EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/93

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy)’

(2007/C 256/18)

On 14 September 2006 (confirmed on 26 October 2006) the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 31 of its Rules of Procedure and in the framework of its work initiated at the request of the European Council of 23-24 March 2006, to draw up an information report on Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy).

On 15 March 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to convert this information report into an own-initiative opinion.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 June 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Greif.

At its 437th plenary session of 11-12 July 2007 (meeting of 12 July 2007), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to none, with two abstentions:

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 This opinion argues that in quantitative terms the ambitious Lisbon employment objectives have been achieved only to a limited extent and with clear differences between countries which should always be borne in mind. The picture is also contradictory as far as the quality of employment is concerned: welcome examples of good practice in the employment policies of individual Member States, which the EESC believes should be identified and evaluated more systematically in future, are counterbalanced throughout the EU by sobering facts: — Although standard jobs continue to be the predominant form of employment throughout the EU, many of the new jobs created in recent years — particularly for women — have been part-time. There continues to be a manifest shortage of suitable jobs for older workers. And for young people in particular there has been a sharp increase in atypical (non-standard) forms of employment, in some cases without proper legal and social safeguards. — There has been little improvement in the labour market integration opportunities of disadvantaged groups (which can be seen from the persistently high levels of long-term unemployment, the relatively high unemployment rate among young people and the low-skilled and the low level of employment among older people in particular). The labour market situation of socially marginalised groups also remains extremely difficult.

1.2 Against this background, the Committee considers it important that, in the context of the ongoing debate on flexicurity, any general definition and all measures designed to increase the adaptability of firms and workers should always be associated with a high degree of social security, active labour-market policy, education and training and access to social services.

1.3 The EESC calls for greater prominence to be given to the following points in the context of national social and employment policies aimed at the priority groups referred to in this opinion in the labour market: — measures to promote the integration of young people into the labour market, aimed at offering them initial employment with prospects for the future; — greater efforts to combat the many continuing forms of discrimination and disadvantage suffered on grounds of age, gender, disability or ethnic background, particularly with regard to access to education, access to the labour market and continuing employment; — increasing employment security and preventing ‘insecure employment traps’, inter alia by ensuring that the unemployed are not obliged to take on jobs offering no security, by combating undeclared work and by preventing the exploitation of workers employed on short-term contracts; — measures to improve the quality of jobs and protect workers against discrimination; — more investment in the quality of jobs and in working conditions favourable to older workers; — investment in initial and further education and lifelong learning and dismantling of existing discrepancies between the skills on offer and those in demand on the labour market; — measures to modernise and improve, wherever necessary, the social safeguards attached to non-standard forms of employment; — reducing the gender-specific segmentation of the labour market, especially effective measures for reconciling career and family (in particular development of comprehensive childcare facilities and various forms of support for those in need of care and their families, including 24-hour facilities); — dismantling obstacles facing people with care obligations when (re-)entering the labour market and seeking to remain in employment (and incentives for greater participation of fathers in care responsibilities); — development of appropriate incentives and support for firms to employ more young people and older workers experiencing particular difficulties in finding employment.

1.4 Special measures are needed for socially excluded groups: — the development of transitional labour markets with appropriate incentives for companies to take on more workers, with simultaneous support for workers in overcoming the problems which are the source of their social exclusion (undesirable exploitation of these arrangements as well as distortions of competition will need to be guarded against); — non-profit employment initiatives, especially in the social economy, have a particular role to play here. Provision should be made in labour-market policy budgets for appropriate support.

1.5 The EESC stresses that in many EU Member States implementation of the priorities sketched out in this opinion will require renewed employment-policy efforts and that appropriate budgetary funding must be provided. — Thus, active labour-market measures at national and European level will have little success, unless appropriate attention is paid to these in the budgetary planning of the Member States. — The EESC notes that in many countries there is a wide disparity between proposals for labour-market-policy initiatives — e.g. in the framework of their national reform plans — and budgetary funding (1). — Closer attention should be paid in the national action programmes to positive experiences from various countries and appropriate use must be made of the ESF 2007-2013.

