Most of my employment to date has been either temporary or fixed term.  I refuse point blank to entertain the idea of buying property when I can't be sure if I'll still be employed in 6 months time.

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

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?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

European Tribune - Comments - Flexicurity

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?

We hear a lot about flexicurity hee in Portugal, normally refering to the example set by Denmark.
Our bosses confederations really like the idea because in practice it means it becomes easier to fire people. The "socialist" government (i can't call it that without quotation marks) likes it because it sounds modern and shiny, and "Nordic".
In the current Portuguese business culture, and state of social security, it simply means disaster.

Flexicurity

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.

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

the workers flex, the bosses are secure...what's not to love?

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!

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin