New challenges for public service social dialogue – the case of Denmark

1. Employment Relations Research Centre New challenges for public service social dialogue – the case of Denmark Nana Wesley Hansen& Mikkel Mailand FAOS – Employment Relations Research Center Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen With the financial support of the European Union VP/2013/0362

2. Employment Relations Research Centre Schools in Denmark • The Danish Folkeskole, founded in 1814 (Folkeskole Act) • Primary and lower secondary education, i.e. grade 0 to 6 and grade 7-9/10. • 2013: 1.312 public schools and 548 private schools. Less than a fifth of all students attended private schools • Reformed several times – latest 2013/14 (major conflict in collective bargaining round 2013 – teachers working time )

3. Employment Relations Research Centre Schools in Denmark - service users • Parents • 1934 parents gained the right to involvement - school councils • 1935 TheNational Association of School Parents’ (Skole og forældre) formed • 1989 school boards introduced through legislation • Pupils • ‘Ad hoc student involvement/councils 1960 and 70’ies • 1969 first national organization formed on Folkeskole level • 2004 Danish Schoolchildren (DanskeSkoleelever, DSE)formed on the basis of a merger of two separate organizations • Represented in school boards and student councils • Other • Industrial associations, local cultural and sports clubs

4. Employment Relations Research Centre Schools in Denmark – levels/scope of involvement

5. Employment Relations Research Centre Schools in Denmark – levels/scope of involvement

6. Employment Relations Research Centre Schools in Denmark –consequences/pressure? • TheNational Association of School Parents’ (Skole og forældre) • Danish Schoolchildren (DanskeSkoleelever, DSE) • Versus • Local Government Denmark (LGDK) (employers org) • The Danish Union of Teachers (DLF) • The Danish Association of School Leaders • Early Childhood and Youth Educators (BUPL) • National/sector level results • Variance in representative base! • More about discourse than actual pressure! • Strengthened management focus!

7. Employment Relations Research Centre Hospitals in DK – structure and user involvement drivers • Hospital structure • Regions responsible for 53 public hospital employing 107.000 • 30-someting private hospitals/clinics – reduced recently - suppliers • User involvement history in hospitals • User involvement long history, but more attention since late 2000s • Within last three years all actors sign up, you cannot be against it. Actors seen as paying more than lip-service to the term • Users often seen as patients and relatives, but sometimes broader • Actors have different understanding/emphasis diff. dimensions • Why: 1) problem pressure; 2) budget pressure/saving attempts; 3) research and policy learning from USA and UK; 4) first umbrella user involvement org. 2007; new patient roles and demands • Basic forms: single treatment process, research and health sector

8. Employment Relations Research Centre Hospitals in DK – service users and other actors • The user organizations • Danish Patient set up 2007, 17 member-org. Covers 79 org. • Appoints members to more than 100 councils etc. • Responsible for a foundation-funded knowledge-center for user-involvement • Other key actors in user involvement • Ministry of Health/National Health Authority • Public hospitals • Private hospitals/clinics • Five regions and their employer org. Danish Regions • Trade unions (for doctors, nurses and nurse-assistants) • (Municipalities and their empl org Local Government Denmark) • (General practitioners)

9. Employment Relations Research Centre Hospitals in DK – forms, levels and scope of user invol. • Organizational involvement aka indirect involvement • Sector (health): No permanent body, but Danish Patients now nearly always consulted. Sometimes invited together Danish Regions and TUs. Legal demand for invol.,but hearing is enough • Region: Recently legal demand for ‘user councils’, only patient representatives. Broad aims and competences in health area. • Hospital/department: No legal demand. Great variation. Include apart from patient reps and patients org reps, also employee reps and management reps. Advisory to management. • Interviewees find in indirect involvement huge variation, no or broad aims and different understandings between actors • Individual involvement aka direct involvement • Standard ‘talk with patient’, extented ‘involving talk with patient’ • ‘Informed approval’ , extended ‘joint decision making’

10. Employment Relations Research Centre Hospitals in DK – consequences etc. for social dialogue • Social dialogue in health sector • The word ‘social dialog’ not used • Collective bargaining and employee involvement well-developed and found on sector, region and hospital/department levels • Four preliminary findings of SD relations to user involvement • Social dialogue (bargaining + involvement) and user invol takes place on different decision-making arenas. Formally no overlap • Social partners and user organizations meet on user involvement arena, not on social dialogue arena • No signs user invol substitute social dialogue. Mutual recognition of roles in user invol, but social partners not seen as first movers • Could indicate purely complementary arenas w. no cross-effects, but 1) TU see user invol as possibility for influencing policy, 2) indirect effect on work org and work intensification, 3) User demands taking into social dialogue arena by TU and employers