Norway trying to cope with the free movement of workers from the new member states

In May 2005 social dumping and the regulation of labour migration was on the agenda of the social partners and policy-makers in Norway. The government and the social partners intend to intensify efforts and strengthen measures to combat social dumping.

In May 2005 a series of events put social dumping and the regulation of labour migration on the agenda of the social partners and policy-makers in Norway. Following one year of EU enlargement, coping with the free movement of workers from Eastern Europe is still a contentious issue (NO0405105F, NO0411103F, NO0312103F, NO0407101N). Worst case scenarios predicting large influx of cheap foreign labour into the Norwegian labour market has proven ill founded, but recent evidence suggest that the undercutting of national wage- and working conditions is nevertheless a viable threat, in particular in face of the posting of workers in connection with the provisions of services. The government and the social partners thus intend to intensify efforts and strengthen measures to combat social dumping.

The general labour market situation following one year of EU enlargement was the subject of debate at a conference arranged by the research institute Fafo. At the conference new figures regarding labour immigration were presented, showing that a large share (70%) of registered (through the granting of work permits) labour immigration to the Nordic in 2004 countries was immigration into the Norwegian labour market. There was however a general consensus among the participants at the conference that the real issue lies not in the number of individual workers applying for work permits, but in the number of posted workers stationed to work in Norway for a foreign service provider. The amount of posted workers is still an unknown quantity due to the poor quality of data available, but research presented at the conference indicates an increasing number of service providers from the new EU member states entering the Nordic countries.

In connection with the revised national budget for 2005, the Norwegian government made public its intention to strengthen monitoring and control mechanisms in Norwegian working life with the view to combat social dumping. To this end increased funds have been allocated to the Norwegian Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet) and the Petroleum Safety Authority (Petroleumstilsynet), both of which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Act relating to the general extension of collective agreements as well as work environment legislation in general. NOK 12 million have been allotted to strengthen the work already carried out by the two bodies in monitoring developments in wage- and working conditions in foreign companies with foreign workers operating in Norway. Reports from the Labour Inspectorate suggest large differences in wage- and working conditions between Norwegian employees and foreign employees posted in Norway.

In May the so-called Tariffboard (Tariffnemnda), which is vested with the responsibility of making decisions on petitions for the extension of collective agreements, made public a proposal for the (geographical) extension of two nationwide collective agreements to the region of Oslo and adjacent counties. The proposal came against the background of a petition put forward by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO). If approved by a majority of the board it will be the second time that such an extension is invoked in Norwegian working life. In October 2004, the Tariff Board ruled in favour of a partial extension of three collective agreements at seven onshore petroleum installations (NO0411103F). More petitions from the trade unions are expected in the near future.

This information is made available through the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), as a service to users of the EIROnline database. EIRO is a project of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. However, this information has been neither edited nor approved by the Foundation, which means that it is not responsible for its content and accuracy. This is the responsibility of the EIRO national centre that originated/provided the information. For details see the "About this record" information in this record.