Editor's note

Labour relations in the Nordic states are generally administered by the collective agreements among the three “partners”: employers (represented by the business/corporate organisations), employees (mostly represented by the “sectoral” trade unions) and government’s representatives (from central, regional and local administration).

These agreements are taking place once in 4-5 years and usually called 3-party’s agreements, They are, however, not covered by any clearly defined and elaborate legislation, The “model” for defining labour relations in the Nordic states (such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland) is based on the involvement of all three parties in a kind of “cooperative agreement”, which includes coordination of interests from all sides of labour relations in these states. 

In fact, such 3-party’s agreements exist in both private and public sectors: in the former, it is about employment conditions in a certain economy sectors (such as hourly wage, unemployment benefits, paternal leave’s support, holidays’ duration, etc.) within a one trade union’s area; in the latter, it is about more complicated spheres in the public sector, which covers, e.g. in Denmark alone over 750 thousand civil servants dispersed among central, regional and local administration offices.

The 3-party’s agreements in the public sector are complicated also because they cover several trade unions’ interests: teachers and doctors, nurses and drivers, cleaners and community services people, to name a few. To coordinate various interests is becoming often so complicated that the process could cover one-two months.

Coordination, generally, include three main issues (with some issues of minor importance as well): yearly wage increase by at least 8% versus about 7% in the private sector; workers’ time (most difficult it is for teachers and nurses with over-time hours), and –strange enough- about paid lunch time to be included into “public service’s time”.    

Most active in such cooperative agreements are, on one side, various public services’ trade unions, such as medical nurses’ trade union; they have to show that they are really taking care of workers’ interests in the public sector. On the other side, there are various government representatives, as most of the issues under agreements are those to be covered by additional injections from the budget. 

As a rule, such agreements, though often very tough and lengthy in discussions, end up in a compromise, showing satisfaction to all sides of the “collective agreements”. 

Wouldn’t it be interesting for the Baltic States to emulate such practices?