1.6 In this connection the EESC has on a number of occasions pointed out that this budgetary funding requires a favourable macroeconomic backdrop, with the emphasis on a growth-orientated economic policy to overcome persistent cyclical weaknesses (2).

1.7 In many Member States social levies which are tied to labour costs have risen to a level which may act as a disincentive to the creation of jobs. In some cases the insignificant difference between after-tax earnings and benefits may make working unattractive. These ‘unemployment traps’ need to be prevented, without however endangering social security systems. In this connection the EESC endorses the recommendation of the high-level group on the future of social policy in an enlarged European Union that the basis for the financing of the social security systems be broadened and the fiscal charge distributed more evenly across the production factors so that the charges are not disproportionately put on labour (3).

1.8 With regard to the forthcoming review of the employment policy guidelines in 2008, the EESC considers that in several of the areas discussed in this opinion more priorities need to be set and policy needs to be spelt out more clearly. — In this connection the EESC advocates more binding objectives at European level, giving the Member States a clear framework with unambiguous obligations. The EESC considers that the Commission should play a greater role in monitoring the implementation of the employment strategy in the Member States. — The EESC also calls for further improvements to the objectives, particularly for youth employment and in order to combat youth unemployment (e.g. a reduction in the maximum six-month period of seeking employment/training places after which young people are offered a new start), for the promotion of equality, support for people with disabilities and the integration of immigrants. — In this way the EESC would like to see the national reform programmes becoming more ambitious in future in the area of employment policy and a noticeable qualitative improvement with regard to timing, responsibility, commitment of resources and financing. In this connection the EESC proposes that ways be investigated of laying down specific objectives for the earmarking of appropriate budgetary resources for active labour-market policy in the individual Member States. A separate EESC opinion will look in detail at the adjustments to the employment policy guidelines required from 2009 which have been sketched out here.

2. Background

2.1 In its Conclusions of 23-24 March 2006 the European Council asked the EESC, with a view to the 2008 Spring Summit, to draw up a summary report in support of the partnership for growth and employment with a particular focus on the employment of priority categories. The EESC is now submitting the following own-initiative opinion on the subject, which draws on the expertise of the national economic and social councils.

2.2 The EESC has always stressed that improving competitiveness and achieving sustainable economic growth in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy are not ends in themselves, but, rather, are intended to lead to a reduction in the high rate of unemployment in the EU, aiming for full employment, placing social security schemes on a more stable foundation and providing protection against social exclusion (4).

2.3 To this end the Lisbon Strategy was intended to give a new impetus to the European employment strategy, thus raising the employment rate and the quality of work. Lisbon aimed not only at more jobs, but also better jobs. Investment in human capital, research, technology and innovation are therefore logically given equally high priority alongside labour-market and structural-policy measures (5).

2.4 In this opinion the EESC will focus its analysis of trends on the European labour market and its policy recommendations on those target groups in respect of which the Council has repeatedly called on the Member States to provide measures in order to: — improve the situation of young people in the labour market and significantly reduce youth unemployment; — implement active ageing strategies to make it possible for older people to remain at work longer; — promote the employment of women effectively and make it possible for both women and men to reconcile work and family life; — integrate people with disabilities and promote their long-term employment; — increase the employment rate and labour-market opportunities of migrants and ethnic minorities.

2.5 The EESC will propose a package of preventive and active (re-) integration measures for each of these target groups which should be given more careful consideration in the labour-market and employment policies of the Member States. Socially marginalised groups, which are often excluded from the labour market, will also be covered. Building on this, policy recommendations will be formulated, inter alia with a view to the review of the employment-policy guidelines to be carried out before the 2008 Spring Summit.

3. Rate of employment, jobs and unemployment — current situation (6)

3.1 In 2005 and 2006, for the first time since 2001, employment in the EU grew and there was a noticeable fall in the unemployment rate (from 9,0 % in 2004 to 7,9 % in 2006). The growth of the employment rate of women, at 0,6 %, contrasts more clearly with the stagnation of recent years than the corresponding rate for men. This welcome trend has continued in 2007 (7).

