I'm already one of the ideal candidates for a flexicurity approach, with wide experience and many skills to draw from, but all I want, is job security. Ad astra per aspera
Given the way the UK are trying to slash benefits and force people into work through sanctions, I don't see this type of thing being done in a way to give enough security for people to cope with the idea of being between jobs every so often. Ad astra per aspera
I've been lucky that I have been able to ensure career progression and maintain or increase my income with each job move, so far. But, I'm reaching the salary now where it is going to be much harder for me to get jobs at a similar salary level, unless I take any opportunity that comes up even if it means leaving my current job 6 months early. Which surely would make business sad, if workers go buggering off before contracts are up? Ad astra per aspera
If they want to stay in the market, they have to continuously adapt their production methods and their workforce.
They have always been saying this. Globalisation is just the latest shiny cloak this requirement wears.
What employers want, because it's the easiest way to run a profit, is labour that's as cheap as possible, and as disposable as possible. There are limits to this: the need for skills means it may be necessary to pay more and to motivate employees by offering them prospects. But -- privatise profits and socialise costs -- if you can keep people on a string while expecting the whole of society to contribute to the cost of training/retraining, you can get the best of both worlds, cheap and disposable.
Denmark is usually cited as the showcase of flexicurity, but there's a lot of money going into unemployment insurance and training in their system. How many countries (France at the moment for example) are willing to invest in such a system? And if there is no serious investment in training, isn't the default position: make the national educational system churn out ready-to-work youngsters who will later face job changes they will have to train for largely by their own efforts and out of their own pocket?
It is not about one single model of labour markets or working life, it concerns those who are economically inactive as well as those in work, requiring cost effective allocation of resources, and a climate of trust, apparently. It also claims to support gender equality but I really do have to wonder if flexibility to suit the employer will over-ride the concept of flexibility to meet the needs of the workers.
I think the invisible pink unicorn has been visiting again.
It's a rising tide which lifts all boats. It supports gender equality. It promotes social inclusion. It's cost-effective. It kills 99% of all known germs dead, washes whiter than white, makes you healthier and your life more exciting and fulfilled, and gives you a free widescreen plasma TV. (Offer void where prohibited by law.)
This looks like transparent spin to me - taking The Needs of the Market [tm] and sugar-frosting them with a layer of progressive cliches to make them look sort of left-ish. (Look! Over there!)
Perhaps a more interesting question - what would a truly progressive economy look like?
"what would a truly progressive economy look like?"
What a very good question. Does it need to go along with; "what kind of Government would we trust to deliver a 'truly progressive economy' that doesn't end up shafting everybody except the rich?"
There are some aspects of flexicurity that could be worth consideration, but I don't trust my Government (or any of the alternatives in the UK) to deliver that fairly, with the required investment. Ad astra per aspera
In the real world that probably has an infinite number of answers.
In my not so humble opinion, social-democratic parties are backing this idea due to their highly dogmatic doctrine of full employment, which they can't let go of.
Full employment is just not a viable proposition in any capitalist system (whether French, Anglo-Saxon, or Rhine 'model'). Unless you dump your long-term jobless into the sick/disabled category and increase temp work, as the Dutch and British are wont to.
Your last question is, like, the mother of all questions. Let's have a debate.
Full employment is just not a viable proposition in any capitalist system
I'd like to read what you have to say about that. Diary?
