From 23 to 24 November 2017 took place in Bonn, Germany, a seminar about “A renewed social dialogue within the new world of work: challenges and opportunities for the Juncker Commission”, organized by Beweging.academie, with the support of EZA and of the European Union.
45 representatives of workers’ organizations from Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Malta, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, France, Luxemburg and, as guests, Switzerland, participated in the seminar.
The seminar put emphasis on the divergence that occurs in different actual themes in social policies. The latest developments in social dialogue show a great divergence in the different member states, the European Pillar of social rights stresses that divergence is the main challenge to overcome to make the Pillar a success, the Posting of Workers directive and the difficult negotiations reveal a huge divergence between Nord and South on one side, and especially East and central Europe and the other EU member states. The seminar stressed, as well as the European Commission does nowadays, the positive flow and opportunities Europe faces in the field of social policies, but different speakers pointed out the necessity for more convergence.
It is important just now to point out these divergences to overcome then before the Juncker Commission reaches the end of its mandate.
The following topic fields were discussed:
-expenditure on labour market policy
-European Pillar of Social Rights
-European Investment Approach
-European Labour market programs
-EU Workers Directive
-digitalisation process in the world of workers
-European Social Dialogue
-social dialogue within Spain, Portugal, Malta
-minimum wages in Europe
The Results can be divided in three parts:
- Results on the expenditure on labour-market policy in Europe since the crisis.
-General picture of increased Labour Market Programme (LMP) spending on aggregate, thus larger fiscal cost, and a decreased spending per person wanting to work, thus smaller “generosity” / potential impact.
-Small signs of convergence: big spenders decreased expenditure, some small spenders stepped up their LMP spending.
-LMP expenditure in European countries is at very unequal levels. Rather than need or cost, countries’ wealth seems to determine how much is spent (even in relative terms, i.e. as % of GDP).
- Results on the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR):
On overview was given of the content of the EPSR and its challenges. In the results, it was emphasized how to overcome the divergence in member states.
Although the EPSR is a plea for more convergence: a huge divergence on 3 levels can be noted in the EU: Macro-economic imbalances, tax ratios and divergence in social expenditure
- Results on the Posting of Workers directive: important progress in been made in the latest agreement by the Council with following elements:
- Confirmation of principle of equal pay for equal work in the same place;
- Conditions of the host country after 12 months; extension possible to 18
- Revised directive needs to be applied in member states only 4 years after entry into force
- remuneration in accordance with host member state law and practices
- application of universally applicable CLA’s, to prevent unequal treatment
-equal treatment of temporary agency and local workers
Conclusion on divergence in labour market policy: Is the EU headed for a common labour-market and social policy?
In order to function as one society, Europe would have to secure some homogeneity of chances and living conditions between countries. This can in principle be achieved by social policy. However, that resources for social policy are not where social issues are the most pressing. Social risks and social protection diverge in Europe. Also, asymmetric public spending in Europe fuels economic and social divergence – even though at a limited extent due to probably limited aggregate effects of policy.
The most obvious solution would be a policy steered and financed at EU level. Resources could be granted under the condition of social (or ecological) reforms. Possibly, preserving the welfare state requires supra-national policies anyway, due to globalisations’ pressures. Yet, building a more “social Europe” can make voters in “donor countries” turn their back on the EU. Similarly, populations at the receiving end may feel patronized. Are the European narrative and the cohesion felt by the EU population(s) strong enough for building solidarity and for allowing fruitful and open discussion on (reforming) institutional structures?
Specific resolutions on the European Pillar of Social Rights: which preconditions to make the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) a success?
1. Recognition that economic and social rights are human rights through full implementation in EU secondary law and in national law, enabling individuals and groups to seek enforcement of their rights before national courts and tribunals.
2. The EU must commit to the protection of these rights, with special attention for the most vulnerable by promoting a universal social protection floor to ensure an adequate standard of living for all throughout Europe.
3. Equality should also be a priority goal for the Social Pillar.
4. In order to move beyond symbolism and to foster effective implementation, the EPSR should be linked with existing mechanisms such as the European Semester process, the Social Investment Package (including the Recommendation on Active Inclusion and on Investing in Children), and accompanied by clearly defined accountability mechanisms and sanctions for not delivering on the Social Pillar’s principles.
5. In order to avoid a two-tier social Europe which could lead to an increased risk of social dumping, the Social Pillar, even if it is primarily conceived for the Euro area, should become a ‘social compass’ for the whole of Europe, a social convergence framework across all the Member states.