Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States — Part II of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines’ COM(2010) 193 final
Date: 2010-05-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, EU policy, economic analysis, economic growth, employment policy, macroeconomics, structural adjustment








C_2011021EN.01006601.xml










21.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/66





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States — Part II of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines’
COM(2010) 193 final
2011/C 21/12
Rapporteur-general: Wolfgang GREIF

On 5 May 2010 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States – Part II of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines

COM(2010) 193 final.
On 27 April 2010 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.
Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Wolfgang Greif as rapporteur-general at its 463rd plenary session, held on 26 and 27 May 2010 (meeting of 27 May), and adopted the following opinion by 134 votes to nine with twelve abstentions.
1.   Conclusions

The EESC:






—


regrets the fact that the Council and Commission have set such a tight deadline for adopting the guidelines that it will be virtually impossible to have a proper debate with organised civil society and national parliaments;










—


considers that the guidelines do not adequately demonstrate that combating unemployment should be a key policy of the EU and the Member States against the background of the economic crisis;










—


welcomes the focus on fewer guidelines, but thinks that these are too general and too unambitious to be an effective impetus to action, which undermines European efforts;










—


believes that the policy recommendations for the job market (improving employability) place far too much emphasis on supply, and calls for more consideration to be given to developing an intelligent demand policy that promotes future growth and innovation and helps to create more jobs;










—


is concerned that the goal of full employment (a key point in the old guidelines) is no longer in evidence;










—


is surprised that the guidelines contain no specific statements about quality of work and proposes that Guidelines 8 and 9 should be combined, and a separate guideline introduced on promoting the job quality;










—


welcomes the emphasis in the new guidelines on the knowledge triangle and up-skilling, but would have liked to see more ambitious provisions for combating youth unemployment and promoting education and training for disabled people;










—


laments the insufficient reference generally to gender equality policy (e.g. promotion of women);










—


emphatically welcomes the goal of ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’ as a separate guideline, although reducing the risk of poverty for children and young people should be emphasised more;










—


believes that reducing the risk of poverty requires a series of stable and reliable indicators to measure and monitor progress, which would also determine for example the ratio of income to purchasing power as well as concentration of income (Gini coefficient), and that the ‘at risk of poverty rate’ should be therefore confirmed undisputedly as the standard measure of relative poverty;










—


would have recommended clearer statements on the integration of groups that are disproportionately at risk of poverty (e.g. single mothers, women, people from a migrant background, elderly people with low pension entitlements, the disabled).




2.   Context: criticism of the Commission and Council's tight timetable

2.1   On 27 April 2010 the European Commission proposed a new set of guidelines for employment policy in the Member States. Together with the broad economic policy guidelines, these form the integrated guidelines for implementation of the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. On 25 and 26 March 2010, the European Council reached an agreement on the new strategy, which is due to be formally adopted in June.
2.2   The EESC has endorsed the integrated, multi-annual approach to a future EU strategy on several occasions and consistently pointed out that full involvement of national parliaments, the social partners and civil society at European and national level is a key condition for successful policy coordination and must be ensured at every stage (1).
2.3   In its opinion on the EU strategy post-2010, the EESC therefore also called for the removal of structural barriers to the effective inclusion of national parliaments and genuine dialogue with social partners and civil society organisations in moves to effect changes to the strategy (2). One reason for this was that, for many years, such consultation when drawing up and reviewing the guidelines had been unsatisfactory.
2.3.1   The EESC has expressed regret about this in several opinions on the guidelines, and strongly urged the Commission and the Council to change the timetable, especially in those years when strategic objectives are set through the coordination process. It is necessary to ensure effective involvement in the process of political consensus-building of all relevant social and political players at national and EU level.
2.4   Therefore the EESC particularly regrets the fact that this year too, when the new ten-year priorities of the growth and jobs agenda must be decided on under the EU 2020 strategy, the Council and the Commission have set such tight deadlines for adopting the guidelines. This permits virtually no proper debate with civil society organisations and national parliaments.
2.5   In this situation, the Committee believes that it is not possible, in view of the extremely short time between publishing the proposal for a Council decision and the deadline for adopting the decision, to have a consultation in the usual way between stakeholders represented in the Committee. Rather, the EESC finds itself compelled to take a position in a kind of fast-track procedure.
2.6   The Committee therefore sympathises with all those who are calling for the decision on adopting the integrated guidelines to be postponed, especially in a situation where the EU is in the process of drawing up its overarching development strategy for the next ten years.
2.6.1   If adoption of the decision should be postponed by a few months, which the Committee would explicitly welcome, it reserves the right - notwithstanding the comments and recommendations contained in this opinion - to take a well-grounded position on the proposed guidelines in an own-initiative opinion based on sufficiently broad consultation.
3.   General comments on the proposed guidelines