3.2 It is nonetheless sobering to consider that: — progress on the Lisbon and Stockholm interim objectives for the employment rate is slow and they were not achieved in 2005, either as regards the general rate, 67 % (2005: 63,8 %), or that for women, 57 % (2005: 56,3 %). It is becoming increasingly clear that the objectives for 2010 cannot be met in many Member States or in the Community as a whole; — although full-time jobs continue to be the predominant form of employment throughout the EU, many of the new jobs created in recent years — particularly for women — have been part-time (which is shown by the much lower growth in full-time equivalents — in some Member States these have actually fallen); — the most significant rise in employment in recent years has been among older workers. Nevertheless, the employment rate for older people is also well below the target level (55-64 age group only 42,5 % on average in 2005). Only nine EU countries achieved the target of 50 % (major difference between men and women: target achieved for men in 17 countries but for women in only four, Scandinavia and Estonia); — in 2005 the EU-25 average youth unemployment rate, at 18,5 %, remained about twice as high as the general unemployment rate; — despite general improvements in several Member States, particularly in those with very high unemployment rates, unemployment EU-wide, at just under 8 %, persists at a high level and in some countries it has even risen; — major regional differences in employment rates persist in a number of Member States (particularly considered in terms of full-time equivalents). The number of people today living in regions of the EU 27 with an unemployment rate of more than 15 % has risen noticeably with the enlargements; — the labour-market situation of socially marginalised groups remains extremely problematic. Against the background of these changes in the labour market, there is, despite progress in some areas, still a long way to go to meet the ambitious Lisbon employment objectives.

3.3 All the more so as employment trends reveal the following characteristics and tendencies, which vary greatly in their extent from one country and sector to another: — Chances of entering the labour market have hardly improved for disadvantaged groups (this can be seen, for example, from persistently high long-term unemployment, relatively high unemployment rates, particularly among young people and the low-skilled and low employment rates, especially among older workers). — Although standard jobs continue to be the predominant form of employment throughout the EU, the data points to an sharp increase in atypical (non-standard) forms of employment, in some cases without sufficient legal and social safeguards. Overall, the proportion of fixed-term employment contracts is increasing, which affects young people disproportionately. There has also been a rise in contract work, temporary work, pseudo-self-employment (8) and short-term employment and employment contracts offering few social benefits, although the situation varies greatly between Member States. Overall, insecurity is increasing, particularly among disadvantaged groups. Such jobs can be regarded as a ‘bridge’ to the standard labour market only if they are freely chosen and offer safeguards. — In many Member States job uncertainties have increased, especially among low-skilled workers, school drop-outs and people without vocational training. As a result of the imbalance between the demand for and supply of skills, entering the labour market and returning to work after unemployment are particularly difficult. — People with care responsibilities are continuing to find it difficult to find stable and satisfactory jobs. — People with disabilities continue to figure prominently among those excluded from the labour market. According to the latest European data only 40 % of people with disabilities work. Figures are even more worrying when it comes to severely disabled people. — There are also a large number of people whose marginalisation derives from causes such as addictions, over-indebtedness or homelessness, and whose integration into the labour market requires special social measures. — The working conditions and labour market opportunities of migrants and people from migrant backgrounds are in most Member States less favourable than those of the rest of the population. Particular attention should be paid here to the Roma who, with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, have become Europe's largest minority and whose employment situation (with unemployment rates in some cases reaching 70-90 %) is for a variety of reasons a source of considerable concern. The EESC will be returning to the subject in a separate own-initiative opinion.

3.4 The growth of the informal sector, with insecure employment conditions and often low wages, entails the risk that groups unable to make the transition to the standard labour market will be forced to accept work on a long-term basis which does not enable them to use their skills. This trend (which is difficult to quantify) not only means considerable uncertainty for those affected but also leads to loss of tax revenues and ultimately poses a threat to the sustainability of production capacity in the EU.

4. Creating a framework for growth and more and better jobs

4.1 For years the dominant thinking in European policy-making has been that labour-market problems are structural in origin. In many EU countries the one-sided focus of employment policy has been on dismantling general labour law standards, making entitlements more difficult to acquire and cutting social services, while making employment conditions more flexible.

