Brussels, 16/10/2007 (Agence Europe) - In an interview to EUROPE, Ernest-Antoine Seillière, said that he wants a monetary and European exchange policy that earns its respect. The day before the Tripartite Social Summit, the president of Businesseurope underlined the importance of the agreement reached between social partners on flexicurity.
EUROPE: The turbulence affecting the financial markets in August provoked a credit crunch and risks, according to Rodrigo Rato, (just ending his period as Executive Director of the IMF) of impacting on the real economy. Is this worrying the companies that you represent?
Ernest-Antoine Seillière: I have observed an extreme calmness from the beginning among the 39 Businesseurope federation members. Initially, there was a feeling of entering the unknown, which created fear as we didn't know what was happening. Gradually, the problem was revealed, not the entire scale of the problem but the causes of it and the mechanisms at work. Intervention by the central banks provided a great deal of reassurance at the outset. The ECB, in particular, responded in a concerted, very decisive and very swift way and we felt that it was able to ensure liquidity…The business community at large got the impression that the problem would focus on the financial actors. And now we think that this will have a moderate effect on economic growth that is spread out but which is all the same quite significant. As a whole, the companies and federations that we represent are really beginning to feel more reassured about the situation.
EUROPE: Do you approve of the way the ECB has conducted its monetary policy? Do you think that a cut in Euro-zone interest rates (similarly to what the US Federal Reserve has done in the US) is desirable?
E-A S: In the business community we all, as a whole, understood ECB policy and welcomed its independence. Some of the sporadic criticism that has been made about the ECB was not shared by everyone in the business community. Our messages to the ECB, however, have always been more or less the same: beware of exaggerating the importance of the fight against inflation in your mission. Obviously, we too believe in combating inflation but there are circumstances where it should, in relative terms, be less of a priority and the ECB has in fact proved this, given that it finally perhaps intends to increase interest rates (in October: Ed) but it has not done so because of the liquidity crisis. Therefore, we strongly feel that the ECB is including other factors in its policy for fighting inflation. By halting its tendency to increase rates, the ECB is rightfully meeting its responsibilities.
EUROPE: Euro-zone finance ministers adopted a common position on 8 October on interest rates, which will be defended at the G7 (19-21 October). Does Eurogroup's message accurately reflect the degree of concern experienced by European firms?
E-A S: This is going in the direction we approve. We quite understand that monetary elements are market fundamentals and we also quite understand that European actors in an economic context are obliged to take into account market realities but when the global political balances are devised in such a way that three big countries (US, China and Japan) have a genuine monetary policy, which is, nonetheless, serving the fundamental interests of their national economies and that Europe, for quite understandable reasons, is passive, we will obviously take action. We are acting by saying that Europe must become a political force in order to be able to enter into dialogue with the other global monetary zones and in so doing develops a European position that can gradually earn respect. This is not everything but it is essential that we begin to have this attitude. Firstly, because it sends out a message to the market - it says that we cannot remain passive and secondly, because Europe is still the biggest global economic power and there is strictly no reason why the Euro is not a pro-active currency.
EUROPE: Do you share the feeling expressed on several occasions by Jean-Claude Juncker of an increasing incomprehension on the behalf of employees when asked to moderate their wage demands while at the same time some economic actors have amassed colossal amounts of money on the stock exchange and bosses of failing companies have been richly remunerated?
E-A S: Frankly, no, because our mission, on behalf of the 20 million companies represented by BusinessEurope, is not to meddle in the political and media fall-out regarding the excess or misconduct of certain individuals. We do not deny that they exist but we do not think that general lessons should be drawn about the behaviour of heads of companies. The aim to increase the purchasing power of worker is, judging by the evidence, our own aim. This comes, as we are aware, through productivity, the business environment and of course through their own efforts and efficiency. Overall, I should point out that efforts to help companies adapt, boost productivity and their innovation are incredibly much stronger than that made by the state, governments or public authorities who take an enormous amount of time to implement what we realise is necessary, namely, the economic fundamentals of the Lisbon strategy: reduction of public deficits, efficiency of public administrations, labour market reform around the theme of “flexicurity”, research innovation, significant changes to higher education.
