UNICE seeks to stop labour-law Green Paper[fr][de] 

The Green Paper on "adapting labour law to ensure flexibility and security for all" sets out to "launch a public debate in the EU on how labour law can be updated to meet the key challenge of greater adaptability of workers and enterprises". Focussing on the individual rather than on the collective scope of labour law, it looks at the present situation at member state as well as on EU level. 

It says that "national governments are facing the challenge of how to introduce more flexibility in the labour market", but goes on to say that reforms "tended to increase flexibility 'on the margins', ie introducing more flexible forms of employment with lesser protection against dismissal to promote the entry of newcomers and disadvantaged job-seekers to the labour market and to allow those who wanted to have more choice over their employment. The outcome has given rise to increasingly segmented labour markets.

The Green Paper points out the November 2004 Kok Report , which "observed that a two-tier labour market may emerge between permanently employed 'insiders' and precariously and informally employed 'outsiders'". The paper shares this perception and illustrates it with a number of examples and figures. It defines the "key challenge" as creating "a flexible and inclusive labour market". 

The questions to be asked in the consultation are: 

1. Is the overall framework of labour law at both national and EU levels in need of review and adaptation? 
2. Under which circumstances do existing regulations hinder or stimulate enterprises and employees seeking to avail of opportunities to increase productivity and adjust to the introduction of new technologies?
3. How might the current framework of labour law in respect of regular, permanent and temporary contracts be adapted in order to reduce labour market segmentation and to reconcile the search for greater flexibility with adequate standards of employment security and social protection for all, independently of the legal form given to their employment relationship?
4. How can labour law promote progressive employment transitions over the course of a fully active working life?
5. Is greater clarity needed in member states' legal definitions of employment and self-employment to facilitate bona fide transitions from employment into self-employment?
6. Is there a need for a “floor of rights” to be put in place to safeguard the working conditions of all workers regardless of the form of their work contract? If so, what should those rights be?
7. How do you think the responsibilities of the various parties within triangular employment relationships might be regulated so that employers honour the commitments made to workers in return for their functional flexibility?
8. Is there a need to ensure that the user enterprise carries subsidiary liability in the event of non-compliance of a work provider with the labour and social security provisions affecting workers engaged in activities on behalf of that enterprise?
9. Is there a need to clarify the employment status of temporary agency workers?
10. Do you see a need for more convergent definitions of 'worker' in the EU Directives to ensure protection of workers' rights in a transnational context? 
11. What concrete steps might be taken by labour ministries and inspectorate agencies, in association with the social partners, to ensure compliance with Community labour law?

EurActiv will follow up with in-depth reporting. Readers' comments on the Draft Green Paper are welcome. 

In a letter to Commission President José Manuel Barroso, to which Employment Commissioner Vladimír Špidla and other commissioners of the Lisbon group were copied, the European Employers' Organisation UNICE  expressed itself "deeply concerned by the content of this document" and urged Barroso to "reconsider both the Green Paper's content and the timing for its publication". UNICE went on to say: "We feel that the present draft gives a negative picture of flexible forms of work and of self-employment which is not justified. It suggests an implicit agenda of harmonisation of labour law which would undermine growth and employment and is in contradiction with the flexicurity approach."