Esther Lynch has been General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) since late 2022. For Agence Europe, she identifies the priorities for the next legislature and warns against alliances with the far right. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe – How would you sum up the last legislature?
Esther Lynch – There has been a greater understanding of the need for genuine and concrete solutions for working people and the need for the single market to have a fair set of rules with a firm threshold of decency (for wages) and a foundation of ‘employment rights’ so that workers across Europe are guaranteed not to be exploited or lawfully exploited.
The Minimum Wage Directive has ensured that minimum wages are adequate, that workers can join a trade union and that their right to collective bargaining is properly recognised. It has also enabled the work mainly carried out by women to be re-evaluated.
The (Covid-19) pandemic has shown us that care and cleaning are far from being low-skilled work. And the Pay Transparency Directive has included measures enabling workers and trade unions to question the undervaluation of work carried out by women.
On the digital platforms, we fought hard for the same reason: it would have been shameful if the EU had not ensured the protection of these workers who, during the pandemic, also brought us our medicines, our food, everything we needed to keep society running. And if it had not guaranteed them the same rights as all other workers.
Are you worried about a future legislature potentially leaning towards the far right?
The question is what direction the EU as a whole will take. The democratic parties will always have the majority, I think, but there are alarm bells ringing for all countries. And it is hard to understand what some politicians are saying at the moment.
The groups that have worked together over the past period have made significant progress for workers. They could have done much more and much better, of course, but they did so in the context of a cost of living crisis. Workers felt that their situation had worsened considerably and, at the same time, we had this SURE initiative, which helped people to keep their jobs and their income during the pandemic.
The far right has voted against workers at every opportunity. Indeed, we are therefore very concerned about anyone trying to reach an agreement or a pact with these parties, because such a pact will not support workers and trade unions. We trade unions defend the values of non-discrimination and equality. And this is non-negotiable.
What do you think should be the priority initiatives of the next Commission?
We have defined 12 commitments, all of which relate to quality jobs and better incomes. We are defending an industrial policy for all sectors and all regions, all jobs and all professions.
And we are concerned about the increase in precarious working conditions, from the removal of redundancy protections to the development of new operating contracts. We want to get back to jobs that people can rely on for their income and their future.
This is a general trend dictated by unscrupulous employers who do not want to progress through innovation, but to be the cheapest, by reducing employment conditions.
We want more long-term visibility on share buy-backs, which should be devoted to investing in the workforce, in the success of the company, in managing change, in ensuring that workers have access to training, and in investing in better technologies and better equipment. There are also many very good employers, but they are all too often disadvantaged.
We therefore need to ensure that all funds are accompanied by social conditionalities so that companies are not disadvantaged by those that do not invest in the workforce or are content to increase profits and keep wealth at the top.
In public procurement, we need to ensure that companies have a set of criteria to meet, which may include the fact that workers have a collective agreement, which provides for investment in training, for example.
EU public procurement rules are too often implemented on the basis of the lowest price. We therefore want the Directive to be updated.
We also need a new EU funding instrument for industrial policy with very clear social conditions and a monitoring system, so that companies that do not respect employment rights are sanctioned.
And we need a directive for a just transition, for the green transition, the transition to AI, all of these transitions that need to be made. We cannot just say that no one will be left behind, as is often heard. We need to say exactly what this means and this directive must include the right for workers and their unions to receive information so that they can anticipate changes in their company and their sector, but also how they will manage these changes.
We need to invest in workers so that they can do these different jobs. And that means training and paid leave in order to undertake it. The EU should not micromanage companies, but it should define clear rights for workers.
We still want a directive on managing temperature rises in the workplace. I would also like to mention psychosocial risks. A directive is needed. I meet with workers. The cost of living, the price of housing and stress at work... It is always the same thing. Stress at work is partly due to fear of the future, but also to unmanageable targets.
We want to further improve the European Labour Authority (ELA) to tackle social dumping more effectively. We would like it to look at long supply chains, in particular long subcontracting chains. There can be a huge gap between the initial offer and the final one. We therefore want to limit the duration of these calls for tenders and create obligations for the party issuing the call for tenders.
A significant number of political parties have signed up to this plan. Even the EPP, on certain elements. So this is not a fanciful list, but a very clear plan for a prosperous, dynamic and productive Europe. Investment in innovation, in a highly skilled workforce, quality public transport and public services, affordable childcare... All these things will make us particularly competitive in the long term.
What is your relationship with BusinessEurope, which rejected the La Hulpe Declaration and the teleworking agreement? Is it more strained?
No, I cannot say that. They share the idea that we need an industrial policy. And they certainly share the idea that we need to do much more through social dialogue. This is what we agreed with them in Val Duchesse (see EUROPE 13340/19).
I am not going to hide my disappointment at the lack of an agreement on teleworking (and disconnection). I do not want to blame anyone, but it is important to understand what happened. And to ensure it does not happen again, because without this assurance, we will not be able to open negotiations again.
I do not know why they did not sign the La Hulpe Declaration on the European Pillar of Social Rights. I think they were wrong, because it is a declaration of intent on the future with very important objectives for workers.
How can we ensure that EU competitiveness and workers’ rights go hand in hand?
We need a fair single market that does not lead to a race to the bottom in terms of employment conditions and that helps Member States to have the budgetary leeway to make investments. What attracts companies to Europe is also our public services. What attracts workers is non-discrimination, equal rights, the fact that you can have holidays... All of this must be seen as a competitive advantage and not as an impediment.
Europe will not succeed by trying to be cheaper than everywhere else. The idea that we can be competitive by doing away with employment conditions, getting rid of the rules needed to protect workers and the environment, and lowering wages, is a recipe for that will take us back to the problems that existed before the Union was created.
You call for a new budgetary capacity for industrial policy, but the new economic governance rules will be stricter.
These are not the rules that Europe needs. We were against them. We have a twofold message for the Member States: increase taxation on the richest, both companies and individuals, and do not reduce services.
I am pleased that Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz are calling for new investment plans. For a year, we have been demanding that Member States publish the consequences of these new rules. And it was a bit irresponsible to go ahead without having done so.
So now they have to find a way of making them compatible with everything that needs to be done.