Lithuania

The phenomenon of the workers' financial participation is not unknown to the project’s partners. In some way this principle exists but it is not formalised.

Some companies have distributed shares amongst the members of the respective directions once they are the responsible ones. For the direct leadership, frequently they receive annual bonus.

In spite of this concrete practice there are no rules on the financial participation, or in what concerns the obligatoriness, periodicity, amounts, eligibility, etc.

Don't exist, therefore, schemes previously fixed, everything depends on the profit and on the results of the company.

The employers defend that the application of financial participation schemes will be a way to motivate and stimulate the workers; in fact, the partner trade union shares the same opinion on this. Only the less progressive employers don't visualise that possibility.

However, and despite visualising as interesting the application of financial participation schemes, the partner trade union points out as priority in their claims, the wages’ increase. An eventual negotiation in the sense of not increasing the wages in return receive the application of financial participation schemes, it could only be accepted if the conjuncture decides in that sense, otherwise the wages’ increases are the priority, and once reached this priority, they can move onwards with something more.

In past occasions, it has been already accepted not to increase the wages and also the postponement of the wage's payment, in order to enable the company to obtain funds to invest, and for such, it was necessary an honest and serious dialogue between the workers and the employers, so that the workers can be confident in the measure to be taken.

For both partners both Training and Information on the workers' financial participation are essential elements. Such task should be carried out by both structures, because in the employers’ opinion, the trade unions should also inform their associates and here there is a problem due to the low affiliation, though everything depends on the company and on the sector in analysis.

It adds, still, the fact not always the collective bargaining exists, and this would make difficult the application of financial participation schemes by collective agreement.

If they had to choose by one the application of a financial participation scheme both partners would prefer the shares’ options possibility and/or the distribution of companies’ shares, this because, and in the partners’ trade union's opinion, the money doesn't have value and for that reason it would be more advantageous to invest in shares. For the employers, the simple fact of distributing bonus, in cash, to the workers, won't be the best for the company. For the companies it will be good any sort of investment, and there is a lot where to invest, and for that reason it would be beneficial both for the company and for the workers.

The possibility of creation of retirement funds with the contribution of the employers is not applauded by the trade union due to the great mobility of the work; the worker joins and leaves the company at a hallucinating rhythm. It is, also, difficult to persuade the workers to wait for the retirement funds. Another issue would be raised relatively to what would happen to the fund if the worker leaves the company.