EUROPE: In the context of competitiveness and the internal market, have you found the Europe of results called for by the Barroso Commission, satisfactory?
E-A S: Since the relaunch of the Lisbon policy in 2005, a number of things have actually taken place…Germany underwent reforms quite quickly and quite early on, as have the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom too, followed by Spain; France is currently lagging behind but is now really beginning to act. All this gives us the feeling that there is an awareness among the EU27, in the national environments to be “business-friendly” and identify brakes on growth and jobs and to try and help the business environment become more competitive. We therefore feel that over the last two years, a feeling that the Barroso Commission largely shares too, Europe has become aware of the need to adapt (sometimes with difficulty) in order to remain competitive in a context of globalisation.
EUROPE: Where do you stand in negotiations between European social partners and the question of key challenges facing the European labour markets?
E-A S: Social negotiators have in fact for several months now been focusing on the concept of flexicurity. We have had many exchanges and worked a lot in this area with the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and we are at the point of being able to definitively present an agreement that is far from being negligible at the Tripartite Social Meeting in a few days' time. The concept of flexicurity is a concept that is extremely strong given that it is brings together and unites in a single word two European demands that are wholly recognised by European social partners: globalisation requires us to be flexible, to adapt, but a deep-seated European social culture calls on us to not forget workers' security. This word is very strong because it proves that there is a social consensus in Europe. The unions do not reject the need to create a climate that is business-friendly in Europe, such as job creation. There is also the recognition that the word flexicurity includes a win-win notion, the possibility of both sides finding advantages and benefits. The unions no longer reject the need to revise labour legislation everywhere it is has become outmoded. Businesseurope is now very much in favour of this notion of flexicurity as a way to open a new chapter in creating social standards in Europe. We get the feeling that social dialogue and social consensus exist everywhere in Europe - at company-level negotiations, profession-wide negotiations and national negotiations. We need European social negotiations…This is all part of the transition from the mentality of protecting jobs to one of preparing workers for jobs. All this involves the prerequisite of training. Workers' training capacity involving successive training is fundamental for the competitiveness in European companies. We talked a lot with the European Commission and the European Parliament. All our members support this research and approach and we get the feeling that it is relatively easy to find common ground to attempt to make progress and we're getting there!
EUROPE: In your joint text with the ETUC, which will be presented at the Tripartite Social Summit, do you touch on the sensitive issue of temporary contracts?
E-A S. We identify the problem of work contracts and their different forms as a fundamental subject in flexibility and its social accompaniment, namely everything that happens when workers lose their jobs. A work contract and the negotiation of its termination, its length and compensation for ending the contract are at the centre of the negotiations on security.
EUROPE: Do you agree with John Monks when he says that in order to prevent flexicurity becoming “flexploitation”, the European Commission should make a commitment to providing the internal market with a strong social dimension guaranteeing workers' rights and security?
E-A S: I do not completely agree in immediately attempting to put forward this argument from this notion to say: this is exploitation, we need to be compensated! This is not the spirit in which the ETUC negotiated. The social dimension of the internal market exists but more through the ability of national legislation to align itself on a common orientation than through political or medial assertions.
EUROPE: Does a possible relaunch of the European Commission's directive on works committees worry you?
E-A S: It is in fact pretty worthless because, first of all, the current system is not working badly. It works everywhere a European works committee has been created. If they do not exist it is often because the unions are not interested in them! It is a state of fact that appears quite close to the truth. Frankly, we think that forcing things or speeding things up in this area is a waste of time. As this is a subject on which it is difficult to reach an agreement, particularly because of the positions of our members, who often have misgivings, it is scarcely useful, at the moment, just when we are reaching an agreement on something that is very fundamental, namely, everything that goes together with flexicurity (at the very heart of the social and economic question in Europe), to hit upon this problem. We've told the European Commission this. (A.B/G.B)