4.2 Active labour market policy measures, such as, for example, promoting employability, eliminating skills shortages and programmes for the integration of disadvantaged groups into the labour market have, on the other hand, been insufficiently implemented in many countries, although some of these countries have increased their spending in this area since 1995. In most countries for which data are available, active expenditure on labour market measures (active and passive support) has actually fallen in recent years as a proportion of total spending. It is very important that resources earmarked for active labour market policy be provided on a scale commensurate with the challenges and, at the same time, the effectiveness of labour market policy measures increased and focused on the relevant target groups.

4.3 In this context the EESC has on a number of occasions pointed out that labour-market measures and structural reforms can ultimately only succeed against a favourable macroeconomic backdrop, with the emphasis on overcoming persistent cyclical weaknesses and consolidating growth (9). A commitment is therefore needed to an expansive, growth-orientated economic policy at national and EU level, with appropriate monetary, fiscal and economic conditions: — The European Central Bank should, in accordance with its Treaty mandate, where price stability is assured, help to increase growth and employment. A high rate of employment growth can only be achieved if there is steady economic growth at a rate higher than the medium-term rate of productivity growth. — Thus, for example, the greater room for manoeuvre offered by the reformed stability and growth pact must be used in order to give the EU countries an opportunity for counter-cyclical policies and fiscal scope for socially acceptable structural reforms as well as an appropriate level of public investment. The Lisbon objectives determine the direction in which investment must flow: development of communications and transport infrastructure, climate protection, a research and development initiative, comprehensive childcare, support for education and training, active labour-market policy and job quality. The national reform programmes must be designed to result in a coordinated, Europe-wide programme to strengthen economic growth, to which all players at national and EU level can make their contribution.

5. Effective combating of youth unemployment

5.1 Youth unemployment continues to be one of the burning issues for employment policy in the EU. In all EU countries the unemployment rate among young people is above the overall rate and in most countries at least twice as high as for the general population. In some of the EU 15 Member States and in a number of the new Member States the situation is even worse. In a number of Member States job insecurity has increased even in the higher-skilled segment of the market.

5.2 Increasingly entry into employment is via alternative forms of employment, sometimes with much more insecure working and social conditions. The boundary between the formal and informal employment sectors is becoming increasingly blurred. For certain groups of young people, such as the low-skilled, those from a migrant background or those from the disadvantaged population groups, the transition to regular employment is becoming increasingly difficult. The risk of remaining trapped on the margin of the working population is rising, particularly when there is a combination of any of the above characteristics.

5.3 The aim is as far as possible to give all young people secure prospects for the future. The question also has demographic aspects: the economic situation of young people significantly influences their willingness to start a family. In this sense it is a welcome development that in its spring report the European Commission calls for the strengthening of active labour-market policy measures, in addition to improvement of skills, and in particular urges the much earlier deployment of support for young jobseekers and the elimination of structural problems affecting the transition from training to employment.

5.4 Positive examples of this are the tried and tested models which exist in some Member States (Germany, Austria and to some extent the Netherlands) for combining vocationally orientated training systems geared to companies' needs with teaching in school. Numerous studies have highlighted the quality of this ‘dual vocational training’ system and they ascribe to it a vital role in easing the transition from school to work and in reducing the disparity between the youth and general unemployment rates.

5.5 Active, pre-emptive initial and further training measures to improve young people's chances of finding employment (10): — guaranteeing quality from initial training to vocational and in-service training so as to enable workers to find their place in the labour market with as few problems as possible and stay in employment, with industry involved here alongside government; — early active support for young people seeking training course places or jobs (possibly after four months), special programmes and individual support and coaching for the integration of problem groups and long-term unemployed young people and for school and training course drop-outs, e.g. via community employment projects and promotion of training; — development of generally available, easily accessible careers advice and information facilities for young men and women at all levels of training; corresponding improvement in quality and human resources for job centres); — reduction of existing discrepancies between qualifications offered and those in demand on the labour market; raising the effectiveness of primary education systems (e.g. reduction of school drop-out rate, literacy campaigns) and increasing the opportunities for moving between initial vocational and further training; gradual elimination of gender-specific segregation in careers counselling; — implementation of measures to ensure that short-term and insecure employment is only a temporary solution for young people.

