Tripartite Social Dialogue to Build Trust and Collaboration Among Government, Business and Labour


 
Collective Bargaining > Forum Log in

Tripartite Social Dialogue to Build Trust and Collaboration Among Government, Business and Labour
George, Manager, South Africa

National tripartite social dialogue brings together government, workers and employers to discuss public policies, laws and other decision-making that affects these social partners. Tripartite consultations can ensure greater cooperation among the tripartite partners and build consensus on relevant national policies. Social dialogue is a key instrument in promoting and achieving decent work, inclusive development and social cohesion, and it encourages good governance.
 

 
Tripartite Social Dialogue: the Dutch Polder Model
Jaap de Jonge, Editor, Netherlands
The Dutch "Polder model" (or "Poldermodel" as it is written in the Dutch language) is a term used since the 1980s to describe the acclaimed Dutch version of consensus-based economic and social policy making. The term quickly took on a wider meaning, to denote similar cases of consensus decision-making in the Dutch fashion.
It can be described with phrases like "a pragmatic recognition of pluriformity" and "cooperation despite differences".

The polder model is characterised by a tri-partite cooperation between:
- Employers Organizations
- Labor unions, and
- Government (national).
In The Netherlands, the cooperation and talks described above are embodied in the Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER, Social Economic Council). The SER serves as the central forum to discuss labour issues and has a long tradition of consensus.

Key benefits of this approach are the avoidance of labor conflicts and strikes, especially in challenging economic and/or social conditions in which painful measures have to be taken.
A key disadvantage associated with the model is that the process is supposed to be very time-consuming. That's why the word polder model and especially the verb "polderen" (English: to polder) has been used pejoratively by some politicians to describe the slow decision-making process, where all parties have to be heard.
Others argue that this disadvantage is only cosmetic and not real, since very complex problems require long consideration and involving all interests, thus gaining a lot of buy-in before difficult decisions are made (and winning back even more time through faster and better implementation).
 

 
Scale of Entity Under Discussion
Hume-Cook, CxO / Board, New Zealand
Kia Ora and Hello Jaap & George,
I'm interested in the effect of scale on the tripartite discussions/poldermodel? In an entity/organisation which has a 'tripartite' structure (at 1 level) but has more differences at another level, can you still use the model?

I'm thinking about a smaller scale, where individuals have a disproportionate effect on the unifying goal of consensus.
To make this less abstract, more concretely indicate how these entities differ in scale, I offer the following:
Workers, Management & a legal framework (The Government's Ministry/Minister & establishing legislation) could be seen as 3 parties at 1 level. However the entity is a school, thus Teachers are Workers in relation to their employer (The School's Management/Governance entity), however they are also 'Managers' in respect of their pupils, where they must also be aware of the childrens' legal guardians/parents' interests! Simultaneous tripartite relations may create shifting forces within 1 group/person!
 

 







 

  Do you wish to study further? You can learn more from the summary, forum, discussions, lessons, courses, training, instructions, expert tips, best practices and education sources. Register.  


Special Interest Group Leader

You here


More on Collective Bargaining
Summary
Forum
Best Practices

Expert Tips

Resources

About 12manage | Advertising | Link to us | Privacy | Terms of Service
Copyright 2017 12manage - The Executive Fast Track. V14.1 - Last updated: 18-12-2017. All names tm by their owners.