1 / 11

Research partner meeting Utrecht University, June 6th

New challenges for public services social dialogue Integrating service user & workforce involvement to support the adaptation of social dialogue. Research partner meeting Utrecht University, June 6th Eva Knies, Peter Leisink & Mijke van de Noort. With financial support from the European Union.

rolf
Download Presentation

Research partner meeting Utrecht University, June 6th

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New challenges for public services social dialogueIntegrating service user & workforce involvement to support the adaptation of social dialogue Research partner meeting Utrecht University, June 6th Eva Knies, Peter Leisink & Mijke van de Noort With financial support from the European Union

  2. Progress • Desk research • Interviews – hospitals (5) • Ministry of Health, Welfare & Sport • Trade unions: ABVAKABO FNV, CNV Publieke Zaak • Federation of Patients and Consumer Organisations in the Netherlands (NPCF) • National centre for client participation (LSR) • Interviews – secondary education (5) • Ministry of Education, Culture & Science • Dutch council for secondary education (VO-raad) • Trade unions: CNV Onderwijs, AoB • National Action Committee Students (LAKS)

  3. What? Service user pressure – Hospitals • Patient participation: making use of the unique expertise of patients aimed at increasing the quality of care • Explicit focus on needs of individual patients • Balance between standardization and flexibility • Increased patient participation since mid 1990s as a result of laws and regulations, increasing number of chronically ill patients and the introduction of market mechanisms • Patient involvement highly institutionalised; currently no explicit pressures to increase patient participation

  4. What? Service user pressure – Secondary education • Involvement of students and parents is considered important for two reasons: • Successful school results for students (individual level) • Improving quality of education (macro level) • Parents (and students) seem primarily interested in individual level outcomes • Student/parent involvement highly institutionalised; currently no explicit pressures to increase participation

  5. Who? New actors – Hospitals • About 10% of all Dutch citizens are members of a patient organisation • Disease-specific patient organisations and general patient organisations • The federation of patients and consumer organisations in the Netherlands (NCPF) is subsidised by the Dutch government

  6. Who? New actors – Secondary education • Students and their parents are represented by the National Action Committee Students (LAKS) and the National Parents’ Council (LO) • LAKS is well-organised, LO far less • Discussion: to what extent do these bodies represent students/parents in general? • For example: the Dutch council for secondary education sometimes passes over LAKS and LO to discuss issues with individual students/parents

  7. Forms? How are actors involved – Hospitals • Law ‘Participation healthcare clients’ (1995): a client council for each healthcare institution • Client participation on hospital level is difficult in cure institutions: representation, professionalism, short stays • Often indirect representatives, instead of patients • Law ‘Good Governance’ (2014): intention to make it no longer mandatory to have a client council in cure  de-institutionalisation

  8. Forms? How are actors involved – Secondary education • Law ‘Participation in schools’ (1992, 2007) • Council composed of employees and students/parents is mandatory • A council on the school level (MR) and a council on the level of the institution (GMR) • Consultation and codetermination: Right to advise and approve (some topics: right of initiative) • The ministry of Education, Culture & Science provides a budget for council members to take courses

  9. Scope? On what issues – Hospitals • Traditional employment issues still only discussed with trade unions/works council: work relations, employment relations, industrial relations • Service quality is in the interest of all parties, but is discussed in different platforms • Ad-hoc coalitions among stakeholders at national level are formed if this serves a specific goal • Professional associations discuss issues of concern to both users and employees

  10. Scope? On what issues – Secondary education • Different topics are discussed in different platforms (see hospitals) • Students/parents prefer to discuss issues in the MR (at school level); teachers prefer to discuss issues in the GRM (at the level of the institution) • Initiatives to involve parents and teachers (VO2020 tour) in discussions on future developments did not have the desired effect • Issue of concern to both students/parents and teachers: working hours/’1040 hours norm’ – horizontal dialogue

  11. Consequences? Service user involvement & social dialogue • In both sectors ‘user issues’ and ‘employee issues’ are disconnected and discussed in different platforms • This is the result of institutionalisation – two sides of the coin • Both user and employee participation are guaranteed but seperately • Difficult to get all parties at the same table • There is no conflict of interests, but neither do user involvement and employee participation strengthen each other

More Related