6. Improved integration prospects for migrants

6.1 In most EU countries there has been little change in the discrimination against migrants and their families in the labour market. They continue to be overrepresented in sectors with low pay and poor working conditions; they have a far higher risk of becoming unemployed and often they remain in jobs with little security, significant health risks, poor safety and (in some countries) little regulation of wage rates.

6.2 A particular worry is the extent to which this precarious labour market position is ‘inherited’ by second-generation migrants as a result of massive disadvantages in schooling. In most Member States young people from migrant backgrounds belong to the groups with the highest levels of job insecurity and the highest risk of being pushed to the margin of the standard labour market.

6.3 The EESC has stated on a number of occasions that it considers labour migration necessary given the demographic trends in the EU and has pointed to positive examples in several Member States, such as Spain and Ireland. This must, however, always be reconciled with the prospects for integration policy in the Member States, in particular with regard to employment (11). The migration situation varies greatly from one Member State to another, as do the integration policy measures adopted, e.g. in labour market and education policy. The Member States should pay particular attention to the situation of asylum-seekers, who often suffer particular disadvantages.

6.4 Priorities for improving the integration of migrants: — Particular attention should be paid to individual (pre-)school support and early investment in language and vocation-related skills; prevention of disadvantages arising in finding first jobs (e.g. by overcoming language barriers as early as possible) and facilitating the recognition of foreign qualifications of migrants. — Integration mainstreaming throughout social and labour-market policy (e.g. by enhancing intercultural skills in government offices and job centres and offering support to businesses, especially SMEs); appropriate European and national funding for integration support measures. — Elimination of institutional obstacles to and discrimination regarding labour market access in the Member States (e.g. shortening the waiting time for work permits — particularly for asylum-seekers (12)) and prevention of wage dumping while strengthening integration prospects as a component of European migration policy (ensuring that migration policy does not place obstacles in the way of integration by encouraging temporary migration, insecure forms of employment and marginalisation). — Improving data on the link between a migrant background and segregation or discrimination in the labour market (13). — Preventive measures and sanctions as well as partnerships between social partners and public authorities at national level to combat black economy working in order to prevent social dumping and distortions of competition, particularly in connection with cross-border movements of workers.

7. Making use of opportunities for employment of older workers

7.1 The key response to the demographic challenge has to be targeted growth policy and increasing employment. The necessary labour potential is available in sufficient quantity. And yet throughout the EU the employment potential of older workers continues to be under-exploited.

7.2 The risk of long-term unemployment rises rapidly with age. The EU-25 average long-term unemployment rate of older workers (50-64) is over 60 %. Against this background it has to be ensured that older workers have a real chance of finding employment and being able to work in the longer term.

7.3 The main reasons for older workers giving up work early are health problems caused by difficult working conditions, the intensity of work, early dismissal of older workers, lack of ongoing training and lack of (re-)employment opportunities. Efforts to increase the employment rate of older people based on alterations to pension systems, which boil down to less favourable access conditions and entitlements, are wide of the mark.

7.4 Only a conscious policy of ‘active ageing’, including comprehensive opportunities for participation in further training measures and lifelong learning, can produce a sustainable rise in the employment rate of older people. Successful models, in the Nordic states (especially the integrated package of measures adopted in the framework of Finland's national action programme for older people) point to a socially acceptable way in which, by closely involving the social partners, a functioning labour market with a high rate of employment stability can be created for older people.