3.1   In the wake of the economic and financial market crisis, Europe will be faced with an extremely strained employment situation. Current studies assume that it may take a whole decade to recover the more than 10 million jobs that have been lost during these years of crisis (3). Combating unemployment must therefore be a top policy priority in the EU and the Member States. The EESC believes that this should be reflected much more in the guidelines.
3.1.1   The number of the proposed employment guidelines has so far been reduced from eight to four, and, according to Commission plans, they will remain unchanged until 2014. The EESC in principle welcomes this focus and the multi-annual cycle, but notes that the text is couched in very general terms and is imprecise in many places. It fears that this would mean the guidelines would have only limited influence on action by the Member States. It is at any rate clear to the EESC that, with fewer guidelines, it is all the more necessary to have clear and reliable indicators so that progress can be measured and monitored. This applies to measures targeted at particular groups, and also and in particular moves to combating poverty.
3.2   In addition, the employment guidelines presented contain virtually no quantitative targets, other than referring to the following three key objectives of the EU, which are to serve the Member States as a basis for setting their own national goals:






—


increasing to 75 % the total employment rate for women and men aged 20 to 64,










—


reducing the school drop-out rate to 10 % and increasing the share of the population aged 30-34 with a tertiary degree or equivalent education to at least 40 %,










—


reducing the number of Europeans living below national poverty lines by 25 %, lifting 20 million people out of poverty.




3.2.1   The EESC sees this as a considerable slackening in European efforts and doubts whether almost exclusively shifting responsibility for framing concrete employment initiatives to the Member States in this way will strengthen commitment in meeting joint targets.
3.3   The EESC cannot really understand the reluctance to frame European targets; following the debates on a post-2010 strategy, it called for the joint targets of the ongoing strategy not to be abandoned, and also - taking situations in the individual EU Member States into account – for more ambitious goals than those to be formulated (4).
3.3.1   The EESC has also made relevant proposals in a large number of opinions, recommending that measurable targets be increased under the employment guidelines, to include goals for gender equality, youth employment, dealing with jobs that do not provide adequate social protection, combating poverty (also among the working poor) and employment of the disabled (5).
3.4   Clear goals, such as getting the long-term unemployed back into the labour market, offering young people jobs or training within a short time, creating adequate childcare facilities so that job and family commitments can be reconciled, reducing gender-specific income differentials, etc. have hitherto formed the central plank of European employment strategy and in the EESC's view they should be retained and, where necessary, strengthened.
3.5   The EESC regrets the lack of reference in the proposed employment guidelines to gender equality policy or the advancement of women. Any body that wants to seriously reduce the risk of poverty in Europe must also introduce committed goals and initiatives to abolish existing discrimination in the workplace and the structural causes of gender-specific income differentials, and to remove obstacles that exclude women from certain careers and constrain female entrepreneurship (6). The guidelines presented do not do much in this respect.
4.   Specific comments and proposals for additions to the four employment guidelines

4.1   Guideline 7:
Increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment

4.1.1   The EESC in principle endorses the EU target of increasing the employment rate for men and women aged 20 to 64 to 75 % by the year 2020. This is an extremely ambitious goal, since it entails not just an increase in the overall target rate but also exclusion of the age range 15 to 19 (which was included in the previous target). The EESC wonders why young workers are to be excluded from the calculation of the total employment rate.
4.1.2   The EESC also notes here that, with the current record levels of almost 24 million unemployed, the labour market problem is not one of insufficient labour supply generally but rather the lack of skilled workers in some Member States and the huge shortage in available employment. Smart measures and employment models designed to improve the distribution of work should therefore also be considered as a way of increasing labour market participation and creating more jobs.
4.1.3   In view of the very high unemployment levels in the EU in particular, policy should not be limited to improving the ‘employability’ of workers. The focus in the future should rather be on forward-looking investment in R&D, education, infrastructure, health and social services in order to create jobs and effectively mobilise employment potential.
4.1.4   The EESC is also concerned here that the goal of full employment (a key point in the old guidelines) is no longer in evidence in the new guidelines, which refer only to eliminating structural unemployment and reducing ‘inactivity’. The EESC believes that this guideline should in any case be revised so as to restore the focus on full employment.
4.1.5   In order, if possible, to avoid a further increase in the number of job-seekers, particularly in a situation of economic crisis, and to prevent employment from becoming structurally embedded, all the new integrated guidelines must provide for a balanced macroeconomic mix of approaches that combines supply-oriented and demand-oriented economic policies.
4.1.5.1   In the EESC's view, the guidelines as a whole - and this one in particular - do not provide for such a mix. As far as the policy recommendations for the job market are concerned, there is a definite overemphasis on supply (improving employability). This must be offset by giving more consideration to developing an intelligent supply policy that promotes growth and innovation and helps to create more jobs.
4.1.6   There is also no reference to the fact that a return to growth to stabilise the labour market above all requires a strengthening of internal demand (private and public investment). Nor is it specified that measures to support the economy and investment in securing jobs should not be withdrawn too soon, in order to prevent a further rise in unemployment. In this context, the EESC believes that an ‘exit strategy’, or financial consolidation plans – as set out in the economic policy guidelines – can only be approved subject to certain economic or employment conditions.
4.1.7   As regards the recommendation to Member States to incorporate the flexicurity principles of the Council into their employment market policies, it should be noted that the guideline contains no reference to the fact that the quality of jobs should be given just as much weight as the flexicurity principle, as the EESC has called for on several occasions (7).
4.1.8   In addition, the EESC would like it to be made clear that ‘activating’ people to seek work should be achieved chiefly by providing an efficient service through job centres and less by supposed ‘incentives’ via unemployment benefits. The Committee therefore proposes that the phrase ‘accompanied by clear rights and responsibilities for the unemployed to actively seek work’ be deleted. Under the shadow of the crisis especially, the EESC thinks there is no need for any recommendations on tightening the rules for unemployment insurance.
4.2   Guideline 8:
Developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs, promoting job quality and lifelong learning

4.2.1   Although the EESC very much welcomes the mention of job quality, at least in the title of the guideline, it is surprised to find no relevant details (e.g. on health promotion in the workplace, a living wage, organisation of working time and preventing excessively long working hours, and reconciling work and family life). The Committee would have expected promotion of job quality to be given more priority in connection with the flexicurity strategy, thus emphasising the importance of both internal and external flexicurity; it is precisely flexible internal job markets after all that have weathered the crisis very well.
4.2.2   Since the content of this guideline overlaps substantially with that of Guideline 9, the possibility of merging the two should be seriously considered so as to avoid duplication. On the other hand, a separate guideline should be added on promoting job quality.
4.2.2.1   The EESC has pointed out many times that precisely when a quantitative target is set for improving employment rates, particular attention should be paid to the qualitative dimension of new jobs, because employment at any price (precarious employment conditions, the working poor, etc.) is not the solution.
4.2.3   The Committee repeats its call here for restoring the qualitative employment targets that were largely lost in the revision of the Lisbon strategy over the past few years (Laeken indicators for measuring the quality of employment) (8).
4.2.4   The EESC also suggests in this regard that new jobs should be systematically monitored on the basis of quality criteria and recommends that reference be made to the key challenges for European labour markets identified jointly by the European social partners (9). These include, for instance, mentioning that employment law should promote stable contracts and that no employed person, regardless of what type of contract they have, should be excluded from adequate protection and job security.
4.3   Guideline 9:
Improving the performance of education and training systems at all levels and increasing participation in tertiary education

4.3.1   In the EESC's view, a policy to create ‘good work’ that includes ambitious targets for general and professional education and training, and for lifelong learning, contributes substantially to growth and increased productivity. The EESC therefore welcomes the priority given to this policy.
4.3.2   As in the previous guideline, there are also pointers to the need for an indicator for young people, who are at risk of exclusion from the job market. With a view to reducing the number of young people not in employment, education, or training, Member States should take all necessary steps to prevent early school leaving. The EESC believes that this key issue should be given greater emphasis, for instance by retaining more ambitious targets, such as:






—


reducing youth unemployment by at least 50 %, and










—


setting a maximum limit of four months for ‘activation’ of young people seeking employment or apprenticeships.




4.3.3   The EESC points out that achieving the EU 2020 goal of a 75 % employment rate also calls for adequate employment policy measures for the disabled, who represent 16 % of the working age population. The Committee therefore welcomes the explicit inclusion of this population group in guidelines 7 and 10. It would also like to see inclusive education and training for people with disabilities mentioned in guideline 9.
4.4   Guideline 10:
Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty

4.4.1   The EESC explicitly welcomes ‘Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’ as a guideline. This vindicates the point it has often made that growing social inequality in Europe calls for joint measures to combat poverty and social exclusion. A whole package of targeted measures is required here. The EESC would like to see more specific emphasis placed in the guideline on reducing the risk of poverty among children and young people, with actual targets being set.
4.4.2   A series of stable and reliable indicators are also needed for reducing the risk of poverty, so that progress can be measured and monitored. The EESC therefore advocates establishing the ‘at risk of poverty rate’ as the standard poverty indicator. In the EESC's view, it would make sense to develop other, additional indicators which would also determine for example the ratio of income to purchasing power as well as concentration of income (Gini coefficient). On no account should this result in dilution of the key target.
4.4.3   The EESC welcomes the recommendation to the Member States to focus efforts on full participation in society and economic life, as well as extending employment opportunities, as a way of reducing poverty.
4.4.3.1   The EESC agrees with the conclusions of a recent Commission study that measures to help the working poor must be prioritised in efforts to combat poverty and social exclusion (10). It proposes a guarantee of a living wage so as to avert the development of a low-wage sector, which includes:






—


minimising precarious employment conditions in favour of permanent jobs with social protection;










—


providing social protection during transitions between training and work;










—


promoting efficient approaches under active labour market policy for training and job creation, especially for those who are excluded from the labour market owing to lack of training;










—


prioritising measures to combat youth unemployment and promote integration of people excluded from the labour market.




4.4.3.2   All of these points should be included or given greater emphasis in this guideline. The EESC also repeats its recent proposal that targets be introduced for minimum wage and replacement income systems.
4.4.4   Combating poverty also requires in particular employment and education policy measures for groups that are disproportionately at risk (e.g. single mothers, people from a migrant background, elderly people with low pension entitlements, people with disabilities, etc.). The guideline could also be more specific and include targets with respect to the integration of these people into society and the labour market.
4.4.5   On a positive note, the EESC observes that the valuable role of the social economy in creating and safeguarding employment, and in combating poverty, is mentioned and that the Member States are explicitly called on to actively promote it. This satisfies the EESC's call for the potential of the social economy, in particular with respect to creating jobs in the sphere of social services, to be fully utilised.

Brussels, 27 May 2010.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI




(1)  EESC opinions of 31.5.2005 on ‘The proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States’ (under Article 128 of the EC Treaty), COM(2005) 141 final – 2005/0057 (CNS), rapporteur: Mr Malosse (OJ C 286, 17.11.2005) and of 13.2.2008 on ‘The proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States’ (under Article 128 of the EC Treaty), COM(2007) 803 final/2, Part V – 2007/0300 (CNS), rapporteur: Mr Greif (OJ C 162/92, 25.6.2008)

(2)  OJ C 128, 18.5.2010, p. 3.

(3)  ‘Skills supply and demand in Europe: medium-term forecast up to 2020’ (Cedefop, 2010), p. 35 ff.

(4)  OJ C 128, 18.5.2010, p. 3.

(5)  EESC opinions of:






 


30.9.2009 on ‘Work and poverty: towards the necessary holistic approach’, rapporteur: Ms Prud'homme (OJ C 318/52, 23.12.2009);










 


1.10.2009 on ‘Links between gender equality, economic growth and employment rates’, rapporteur: Ms Ouin (OJ C 318/15, 23.12.2009);










 


1.10.2009 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 an EU Strategy for Youth - Investing and empowering a renewed open method of coordination to address youth challenges and opportunities’, COM(2009) 200 final, rapporteur: Mr Sibian (OJ C 318/113, 23.12.2009).





(6)  EESC opinions of 29.9.2005 on ‘Poverty among women in Europe’, rapporteur: Ms King (OJ C 24, 31.1.2006) and of 12.7.2007 on the ‘Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy)’, rapporteur: Mr Greif (OJ C 256, 27.10.2007); see also Equality report, COM(2009) 694.

(7)  EESC opinion of 22.4.2008 on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Towards Common Principles of Flexicurity: More and better jobs through flexibility and security’, COM(2007) 359 final, rapporteur: Mr Janson, co-rapporteur: Mr Ardhe (OJ C 211, 19.8.2008); and EESC opinion of 4.11.2009 on ‘The post-2010 Lisbon Strategy’, rapporteur-general: Mr Greif, CESE 1722/2009, point 3.4.3.

(8)  OJ C 128, 18.5.2010, p. 3.

(9)  Key challenges facing European labour markets: Joint analysis of European Social Partners (2007), p. 61 ff.

(10)  ‘Working poor in Europe’, Eurofound study, 2010.


APPENDIX
to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
The following amendment, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, was rejected during the discussions:

Point 4.2.2

Amend as follows:


‘Since the content of this guideline overlaps substantially with that of Guideline 9, the possibility of merging the two should be seriously considered so as to avoid duplication. On the other hand, a separate guideline should be  on  job quality.’



Reason

Self-explanatory.

Outcome of the vote:








For


:


58




Against


:


73




Abstentions


:


2