Documents Pisarczyk, Lukasz 7 results

"The article analyses the reasons for the collapse of collective bargaining in Poland, while formulating proposals to overcome the current difficulties. The Polish labour market with almost 17 million workers is among the largest in Europe. However, only around 15% of workers are covered by the provisions of collective agreements. The most striking feature of the system is the lack of multi-employer collective agreements including sectoral agreements. The crisis has been caused by various legal, structural, social, economic and political factors. The most important problems include the difficulties affecting the position and functioning of the social partners. Paradoxically, there are also some legal solutions which deepen the crisis of collective bargaining. Polish law regulates this phenomenon in a complex and unclear way, leaving limited room for the social partners, and making collective agreements unattractive for employers. Moreover, the strict and rigid requirements concerning trade unions at company level limit negotiations in small and medium-sized enterprises. Legislative intervention seems legally justified to improve the situation. First, it is important to eliminate the regulations that constitute an obstacle to the development of collective bargaining. Second, respecting the social partners' autonomy, the law should encourage and support negotiations between employers and employee representatives. "

"Populism is gaining ground in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and Hungary and Poland are the best examples of this trend. The Hungarian Orbán government and conservative Polish coalition led by Kaczyński (PiS), widely considered in the literature as populist, have been in power for some time now, which allows us not only to evaluate their labour law policies, but also the results. Though there are evident similarities between these two countries, such as political motivated layoffs in public employment or significant wage increases, the discrepancies are far more numerous. These differences result from each country's specific socio-economic conditions and (almost) diametrically opposed political strategies with respect to employment matters. While Viktor Orbán believes in a workfare society, without social allowances and with flexibilized employment protection, in Poland PiS is pushing through a belated welfare revolution with expanded social benefits and employment rights.

This article starts by describing populism as it has developed in Hungary and Poland in section 1, and the promises made by Orbán and Kaczyński before coming to power in section 2. Section 3 examines the main pillars of populist labour law policy, such as flexibilization, wages, collective rights, self-employment, social benefits and political motivated layoffs. Finally, we try to explain why and how these seemingly similar populist governments have adopted fundamentally different labour law reforms."

"The aim of the paper is to present potential legal consequences of the reception of the future directive on adequate minimum wages in Poland as well as the social, economic and political context of this process. The adoption and implementation of the future directive would require changes in Polish law. First of all, the mechanism of setting the statutory minimum wage, especially the reference criteria, would have to be amended. The necessary amendments include also the establishment of an advisory body. Finally, the directive can be seen as an impulse to revive social dialogue, which is undergoing a deep crisis. Due to the complexity of the regulations, it is difficult to clearly assess whether any modifications will be needed as regards the protection of minimum wages. Although the directive could be a chance to improve working and living conditions in Poland, there is no enthusiasm about the draft. The government raises doubts about the EU's treaty competences to issue the directive and is also very sceptical about the need and possibility to increase the scale of collective bargaining in Poland. Not surprisingly, the approach of the social partners is varied: rather negative in the case of employers and more positive as far as trade unions are concerned. Nonetheless, it would be unrealistic to expect widespread support for the proposed solutions."

"This article focuses on European Framework Agreements (EFAs) concluded between multinational companies and employee representatives (trade unions, European Works Councils (EWCs)). EFAs have been seen as a chance to revive industrial relations, in particular in countries (e.g., Eastern European countries) where traditional collective bargaining is in a critical condition. The main problem concerning EFAs is, however, the lack of an appropriate legal framework suitable for the transnational nature of the agreements. Although the development of EFAs depends on various factors, including the engagement of the social partners, the lack of any legal framework may be perceived as an obstacle to conducting transnational negotiations and concluding EFAs. Undoubtedly, the most important role in creating a legal framework for transnational agreements should be played by EU law. In the authors' opinion, the EU has the legal instruments to create a legal framework for EFAs. The best way to create a legal framework for EFAs seems to be in the form of a directive pursuant to Article 153(1)(b) and (f) in conjunction with Article 153(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It is important to adopt solutions that would facilitate negotiations, with a view to ensuring their effectiveness, while providing support mechanisms for monitoring and resolving potential conflicts. However, adopting a framework for EFAs may turn out to be difficult due to the lack of political will. Perhaps the changing reality will induce the stakeholders to resume work on the regulation – the more so as EFAs fit into the European Pillar of Social Rights."

"Poland, which has one of the highest shares of self-employment and civil law contracts in total employment in the European Union, provides an instructive example of a labour law reform that extended the personal scope of collective bargaining. Since 1 January 2019, the right to collective bargaining has been extended to all workers in paid employment. The first effects of the reform have however been disappointing. Collective agreements concluded since the new law came into force hardly ever cover non-employees. These results are rooted both in social partners' attitudes and strategies and in the existing legal framework. Employers keen on reducing labour costs are reluctant to enter into collective bargaining with self-employed workers, while trade unions have not adopted a comprehensive strategy for representing non-employees. At the same time, the law scarcely fosters and encourages social dialogue; in some areas it can even be an obstacle to developing collective bargaining for workers."