7.5 Key aspects of a systematic move towards a world of employment more favourable to older people (14): — Comprehensive advice and support for jobseekers and proactive support for employment mediation (including subsidised employment, support on taking up employment, charitable social projects) and where necessary rehabilitation measures for long-term reintegration; appropriate funding for active labour-market policies and long-term planning for job centres. — Establishment of socially acceptable incentives for later retirement and, where possible or desirable, development of attractive models for a flexible transition from working life to retirement within the public pension system (including further development of part-time working for older people). — Measures aimed at making workers physically and mentally capable of remaining longer in active employment, above all by reducing pressures at work and by adapting working conditions (e.g. incentives to develop health protection in the workplace, generally available company health promotion, preventative medicine and employee protection programmes). — Encouraging older workers to be involved more in further training (40 + skills initiative, incentives for improving participation in in-house further training, particularly for lower-skilled). — Awareness-raising measures for older workers (appreciation of the value of experience and transfer of skills acquired in the course of a working life to younger workers) and advice and support for companies, especially SMEs, in forward personnel planning and the development of forms of organisation of work favourable to older workers.

8. Improvements in the employment of women

8.1 Although women have caught up significantly over the last 30 years in terms of formal qualifications, inequality of opportunity in the labour market continues to be widespread. Women continue to work mostly in the traditional service sectors and industrial sectors which have traditionally have had a high proportion of female workers. Women have much fewer opportunities to make use of their educational qualifications in their work. Reconciling career and family continues to be incomparably more difficult for women than for men.

8.2 The proportion of part-time workers is much higher in all age groups for women than for men. The increase in part-time employment, which, if freely chosen and not a dead end in terms of wages and prospects, is actually something to be welcomed, continues to be a major factor in gender-specific labour market segmentation.

8.3 In almost all areas of employment major income disparities persist, independently of labour-market status. Long career interruptions as a result of care obligations have a particularly negative impact on career advancement opportunities, incomes and social entitlements. Whilst men can expect progressive pay rises with increasing age, women's incomes tend to stagnate in the age groups in which they interrupt their careers or often switch to part-time working in order to bring up children.

8.4 Examples from Denmark and Sweden show that things can be different and that gender mainstreaming in labour market policy can be more than a slogan. In these countries income disparities are much smaller, and the employment rate of women and the availability of day-care facilities for children (especially children under two) are much greater than in other EU Member States. The Netherlands offers another positive example. Here there is a high rate of employment of women together with a very high rate of part-time employment, which is in most cases chosen freely.

8.5 Key measures to tackle structural problems affecting women's employment (15): — Measures to eliminate existing labour-market discrimination and the structural causes of gender-specific income disparities, especially the promotion of social safeguards for women, especially via measures to reduce short-term, insecure part-time work and to improve the regulation of part-time working (e.g. extension of the right to part-time working for parents, with the right to return to full-time working later; improved involvement in in-house further training programmes). — Massive development of generally available and affordable care, with high-quality care facilities for infants and school-aged children outside the home, making it possible to reconcile work and family; contributions to the effective promotion of shared parenting (especially incentives for increasing the father's contribution to parenting). — Elimination of family-policy measures with strong incentives for stopping work or for long career interruptions, with reduced opportunities for starting work under acceptable conditions; parental leave allowances should not adversely affect income, create incentives for women leaving work or create new obstacles to the sharing of childcare by both partners. — Labour-market policy measures to encourage parents to begin work again after a career break (including support for starting up own businesses) and to protect women against having to do work for which they are overqualified and loss of income (e.g. flexible further training models available during the career pause or continued employment with reduced hours). — Family-friendly organisation of working time (including opportunities for parents of infants or school-aged children to arrange their working time accordingly, teleworking agreements and legal entitlements to variable working time for persons with care obligations).

9. Improving labour-market opportunities for people with disabilities

9.1 People with disabilities continue to figure prominently among those who are excluded from the labour market. Disabled workers are more likely to be in low paid jobs and are often discriminated against in access to training and career promotion. As 15 % of the EU working-age population has a disability of some sort and given the low employment rate of this group, increasing the employment rate of disabled people would significantly contribute to the goals of the Lisbon Strategy.

9.2 In this context the EESC welcomes the Commission document on ‘Disability Mainstreaming in the European Employment Strategy’ (16), which is a positive starting point to advance in the labour integration of people with disabilities and recalls that labour integration is the best weapon to fight social exclusion. The EESC recalls that most people acquire the disability during their working lives but very few are offered the opportunity to return to work adapted to their disability. Positive examples here are Great Britain's strict anti-discrimination laws, which provide for complaints mechanisms, and the Danish model of combining labour market flexibility with sufficient social guarantees and a high level of education and training.

