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