relationships when they occur at the national or industry level. At the
workplace level issues relate to the particular workplace, and are of a
more practical nature.
Third, in regard to parties to the dialogue, tripartite processes involve
representatives of employers and employees, as does bipartism at the national,
industry or provincial level. But at the enterprise level, there is less
scope for the involvement of employers' organizations, though such involvement
does occur in countries where the employers' organization negotiates on
behalf of the employer in respect of workplace issues such as disputes
and strikes, wages and terms and conditions of employment. However, it
may be argued that when an employers' organization enters such negotiations,
the matter is taken out of the enterprise level. Bipartism can take place
at the enterprise level even if there is no union. It is conceivable for
bipartism to operate in the same enterprise with or without a union at
different levels. As in the case of joint consultation in Japan, bipartism
may operate in the form of workplace information-sharing through group
activities without the union, and at the corporate level through joint
consultation committees consisting of management and union representation.
There is an interplay and interaction between tripartism and bipartism.
Since macro level decisions (which may be taken through tripartite consultation)
have little value if they are not translated into practice at the enterprise
level, bipartism can be a process for giving effect at the enterprise level
to tripartite decisions. For example, Singapore's decision in the second
half of the 1980s to introduce a flexible wage system was the result of
a tripartite consensus. But implementation was determined on a bipartite
basis, thus leaving employers and employees (and their representatives)
to opt between a profitability or productivity model (or a combination
of both). There are, of course, some tripartite decisions which do not
call for implementation at the enterprise level, as in the case of social
security schemes operative at the national level.
Bipartism is not a process intended only to give effect to tripartite
decisions. With the increasing emphasis on workplace relations, macro level
policies and decisions are influenced by what takes place, or what is needed
to support practices, at the micro level. Further, the outcomes of bipartite
relationships at the national, industry or provincial levels can have a
major influence on tripartite consultation and macro level policies. A
good example is Sweden, where in the 1960s and 1970s the labour market
was regulated by the social partners, and national policies reflected their
agreements on labour market issues. In its most advanced form, bipartism
may lead to 'social contracts' as evidenced in some of the Scandinavian
countries and Germany, which define the basic relationship and objectives
of the social partners in the labour market.
Tripartism can become an important means to settle issues when bipartism
does not result in a consensus. When such failure leads to disputes, the
State's involvement (including through conciliation and adjudication) brings
into play the tripartite process.
While not in any way eroding the value of tripartite consultation and
decisions on labour-related issues, in many industrialized countries there
is an increasing emphasis on bipartism at the enterprise level. The main
influences in this regard (such as globalization, technological change
and declining unionization in some cases) are outside the scope of this
Paper. In developing countries (especially in economies in transition)
governments tend to assume a dominating role in the labour market. As such,
there is less scope for bipartite decisions which exclude State participation.
Where unions are weak, strong bipartite relations tend to exist between
employers and governments. In the U.S.A. tripartism is hardly in evidence,
and even bipartism operates mostly at the enterprise level.
The trend towards increased bipartism is reflected in several movements.
First, while wage decisions at the national or industry level influenced
enterprise level outcomes in the past, there is now greater emphasis on
enterprise level wage decisions, especially with the growing interest in
flexible wages. However, the concept of minimum wages which operates in
many countries provides a basis for a tripartite consideration of such
wages.
Second, the increasing human resource management initiatives taken by
employers enhance the focus on the enterprise and bipartism at that level.
This is obvious from the nature of these initiatives, some of which are
listed below:
-
consultation and communication systems
-
work reorganization
-
multi-skilling
-
job enlargement
-
team work and autonomous work groups
-
job rotation
-
flexible pay
-
productivity
-
types of contracts (e.g. outsourcing, homework)
Third, even in the area of employee training, employers who, in the past,
looked to the government and public training institutions, are having to
invest more in worker training and to ensure that such training focuses
on enterprise needs.
Fourth, the classical form of bipartism outside the enterprise level,
namely, collective bargaining, has contributed little to enhancing the
capacity to increase wages. It is also looked upon as being conflictual.
As such, other mechanisms at the enterprise level (e.g. joint consultation
and two-way communication) are considered necessary to make the collective
bargaining process work.
| |
| [Top] [Contents] |
G. The Role of the ILO in Strengthening
Employers' Organizations
|
|
The activities of the ILO with employers' organizations are important
to the latters' capacity to participate in tripartite dialogue, because
strong organizations of the social partners are a pre-requisite to effective
tripartism. However, strengthening employers' organizations (which is one
of the core mandates of the ILO as also is strengthening workers' organizations)
is not only for the purpose of enhancing their capacity to participate
effectively in tripartite dialogue. It also has the following important
objectives:
-
improving their capacity to increase their membership so that they would
be representative of employers
-
increasing their capacity to influence the policy environment relevant
to business growth and development, which they do not necessarily have
to undertake only through a tripartite process
-
increasing their capacity to provide professional services to members in
labour-related areas
-
increasing their capacity for bipartite relationships and negotiations.
So far as employers' organizations are concerned, there is no technical
assistance as such that could be rendered by the ILO in the area of tripartism.
The reason is that tripartism is a process of consulting and working together
with the other social partners to achieve a consensus on socio-economic,
in particular, labour-related, issues. For this process to be effective,
the social partners should be strong, independent and possess the capacity
to ensure that their contributions and voice have an impact on the consultations
and discussions. Therefore technical assistance to employers' organizations
for the development of tripartism is aimed at enhancing the organizations'
professional and technical competence and in making available information
on tripartite arrangements in other countries. Such assistance would strengthen
their capacity to
-
influence the policy environment in a direction conducive to business development
and growth, balanced with concern for equity and social justice;
-
participate in tripartite dialogue and institutions to achieve a consensus
consistent with employer interests;
-
develop a well-analysed information and reasearch base essential for the
possession of a capacity to influence policies on the merits rather than
by the exercise of political influence only;
-
develop a high level of skills in the tasks the organization undertakes
- essential for the organization's credibility in regard to whatever position
it espouses;
-
develop sound bipartite relations with representatives of employees, which
is essential for effective tripartism.
Finally, strengthening employers' (as well as workers') organizations is
not tripartism. Tripartism is a process and means through which the social
partners contribute to national development, and in promoting and strengthening
tripartism, the ILO facilitates the involvement of the social partners
in the process. Tripartism is not a "technical" activity. On the other
hand, strengthening the social partners is an activity designed to enhance
their capacity to participate in tripartite processes, to negotiate with
each other on a bipartite basis, influence the policy environment by other
means, and to provide professional services to their members. Such strengthening
of employers' (and workers' organizations) would, in the long run, also
strengthen the tripartite process and contribute to its effectiveness.
January 1997
tripart.ds
For further information, please contact Bureau for Employers' Activities (ACT/EMP) at Tel: +41.22.799.7748, Fax: +41.22.799.8948, or E-mail: actemp@ilo.org
Copyright © 1998 International Labour Organization (ILO)
Disclaimer
webinfo@ilo.org
This page was created by B.C. It was approved by R.C. It was last updated on 13 July 1998.
|