Jobs challenge top priority for social partner

Date: 31/07/1997

ONE question which the public sector employers' organisation CEEP raised before the Amsterdam summit was whether, with the increase in unemployment and social exclusion in recent years, competition must be regarded as the only means of ending this trend or whether a chapter should be added to the treaty to include the priority objective of employment in every EU policy.

The heads of state and government sent a good signal at the summit when they decided to choose employment policies as their first topic for discussion.

It showed a will to progress towards a better balance between economic and monetary considerations and growth and employment.

It must be realised that scientific and technical progress are not the only factors which affect the organisation of society. Unemployment has its own impact and growing youth unemployment is not only a question of statistics and numbers in 1997.

No, it is of consequence for the European society of today and tomorrow and for many years to come. Young unemployed people raise problems of social mentality and attitude.

By deciding to incorporate a chapter on employment in the new Treaty of Amsterdam, the European summit established the grounds for employment-oriented policies. It was a good step forward and CEEP welcomes this progress.

The employment summit which will be held in November this year could be the launch pad for Europe's new approach to unemployment. Let us hope that this will be the case.

In October 1991, the social partners at European level - CEEP, the employers' federation UNICE and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) concluded an agreement which was almost entirely integrated in the Social Protocol, the agreement on social policy annexed to the Maastricht Treaty.

This protocol was a vital instrument in the development of social policy in Europe.

On one hand, it reflected a respect for national systems which have been developed over years with the common objective of finding solutions and solving disputes in the best way possible.

The right of association and the right to strike or the right to impose a lock-out were excluded from the scope of the protocol, and the collective defence of the interests of the both worker and employer were made subject to the unanimity rule.

On the other hand, the protocol gave the social partners an outstanding means to demonstrate responsibility and partnership in EU social policy because it opened up the way for negotiations at European level.

The social partners could decide whether or not to enter into negotiations on particular issues which might lead to legally binding agreements.

At that time, discussions took place in many countries across Europe. Some were accompanied by a strong element of scepticism. Could the social partners 'deliver the goods'? Could they enter into negotiations and come up with a European framework agreement for all employers and all employees in the Union?

The social partners demonstrated that they could meet the challenge. In December 1995, they concluded a European framework agreement on parental leave and again on 14 May this year, the negotiating teams of CEEP, UNICE and the ETUC demonstrated that they could 'deliver'.

Following the European Commission's consultations over flexibility on working time and worker security, the social partners informed the Commission of their wish to open negotiations, while at the same time asking the Commission to suspend its legislative procedure.

Negotiations started in October last year and, after several months, the social partners succeeded. An agreement was concluded on a difficult subject, that of part-time work, which has had an important impact on employment in recent years.

The resulting framework accord is an important contribution to social Europe and a part of the overall European strategy on employment. It relates to the employment conditions of part-time workers, establishes a general outline for the elimination of discrimination against them and assists the development of opportunities for part-time work.

The purpose of the agreement is to provide for the removal of discrimination and to improve the quality of part-time work on the one hand, and to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis and contribute to the flexible organisation of working time on the other.

Once the framework agreement had been submitted to the respective decision-making bodies of the three organisations for examination and approval, it was signed by the parties just two weeks before the European summit in Amsterdam.

The parties to the agreement have now asked the Commission to submit this framework agreement to the Council of Ministers for a decision which will make the requirements binding in the member states which are signatories to the Social Protocol.

This example serves to highlight the fact that the role of social and economic players at all levels is - and must continue to be - of fundamental importance for Europe and their involvement in devising, implementing and assessing social policy must continue to be encouraged.

Such encouragement was given by the decisions taken by EU leaders in Amsterdam.

CEEP was one of many organisations which had strongly recommended that the Social Protocol must - as a matter of priority - be integrated into the EU treaty.

Our organisation therefore welcomes the results of the Amsterdam summit in this field.

To date, negotiations at European level have been the exception. But after the incorporation of the agreement on social policy into the new treaty, the negotiating option will become the rule for all EU social policy initiatives once it has been ratified.

Experience to date from the negotiations on part-time work and the framework agreement on parental leave shows that there is still a lot of work to be done.

Building up confidence and acquiring greater knowledge about each other's industrial systems are important for the future.

In the light of the results of the Amsterdam summit, CEEP is going to examine the new responsibilities facing the social partners with an emphasis on how social policy can be a productive factor in the context of general economic service.

The Maastricht Treaty was the European Community's response to the very radical changes which were occurring at that time in the international political arena.

It represented considerable progress towards European union and provided a basis for political and monetary stability.

However, the debate over Maastricht revealed a wave of grass-roots scepticism concerning the construction of Europe.

To many people, the European Union seemed to be a distant power, far removed from the real concerns of citizens.

The Intergovernmental Conference on EU reform took important steps of interest to all the protagonists in political, economic and social circles which should help to overcome this deficit.

CEEP intends to contribute to this effort to redress the balance as it sincerely believes that this is the moment to move forward once again.

It will do so in the knowledge that Europeans aspire to control their future, which means that they must be able to guarantee their security while dealing with the challenge of globalisation.

The path to progress - and to greater economic and social cohesion - involves examining in depth and updating the concept of competition.

The European summit in Amsterdam revealed that there was a consensus on several issues of importance for the future of social Europe and CEEP welcomes the results.

Jytte Fredensborg is secretary-general of the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP).

BIO