CNV

Flexible labour has been on the agenda of politics and trade unions for quite some time and has become even more topical with the recent financial and economic crisis. But who defines the flexible work?. And what effects does it have on the society in general and on the people more in particular? Flexibility only has meaning if there is a real free choice. Not only for the employer, but also for the employee.

On 1 and 2 October 2009 approximately 60 participants from trade unions and organizations from various countries within the EU participated at a seminar which took place in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The two-day European seminar, organized by the Kristelig Fagbevægelse (KRIFA) and the World Organization of Workers – WOW had as theme: “Who defines the flexible work?”.

Besides the theme “Who defines the flexible work?” there was also a discussion on the topic ‘Flexicurity’. This system has great benefits if applied under conditions that correspond with national culture and system of values. Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries are good examples.

The difficulty with terms such as flexible labour and ‘Flexicurity’ is that these do not have one definition. This way these terms are open for different perceptions. Also, the conditions in which these terms are used are different in the various EU member-states. And that makes comparison difficult.

This also makes it very hard for trade unions to respond. Mr. Klindt, of the Centre for Labour Market Research (Carma) in Denmark, stated that: “trade unions do not yet have sufficient answers to ‘Flexicurity’. For now they are still very sceptical and they, as well as the employees, fear that there is more flexibility than security in the system”. This is, indeed, the opinion of most unions and explains their hesitant position.

“Flexible labour is necessary, but one has to look whether these are employee-oriented working time flexibility arrangements or employer-oriented working time flexibility arrangements”, said Mrs. Chung from the University of Tilburg in The Netherlands. “After the financial crisis, there has been an increase in the voices of employers for deregulation of employment protection and it rose again on the political agenda”, she continued. This has been the case in many EU countries.

People are becoming increasingly more flexible when it comes to jobs. They change jobs more often and travel longer distances for their work. There are both positive as well as negative sides to this development. Mr. Limmen of CNV Dienstenbond stated that: “The increase of flexible labour has its effects on the way society is organized and on the way the relation between employer and employee is considered. Trade unions will have to adapt to and find new ways to deal with these developments”.

For countries in Eastern Europe ‘Flexicurity’ is not something that is high on the agenda. What is more important is the fact of having a job at all. “There are still quite a few obstacles with regards to flexible work, such as social policy, lack of knowledge and skills, and the traditional organization of the labour-market” said Mrs. Mara Erdelj, President of SS BOFOS, Serbia.

Mr. Daniel Navas Vega stated that “Various demographic changes are having influence on the labour-market. That is why is this becoming more flexible and more competitive”.  

The ‘Flexicurity’ system creates “a shift from the risks from employer to employee”, stated Mr. Günter Benischek, Vice-president from FCG/GPA-DJP, Chairman of the National Works Council, and European Works Council of the Erste Bank Group AG in Austria.

The mains conclusions of the seminar were that on the one hand flexible work has many benefits, but on the other also many disadvantages. There has to be a good balance with regards to the degree of flexible labour. The different types of flexible labour should be of benefit of both the employees as the employers. This is not always the case. Furthermore, flexible labour has great effect on how society is arranged. It affects the society and the model-of-society as a whole. Trade unions do not yet have sufficient answers to ‘Flexicurity’. For now they are still very sceptical and they, as well as the employees, fear that there is more flexibility than security in the system. The current financial and economical crisis is greatly affecting the increase of flexible labour. It is the task of trade unions to guard these developments and act when employers violate regulations. Trade unions should protect the rights of the employees.

Flexicurity is, however, not only a negative system. Particularly when taken into account the position of women. They are able to work at times that suite them best.

(for pictures click here)