Flexicurity From the difference between words and deeds…
(B2) While the 27 Heads of State and Government must approve, during the European Summit in Brussels on December 14, a set of common principles on flexicurity, this very "fashionable" concept combining flexibility for companies (and employees) and security for employees (and companies), it is good to wonder about the difference between theory and practice. Agreeing on a set of common principles for flexicurity is quite easy after all. Implementing these generalities is more difficult! The example of the last Council of Ministers of Labor and Social Affairs, on December 5, proved this...
The texts on the table of Council of Ministers were important: facilitate the annualisation of working time, while more strictly regulating derogations from excessive weekly working hours (the current opt-out allows working weeks of 78 hours!), allowing temporary workers to benefit from the same fundamental rights ( salary, working conditions, access to social services, etc.)
than permanent employees and granting workers who cross borders supplementary pension rights, isn't this precisely the combination of flexibility and security? Well no !
The German and British Ministers of Labor (although members of the Party of European Socialists) made a point of expressing their firm opposition to these measures on 5 December. Germany (supported by Luxembourg) wants to introduce a minimum age of 25 and a waiting period of 5 years to benefit from the right to supplementary pensions in another Member State. The United Kingdom (supported by Ireland and Germany) claims to apply equal treatment to temporary workers only after six months of contract. Or almost never, because most interim assignments are shorter.
In other words : the fewer risks the worker takes (civil servant, permanent), the more rights he has (salaries, bonuses, training, pensions, etc.); the more flexible it is, the less it benefits from these advantages. Young people, temporary workers, migrants, seniors… are, quite simply, victims of “discriminatory” treatment. Incomprehensible!
