Brussels, 05/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - Following the Lisbon Tripartite Social Summit, John Monks calls for the right balance to be struck between flexibility and security. In an interview with Europe in Brussels on Wednesday 31 October, the European Trade Union Confederation Secretary General responded to the European employers' desire for a moratorium on social legislation and criticised oft repeated comments on pay moderation.
What is your take on the results of the Social Tripartite Summit in Lisbon?
John Monks: It was a success for the ETUC and I think it was a success for Social Europe. We were able to report that an agreed joint analysis (which is very important) and joint recommendations were agreed with Businesseurope, CEEP and the UEAPME on European labour markets, including flexicurity. That received an enthusiastic welcome from the Portuguese Presidency and the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso. To be honest, it was appreciation of the fact that social partners were able to do some things together. I think that impressed them as much as the contents of what was agreed. So that was the major point on the agenda - their welcome for this joint analysis. That was a good day for the social partners because it is a very good document, a very intensive analysis of the employment and labour markets in Europe and what social partners on both the European and national level need to look at. Now there are some worries among unions that this could be an exercise in reducing employment law, but I see it as an exercise in improving employment security and giving workers more opportunities, more security in change and more ability to take advantage of the growth areas of the economy. Our objective is to get rid of precarious contracts, to make sure all workers get a good deal, and so on. We were not giving up job protection, and we are not giving up looking for further improvements in employment law. We have a sharp difference, an argument with Businesseurope, which was mentioned at the Tripartite Social Summit, quite a bitter little fight in fact, about the revision of the European Works Council Directive…. The Commission wants to revise the European Works Council Directive. They are being supported by us but are opposed by Businesseurope. So… the agreed joint analysis is not an end to all our differences. But I think it is an important area of agreement, recognising that there are still disagreements on some other very important points, including temporary agency workers and working time, in addition to the European Works Councils. ... The challenge to us is how we can carry that on into more precise areas. For example, if workers are going to be mobile, can they take their rights with them? What rights are there to learning and being equipped for their new jobs? This is very much on our agenda. ... I know that is the wish of some employers and was mentioned a little by President Seillière in his interview with Agence EUROPE. But that is not our position and we will be continuing to raise issues about employment law, employment rights and employment protection. We certainly are not saying to employers that the only thing for the future is less employment protection. We disagree with that totally. That is my summary of the results of the Social Tripartite Summit. I think it was a bit more concrete than most of the summits have been, certainly the summits I've been present at.
EUROPE: Wage moderation is recommended by all, but to what extent is it acceptable for employees?
John Monks: In the eurozone, since the establishment of the euro, wage moderation has been generally acceptable. Real wages have not gone up at all in Germany, which is the biggest country in the eurozone, and only marginally in France and Italy and the other very large countries. The reality, as I have seen expressed by President Sarkozy for example - not a natural friend of the trade unions - is that France needs more spending power. As we said at Seville, Europe needs a pay rise. Europe needs more money in the pockets, wallets and purses of people to spend. It is interesting that the countries that have been doing the best in Europe - Spain, with a fast growth rate, and Ireland - both eurozone countries, have had big spending, big real pay increases, and a consumer boom, which has assisted their fast economy growth. Although not in the eurozone, I would say that Britain is very much in the same camp. Regarding the low demand, the low pay increase, the worry about insecurity, the very high savings rate among households in the eurozone countries, we need a bit less wage moderation, not more. We need some wage increases and giving people some confidence in the future, confidence that things are getting better. That has not been the story since the euro came in. So the short answer is that it has been too acceptable for employees. There has not been enough wage growth in much of the EU.
EUROPE: Do you support the social moratorium suggested by the European Commission and Businesseurope?
John Monks: No. This has been a position that was introduced when the Barroso Commission started. Businesseurope scored a victory. They didn't have to even, they just claimed the credit for something the Commission had already decided - that there wouldn't be any further social regulation and the emphasis was on deregulation. ... The truth is that on social Europe, Europe is the top in the world, the best by far. On environmental Europe (the three pillars of Lisbon), Europe is good, probably the best in the world (give or take California, Massachusetts or New Zeeland). On economic Europe, then Europe is slow and not doing so well as the Asian economies and the United States of America, and therefore we need to very concentrate on economic Europe and leave the other two. In 2004, Businesseurope, in a very opportunist way, called for a moratorium on further social legislation and that, de facto, was the position of the European Commission. I do not think this is now the position of the European Commission. If they are in favour of changing the European Works Council Directive, that is a change. There is no moratorium. If they're in favour of making fresh progress, new progress, on temporary agency workers, that means that there is no moratorium. They also want to move on working time so I don't think there is a moratorium any more. I would be very annoyed and angry if I find out that there is, if the Commission back away. But my impression is that Commissioner Spidla has now got enough support in the Commission for have some rules forward on Social Europe. So no, I do not support any idea that there could be a social moratorium. More generally, I think the Commission needs to be very careful. There have been no new measures on Social Europe since the Information and Consultation Directive of 2001 and a lot of people, including myself, are beginning to ask where is Social Europe? Is there a Social Europe? Has it stopped? Has it gone away? And I think that is producing negative feelings about Europe generally. I pointed out at the Social Summit that we needed agreements yes, social dialogue yes, but we need also regulations on abuses like temporary agency workers, migrant workers… and so on. I would say that Social Europe needs to be reactivated and the new regulation is an important part of that. It cannot be put in the deep freeze and left!
EUROPE: What do you say to Ernest-Antoine Seillière when he says: 'The unions no longer reject the need to revise labour legislation everywhere it is has become outmoded?'
John Monks: We probably all have our own countries' experience at the front of our mind and this is a straight Medef view of the current French situation. It is not a view that I agree with. I think it's a French employer view. We at European level are prepared to look at revisions of the European labour legislation. We don't accept it is outmoded but we do think it needs changing from time to time. That's why we are pressing for improvements in the European Works Councils. The idea that somehow labour law is outmoded is wrong. Protecting workers is more and more necessary in this globalised world…. How that is done is a matter for discussion in the individual countries. We don't lay down any blueprint, but we do want workers to be better equipped to handle change, better training, portable rights, and so on. ... I could reverse Ernest-Antoine's statement and say that employers, on our agreement at the Tripartite Social Summit, no longer reject the need to revise labour legislation to give workers greater rights and opportunities. He might not like my interpretation of the agreement but I don't particularly like this particular sentence of his, because I think that the agreed joint analysis opens the way for serious joint work on some of these problems, and then we can give some guidance to some Member States. ….
EUROPE: Do you think really that European employers want to abuse flexicurity in order to exploit employees?
John Monks: I don't think that exploitation is what many of them want to do (but obviously some of them always do). Let's be clear - we all want flexicurity. The argument is about the balance of flexibility and security. We accept the world is changing and what we see in flexicurity is that as the world changes, it is very important to have strong trade unions, strong social dialogue and a first-class support system for workers affected by change. That's the Danish model and it is a very good model. It is a very successful one. At the moment, it is probably the best model we have. .... Their economy is extremely strong and their welfare state is extremely strong. ... It's a myth to think, by the way, that in Denmark, job security measures are weak. They are not weak. …
I'm in favour of flexicurity, Danish-style. I'm against flexicurity when some employers see it as an à la carte menu where they can just choose the bits they like … without providing the strong sense of security. For us, a strong sense of security is a precondition for the acceptance of change, for the assistance of the process of change. It's very much a deal, a balance. To help workers change, we think that security is absolutely central. (G. B./ A. B.)