Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "Improving the quality dimension of social and employment policy"
Date: 2001-09-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU employment policy, European social policy

C 311/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.11.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Improving the quality dimension of social
and employment policy’

(2001/C 311/12)

On 25 June 2001, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 September 2001. The rapporteur was
Mr Bloch-Lainé.

At its 384th plenary session on 12 and 13 September 2001 (meeting of 12 September 2001), the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 86 votes to none, with one abstention.

CAVEAT

Though the subject of this opinion is ‘improving the quality
dimension of social and employment policy’, its main focus is
on the quality of employment. It barely touches on the links
with the other, far broader, facet of the subject, for the
following reason: the Committee is fully aware of the interac-
tions between several components of social policy and quality
of employment. Clearly the latter is conditioned by external
factors, first and foremost its close association with coherent,
relevant social policies.

However, at the time when the study group started to draft the
opinion, it did not yet have at its disposal the text of the
planned Commission communication, which was in the
process of preparation. Further, the deadlines did not allow
time to draft a text covering the entire theme that could
have been anything other than superficial. Lastly, and most
important, it should be remembered that the ESC opinion was
primarily intended as a response to the wish clearly expressed
by the Belgian Minister for Employment and Equal Oppor-
tunities Policy in a message to the ESC President, stressing
the importance attached by the Belgian Presidency in its
programme to the quality of employment and hoping that the
Committee would issue an opinion on this specific aspect.

1. Preamble: Some general reflections

1.1.
The interest taken by the Member States and the EU
institutions in quality of employment dates back many years.
Much excellent work has been done in this field, one particular
example being the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness,
Employment, for which we have Jacques Delors to thank. A
major leap forward came with the guidelines adopted at the
LISBON European Council concerning the need for a ‘global
strategy’, an ‘active policy’, tending to promote not only ‘more’
but also ‘better quality’ jobs. The NICE Council developed,

expanded and pressed forward with this work, following
the adoption of
in
STOCKHOLM, the following year, conclusions specifying in
greater detail the scope of future lines of action, along with
precise and ambitious objectives, were adopted.

‘An agenda for social policy’. Lastly,

The quality of employment therefore emerged as a
1.2.
topic in its own right in the institutional debate on the
European social model and the Union’s economic strategy (cf.
the Lisbon Council).

1.2.1.
This timely recognition is part of a logical process in
which it has been acknowledged that a judicious social
policy is a major catalyst in boosting the efficiency and
competitiveness of production.

In the process of building Europe constant emphasis
1.2.2.
is placed on QUALITY. What we call ‘quality of life’ clearly
depends to a large extent not only, of course, on the number
of jobs available, but also on the framework within which we
work: freedom of choice, respect for human dignity, equal
treatment, a fair wage, good working conditions, an appropri-
ate working environment, health and safety, training oppor-
tunities, incentives, employee consultation and participation,
etc.

The actors in the Europe venture have confirmed
1.2.3.
jobs created within the EU
their resolve to ensure that
contribute maximum added value and human fulfilment.
Careful attention must be given to attaining this objective:
measuring progress on the ground and performance in this
field and taking all steps necessary to ensure that the reality
matches the proclaimed objectives.

Europe, in conjunction with Member States, has a
1.2.4.
wide range of instruments for analysis and organised debate at
its disposal to promote the creation of quality employment.

7.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 311/55

1.3.
The undeniable complexity of this topic is no reason
to support the criticism which is sometimes levelled and which
is summed up — and then refuted — in a recent ILO
document (1)‘the criterion of “decent work” is unworkable for
excessively dissimilar situations and countries, unless it is
relativised to the point of depriving it of any meaningful
content.’

Obviously circumstances differ from one economy to another.
The foreseeable pace and margins of progress are not the same
everywhere and factors such as SUBJECTIVITY with regard to
evaluation of QUALITY often carry considerable weight in this
area, as in others.

