CESI Secretary General: Flexicurity may just be another word for the erosion of workers’ rights

As could be expected, with the beginning of the Danish EU Presidency the advantages of flexicurity to tackle unemployment, to raise the EU´s competitiveness and to overcome the current crisis are re-vaunted.

It is obvious that in Denmark - where it is largely recognized that the model has turned out to be successful -, flexicurity is seen as a panacea against almost all ills.

There, due to positive experiences in the past, expectations are high: Flexicurity is supposed to create more competitiveness in the EU through more flexibility for employers, while maintaining high social protection standards for employees.

However, flexicurity is not a “one size fits all” solution. The concept – unquestionably good in theory – reveals itself to be less convincing when it comes to its application within the framework of different socio-economic realities and differently shaped labour markets (the competencies for which remain, by the way, largely in national hands).

Hence, while it undoubtedly may prove itself successfully introduced in wealthier high-tech regions with a highly-qualified workforce, a generally low unemployment rate and a functioning social dialogue (such as Denmark), it will certainly be less effective -and rather even be counterproductive in terms of social and employment protection- in poorer regions characterized by traditional industries and high levels of structural unemployment.

There, flexicurity can simply degenerate into a mere charter for employers to reduce job protection regulation and to proceed to cuts regarding unemployment and working conditions as well as pay and company pensions schemes.

Such measures may of course be seen as creating (short-term) employment, yet –despite leading to the erosion of employment and social protection provisions- two major needs of the European macro-economies in the present crisis, high sustainable employment rates and highly qualified employees, are therewith absolutely neglected and overseen. Sustainable labour market measures hence must take into account the quality of work relations and working conditions.

In his speech the at Stanford University in October 2008 former Danish Prime Minister and President of PES Rasmussen himself pointed at the risks of flexibility: “rising inequalities, between rich and poor, between the young and the old, [and] of failing cohesion in an increasingly diverse population…”. And, “we can still tackle these challenges if we make the right choices.”

Making the right choices however depends on the socio-economic indicators of each region. Yet, since dismissal protection laws can be changed swiftly by the legislator while active sustainable labour market policies need more time, investment and efforts, a rather undifferentiated approach favoring flexicurity throughout Europe is more likely.

An approach which risks to lead to further social economic disparities – to add fuel to the fire in times when Europe is at risk of falling apart.