Flexicurity Within just a few years, 'flexicurity' has taken centre stage in the policy debate on employment, labour market and economic reform, at both European and national levels in the European Union. The word itself is a combination of 'flexibility' and 'security', and yet it is open to a number of different definitions - and this is where many arguments arise. This factsheet outlines the evolution of flexicurity, its interpretation by different interest groups, and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) position. European trade unions are alarmed that the principle is being redefined to justify the erosion of established job security rights, without at the same time reinforcing the social welfare network and collective bargaining - equally crucial elements in the flexicurity equation. A more detailed analysis of the issues surrounding flexicurity can be found in the ETUC leaflet: The Flexicurity debate and the challenges for the trade union movement. What is Flexicurity? The ETUC position The ETUC believes that the central aim of any labour market reform must be: to promote stable employment relationships; to halt and reverse the trend towards precarious, low-quality, low-paid work (so-called 'McJobs'), and a casualised and insecure workforce; to invest in human resources through lifelong learning, vocational training, transfer of qualifications and tailored support for workers between jobs; to offer greater flexibility for workers, through the reorganisation of working time, for example, to enable them to reconcile work and family responsibilities; to establish gender equality in the workplace; to empower workers through a higher level of information and consultation; to strengthen social dialogue and collective bargaining systems; to create more and better jobs, through close coordination with job-friendly macroeconomic policies. The flexicurity debate comes at a time when the EU should be examining ways to upgrade work organisation, workers' rights and job protection systems in Europe, not to lower the level of protection itself. What Europe needs is 'smart' reforms, centred on the vision of a fairer and more inclusive labour market. The EU has to invest in worker mobility and higher skills to meet the challenges of a global market. But Member States must also ensure that when workers leave a company or service they are well prepared and equipped for new employment. This means anticipating restructuring or reform and investing in innovation and internal mobility and redeployment. The ETUC fears that flexicurity is being interpreted as a licence for easier dismissal and the expansion of precarious and casual forms of working. Trade unions are totally opposed to this approach, which will produce a more segmented labour market, and social exclusion for the most vulnerable workers. Interpretations of flexicurity The European Commission (in its June 2007 Communication [1]) defines flexicurity as "a comprehensive approach to labour market policy, which combines sufficient flexibility in contractual arrangements - to allow firms and employees to cope with change - with the provision of security for workers to stay in their jobs or be able to find a new one quickly, with the assurance of an adequate income in between jobs." It sees this as a way of equipping European labour markets to respond to globalisation. Some business and political figures have gone further, to seek to create a distinction between 'job security' - meaning protection within a specific job - and 'employment security' - used to denote the right to employment in general. They argue that flexicurity should entail cutting back on job security in favour of policies aimed at forcing workers to become more 'adaptable' and move more easily between employers, thus making it easier and cheaper for companies to undertake restructuring and relocation. The ETUC believes this to be a false distinction and rejects the view that one can be traded off against the other. In the 21st century, the right of all workers to both job and employment security should be unquestioned. Job protection, whether legal or through collective bargaining practice, is the precondition that enables workers and trade unions to negotiate on the terms and conditions of change. The impact of employment protection legislation Despite the arguments put forward, there is little evidence that employment protection legislation (EPL) is really an obstacle to job creation or labour market flexibility. Figures show that European companies already have considerable scope for adaptation, with a job creation rate of over 8% in Spain, Ireland, Italy and Sweden; and 3-4% of jobs destroyed each year across the EU-15, regardless of job protection measures. The Danish model Denmark is the most commonly used example of flexicurity in action, and of one of Europe's most successful economies and inclusive societies. Business and some EU leaders claim this is due to minimal job protection. But is this really the case? Let's look more closely at the Danish model. Recent Eurostat figures [2] show that Denmark has the highest employment rate in the EU (77.4%). Its expenditure on social protection per head of population is second only to Luxembourg, yet employers' social contributions are the lowest in the EU-25. Public spending on active labour market policies is also the highest in Europe, amounting to almost 4.5% of GDP. Although statutory job protection is lower, this does not mean that workers can be fired at will. Most significantly, Denmark - like other Nordic countries - has a very strong tradition of trade union organisation and collective bargaining, covering 80-90% of workers. Trade unions negotiate job protection through collective agreements covering the different sectors of the economy and reaching out to a vast majority of workers. In particular, Danish collective bargaining agreements oblige employers to notify retrenched workers well in advance. Advance notification Research has shown [3] that early warning of severance is an important factor in successfully finding new employment. Notification periods in Denmark and Sweden are higher than in France, Germany and Italy (see below). Sweden has one of the longest advance notification periods in Europe and, like Denmark, one of the highest employment rates. 