2.4.
The study carried out by the Dublin Foundation on
how employees perceived changing patterns in a number of
major components of quality of work, the following comments
are worth noting (2):

— constant ‘stress’;

— more muscular and back complaints;

— increase in the intensity of work;

— slightly increased proportion of the workforce receiving

training organised by their employer;

1.4.

This opinion concentrates on three main aspects:

— persistent sexual segregation;

— highlighting certain OBSERVATIONS;

— addressing a few KEY THEMES;

— making some RECOMMENDATIONS.

2. Observations

2.1.
A large number of sources of documentation, with
very different methodological approaches, can be drawn on.
For instance, the DUBLIN Foundation carried out a study in
2000, along the lines of two others undertaken in 1990 and
1995, into how employees perceived the quality of their jobs.
The BILBAO Foundation compiled objective data founded on
relevant comments. Finally, EUROSTAT collects and collates
vital statistical data. However, problems remain concerning
the updating and comparison of data and the standardisation
of systems for statistical evaluation.

In order to underpin constructive and convincing
2.2.
recommendations, any diagnosis of quality of employment
must draw on all useful sources available and collate the data
collected. In this opinion the Committee in no way claims to
present a comprehensive overview but has merely sought to
highlight a few relevant points.

2.3.

Safety and health

The European Agency for Health and Safety at Work has
produced an excellent report on the state of occupational
safety and health in the European Union. This opinion merely
refers to the thrust of this document. The study’s ‘key points’
highlight the scope for progress.

(1) ‘Recent work issues and policies’ — January 2001

— temporary work and ‘flexibility’ do not lead to improved

working conditions;

— violence and harassment continue to be major problems.

2.5. Other aspects

2.5.1.
The Commission’s annual report on equal oppor-
tunities for women and men in the European Union (2000)
stresses that considerable discrimination persists in the field of
employment, even if there are signs of improvement.

3. Key themes

The Committee has focused attention on a number of

3.1.
topics selected with a view to:

— highlighting the close link, in this particular instance,
between quality of employment and the economic per-
formance of EU companies’ production or services,

— stressing the need for employment

to reconcile as
smoothly as possible the demands of working life and
personal and family commitments,

— making the best possible use of the contributions made
in earlier Committee opinions, which remain as relevant
and topical as ever.

There are, of course, other themes worthy of consideration,
for example remuneration. The fact that they have not been
covered in this opinion does not mean that the ESC considers
them to be of secondary importance.

(2) We are dealing here, it is true, with subjective, perceived data
rather than objective statistics. Nevertheless, we consider the data
to be relevant, and challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to
say so openly.

C 311/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.11.2001

3.2.

Safety/health (1)

3.2.2.

E m p l o y a b i l i t y a n d h e a l t h a n d s a f e t y

3.2.1. H o w c a n

E u r o p e a n
m a d e m o r e e f f e c t i v e ?

l e g i s l a t i o n

b e

— The Committee has stressed and continues to highlight
the importance of combining harmonisation with pro-
gress; this means that minimum key safety levels should
not differ according to the size of the firm.

— Very careful attention must be paid to the specific
situation of SMEs — not to exempt them from respecting
common requirements, but to help them comply with
them. This requires Community texts — as far as possible
— to be uncomplicated, provide practical recommen-
dations, be drawn up in a spirit of cooperation involving
SME organisations, and distributed according to activity.
It must also not be forgotten that there are medium-
sized garages, hotel-restaurants, joineries, bakeries, etc.,
employing large numbers of people.

— Trade and industry and all players in the labour market,
which also have a social responsibility, could be more
active in the field of prevention, and support training and
information campaigns in this area.

— The best way of achieving the desired harmonisation is
not through detailed, formal and elaborate legislation.
Effectiveness hinges on enforcement. Community legis-
lation will not be enforced properly unless it comp-
lements national legislation.

— Legal monitoring of the transposition of a Community
directive is necessary. However it is not sufficient and
must be accompanied by assessments of how the directive
is actually implemented, in conjunction with the social
partners.

