Molina flexicurity workshop sheffield final
-
Upload
thomas-hastings -
Category
Education
-
view
334 -
download
3
Transcript of Molina flexicurity workshop sheffield final
Labour Market Security and FlexibilityThe future Directions of Flexicurity in the Age of Austerity
Oscar MolinaQUIT – Centre d’Estudis Sociològics sobre la Vida Quotidiana i el Treball
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
WOERRC & UACES WorkshopUniversity of Sheffield, 28 May 2015
Outline• How was and what has happened?; The Regulation of
Flexicurity and Reform paths under austerity times– Social partners’ role– Labour Market Outcomes
• Why has happened?; The impact of supra-national institutions– Policy Impact
• What can happen? Rethinking or abandoning Flexicurity– Some policy recommendations
Summary• Low cost Flexicurity model; in MMEs, legal regulation has been the main
instrument to implement flexicurity, CB remaining largely secondary• The crisis has opened a window of opportunity for governments in SE to
push an agressive reform agenda; legitimacy from above (EU), not from below (social partners)
• But paradoxically, the regulatory change most demanded by the Troika, i.e., the single contract, has not been introduced– No gains expected from introducing it
• Reforms during the crisis have served to further weaken the regulatory and protective capacity of CB
• The impact of supranational institutions has accordingly been mediated by domestic politics / interests
• Even though it has been ‘de facto’ abandoned, it survives in the discourse of policy-makers
What About the Single Contract!!!!????
Flexicurity in Spain and MMEs• Spain: from job security with bad working conditions
(dictatorship) to high unemployment rates and high levels of temporary employment
• Social policy expenditure remains low by EU standards – Family support becomes a guarantee
• And the crisis has accentuated the familist character of Southern European welfare states
• Social attitudes that become rooted: – Acceptance of unemployment situations affecting vulnerable
groups; better a bad / precarious job than no job
Flexicurity in Spain and MMEs
• Unbalanced flexibility; high external, low internal
• EF becomes a substitute for technological and organizational innovation
• EF is also a mechanism for social control at the workplace
• Government supports this model as it allows to reduce the unemployment rate
The role of CB
• Generally speaking, CB has had a very limited role as an instrument to implement flexicurity– Structural limitations; predominance of SMEs– EF becomes entrenched in corporate strategies
• There have been attempts to enhance its role (1997, 2006) but only limited success in some sectors and large companies
• The negotiation of internal flexibility is increasingly important, but still does not provide an alternative to EF
Flexicurity in Austerity times
• The onset of the economic crisis poses additional challenges:– Increase in long-term unemployment; particularly
for young workers and over 45– Early school leavers unemployed– Immigrant population
Flexicurity in Austerity times
• Policy responses– First stage (2010-2011);
• Attempts at enhancing the role of internal flexibility through CB
• Marginal changes in labour market rules– Second stage (2012);
• Radical reform of CB• Cuts in duration and generosity of unemployment
protection• Cuts in ALMP• Marginal changes in labour market regulation
Collective Bargaining Coverage
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
TOTAL Company Sector
Workers Covered by Collective Agreements
Source: Boletín de Estadísticas Laborales
-De-centralization via opting out by company agreements
-Enhances the capacity of the employer to unialterally change working conditions negotiated in collective agreements
-Elimination of automatic extension upon expiry
Unemployment Benefit Coverage
2007 2010 2013 20140
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
39.2 37.9
31
24.5
-In spite of the fall in coverage,the expenditure on passive policies has increased from 1,45% of GDP in 2007 to 3% in 2012
-Cowding out effect; no money left for ALMP
-The discourse and the policy agenda paying increasing attention to minimum income schemes
Workers Covered by a Contributory Unemployment Protection Scheme as a % of Total Unemployment
Source: Boletín de Estadísticas Laborales
ALMP
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7.8 7.97.6 7.7
7.4
5.8
3.84.1
-The policy discourse; have very little impact; Part of the Problem
-Limited resources
-Corruption scandals linked to the management of training courses by both trade unions and employer organizations
-Rationalization and efficiency without evaluation
Millions of Euros spent on ALMP
Source: SEPE
Reforming labour markets
• There is no space for domestic social dialogue under the technocratic model of macroeconomic management imposed on member states
• But this does not mean member states have implemented all the recommendations– Recent reports from both the ECB and the EC recommend
further changes• This is because it is very unlikely it would have any
significant impact on employment creation (small benefit) and in this way avoid conflict (high costs)
Has it made any difference?
2011 2012 2013 20140
5
10
15
20
25
30
14.216
17.3 17.4
24.822.8 23.7 24.2
Part-time Temporary
Part-time and Temporary Employment Rates
Source: EPA, INE
-Everything more or less the same
-After declining, temporary employment is growing again
-(Involuntary) part-time is increasing significantly
-Employment creation in Spain is (again) higher than the EU average
The impact on Precariousness
80
85
90
95
100
105
I tr 2
011
II tr
201
1
III tr
201
1
IV tr
201
1
I tr 2
012
II tr
201
2
III tr
201
2
IV tr
201
2
I tr 2
013
II tr
201
3
III tr
201
3
IV tr
201
3
I tr 2
014
II tr
201
4
III tr
201
4
IV tr
201
4
Precario No precario
-We can accordingly conclude that the reforms have contributed very little to create net employment
-But they apparently have contributed to make more precarious the new jobs created
Precarious Employment Index (1st quarter 2011=100)
Source: Elaboration in the context of the researh project on Evaluation of Employment Policies in Spain
Why has happened? The impact of supra-national institutions
• Austerity has opened a window of opportunity for governments
• International forces and pressures have not determined decisions regarding the regulation of flexicurity– First, few marginal changes have been introduced in
employment regulation – single contract has not been introduced in either country; only profound changes in CB
– But at the same time, in two countries falling within a similar model like Italy and Spain, policy options under fiscal constraints have been different; the case of ALMP (very important in the policy discourse in Italy [Jobs Act] and minimum income schemes (dominate the policy discourse in Spain)
What can happen? Rethinking or abandoning Flexicurity
• Flexicurity ‘de facto’ abandoned, but still of utility in the policy discourse, as the 2012 labour market reform very clearly shows
Policy Recommendations
• Changes in labour market regulation without implementing a fully-fledged industrial policy will have very little impact on the type of employment
• Revitalise and enhance the regulatory and protective role of collective bargaining, especially at company level
• FAnticipation / timely activation
From timely Activation to Anticipation
Activation
IndividualState-individual
BenchmarkingPerpetuates
dualization
Anticipation
CompanyParticipation of
company stakeholders
LearningFocus on vulnerable
groups and their risks
Anticipatory Policies
Policy Learning
Effective use of labour market data
Participation
Focus on Vulnerable groups
• Improve unemployment protection; particularly, making sure conditionality works
• ALMP• Tarrget specific groups• Complement with employment incentives; when there
is a monitoring of the person employed, they are effective• Rationalization cum evaluation
Thank you very much for your attention!