CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL DIALOGUE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Abstract

Social differences and methods of achieving social peace are in the focus of analysis when we
talk about social dialogue. Through history, philosophical and political thought have been
dealing with the origin and sources of social differences and social conflicts that arise from
them legitimately. The outreach has remained limited. Irrespective of an impressive
technological development, social differences have remained an important characteristic of
the status and relations, cause of social tensions and conflicts with forms of expression and
consequences that are difficult to anticipate. The concept of social market economy and social
state has got significantly different approach. Market economy, when it is successful, has to
take care not only of economic efficiency but also of the basic elements of social balance. The
interests of social classes, groups, and layers are different but they do not need to be and they
are not necessarily conflicting. From that point of view, there are objective conditions for
different interests to get mutually harmonised, and to set up the principle of permanent
negotiating instead of permanent conflict. Social dialogue, as the principle, as a new
significantly different method of regulating social relations formulates and puts in practice its
main objectives through the process of collective bargaining, through harmonising of attitudes
and concluding of collective agreements. Collective bargaining, when it emerged, used to be
understood in its basic meaning as establishing and developing of relations between the
capital and work, between private entrepreneurs and workers. Public sector used to remain
outside the process in whole. When it comes to organising, great changes have happened in all
contemporary societies that are characterised by fast development of the public sector. In the
conditions when social dialogue and collective bargaining have become general characteristic
of the status and relations, objectively speaking, public sector could not remain beyond that
process. Based on the ILO documents (Convention no. 151) all public officials, employees
and other persons employed in the public sector have been introduced in the process of social
dialogue and collective bargaining. When it comes to public sector, it is the matter of
functioning of the state in its most significant segments. All areas of work include public

interest that does not allow being neglected due to its significance. Hence, these specific
characteristics of the public sector have to be included in the methodology of bargaining,
whereby it is very important for the state emporium not to bring into question the freedom of
bargaining and equality of social partners. It is necessary to ensure for the organisation of
public employees to enjoy full independence from public authorities in the bargaining
process. In Serbia, out of the total number of employed persons (around 1,750,000) the state
appears as the employer for more than 1,300,000 of them (public services, public companies,
companies in restructuring, and companies in which the state has the majority capital).
Therefore, the state is emphasised as the largest employer. Considering the scope of the public
sector and the fact that public sector covers a larger part of economy, it comes out that the
largest problems of the overall reform are connected with the public sector. It is not the
question whether but rather how to enter the public sector reform. Basically, the following
options are possible: passing and implementing of imperative legislation; implementing the
mechanisms of social dialogue at all levels, and the third option (which is in-between the two
previous ones) is to introduce administrative measures in the very approach aimed at
eliminating obvious disproportions, and after that commence with persistent and systematic
enhancing of a social dialogue in the public sector, in all its significant segments. In all that,
opening of a new investment cycle, creating of an ambience with recognisable conditions and
high level of legal security could contribute the most to favourable course of the reform
process in the public sector