A new study shows that collective agreements in Israel have promoted equality and rights for working parents, older employees, and people with disabilities in the labor market. The research is based on an analysis of more than 35,500 collective agreements signed in Israel over a 60-year period.
The full study, published in the Industrial Law Journal, reveals how collective agreements have played a critical role in introducing new practices to enhance equality that lawmakers later adopted and expanded. Researcher Lilach Lurie of Tel Aviv University emphasized that the transparency of collective agreements—as opposed to private employment contracts—was found to be highly significant in promoting equal opportunity in the workplace.
Unlike previous studies that relied on interviews with employers or union representatives or analyzed agreements from a specific sector or time period, Lurie and her research assistants manually examined all collective agreements signed in Israel from 1957 to 2016—a groundbreaking method never before attempted.
She found that about a third of the agreements explicitly referred to older workers, 1.5% to women, 10.8% to parents, and 1.4% to workers with disabilities. These references mostly appeared in workplace-level agreements in unionized settings or in the public sector, and less often in industry-wide or general agreements.
The number of agreements addressing specific worker groups declined over time. In the first decade studied (1957–1966), 45% referred to older workers, 47% to parents, and 46% to women. By 2016, only 10% addressed older workers, 6% mentioned parents, and 8% included women.
The provisions for each group were sometimes beneficial but were occasionally discriminatory—some of which were later repealed through legislation. Lurie noted that most of the discriminatory clauses appeared in agreements from the 1960s and 1970s, before anti-discrimination laws were introduced. In the last decade studied (2007–2016), no discriminatory clauses were found.
From Pension Rights to Parental Leave
Agreements concerning older workers generally addressed pension rights (before pension contributions were mandated by a 2008 agreement and extension order), seniority-related rights, and retirement benefits. Some extended benefits to older workers, allowing reduced hours without pay cuts or more vacation days.
However, some agreements included discriminatory provisions, such as easier dismissal of older workers, denial of tenure, or reduced pension benefits. These were later invalidated following legal action and the 1995 amendment to the Equal Employment Opportunities Law banning age discrimination.
Many agreements addressed working parents, initially focusing mainly on mothers. Over time, and following legislative changes, they adopted more inclusive language referring to “parents,” including both mothers and fathers. These agreements often provided extended parental leave (including paternity leave), established positions with reduced hours dedicated for parents (initially mainly for mothers of young children), allowed leave for child illness before it became mandatory in 1993, and offered daycare subsidies before government participation increased in the 1970s.
In the early decades, Lurie found many agreements that discriminated between men and women—such as mandatory retirement at age 60 for women versus 65 for men. Only in 1987 did legislation prohibit this and set a uniform retirement age of 67. Some agreements also limited the age at which women could join pension funds, setting it lower than for men.
Other agreements granted “family supplements” only to married men whose wives didn’t work, with no similar benefit for women whose spouses were unemployed. Lurie noted that similar arrangements were common in other countries at the time. After equality legislation passed, some agreements amended the provision to cover both men and women with nonworking spouses.
For workers with disabilities, some collective agreements provided greater rights than the laws in place at the time, including disability insurance, paid sick leave, medical examinations, and even mandated accommodations. Some of these agreements were signed as early as the 1960s—about four decades before Israel's Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law passed. However, unlike the law, which also covers job applicants, these agreements typically applied only to employees who became disabled while working for a specific employer.
Discrimination and Good Intentions
Despite these positive developments, some agreements included clauses that would now be considered discriminatory against people with disabilities—for example, stipulating lower pay, fewer pension rights, or less protection against dismissal. Lurie said these agreements were likely designed to enable people with disabilities (including age-related disabilities) to enter the workforce in the absence of anti-discrimination laws—and this intent was often stated explicitly.
Moreover, these agreements required that a special committee determine whether a person had a disability—including age-related impairments. In 1998, the Knesset passed the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law, and in 2002, the Labor Minister issued regulations allowing employers to pay subminimum wages to workers certified by the Ministry of Labor as having reduced work capacity. In 2014, a collective agreement between the Histadrut and the business organizations required all employers with more than 100 employees to employ at least 3% workers with disabilities; this was later extended to the entire economy.
Lurie attributed the decline in agreements addressing specific groups to two main factors: the shrinking share of unionized workers and workplaces in Israel over recent decades, and the rise in anti-discrimination laws, some of which incorporated the very principles introduced in earlier collective agreements. These laws made some of the beneficial clauses redundant and nullified the discriminatory ones.
Another possible explanation, she said, is the shift toward universal provisions—for example, reducing work hours for all employees, not just parents or older workers. In the last decade studied, unions primarily promoted inclusive provisions, rather than identity-specific ones. In this sense, both unions and employers appear more attuned today to the voices and needs of diverse worker populations.
While this research underscores the importance of legislation in promoting equality, it also highlights the critical role of collective agreements. Unlike individual employment contracts, which often contain confidential clauses, collective agreements in Israel are fully transparent and publicly accessible. Lurie wrote that the publication of collective agreements, unlike the confidential nature of private contracts, “reveals discriminatory practices and allows workers to challenge them in courts and for legislators to ban them.”
