Neoliberalna politika, ki je v začetku sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja postala vodilna politika in ekonomska doktrina, ima danes še vedno zelo močan vpliv na regulacijo ekonomskega, finančnega in pravnega sistema. Svetovna gospodarska in finančna kriza, ki se je začela leta 2007, je pustila svoj pečat v skoraj vseh državah, ki so morale zaradi poslabšanja javno-finančne slike izpeljati vrsto ukrepov za konsolidacijo javnih financ, pri čemer je privatizacija samo eden izmed načinov neoliberalne politike za reševanje finančne krize ter del politike upravljanja z državnimi oz. kapitalskimi deleži. Ko govorimo o privatizaciji, govorimo o javni politiki, ki presega meje javnofinančnih in gospodarskih posledic, saj ima tudi številne druge. Javni interes v postopkih privatizacije ima pomembno težo, a je ta omejen tudi z določili prava Evropske unije, saj mora prodajalec državnega premoženja – javni subjekt ravnati tako, kot bi ravnal skrben zasebni vlagatelj ob enakih tržnih pogojih in voditi postopek za t.i.«aid free« privatizacijo. Ob tem je pomembno izpostaviti, da privatizacija poleg pravil o državnih pomočeh trči tudi ob pravila, ki urejajo položaj zaposlenih v privatizacijskih postopkih (na privatizacijo vplivajo tudi pravila o prevzemih in svobodni konkurenci, vendar teh pravil magistrska naloga ne obravnava). Postopek privatizacije ter pravila o državnih pomočeh ne bi smeli biti argument za nevključevanje in izločanje zaposlenih iz postopkov prodaje kapitalskih deležev v lasti države in za krčenje njihovih pridobljenih pravic. Za delavca je bistveno vprašanje ohranitev njegovih pravic, predvsem varnost njegove zaposlitve, saj prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi zanj predstavlja kratenje njegove socialne in ekonomske varnosti in pomeni (praviloma) tudi izgubo glavnega vira dohodka za preživljanje njega in njegove družine. A ta interes zaposlenih trči ob interes kupca in/ali prodajalca v privatizacijskih poslih, kajti prav svoboda določanja pogojev o uporabi delovne sile ter prilagajanje potrebam poslovanja je tista fleksibilnost, ki jo zagovorniki opravljanja dejavnosti zaradi pridobivanja dobička potrebujejo in zagovarjajo. Neoliberalna politika zadnjih let je stremela k čim večji fleksibilizaciji delovnega prava, tudi zaradi vedno večje konkurenčnosti, ki pa ga je dodatno intenziviral prav proces globalizacije. V postopku privatizacije tako pride do kolizije interesov prodajalcev in kupcev državnega premoženja z interesi zaposlenih, ki želijo čim večjo varnost ohranitve obstoječih pravic. Kot sem navedla, so po sedanji ureditvi državne pomoči tudi neposreden del privatizacijske politike. Pravila državnih pomoči po eni strani vzpodbujajo utrjevanje regionalnih gospodarstev, saj so državne pomoči dodeljene neposredno posamičnemu podjetju, spet po drugi strani pa posegajo v tržno konkurenco ter tržna razmerja, zaradi česar lahko ovirajo tudi delovanje notranjega trga EU. Ob navedenem moram izpostaviti, da je pri prodaji državnega premoženja bistvena presoja pogoja gospodarske prednosti za vsaj eno podjetje, pri čemer pride do uporabe testa skrbnega zasebnega vlagatelja, ki želi pri prodaji doseči najvišjo možno ceno. V tej povezavi moram izpostaviti, da takšno stališče temelji tudi na argumentu varstva konkurence. V nasprotnem primeru bi privatizacija družbe, ki je v državni lasti, lahko vsebovala nedovoljene državne pomoči, v kolikor kupec ali prodajalec pridobita ugodnosti in koristi, ki jih pri siceršnji prodaji med zasebnimi subjekti ne bi dosegla. V postopkih privatizacije je pomemben tudi vpliv sodelovanja delavcev pri upravljanju kot tistega instrumenta, s katerim zaposleni sodelujejo v teh postopkih. Prodajalci oz. upravljavci državnega premoženja bi morali zasledovati cilj in načela družbeno odgovornega ravnanja, delavci, njihovi predstavniki ter socialni partnerji pa bi morali biti proaktivni in v največji možni meri sodelovati v teh postopkih preko institutov participativnega managementa. The neoliberal policy, which in the early seventies became the leading policy and economic doctrine still today has a very strong influence on the regulation of economic, financial and legal system. The global economic and financial crisis, which began in 2007, has left its mark on almost all countries that have had, due to the deterioration of public financial picture, obligation to carry out a series of measures to consolidate public finances. Privatization is only one part of neoliberal policies to address the financial crisis and a part of the management policy of the state and capital shares. When we talk about privatization we are discussing public policy that goes beyond fiscal and economic consequences. Public interest in the process of privatization has significant weight, although I have to point out it is also limited by provisions in European Union law. The seller of state property - a public entity must act as a diligent private investor in equal market conditions and lead the process of so-called "aid-free" privatization. It is also important to point out that privatization of state aid rules collides with the rules governing the position of employees in the privatization process (privatization also affect rules on takeovers and free competition, but these rules are not the subject of the master’s thesis). The privatization process with rules on state aid should not be an argument for non-integration and elimination of employees in the processes with contraction of their acquired rights. For workers there are crucial issues in preservation of their rights, in particular the security of their jobs, since the termination of the employment contract represents a deprivation of their social and economic security and usually means the loss of their main source of income. Interests of employees collide with the interests of the buyer and / or seller in privatization transactions, since the freedom to set conditions for the workforce and adapting the needs of business is the flexibility that proponents the activity for profit needs. The neoliberal policy in recent years was striving in maximizing the flexibility of labor law, due to increasing competition which was also further intensified with the process of globalization. In the privatization process there is a huge conflict of interests on one hand sellers and buyers of the state assets and on the other the interests of employees who want to maximize the security of maintaining existing rights. As I have indicated, state aids are part of the privatization public policy. State aid rules on one hand, encourage the consolidation of regional economies, since state aid is awarded directly to an individual undertaking, but on the other hand, they interfere with market competition and market conditions as they can also impede the functioning of the EU internal market. Having said that, I need to point out that in the sale of state assets there is essential to assess conditions of potential economic advantage for at least one company, whereby it comes in use the test of prudent private investor who wants the sale to achieve the highest possible price. Related to this, I must emphasize that this position is also based on the argument of competition law. The privatization of the company that gives economic advantage to at least one company contains illegal state aid if the buyer or seller obtains advantages or benefits that in otherwise normal sales between private operators would not be achieved. The process of privatization is also an important issue for workers' participation and their influence in management as an instrument with which employees can participate in these processes. Vendors or. managers of state assets should pursue the objective and principles of socially responsible behavior, however, workers, their representatives and the social partners, should also be proactive and participate in these processes through institutes of worker participation.