— The approach to dealing with health and safety risks must
be adapted to new challenges, such as ‘stress’
in the
workplace, muscle and back complaints, etc. These
problems cannot be dealt with in the same way as
traditional occupational accidents and illnesses. In this
case — and many others — good and bad examples need
to be identified, drawn upon and disseminated if useful
directives are to be drafted.

— Accidents in the workplace and other health and safety
risks are first and foremost important from the human
perspective. But they also involve considerable social
costs for companies and public finances.

— It is far from certain that this observation is obvious to
everybody today in Europe. Measures and instruments
therefore need to be developed to explain and convince
people.

— Non-compliance with existing standards is not always

punished.

3.2.3. H o w

s h o u l d

t h e

n e w

r i s k s

b e

a d d r e s s e d ?

— These risks have not eliminated traditional risks, but have
been added to them. They are here to stay and evolve
more rapidly than the instruments designed to tackle
them.

— If legislation is to avoid falling behind the situation it is
intended to address, it is necessary now, more so than in
the past, for Member States and the Commission to be
given permanent means of monitoring and assessment.

— Trade and industry and all players in the labour market
should play an active role in studying and researching
new risks.

3.2.4. N e w f o r m s o f w o r k

— Though it is still very difficult to measure the scale on
which they exist, the health and safety risks connected
with new forms of work, for example TELE-WORKING,
and with the very nature and increasing prevalence of
temporary and precarious jobs, are well known.

— Some national research and statistics institutes have made
progress in compiling data on these new types of risk.
Standardisation of this research in Member States should
be encouraged, with the aim of providing better life-long
protection to the workers concerned.

3.3. Older workers (2)

The Lisbon European Council set the objective of an
3.3.1.
employment rate ‘as close as possible to 70 % by 2010’.
Attaining such an objective entails raising the employment
rate among ‘older workers’, in other words among those aged

(1) See also ‘Towards a Community strategy for health and safety at
work’, OJ C 260, 17.9.2001 and ‘Health and safety in the
workplace’, OJ C 51, 23.2.2000.

(2) See also the ESC Opinion on ‘Older workers’, OJ C 14, 16.1.2001.

7.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 311/57

between 50 and 64. Although the employment rate in this
category has been declining at differing speeds, there has been
no exception to this trend or break with it in any of the EU
Member States since the 1970s. The 2000 employment
guidelines seek to rectify this trend. There is a lack of reliable,
informative data in this field, especially as regards actual age
of departure.

3.3.2.
‘Early exit’ from the labour market is generally more
often imposed rather than chosen by those in question. This
form of flexibility is a result of the labour market situation,
companies’ restructuring strategies and corresponding public
policies.

The employment of older workers has become an
3.3.3.
‘adjustment margin’
in
companies and the public service and a domain for govern-
ment action in the field of social protection.

for human resource management

As a consequence, in terms of quality of employment,
3.3.4.
there now exists a large pool of ‘middle-aged’ workers in
companies and the public services considered to have no
prospects, no value and whom there is a reluctance to promote
and train. Aside from the human dimension, this constitutes a
paradox: as from 2001 the 40-60 age group will account for
the largest part of the EU’s active population.

3.3.5.
However all the research bears witness to the fact
that a large increase in early retirement exacerbates the
depreciation of ageing workers in the labour market. In terms
of recruitment, older workers suffer from discrimination. Very
often the older or ageing worker feels that he is incapable of
working or is unemployable.

3.3.6.
Against this background, how is ‘quality of work’
relevant to the majority of older workers? How can the
employment rate among employees over 50 or 55 be raised?
What practical measures should be recommended? How can
we respond to the demand by those concerned to play a more
active part in the decisions affecting them and for arrangements
to be tailored more closely to individual cases? How can
greater allowance be made for the hopes of many workers in
the 40-60 age group to retire at a reasonable age?

