‘Flexible’ agreement proves elusive

Date: 01/05/1997

By Leyla Linton

FLEXIBILITY in the workplace, without undermining the security of employees, is central to a debate launched recently by the European Commission on new ways of organising work.

But reconciling the need for companies to react quickly and maintain competitiveness with social protection for workers may not be an easy task.

Even agreeing on the meaning of the rather vague term 'flexibility' is difficult for employers and trade unions.

For the employers' lobby UNICE, it is an all-encompassing word which means, among other things, flexibility on the part of employees qualified to work in different areas and willing to adapt to changes in working time, including shift and part-time work.

Essentially, it is about “making the organisation more competitive,” said a UNICE official.

Keith Richardson, secretary-general of the European Round Table of Industrialists, agrees that flexibility leads to competitiveness. This in turn contributes to the creation of new jobs and thus greater security.

“The real answer is to create new jobs instead of preserving old ones and flexibility is a great way of doing that,” he said, insisting that regulations must not hamper the ability of employers and employees to reach agreements on certain ways of working.

But Wim Bergens, of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), declared: “If flexibility means deregulation, we say 'no'. Flexibility must be negotiated. Companies say flexibility, or deregulation, means competitiveness. But 93&percent; of what Europe produces stays inside Europe, so what competitiveness are we talking about? Competitiveness at any price is not a word you will find in our dictionary.”

Bergens believes that flexibility is often a one-sided deal in favour of employers, when “it is more imposed than a choice. Accept this, or nothing.”

The ETUC would prefer to talk about what it calls 'positive' flexibility.

This could include finding ways of allowing employees to develop their qualifications through lifelong learning, or making it easier for them to juggle their private and working lives. Bergens cites the negotiations on parental leave as an example.

Acknowledging the sensitive nature of the issue of work reorganisation, the Commission says the focus is on “the replacement of hierarchical and rigid structures by more innovative and flexible structures based on high skill, high trust and increased involvement of employees. The focus is emphatically not on short-term cost-cutting measures.”

Officials warn that companies which think they hold all the cards will soon run into industrial problems. But they add that it is also up to employees to adjust.

“There is still an expectation that a job is for life. Working nine to five is no longer the norm,” said one.

The challenge, the Commission believes, is to find ways to regulate new forms of work organisation.

“Downsizing, outsourcing, subcontracting, teleworking, networking and joint ventures bring new dimensions to the world of work for which traditional labour law provisions do not appear to have adequate answers,” it states in a Green Paper published earlier this month.

As an example, it lists 18 issues concerning telework which need to be addressed, including contractual status, social security, pay systems and equality of treatment between on-site workers and teleworkers.