'Transition security' Transition security is the term recently coined to indicate support for workers during the period between jobs, especially when unemployment arises from restructuring or relocation. This is crucial to enabling unemployed workers to move swiftly into a new job, and maintain their living standards in the meantime. In Sweden, collective agreements at industry level have set up `career transition' funds financed from the business sector and jointly managed by social partners. These funds provide notified workers with training, jobsearch assistance, or paid internships in other firms, even while they are still formally employed by the company that is firing them. The aim is to provide immediate help and support, and not to let people disappear into unemployment. But this, of course, presupposes that firms are obliged to provide a period of advance notification during which this kind of active support is offered. Transition security also relies on a level of social welfare that enables people to support themselves, and their families, while finding - and if necessary retraining for - appropriate work. Good, state-run social benefit schemes give workers security between jobs. And public spending on active labour market policies is a sign of investment in education and training, suited to the needs of individuals, that is key to enabling workers to adapt to new tasks. Experience shows that transition security is most effective where workers have the backing of robust labour law and/or strong trade unions. While there are many positive lessons to learn from the Nordic systems, this does not mean there is only one way of doing things, or that the approach would automatically be successful in other countries with other cultures. The ETUC believes there may be varied ways to achieve the common objectives of Social Europe. In particular, the ETUC draws attention to models of negotiated internal flexicurity, where workers move between jobs inside the same company.
This factsheet outlines the evolution of flexicurity, its interpretation by different interest groups, and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) position. European trade unions are alarmed that the principle is being redefined to justify the erosion of established job security rights, without at the same time reinforcing the social welfare network and collective bargaining - equally crucial elements in the flexicurity equation.
A more detailed analysis of the issues surrounding flexicurity can be found in the ETUC leaflet: The Flexicurity debate and the challenges for the trade union movement.
What is Flexicurity? The ETUC position
The ETUC believes that the central aim of any labour market reform must be: to promote stable employment relationships; to halt and reverse the trend towards precarious, low-quality, low-paid work (so-called 'McJobs'), and a casualised and insecure workforce; to invest in human resources through lifelong learning, vocational training, transfer of qualifications and tailored support for workers between jobs; to offer greater flexibility for workers, through the reorganisation of working time, for example, to enable them to reconcile work and family responsibilities; to establish gender equality in the workplace; to empower workers through a higher level of information and consultation; to strengthen social dialogue and collective bargaining systems; to create more and better jobs, through close coordination with job-friendly macroeconomic policies.
The flexicurity debate comes at a time when the EU should be examining ways to upgrade work organisation, workers' rights and job protection systems in Europe, not to lower the level of protection itself. What Europe needs is 'smart' reforms, centred on the vision of a fairer and more inclusive labour market.
The EU has to invest in worker mobility and higher skills to meet the challenges of a global market. But Member States must also ensure that when workers leave a company or service they are well prepared and equipped for new employment. This means anticipating restructuring or reform and investing in innovation and internal mobility and redeployment.
The ETUC fears that flexicurity is being interpreted as a licence for easier dismissal and the expansion of precarious and casual forms of working. Trade unions are totally opposed to this approach, which will produce a more segmented labour market, and social exclusion for the most vulnerable workers.
Interpretations of flexicurity
The European Commission (in its June 2007 Communication [1]) defines flexicurity as "a comprehensive approach to labour market policy, which combines sufficient flexibility in contractual arrangements - to allow firms and employees to cope with change - with the provision of security for workers to stay in their jobs or be able to find a new one quickly, with the assurance of an adequate income in between jobs." It sees this as a way of equipping European labour markets to respond to globalisation.
Some business and political figures have gone further, to seek to create a distinction between 'job security' - meaning protection within a specific job - and 'employment security' - used to denote the right to employment in general. They argue that flexicurity should entail cutting back on job security in favour of policies aimed at forcing workers to become more 'adaptable' and move more easily between employers, thus making it easier and cheaper for companies to undertake restructuring and relocation.
