© European Commission

Commissioner, what role does flexicurity play within European employment and social policy?

At its heart, flexicurity is guided by the key components of the EU Strategy for Growth and Jobs (Lisbon Strategy). The revised Lisbon Strategy calls for more action in response to globalisation. In so doing, it makes it clear that the status quo cannot continue. The flexibility demanded by the market must be accompanied by employment security for the employees. The goal is to create more and better jobs as well as modernise social models. This is why the ‘Strategic Guidelines’ attach a greater priority to the social dimension, education and flexibility.

In the view of the European Commission, what are the key elements of flexicurity? What concrete aims are being pursued by the Commission when it comes to the flexicurity concept?

As I already mentioned, flexicurity means combining labour market flexibility on the one hand and employment security on the other. Within this framework, the Commission and the Member States have agreed on four components of the flexicurity concept:

1) Flexible and reliable contractual agreements (from the point of view of the employer and the employee, the ‘insider’ and the ‘outsider’) via modern labour laws, collective agreements and types of work organisation;
2) Comprehensive lifelong learning strategies, through which the constant adaptability and the employability of the employee in particular can be guaranteed;
3) Effective active labour market policy measures, which genuinely help people cope with rapid change, reduce the period of unemployment and facilitate the transition to new employment;
4) Modern social security systems, which offer adequate income security, promote employment and ease labour market mobility. Here, what is called for is comprehensive cover through social protection services (unemployment, pension and health care services), which help people combine a job with private and family duties.

Can success stories, such as those seen in Denmark and the Netherlands, be applied to the whole of Europe? Is it not much more the case that flexicurity only works in those countries which have a high rate of government expenditure to GDP and which, as a whole, have a high employment rate and a high level of wealth? Or, to put it another way: Aren’t some less well-off countries already out of the running when it comes to the financial dimension of the instrument?

Flexicurity is not a standard model which can be applied like a master plan to all Member States. On the contrary, it is up to each Member State to find its own form (of flexicurity). Nor must flexicurity be costly. In Denmark and the Netherlands, social security contributions are not higher in terms of percentage than they are in many other Member States. The question is, what use do you put the money to. And here, the key is proactive measures, for example continued training, retraining when one loses ones job or active support in finding a new job. The added value of a common European approach lies in taking what has worked well as examples for other Member States.

In your opinion, what role must/can the social partners play in flexicurity?

To my mind, active commitment on the part of the social partners is decisive when it comes to ensuring that flexicurity is of use to all. The social partners are the very people who can identify shared interests and synergies between employers and employees. To give an example, this applies to the work organisation or when it comes to thinking up and implementing lifelong learning strategies. The Commission is therefore encouraging the Member States to work with the social partners and allow their thoughts to filter into the national reform programmes.

At the same time, it is of significant importance that all participants are prepared to accept change and take on responsibility. One can see that integrated flexicurity strategies often have a greater impact in those countries where dialogue - and, above all, trust - between the social partners, as well as between the social partners and public agencies, plays an important role.

What would you say to the fear of many employees that flexicurity is being used as a pretext to do away with existing employee rights, such as protection against unfair dismissal? Isn’t it just the employers who are benefiting from this concept?  

Flexicurity doesn’t mean ‘hire and fire’, and nor does it mean that indefinite work contracts are now a thing of the past. Flexicurity is about creating good jobs for people and cultivating their talents. Employers need to invest in the skills of their workforce. This is part of the ‘internal flexicurity’.

For this reason, it would be wrong to perceive flexicurity as a concept that gives employers the freedom to relieve themselves of their responsibility towards their employees and only offer them a small degree of security.

This said, the ‘job for life’ is now a thing of the past in most areas. This is why flexicurity stresses ‘employment security’ as opposed to ‘job security’. Sometimes it is better to find new employment rather than wanting to hold on to one’s current job at all costs. This is why ‘external flexicurity’ aims to ease the transition from one job to the next, where necessary with adequate bridging grants. Employment security means staying in employment, whether in the same company or a new one. Flexicurity is based on the conviction that employees are more open to these kinds of changes when a good safety net is supplied.

Commissioner, thank you for your time.