"A debate on flexicurity instead of EU harmonisation" 

The conflict between ETUC and UNICE on the Green Paper on labour law reform looks very much like the classic turf-battle between trade unions and employers about who can carry the most influence with the Commission in this matter. Wouldn't the consultation be the best opportunity for this conflict? 

To us the key issue of a Green Paper is not to announce new EU legislation, because the modernisation of labour law in Europe requires discussions and measures to be taken in the member states. The important thing was to have a debate on the European level, but on a basis which leads to fruitful discussions in the member states. What was being proposed in the document would have crystallised differences in opinion rather than facilitated the emergence of a consensus in the member states on what is necessary to modernise labour law.

The Green Paper seems to be a classic consultation paper, asking questions and laying out issues. Could you clarify where it announces policies? 

It doesn't announce policies as such, but it asks questions, which relate for example to the necessity of an EU-definition of an employee. This question seems to indicate that the solution to the EU's employment and growth problem is to have a harmonised definition at EU level of people with employment contracts. Everyone knows that every single directive at EU level always refers the definition of people with an employment contract back to the member states - for very good reasons, for it would not be possible to agree, on a European level, on such a definition. 

But this is perhaps too detailed. Our concern was to have the right sequence of events; first, a discussion on flexicurity and the overall context, and then a debate with the right balance of questions to facilitate a consensus on modernisation of labour law. 

Does the essence of your criticism concern the consultation questions in the Green Paper or the explanatory text? 

It's both the questions and the text between the questions. 

Then the question that you are referring to must be question five, which reads: "Is greater clarity needed in member states' legal definitions of employment and self-employment to facilitate bona fide transitions from employment into self-employment?" To be honest, I cannot see how this indicates an 'implicit agenda' of EU-wide harmonised definitions. 

It is preceded by an analysis which is in total contradiction to the analyses which were presented in the previous chapters. So it's more the question of discrepancies within the document. 

Would you then agree with the analyses that precede the first few questions, whereas you think the analysis leading to question five is contradictory? 

We do agree that there is a need to look at labour law across Europe, to look out for the obstacles to job creation, which come from outdated or excessively rigid labour legislation. But we believe that this must essentially be done in the member states. You cannot impose top-down from the European level a modernisation of law across Europe, because the obstacles come essentially from national legislation. 

The EU does not have the formal powers to impose legislation on the member states in this field; it can only come forward with proposals.  

What would be most useful would be for the EU to facilitate an exchange of experiences between member states. To look at how some member states have succeeded in unlocking difficult debates. 

Would you be in favour of defining best practices in that respect? 

I think it is very difficult to define best practices at the EU level. But we should have an exchange of good practices and possibly look at what went less-well, because experiences with difficulties can also help member states learn from each other. 

There is general agreement, however, that flexicurity is an acknowledged good practice?

Flexicurity is the right approach. But isolating the legislative component of the flexicurity approach at the EU level would create difficulties in the debate, because the obstacles are mainly national. 

In UNICE's opinion, then, what should the consultation concern? 

We do not want to draft the consultation in the Commission's place, and the question is not how the consultation should have been drafted. I can only repeat that we would consider a Green Paper best that could be used as a basis for an exchange of experiences between member states, because that is where the necessary modernisations of labour law must take pace. The Green Paper could probably give a few examples and then, from there, a number of questions for debate should be launched, with the aim of focusing on exchange of experiences. 

What are the main objectives that the modernisation of labour law should set out to reach? 

The main objective should be to remove obstacles to job creation. If you look at studies, it is very striking that countries in which workers have the highest feeling of employment security are not the ones with the most stringent legislation on protection against dismissal. So, what's important to us is to screen national labour legislation to see whether it is geared towards fostering job-creation rather than preserving existing jobs, because then you are preventing change and you are enhancing the difficulties of reaping the benefits of globalisation.

But those countries also have a high level of social security and high taxation?

Absolutely. It has to be a mix and a mobilisation of various instruments, but with regard to the Green Paper on labour law, the debate was focusing exclusively on labour-law issues. It was not about the whole agenda for flexicurity. 

Would UNICE prefer aspects other than labour law to be included in the consultation? 

We are completely in favour of having a broad debate on flexicurity, looking at the various aspects. That is why we believe it would make more sense to have first a discussion based on the Commission's announced Communication on the flexicurity issue in general, rather than starting with only one piece of the puzzle.