Brussels, 20/04/2007
To be checked against delivery
Is it a coincidence that the European countries which are most in line with fulfilling the Lisbon targets - and are also currently among the leaders of the world's economies on OECD statistics - are precisely those with the highest proportion of trade union members and the most extensive collective bargaining systems with good pay and working conditions?
Other European countries may be ahead on one aspect or another. But across the whole spectrum of tests of the world's most successful economies, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland rank very close to the top. As do the Nordic countries which are in EEA and EFTA.
Flexicurity is a term which largely derives from Denmark although the Dutch have a claim on it too. In the Danish context it referred to a whole range of issues about combining flexibility with security but also about the way, the process, by which the combination was done. In sum, there was a consensus built that it was the right, best way forward.
This system is based on 3 elements :
- the respect of the existing laws
- the role of the social partners
- and an important policy of fiscal redistribution (4,5 % of the GNP is allocated to one active employment policy
And the challenge to us at the European level and in other member states is: can we find the right, best ways forward too.
Following the French Presidential Election, as I am doing, you can see just how political this question is. Employment and labour markets are at the heart of many of the differences between the candidates.
France's burning questions include high, especially high youth, unemployment, precarious work, employment protection law, and union representativeness, - all subjects that are relevant to the flexicurity debate and are all ‘hot' subjects. This is no dry, technical debate.
From the ETUC side, we are concerned about the way that the debate is going. Often it seems the message to workers is “give up job protection in return for employment security”. One is precise - the loss of your job - the other is imprecise. What is it? Lifelong learning - a concept that strikes fear into many a worker's heart especially if they were not stars at school. Withdraw your benefits if you won't take alternative work even when it is work of a lower standard with worse pay and conditions than those to which you were accustomed?
This is not generally how Nordic trade unions view flexicurity but what they have done is negotiated the outcomes. It is a series of deals, not a menu from which some countries choose their favourite item, and employers shed firm obligations in exchange for vague ones.
And all this is against a background when the share of wages and salaries as proportions of GDP are falling and where every relevant index shows inequality is rising. Indeed, there is a link between weak job protection and high and rising inequality. These figures stand out in the ETUC pamphlet that has been circulated. Easy firing leads to excessive flexibility and vulnerability. These anxieties are fuelled by statements like that “no-one starting work today can expect a job for life”. Really? What about doctors, teachers, and all the other jobs whereby long apprenticeships are required - even officials of the European Commission. And there are many others. If workers are to be persuaded to train and retrain to do difficult things, job security - and I do not mean doing the same thing - is often part of the deal. If it becomes public policy to turn employment relations into promiscuous relations, don't be astonished if there is resistance.
I am making these criticisms vividly because the current picture of the flexicurity debate is almost wholly negative. There are different models of flexibility/security possible in Europe with each of them depending on certain characteristics of industrial relations and social security systems at national level. The aim always is to get a win/win deal.
What we want to win from the flexicurity debate is:
- more and better jobs
- the capacity to respect and enforce existing EU and national legislation in the social policy and labour market field
- family friendly workplaces and work organisation
- fight against precarious and undeclared work
- respect and promote the role of social partners, including strong collective bargaining systems.
We do not want flexicurity leading to yet more competition for the low skilled. Yet I am not negative about flexicurity. I just want to recapture the debate from those who want to concentrate on reducing employment protection and unemployment benefit entitlements, and from those who are giving the impression that the way to tackle the issue of precarious work is to make regular work more precarious. We all risk becoming outsiders that way. It would have been difficult for Camus to have written “The Outsider” if his central character had one of the crowd, one of the majority, rather than a loner.
So can we - and can the Commission - alter the focus of this debate before it becomes too late to present “flexicurity” being demonised as “flexibility” has been. It is already late, but for us flexicurity is not about one model of labour market structure and not about one set of policy prescriptions.
- the fight against precarious jobs and for quality work , including policies that allow men and women to combine work, private and family life and thereby combat segmentation;
- a focus on “upwards” flexibility to help workers find not just new but better jobs and careers;
- safeguard employment protection laws and complement them with policies promoting “upwards” mobility. It is crucial to take full account of the OECD work which states that such laws do not prevent lower employment rates, and also of Commission work which concludes that stricter laws and/or collective agreements favour investment in human capital;
- next, maintain a broad approach to balancing flexibility with security and recognise the strengths of some non Nordic models like the Dutch, German, Austrian and the new Spanish law.
- next, improve social security and welfare with a higher level of benefits, combined with active labour market policies. This is important as more and more employers seek to escape from providing job and employment security. All the risk must not be put on the worker, remembering that we are mostly talking about especially vulnerable groups such as women and migrants
- next, it is vital to integrate flexicurity with macro-economic policy. The Danish deal was to tackle unemployment and it was in the context of a deal to use fiscal and monetary policy to boost growth framework to make flexicurity work - otherwise the result could be less and worse jobs.
- Finally, all this points to the need to improve social dialogue and collective bargaining. Strong unions and effective collective bargaining lie at the heart of successful flexicurity. Without those processes, building confidence in flexicurity will be impossible.
In short: for the ETUC, the agenda of flexibility/security cannot be seen as separate from the agenda of “quality of jobs”!
I very much hope that the Commission takes these remarks with due seriousness.