3.3.7.
The so-called ‘serious trend’ needs to be reversed, but
this will not occur automatically. Companies cannot just be
asked to ‘make something new out of the old’. What is needed
is, quite simply, to CHANGE THE CULTURE and RAISE
AWARENESS, to persuade employees that working beyond
the age of 55 is worthwhile and to ensure that companies and
public services upgrade their assessment of the contribution
which can be made by ‘ageing’ workers. Such an objective

requires coming up with a BETTER FORWARD-LOOKING
MANAGEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT OVER TIME in terms of
recruitment and employment termination, continuous train-
ing, mobility within a company, flexible work organisation,
ergonomics and task definition, and behavioural change within
companies and the public services.

3.3.8.
this goal:

The EU institutions can take decisive action towards

by instigating debate on subjects such as reforming
3.3.8.1.
pay structures and replacing early retirement provisions by,
for example, more flexible retirement provisions;

3.3.8.2.

by taking action in the short term to:

— stimulate dialogue with the European social partners;

— develop the exchange of good practice;

— draw up a ‘code of good practice’ through dialogue with

interested parties.

3.4. Non-discrimination

the
this stage, and in the area under consideration,
At
Committee would like to see efforts focused on the following
‘touchstones’:

— gender equality;

— non-discrimination with regard to people choosing flex-

ible working time or part-time work;

— adequate social protection cover for ‘atypical’ workers,
i.e.
those wishing or forced to be professionally or
geographically mobile, to work on fixed-term or tempor-
ary contracts;

— development of ‘life-long learning’ for all workers, with-

out discrimination;

— greater participation of these employees in the operation
of companies and the services for which they work;

— attention to third-country nationals, and to the quality of
the jobs to be offered to immigrant workers for which
the EU will have a need;

— attention to workers with disabilities.

3.5. Access to training and upgrading of skills

In building Europe the clear-cut option is for a KNOWLEDGE-
driven economy. In this connection the Committee would
stress two of the many aspects of this immense challenge.

C 311/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.11.2001

3.5.1.
There is a danger that it may generate exclusion, a
‘multi-speed society’, where only a fraction of the workforce
would have access to long-term facilities and opportunities so
as to remain attractive on the job market. This scenario is not
a mere fiction. It must be borne in mind so that we can
forestall the emergence and slow, insidious and pernicious
development of a new form of social split.

3.5.2.
One area which could be increasingly affected are
the many ‘traditional’ activities (catering, cleaning, repair
workshops, service stations, community care jobs, craft indus-
tries) which have little scope on their own to offer their
workforce training in new technologies and skills. Their
employees are in danger of failing to keep up, in their working
lives, with a constantly changing society. It is important to
devise and implement arrangements for lifelong training and,
at the very least, not to underestimate this problem.

3.6. Work and private and family life

3.6.1.
Reference was made in the introduction to this
opinion to the fact that quality of employment is a key
component of quality of life.

Here we come across the blanket, convenient word, which
‘means all
things to everyone’: FLEXIBILITY. This vague
concept must, in the particular context with which we are
concerned, be stripped of its quasi-ideological connotations:
flexibility is a tool — not an ideal.

3.6.2.
It is worth noting that this word encompasses a wide
variety of individual aspirations as voiced by a considerable
number of employees, prompted by a desire to live better:
starting with a working schedule and hours ‘of their CHOICE’,
considered as a vital prerequisite by private sector and public
service employers keen to provide a competitive and effective
service to their customers or users.

3.6.3.
For the purpose of advocating action to be taken, a
better overview and analysis is needed of the conditions
governing the interrelationship between factors of a different
nature and inspiration, and to examine their interactions.

3.6.4.
consensus of views must be pooled and exchanged.

Information on experiences, clashes of interest and

3.6.5.
It could also be necessary to pay rather greater
attention to tangible factors such as travelling time to and
from work and the existence or absence of local social services
and facilities provided for childcare.

3.7.

