Slovenia

The subject of the workers' financial participation has deserved a special attention from the social partners in Slovenia.

In what concerns the employers, in the autumn of 2004, they have debated the financial participation and under which conditions would such be accepted. It should be stressed the fact that one of the conditions putted by the employers for the acceptance of the introduction of financial participation schemes was the reduction of the taxes to apply.

Who first raised the subject of financial participation were the trade unions and after the employers, because both should work together.

Concretely, there is already a proposal (dated of 1997) on the financial participation, detaching the slope of profit sharing. This proposal is quite good. However, due to the fact that the social partners have not reached an understanding, due to the different interests in stake, the Parliament didn't want to conclude the process. As already elapsed plenty time since that proposal it will be necessary a new one. Probably, the Government will propose a new Law in April 2005.

In 2004 a social agreement has been celebrated among the social partners that underlines the need, and the priority, of a new law on financial participation. Optimistically, there will be a new law, in 2005, on the workers' financial participation.

The collective agreements allowed, in a legal way, the profit sharing, however due to the non-existence of fiscal advantages the employers don't apply financial participation. For instance, if the employer wants to give, as a bonus, the equivalent to one more monthly wage, he has to pay taxes, not only the workers but also the employer.

This is one of the reasons why trade unions and employers have done a lot of pressure near the Government in order to eliminate the fiscal barriers on these values. There was a proposal in the sense that the employer would keep the money that would distribute to its collaborators, during a period of 4 to 5 years. Once finished that period, the employer would give the money to the workers. But for that purpose it is needed a law that means a fiscal reduction on those values.

Questioned on the reason why so vehement support the introduction of the workers' financial participation schemes, the employers defend that such will have benefits, namely in the subject that if the money is kept in the hand of the employer, he will have more possibility to expand its business without asking for money.

Concerning the trade unions, they do not object to the fact that the employers withdraw, from the financial participation, some benefit. This if the worker can do the same. They support the introduction of the financial participation because the workers are more motivated and, as such, more productive.

There is a synergy between what the trade unions and employers expect from the workers' financial participation.

They still add that the Slovenes’ legislation foresees the obligatoriness of a worker (in the companies with more than 500 workers) to be at the Direction board of the company. Such is beneficial, because the workers have, like this, the possibility to verify the cash flow of the company, i.e., the economical situation of the company.

On which is the scheme that, preferentially, they would accept to implement financial participation, the employers state that the profit sharing of the companies bring more benefits. This because it will allow to the workers to increase their wealth and their purchase power and, in those conditions, to spend more. Taking the employers to produce more because can drain their products.

Concerning other schemes, namely the retirement funds, such would implicate, for the employer, the need to wire more personnel. They also add that they do not know if such is good or not or if people would welcome the idea or not. And still what to do with those funds.

For those reasons the employers are perhaps more orientated to accept share schemes and share options. There was not, still now, any conclusion in that sense. The only scheme that has been accepted is the profit sharing.

In what concerns the trade unions, they accept any scheme of financial participation. In Slovenia the workers gain 12 wages a year. At the end of each year, it has became practice for the employers to pay the equivalent to one more wage, as a Christmas bonus, to the workers. Though, this value is taxed in the totality. That is the reason why the employers extinguished them.

These Christmas bonuses are normal, but others don't exist. It is rare to attribute bonus for the balance. Such will be common among the members of the direction, administrations and personnel with leadership positions.

In what concerns the possibility to buy shares, it will be possible to accept such scheme once, to the worker; it will be possible to withdraw dividends from that.

Still, according to the trade unions, and in what concerns the duality Worker / "owner" of the company, it may cause some conflict once the worker participates, financially, in the company and on the other hand, he receives the wage, result of a work relationship. Therefore, the trade unions seek a good work atmosphere and good wages.

The second question is connected with the wages’ increases, because these should rise according the inflation. These are rights of the labour relationship and such is established by the individual contract of work. This is the reason why profit sharing should be included in the wage.

The trade unions defend that, in the end of the financial year (more or less in February) it should be given to the workers something more than a Christmas bonus.

If, in practices, the workers' participation is good, they will not need a law. The trade unions want to include the financial participation in the law in order to make it compulsory. If the practice were applied correctly such law would not be necessary.

They, still, add that the Governments support the financial participation, but they are at the same level of the company, because they do not want the financial participation as obligatory.

Questioned on the way as such would be processed, the trade unions add that the financial participation will be obligatory in certain conditions, but that will be voluntary in the end. It will be at company level, that they should take the necessary measures for the application, in practice, of the financial participation.

Confronted with the possibility of the financial participation to be useful in cases of an eventual dislocation of the companies, such would have to be casuistically analysed. It can help in one or another case, but in general no, because everything depends on the cost of the work. This is the employers’ opinion.

Facing the hypothesis of, and in order to guarantee, both the viability of the company and its displacement to another country, and not having wages’ increases or even to reduce those values and in return to apply financial participation schemes, the trade unions defend that the wage should also accompany the growth of the company. If there is growth of the productivity also the wage should be increased; if the profit of the company goes higher also the distribution of profits should be higher. If there is not profit it will be only the wage.

In what concerns the possibility to reduce the wages waiting better days, the decision should depend on the reasons presented. The human capital is the most important for the company. If the workers are satisfied will follow the decision of the company.

Eventually, they will accept to reduce the wages if such is a temporary situation and not a definitive one, but new possibilities will have to be found. The wage should not be dependent of the profit. It should be fixed. Profit is not only the result of the invested capital, but also of the invested work.

In what concerns the employers, one of the conditions for the companies to accept the workers' financial participation is if it does not implicate an increase of the costs. That is the reason why they support the reduction / exemption of the taxes of the money obtained by the distribution of the profit, so that the employer does not have an added cost and so that the worker can obtain something more.

In what respects the trade unions, if there is profit sharing, the trade unions would not have reasons to pressure for the increase of the wages.

Principles for promotion the financial participation:

x Better knowledge on the benefits of the financial participation;

x The existence of a law.

Note: the employers don't accept the idea of a Directive because each country has its own history and such is difficult to harmonise.

The trade unions support that the profit sharing should take place, at least, once a year.

It should be established, in the beginning, how it will be calculated, i.e., the worker should know what he would get.

All the workers should have opportunity to receive, to access to schemes of financial participation. There is a difference between the Direction and the remaining workers, but the participation should include the totality of the workers.

(In what concerns this question the employers don’t know if the financial participation should be applied in an individual basis or a collective one.)

It should exist a reduction of the tax burden.

Concerning the possibility of a Directive, the trade unions are in favour, since this contains the general principles, because the states are not equals. So, it should be adapted according the characteristics of each member state.

The possibility of introduction of financial participation plans through European Workers Councils will be, according with the trade unions’ point of view, something good. It is convenient that there is a common policy to apply to the multinational companies. It is good when all the parts are involved.

Each country will have their collective agreements, but it is good that EWCs apply the rules, within the multinational companies.

The power should come from the trade unions, because they have the resources to get their objectives. The EWCs should establish the basis, present its input, for the trade unions work. The policy should be defined by the trade unions.

As a final note, for the introduction of the workers’ financial participation, the workers’ councils, at the company, should be consulted.

In what concerns the profit sharing, such possibility should be inserted in the social pact of the company. It could happen a situation where it is the workers’ council to suggest to the employer the introduction of a financial participation scheme, depending on the will of the entrepreneur.