9.3 Priority measures to promote the employment of people with disabilities (17): — Adjustment of tax and benefit systems in a way that make work and transitions to work attractive by for example providing in-work benefits; In addition, returning to disability pensions should be possible after a trial work period. — Development, implementation and support for active labour market programmes (in particular rehabilitation measures) specifically aimed at people with disabilities as well as measures facilitating the transition from sheltered employment to mainstream employment (e.g. adaptation of information and communication actions to disabled jobseekers). — Making workplaces more suitable for disabled people and supporting positive actions specifically addressed at workers that acquire their disability during their working life; Periods of leave combined with further training, adoption of their job description or alternative assignments should be considered. — Provisions of additional assistance to workers with disabilities as well as of care services for people with disabilities in order to allow workers having a family member with a disability to continue to work.

Brussels, 12 July 2007. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) See the EESC opinion of 17.5.2006 on the Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, rapporteur: Mr Greif (OJ C 195, 18.8.2006).

(2) See the Report of the high-level group on the future of social policy in an enlarged European Union of May 2004.

(3) Ibid.

(4) See the EESC exploratory opinion of 13.9.2006 on the Quality of working life, productivity and employment in the context of globalisation and demographic challenges, rapporteur: Ms Engelen-Kefer, OJ C 318, 23.12.2006.

(5) See the EESC own-initiative opinion of 9.2.2005 on Employment policy: the role of the EESC following the enlargement of the EU and from the point of view of the Lisbon Process, rapporteur: Mr Greif (OJ C 221, 8.9.2005).

(6) See various graphs in the appendix.

(7) Employment in Europe 2006.

(8) See Green Paper entitled Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century, COM(2006) 708 final.

(9) See also the EESC opinion of 11.12.2003 on the Broad economic policy guidelines 2003-2005, rapporteur: Mr Delapina (OJ C 80, 30.3.2004) and the EESC opinion of 17.5.2006 on the Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, rapporteur: Mr Greif (OJ C 195, 18.8.2006).

(10) See also the EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council on European policies concerning youth — Addressing the concerns of young people in Europe — Implementing the European Youth Pact and promoting active citizenship (26.10.2005), rapporteur: Ms van Turnhout (OJ C 28, 3.2.2006); Communication from the Commission on the Social Agenda (13.7.2005), rapporteur Ms Engelen-Kefer (OJ C 294, 25.11.2005); Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States in accordance with Article 128 of the EC Treaty (31.5.2005), rapporteur Mr Malosse (OJ C 286, 17.11.2005).

(11) See the EESC opinion of 10.12.2003 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration and employment, rapporteur Mr Pariza Castanos (OJ C 80, 30.3.2004).

(12) See the EESC opinion of 28.11.2001 on the Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States, rapporteur Mr Mengozzi (OJ C 48, 21.2.2002).

(13) Eurostat is currently working on an ad hoc module on the labour situation of migrants and their immediate descendants that will be implemented in the 2008 data collection. It has the objective of improving the EU-Labour Force Survey coverage of foreign-born persons.

(14) See the EESC opinion of 15.12.2004 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on increasing the employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market, rapporteur: Mr Dantin (OJ C 157, 28.6.2005).

(15) See the EESC opinion of 13.9.2006 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010, rapporteur: Ms Attard (OJ C 318, 23.12.2006) and the EESC opinion of 29.9.2005 on Poverty among women in Europe, rapporteur: Ms King (OJ C 24, 31.1.2006).

(16) EMCO/II/290605.

(17) See the EESC opinion of 20.4.2006 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Situation of disabled people in the enlarged European Union: the European Action Plan 2006-2007, rapporteur Mr Greif (OJ C 185, 8.8.2006) and the EESC exploratory opinion of 17.1.2007 on Equal opportunities for people with disabilities, rapporteur: Mr Joost (OJ C 93, 27.4.2007).