Information and participation of the workforce

Here the emphasis is placed on one undisputed fact: quality of
employment can only be enhanced if action is based on
information and participation, with more and better means of
involving employees in guiding the process of economic
change. The wide variety of situations to be tackled and the
desire among employees to be PARTNERS in decisionmaking
on matters affecting them means that no directive or regulation
will have any chance, in this area, of attaining its objective if it
is not in some measure CONTRACTUALLY BASED. All this is
not incompatible with the goal of a KNOWLEDGE-driven
European economy. Whether or not we wish it, such an
economy cannot — if it is not to be inconsistent — be founded
forever on the model of a hive of bees programmed by
instinctive hierarchical genes, and on authoritarian, imposed
doctrines. The contractual, concerted, participatory experience
of our countries in the field of labour relations is a precious
asset for the development of the European economic and
social model.

4. Some recommendations

In addition to the creation of

4.1.
indicators and the
exchange of good practice, the use of legislative instruments
must also be considered, in order to secure progress on the
quality dimension of employment.

These recommendations focus on the difficult, yet

4.2.
important, question of INDICATORS.

The need to make progress in this field was stressed by the
STOCKHOLM European Council.

On 1 March 2001 the ESC issued an opinion (1) which listed
the conditions to be met in order for the European indicators
to be effective (see in particular points 1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.8 and
3.2).

4.3.
It is not the intention of the Committee, at this stage,
to give its views on the principle — debated both within the
Council and the Commission — of whether in the future the
field as a whole should be covered in a comprehensive manner,
or whether efforts should be focused on a limited number of
instruments. The Committee believes, however, that at the
current stage optimal use should be made of a number of good
existing indicators, and stresses that to be ‘good’ an indicator
must be objective, be able to measure results, pinpoint the
essence of a problem and offer a clear interpretation, must be
accurate and balanced, must enable reliable comparison and
must be periodically reviewed, updated and — if necessary —
reformed without Member States, businesses and members of
the public incurring any additional administrative and financial
burden.

(1) Structural indicators, OJ C 139, 11.5.2001.

7.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 311/59

4.4.
The Committee recommends that, initially, particular
attention be paid to the following ‘possible indicators’ set out
in the Communication from the Commission (1), which relate
to the ‘Key themes’ described in point 3 above.

4.4.1. H e a l t h a n d s a f e t y a t w o r k

— Composite indicators of accidents at work — fatal and

serious — including costs.

— Stress levels and other difficulties concerning working

relationships.

4.4.2. O l d e r w o r k e r s

— Employment rates.

4.4.3. G e n d e r e q u a l i t y

— Gender pay gap, appropriately adjusted.

4.4.4.

L i f e - l o n g l e a r n i n g

— Proportion of workers undertaking training or other

forms of life-long learning.

4.4.5. W o r k i n g l i f e a n d p r i v a t e , f a m i l y l i f e

— Opportunities for maternity and parental leave, and take-

up rates

(1) 20.06.2001 COM(2001) 313 final.

4.4.6.

I n f o r m a t i o n
w o r k e r s

a n d

i n v o l v e m e n t

o f

— Coverage of collective agreements and number of EU-
wide companies with EU works councils with employee
representatives.

4.4.7.

E q u a l
n a t i o n a l s

t r e a t m e n t

f o r

t h i r d - c o u n t r y

— Non-discrimination, pay differences, type of contract,

promotion and lifelong training.

4.5.
As stressed by all the apposite reports and opinions on
the subject, in addition to indicators it is necessary — not as a
substitute but as a complement — to collect, collate and
disseminate any useful information on experiments and pro-
jects carried out within the European Union. This applies not
only of course to the successes, but also to the failures. This
process of bench-marking is not intended as a grading process
to distinguish between good and poor ‘pupils’, but as a means
of pooling lessons learned.

The complexity and scale of efforts to ensure that progress
continues to be made throughout the EU with regard to the
quality of work are such that they require all available energy
to be mustered, pooled and channelled.

The Economic and Social Committee, which represents
4.6.
various players from organised civil society, fervently wishes
to make a contribution — in its consultative capacity — to the
important practical issue of the quality of employment.

Brussels, 12 September 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS