Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Flexicurity (Internal flexibility dimension — Collective bargaining and the role of social dialogue as instruments for regulating and reforming labour markets)
Date: 2007-07-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: collective bargaining, labour flexibility, labour law, labour market, occupational safety, social dialogue, social security

C 256/108

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Flexicurity (Internal flexibility dimen-
sion — Collective bargaining and the role of social dialogue as instruments for regulating and
reforming labour markets)’

(2007/C 256/20)

The European Economic and Social Committee received a letter, dated 13 February 2007,
Portuguese presidency requesting its opinion on abovementioned proposal.

from the

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 Janson.

At its 437th plenary session, held on 11 and 12 July 2007 (meeting of 11 July 2007), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 163 votes to 2 with 5 abstentions.

1. Summary and conclusions

from the content of the European social dialogue nor from the
further development of the social dialogue itself.

1.1
The EESC welcomes the Portuguese presidency's request
to draw up an opinion on flexicurity, since the flexicurity
debate has hitherto been limited predominantly to increasing
external
flexibility and ways of compensating for such an
increase by strengthening labour market policies or social
security provisions. Instead, the aim should be to focus on other
dimensions to better create win-win situations.

The EESC would like to emphasise that the role of the
1.2
social partners has to be strengthened. The social partners
should be a protagonist in any debate on flexicurity and should
have a privileged role in the European Commission's consulta-
tions. The Commission should thus have placed more emphasis
on consulting, in particular, the European social partners on the
European definition of the concept of flexicurity.

Strengthening industrial relations systems at European
1.3
and national levels is essential for any discussion on flexicurity.
A strong and vital social dialogue where the social partners
actively participate and are able to negotiate, influence and take
responsibility for the definition and components of flexicurity
and evaluation of its outcomes is a key element.

The Commission and Member States should endeavour
1.4
to link discussions which could lead to reforms based on the
flexicurity concept with the strengthening and modernising of
industrial relations at all levels. The EESC thus wants to see a
stronger link between the flexicurity debate and the strength-
ening of social dialogue on all levels, and collective bargaining
on appropriate levels, whilst respecting the diversity of different
industrial relations systems in the Member States. The flexicurity
concept should enhance both flexibility and security in a
balanced way. The flexicurity concept does not mean unilateral
and illegitimate reduction of workers' rights, an idea the EESC
rejects.

1.5
The EESC recognises that, with the essential role of social
partners in the progressive development of flexicurity policies at
European level, this discussion can be seen as separate neither

1.6
The EESC wants to stress that the Commission and the
Member States should give more attention to gender equality
and intergenerational solidarity in the context of
flexicurity.
Women, older workers and young people are often at a disad-
vantage in the labour market in terms of flexibility and security,
and upward convergence should be sought for these groups.

1.7
The EESC wants the Member States and the Commission
to explore the enhancement of adaptability through internal
flexibility and make this a viable and acceptable dimension of
flexicurity. Internal flexibility can play a key role in advancing
productivity,
innovation and competitiveness, and can thus
contribute to reaching the goals of the Lisbon strategy. It can
also play a major part in allowing workers to better combine
work with other activities and responsibilities and to improve
their employment. A regulatory framework
the quality of
ensuring protection for employment and health care, and
providing stability and security for workers is a prerequisite for
all the above. Employment protection combined with effective
re-employment services and active labour market policies are
crucial
for the adaptability and security of both firms and
employees.

In the EESC's view, a balance between working time
1.8
flexibility and worker protection should be pursued;
this is
best guaranteed through regulations established by collective
bargaining, in line with national practises. Such bargaining on
working time flexibility requires a solid context of rights, well-
functioning social
institutions and employment-friendly social
security systems to back it up.

flexibility

Functional

1.9
for
is
collective bargaining between social partners. Through such
bargaining, the needs of businesses and workers can be balanced
and fine-tuned and adequate compensation for increased skills
can be defined.

again

issue

key

a

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/109

1.10
Functional flexibility requires constant upgrading of the
knowledge and capabilities of workers and a well-functioning
education and training infrastructure to back this up. Whilst
many commitments have in the past been made to lifelong
learning, much remains to be achieved in practice.

2. Background

The Portuguese presidency has requested the EESC to
including

2.1
draw up an exploratory opinion on flexicurity,
matters such as:

with stability and protection against risks. As examples
of the types of flexibility and security concerned one
can mention:

Examples of flexibility

External
flexibility

numerical

Adjustment of employment volume
by way of an exchange with the
external
involving
labour market;
lay-offs, temporary work, and fixed
term contracts.

1) The dimension of internal flexibility

Internal
flexibility

numerical

The temporal adjustment of
the
amount of work within the firm,
involving
atypical
working hours and time account
schemes.

practices

as

2) Collective bargaining and the role of social dialogue as

instruments to regulate and reform labour markets.

Several of the guidelines in the employment policy guide-
2.2
lines (2005-2008) could form the basis for a discussion on
flexicurity. The 2006 Spring European Council asked Member
States to direct special attention to the key challenge of ‘flexi-
curity’ (balancing flexibility and security). Member States were
labour
invited to pursue,
market situations, reforms in labour market and social policies
under an integrated flexicurity approach.

in accordance with their individual

At two social summits, in connection with the December
2.3
2006 and then March 2007 European summits, the issue of
flexicurity was discussed.

The Commission established an expert working group to
2.4
propose ‘pathways of flexicurity’, i.e. a certain set of dimensions
of flexibility and security in working life. With this as a basis,
the Commission published a communication on flexicurity in
June 2007 including the presentation of a set of common prin-
ciples. In December 2007 a set of common principles is to be
included in the revised employment guidelines for 2008. The
Green Paper on Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of
the 21st century (1) also included the dimension of flexicurity,
from the particular perspective of employment contracts, whose
recommendations are set out elsewhere.

2.5
The EESC would also like to mention the important
work done by the European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working conditions in this context, which set out
important aspects of what flexicurity is.

3. Dimensions of flexicurity strategies

3.1 a) Flexicurity strategies refer to strategies that attempt to
combine various types of labour market flexibility and
security in a balanced way to strengthen the adaptability
of workers and enterprises as well as providing them

(1) See COM(2006) 708 final. The Green Paper on ‘Modernising labour
law to meet the challenges of the 21st century’ and EESC opinion of
30.5.2007 on ‘Modernising labour
(rapporteur:
Mr Retureau) (OJ C 175, 27.7.2007).

law’ SOC/246,

Internal
flexibility

functional

flexibility within the
Organising
of
training,
firm by means
multi-tasking
job-rotation,
and
based on the ability of employees to
perform various tasks and activities.

Financial flexibility

The variation in base and additional
pay according to the performance of
the individual or firm.

Examples of security

Job security

Employment security

Security deriving from employment
protection legislation, etc.,
limiting
the employer's ability to dismiss at
will.

Adequate employment opportunities
through high levels of employability
and
e.g.
ensured
education.

training

by

Income security

The protection of adequate
stable levels of income.

and

Combination security

The security of a worker of being
able to combine his or her job with
other
responsibilities or commit-
ments than paid work.

b) The legal security of the employment contract needs to
be treated separately since such security means that the
contract is enforceable against all and before the courts.
It implies that the relationship of subordination is main-
tained, which has consequences, among other things,
for the right to continuation and application of social
protection for the worker.

C 256/110

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

Following the lead of

3.2
the European Commission and
inspired by certain aspects of the Danish example, the flexicurity
debate at European level has been limited predominantly to the
increase of external flexibility and ways of compensating for
such an increase by strengthening labour market policies or
security provisions. The benefits and drawbacks of
social
external
trade
unions and employers' organisations often diverge. Moreover,
the OECD (2) recently stated that employment protection legisla-
tion has no significant impact on the total employment rate.
Furthermore, the ILO has shown that there is a positive relation-
ship between tenure and productivity (see Appendix).

flexibility is an issue where the opinions of

4. Flexicurity and the social partners

4.1
Flexicurity entails deciding the balance of rights and obli-
gations between employers and workers. Social dialogue and
collective bargaining are crucial instruments in the design and
implementation of any type of labour market reform, including
flexicurity. Thus, the European Economic and Social Committee
stresses that the social partners are protagonists in any debate
on flexicurity on all levels. The social partners should increas-
ingly play a leading role in defining the balance between
flexibility and security, and in doing so contribute to improving
the rules of the labour market.

3.3
This opinion aims to broaden the flexicurity debate in
three ways. First, it seeks to emphasise that the role of the social
partners in this debate, and in labour market reforms in general,
has to be strengthened. Second, the EESC wants to stress that
the flexicurity debate should give more attention to gender
differences, and to the category of young people on the labour
market. Gender equality has been largely absent from the flexi-
curity discussion. Despite the fact that more flexibility through
part-time work are welcomed by the majority of women and
men to ensure a better work-life balance, women are often at a
disadvantage in the labour market in terms of flexibility and
security,
and upward convergence with men should be
sought (3). Third, the EESC regards it as important to achieve
such broadening by exploring alternative ways to achieve adapt-
ability,
improve productivity and
foster innovation, vital dimensions of the Lisbon process. These
are also issues that the EESC has touched upon in its opinion
on the employment guidelines (4). With this in mind,
this
opinion does not address the issue of external flexibility but
focuses on the opportunities for enhancing adaptability through
internal flexibility.

facilitate lifelong learning,

that

At European level,

the EESC acknowledges that

the
4.2
Commission has informed the social partners about its plans
relating to this debate. However, on this subject,
the EESC
considers
the Commission should have placed more
emphasis on consulting, in particular, the European social part-
ners on the European definition of the concept of flexicurity.
Without the strong involvement and commitment of the social
partners, it will be difficult to implement any kind of flexicurity
strategy.

and

The

European

Economic

4.3
Social Committee
pointed out in its opinion on the Danish flexicurity system (5)
that ‘The social partners have had a key role to play in the
development of Danish-style flexicurity, both in decision-
making and in implementation in areas such as training policy
and labour-market structural reforms. […] The social partners'
role is the product of historical development… Greater involve-
ment and input from the social partners can thus boost society's
capacity to compete and adapt’.

Flexicurity is of particular

3.4
importance to small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the light of their signifi-
cance in employment terms. In consequence Member State poli-
cies in relation to flexicurity, will have to contain provisions
safeguarding the needs of SMEs and their employees.

In its opinion on the European Social Model (6) the EESC
4.4
underlined that ‘as regards the basic architecture of the European
social model, too high a value cannot be placed on the funda-
mental role played by the social partners in the fields of
economic and social policy. In this context, attention should be
drawn to the particular importance of the regulatory role played
by employers' and employees' associations in connection with
collective agreements and wage agreements.’

The EESC stresses that the basis of all flexicurity models
3.5
is a welfare state able to guarantee high levels of social protec-
the assumption of responsibility by adequately funded
tion,
public services, and a stable legal
framework for collective
bargaining and social dialogue. General welfare systems can
improve mobility by ensuring that workers do not lose out
when they are confronted with changes affecting their work-
place. A stable framework for social dialogue and collective
bargaining provides opportunities for strong social partners to
agree on key issues relating to the labour market.

(2) OECD Employment Outlook 2006: Boosting Jobs and Incomes.
(3) Ongoing ‘The role of the social partners in reconciling working, family
and private life’ SOC/271,
(rapporteur: Mr Clever) and SOC/273
‘Employability and entrepreneurship — role of civil society and local
and regional bodies from a gender perspective’ (rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños).

(4) See the EESC opinion of 31.5.2005 on ‘The Employment Guidelines

2005-2008’, rapporteur: Mr Malosse (OJ C 286, 17.11.2005).

4.5
The flexicurity agenda should not therefore be set in a
top-down fashion, defined by the Commission and discussed by
the governments of
the Member States. The social partners
must be able to negotiate, influence and take responsibility for
the definition and components of flexicurity and evaluation of
its outcomes. As flexicurity is so closely related to social
dialogue and collective bargaining the emergence of the flexi-
curity debate will also highlight deficiencies existing in social
dialogue and collective bargaining. These deficiencies should be
addressed at the same time as the flexicurity agenda is being put
forward. The EESC thus wants to see a stronger link between
social
the flexicurity discussion and the strengthening of

(5) See the EESC opinion of 17.5.2006 on ‘Flexicurity: the case of

Denmark’, rapporteur: Ms Vium (OJ C 195, 18.8.2006).

(6) See the EESC opinion of 6.7.2006 on ‘Social cohesion: fleshing out a
rapporteur: Mr Ehnmark (OJ C 309,

European social model’,
16.12.2006).

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/111

dialogue at every level, and collective bargaining at appropriate
levels while respecting the diversity of different industrial rela-
tions systems in the Member States.

too high a share of fixed term work is not in the common
interest of labour and business.

4.6
Social dialogue at European level is unique in the world,
as it gives the social partners the role of co-legislators in the
social field. In recent years this has developed towards a more
autonomous social dialogue. The social partners have the right
to address issues of common concern for the better functioning
of Europe's labour market. The EESC recognises that, with the
essential role of social partners in the progressive development
of flexicurity policies at European level, this discussion can be
seen as separate neither from the content of European social
dialogue nor from the further development of social dialogue
itself. The social partners have in their multi-annual work
programme agreed to explore aspects of flexicurity, but also to
work towards the development of a common understanding on
the European social dialogue instruments (7). The EESC has
developed its position on this its opinion ‘Employability and
entrepreneurship — role of civil society and local and regional
bodies from a gender perspective’ (8).

4.7
In the Member States there are numerous examples, on
all levels, of the crucial role of the social partners in enhancing
both flexibility and security for employers and employees.
Collective agreements in themselves are not only a security
factor
for employers and employees, but also allow for
negotiated flexibility. Including elements of increased internal
flexibility, career advancement and rights to lifelong learning is
becoming more and more natural in an increasingly competitive
environment. However, in Member States where social dialogue
is inadequate due to fragile industrial relations systems, this also
exposes workers too much to market
forces in the labour
market and often offers too little protection. Strengthening and
modernising the industrial relations systems in the Member
States should therefore go hand in hand with any discussions
on flexicurity in the Member States.

The EESC would like, in this context, to highlight some

4.8
examples of agreements between the social partners:

— Danish collective bargaining agreements which introduce
to

to enable workers better

mandatory notice periods
prepare for another job.

— In Sweden, collective agreements at industry level have set
up ‘career transition’ funds financed by the business sector
and jointly managed by the social partners. These funds
provide workers who have received their notice with
training, job-search assistance, or paid internships in other
firms, even while they are still formally employed by the
company that is laying them off.

— The Spanish tri-partite agreement on how to limit the use of
fixed term work contracts. It is based on the principle that

(7) The social partner multi-annual working programme for 2006-2008
included a joint analysis on the key challenges facing Europe's labour
markets.

(8) SOC 273 ‘Employability and entrepreneurship — role of civil society
and local and regional bodies from a gender perspective’ (rapporteur:
Mr Pariza Castaños).

— German collective agreements allowing for a limited degree
of flexible organisation of both working time and work,
drawn up and implemented with the participation of
employee representatives in the business concerned.

The EESC also considers that the agreements concluded by the
European social partners on,
fixed term work,
leave, part time work and teleworking are part of a
parental
flexicurity concept contributing to security and flexibility for
workers and employers.

for example,

exist

legal

a national

4.9
In order for the social partners to be able to negotiate on
core issues on the labour market with a view to achieving a
socially acceptable balance between flexibility and security, there
framework encouraging the
must
social partners to contribute and effectively negotiate on issues
flexicurity. Employment protection regulation and strong
of
legal
framework can give the social partners possibilities to
negotiate agreements that promote workers' effort, co-operation
and willingness to be trained, which is positive for aggregate
employment and economic efficiency. The social partners'
contribution guarantees that consideration is given both to busi-
ness interests and to the interests of workers.
In addition,
employment protection combined with effective re-employment
services and active labour market policies are crucial for the
adaptability and security of both firms and employees.

4.10
The contribution of the social partners could be to aim
at increasing protected mobility and making transitions pay.
They can help in organising collective and negotiated control of
labour market opportunities and rights. In the EESC's view, this
would fight segmentation tendencies and improve integration.

5. Gender equality, intergenerational solidarity and flexi-

curity

5.1
Labour market flexibility and security affect men and
women in different ways. Women often work in more precar-
ious and insecure jobs characterised by excessive flexibility.
Excessive flexibility, which could in some cases lead to the risk
of precarious and insecure jobs, must be offset by an adequate
form of security. Also, following the persistence of traditional
gender roles, women have more care responsibilities where chil-
dren and elderly people are concerned, and face greater difficul-
ties where the combination of work and non-work activities are
concerned. Moreover, despite anti-discrimination legislation, the
gender pay gap persists and women often have fewer entitle-
ments in terms of social security including pensions. Hence,
women are more often affected by the negative sides of
flexibility.

C 256/112

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

5.2
The EESC stresses that the flexicurity debate must have a
significant gender equality dimension, something which has
been largely absent from the flexicurity discussion until now. It
is important to improve the situation of women in the labour
market by addressing both flexibility and security issues,
including more secure jobs, their inclusion in social welfare
systems and better support of institutions to combine work and
non-work activities. Also, the division of care and household
responsibilities between men and women should be part of the
debate. The EESC, in its opinion on The role of the social partners
in reconciling working, family and private life has further developed
its position on these matters for the Portuguese presidency (9).

5.3
As well as a gender dimension, flexicurity also has a
generational dimension. The employment rate is lower among
older workers compared to the workforce in general. Also,
young people in many Member States face an uncertain labour
market with high unemployment, fixed term contracts, insuffi-
cient social security coverage and work below their qualification
level.

The EESC (10) has pointed out that jobs should match
5.4
each individual's training and vocational experience, with no age
discrimination, and that all the Member States must transpose
and apply the directive on equal treatment in employment and
occupation (2000/78/EC). The EESC also called for a policy
supporting high-quality employment that would guide and train
generations of citizens throughout
their working lives. This
entails a proactive role for the social partners and all the rele-
vant economic and social players at local, national and European
levels.

5.5
The European social partners have concluded a frame-
work of action on gender equality which can be used in the
flexicurity debate as well. In this action framework they have
identified four priorities: addressing gender roles, promoting
women in decision-making, supporting work-life balance and
tackling the gender pay gap.

The considerations set out in the previous paragraphs,
5.6
and the dialogue between the social partners, should give equal
weight to the problem of workers with disabilities and young
students.

outcomes. Internal flexibility can play a key role in advancing
productivity, innovation and competitiveness and in this way it
can contribute to reaching the goals of the Lisbon strategy. It
in allowing workers to better
can also play a major part
combine work with other activities and responsibilities and to
improve the quality of
their employment. For both it can
increase stability and predictability. However, internal flexibility
can also become excessive, leading to bad working conditions
or precarious employment, obstructing the balance between
work and non-work activities, or even having harmful effects on
the quality of goods and the provision of services to consumers.
Therefore, such flexibility is only feasible when it is an outcome
of collective bargaining and when it takes shape within the
context of legal regulations that ensure work and health protec-
tion and that provide stability and security to workers. Pursuing
negotiated internal flexibility within such a legal context consti-
tutes a viable approach and aims to combine the improvement
the quality of
of competitiveness with the improvement of
employment and working life.

6.2 Working time flexibility

6.2.1 Working time flexibility is about the distribution of
normal weekly working time as established by collective agree-
ments and/or by law over a longer time period. It can benefit
companies through possibilities to adjust to demand fluctua-
tions or personnel fluctuations and to fully utilise capital invest-
ments, by making use of overtime, the flexible scheduling of
working hours over predefined time frames, shift work, etc. In
this way working time flexibility can strengthen productivity
and competitiveness.

6.2.2 Working time flexibility can also be about the distribu-
tion of working time over an individual's working life and about
work-life balance (but not about the length of the standard
working week). Such forms of working time flexibility can also
benefit workers through possibilities to positively combine work
and non-work activities and responsibilities, by making use of
flexi-time arrangements, working time accounts, parental or
educational leaves, options to switch between fulltime and part-
time work, etc.

6. Flexicurity and internal flexibility

Internal flexibility is an underdeveloped issue in the flexi-
6.1
curity debate.
flexibility concerns working time
flexibility and functional flexibility and strengthens adaptability.
This is typically an issue where social partners have ample
experience in negotiating collective agreements with positive

Internal

6.2.3
The EESC is keen to avoid working time flexibility
being broadened only to the benefit of business interests,
without employees' need for protection being taken into
account at the same time (11). Also, the organisation of working
time should ‘… promote the interests of workers in having
greater control over their time, enable them to safeguard their
health and safety, which are vital, and, above all, promote a
greater compatibility of work and the family’ (12).

(9) Ongoing ‘The role of the social partners in reconciling working, family

and private life’, (rapporteur: Mr Clever).

(10) See EESC opinion of 14.3.2007 on ‘The economic and budgetary
impact of ageing populations’ ECO/186, rapporteur: Ms Florio
(OJ C 161, 13.7.2007).

(11) Cf. EESC opinion of 11.5.2005 on ‘Amending Directive 2003/88/EC
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time’,
point 3.4. Rapporteur: Ms Engelen-Kefer, (OJ C 267 of 27.10.2005).

(12) Ibid, point 3.6.

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/113

6.2.4
To this effect, in the EESC's view, a balance between
working time flexibility and worker protection should be
pursued, and this is best guaranteed through regulations estab-
lished by collective bargaining. Indeed, in an earlier opinion, the
EESC stated that ‘the way working time rules are framed in
collective agreements is of vital importance to the social part-
ners, which have a wealth of expertise and experience in these
matters’ (13).

6.2.5
Such bargaining on working time flexibility requires
proper bargaining framework as well as a solid context of rights
and social institutions to back it up. These include legal regula-
tions that provide stability and protection to workers and social
protection for part-time contracts, and that facilitate parental
leave schemes and the development of child- and elderly care
facilities. It is important that legislation should be flexible and
neutral, thus enabling the partners to find appropriate solutions.

6.3 Functional flexibility

the job, and job enrichment.

6.3.1
Functional flexibility refers to using workers' capacity
to perform different tasks when needed, through job rotation,
widening the scope of
It can
benefit companies by enabling them to adjust the type of activi-
ties workers perform to fluctuations in demand or staffing and
to more productively utilise human resources and capital invest-
ments. Functional flexibility can also be of interest to workers
because it may improve their opportunities for personal devel-
opment, learning and employability, for job satisfaction, and for
wage improvements.

improving productivity,

Functional flexibility can be a key factor in pursuing
6.3.2
innovation and
the Lisbon goals of
competitiveness. As shown by, for example, the Dublin founda-
tion, functional flexibility, combined with training, has a posi-
tive effect on skills development and skills retention, again posi-
tively influencing productivity (14).

However, functional flexibility requires secure condi-
6.3.3
tions of employment, decent working conditions, empower-
ment,

Brussels, 11 July 2007.

In the same opinion,

and cooperative ways of working. As the EESC has argued in an
earlier opinion, ‘Secure jobs, salubrious working conditions and
working arrangements that give workers more autonomy in
their work are an important factor for increasing productivity
and hence innovativeness’ (15).
it was
argued that ‘Cooperative methods of working,
involving low-
profile hierarchies and greater autonomy, such as group- and
team-work, make it possible to exploit people's knowledge and
abilities to the full, whilst, at the same time, taking account of
the greater demands for
flexibility in the economy. Good
working conditions and forms of work organisation that are
conducive to empowerment and participation are also a key
prerequisite for improving labour productivity and strengthening
businesses' innovativeness’ (16).

that

The Dublin Foundation has, however, called attention
6.3.4
flexibility may lead to more
to the fact
work pressure and stress. Hence it underlines that it is impor-
tant ‘… to achieve a balance between job demands and job
control in order to prevent burn-out among employees’ (17).

functional

A basic element of functional flexibility strategies and
6.3.5
in general should be life-long
internal
flexibility strategies
learning. The importance of
lifelong learning for improving
workers' skills, career opportunities and productivity has been
underlined in a number of recent EESC opinions (18). Functional
flexibility requires a constant upgrading of workers' knowledge
and capabilities and a well-functioning education and training
infrastructure to back this up. Whilst many commitments have
in the past been made to lifelong learning, much remains to be
achieved in practice.

6.3.6
Functional flexibility is again a key issue for collective
bargaining between social partners. Through such bargaining,
the needs of businesses and workers can be balanced and fine-
tuned, and adequate compensation for increased skills can be
defined.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(13) EESC opinion of 1.7.2004 on the ‘Revision of Directive 93/104/EC on
the organisation of working time’, point 2.2.6. Rapporteur: Mr Hahr
(OJ C 302 of 7.12.2004).

(14) http://eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2004/02/NL0402NU03.htm.

(15) EESC opinion of 13 September 2006 on ‘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, p. 1.3).

(16) Idem, point 1.4.
(17) http://eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2004/02/NL0402NU03.htm.
(18) Opinions of the EESC on the ‘Proposal for a Recommendation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for life-
long learning’ rapporteur: Mária Herczog (OJ C 195, 18.8.2006), and
on ‘Training and Productivity (exploratory opinion)’ rapporteur:
Mr Koryfidis (OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005).