The ETUC believes this to be a false distinction and rejects the view that one can be traded off against the other. In the 21st century, the right of all workers to both job and employment security should be unquestioned. Job protection, whether legal or through collective bargaining practice, is the precondition that enables workers and trade unions to negotiate on the terms and conditions of change.
The impact of employment protection legislation
Despite the arguments put forward, there is little evidence that employment protection legislation (EPL) is really an obstacle to job creation or labour market flexibility. Figures show that European companies already have considerable scope for adaptation, with a job creation rate of over 8% in Spain, Ireland, Italy and Sweden; and 3-4% of jobs destroyed each year across the EU-15, regardless of job protection measures.
The Danish model
Denmark is the most commonly used example of flexicurity in action, and of one of Europe's most successful economies and inclusive societies. Business and some EU leaders claim this is due to minimal job protection.
But is this really the case? Let's look more closely at the Danish model.
Recent Eurostat figures [2] show that Denmark has the highest employment rate in the EU (77.4%). Its expenditure on social protection per head of population is second only to Luxembourg, yet employers' social contributions are the lowest in the EU-25. Public spending on active labour market policies is also the highest in Europe, amounting to almost 4.5% of GDP. Although statutory job protection is lower, this does not mean that workers can be fired at will.
Most significantly, Denmark - like other Nordic countries - has a very strong tradition of trade union organisation and collective bargaining, covering 80-90% of workers. Trade unions negotiate job protection through collective agreements covering the different sectors of the economy and reaching out to a vast majority of workers. In particular, Danish collective bargaining agreements oblige employers to notify retrenched workers well in advance.
Advance notification
Research has shown [3] that early warning of severance is an important factor in successfully finding new employment. Notification periods in Denmark and Sweden are higher than in France, Germany and Italy (see below). Sweden has one of the longest advance notification periods in Europe and, like Denmark, one of the highest employment rates.
'Transition security'
Transition security is the term recently coined to indicate support for workers during the period between jobs, especially when unemployment arises from restructuring or relocation.
This is crucial to enabling unemployed workers to move swiftly into a new job, and maintain their living standards in the meantime. In Sweden, collective agreements at industry level have set up `career transition' funds financed from the business sector and jointly managed by social partners. These funds provide notified workers with training, jobsearch assistance, or paid internships in other firms, even while they are still formally employed by the company that is firing them. The aim is to provide immediate help and support, and not to let people disappear into unemployment. But this, of course, presupposes that firms are obliged to provide a period of advance notification during which this kind of active support is offered.
Transition security also relies on a level of social welfare that enables people to support themselves, and their families, while finding - and if necessary retraining for - appropriate work. Good, state-run social benefit schemes give workers security between jobs. And public spending on active labour market policies is a sign of investment in education and training, suited to the needs of individuals, that is key to enabling workers to adapt to new tasks.
Experience shows that transition security is most effective where workers have the backing of robust labour law and/or strong trade unions.
While there are many positive lessons to learn from the Nordic systems, this does not mean there is only one way of doing things, or that the approach would automatically be successful in other countries with other cultures. The ETUC believes there may be varied ways to achieve the common objectives of Social Europe. In particular, the ETUC draws attention to models of negotiated internal flexicurity, where workers move between jobs inside the same company.
They argue that flexicurity should entail cutting back on job security in favour of policies aimed at forcing workers to become more 'adaptable' and move more easily between employers
The thing that often strikes me when I get to meet average 'real' people doing real work is that (no offence to the 'average person') many people can't retrain/upskill all that easily, even if it is offered to them on a plate. As it is, the bulk of trade union education is centred around basic numeracy and literacy. Thousands of people use trade union courses to gain the skills they should have left school with. These workers are not that adaptable if employers want skilled and flexible workers.
In my line of work I more often find myself surrounded by people who have a degree and the reality check is that this is not the majority of the workforce by any means at all. I doubt that even a significant proportion of them would find it easy to retrain or upskill for 'flexicurity' purposes. Do we then turn our backs on specialisms? Not have any experts in anything at all.
Or are we not including higher levels of management in all this? Are their jobs secure, regardless of competence and flexibility to upskill? Which takes us back to the lower ranks of workers who may not be easily capable of adapting in the way that flexicurity calls for. Which means that the most vulnerable workers are going to get shafted even more. Ad astra per aspera
Nobility. Bah, never been anything 'noble' about those cretins. First against the wall when the revolution comes.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Not have any experts in anything at all.
Of course not. Expertise is a cost.
Mindless greed applied to maximising short-term profits, however, is necessary and extremely highly-paid.
of course the chinese are as usual showing us how contortionism can look normal, as they adopt the most extraordinary positions to keep their gnp strong and growing like wildfire.
a guaranteed living allowance sounds good, but no-one's going to go there.
so we need a new vision of the economy, as britguy tossed out...what shapes would it take?
as in wales cogently mentions, most folks are not going to be able to pop into a new training program every couple of years and create a coherent career out of that.
it's really hard to see into the crystal ball, but the murky image that keeps coming out for me is one of massive return to the land, post-hubbert's landing. perhaps because we have so many generations of agrarian life in our dna, this grouping in huge favelas and shanty towns that is draining the countryside all over the world will melt away when there is a real accounting with the true cost of energy, and the relative freebie of fossil fuels is no longer there to milk.
with the worldwide rollout of telecommunications, there will be info, fashion and the latest entertainment available to pass the time, which will be given back to us once we relearn the rhythms of the seasons, and unhook ourselves from the jagged, febrile din of the factory, gridlocked traffic and the slum.
how we get from here to there is the big question. most people have been so misled, for so long, they will not necessarily take easily to the adoption of new lifestyles, and adaptation to an economy that has spent its inheritance, and now must live within its means.
many will fear it, and do what they can to resist. others will look on the bright side, and look forward to living at the level of a portugese peasant, with a good dvd lending library, bingo, a yearly biodiesel bus trip to the seaside, village traditions to keep up, lots of local sports teams to root for, and a regional pop idol competition every once in a short while.
perhaps a reverence for pure education will return, and a joy in simple things that has been subsumed in the rat-race, greediest-yuppie-takes-all imbecility that passes for much of modern life.
i've always been a dreamer...gotta start somewhere! ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
a guaranteed living allowance sounds good, but no-one's going to go there. so we need a new vision of the economy, as britguy tossed out...what shapes would it take?
i think it's a great idea, and when i said 'no-one's going to go there', i meant that that is so different a reality that the one we have now, few have the imagination to even conceive it, and it's sounds so utopian on its face, no politician is going to risk touting it for votes.
kucinich isn't going a hundreth of the distance to that vision, and look how he fares.
an economy we at ET would willingly subscribe to, how do you envision it?
what image can we conceptualise as a step towards the blessed state it would be, to have a guaranteed living as a baseline from which to ascend?
i have some ideas, and they honour work that feels ennobling, be it helping make compost, getting the slurry out of the digester, learning to take care of animals, working on sustainable mechanical and electronic devices in clean, healthy environments. helping the aged, child care, teaching and learning making our own media etc. even chores commonly thought boring because of their low intellectual content become fun if shared, and stress levels are low.
fast forwarding to an even more benign ecorelationship than that, where solar and windpowered robots harvest our greenmanured soya fields and make milk and tofu for the masses, who loll around blissfully in between bouts of doing only and exactly what they please...sure, lol, all it takes is a little courage to dream, faith, and a million more years evolution. snarque
of course this syllabus will be considerably foreshortened if we don't take more preventative action yesterday, as thankfully more and more people are...
meanwhile, back at the coalmine...
maybe you should run for office migeru! ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
