The development of social policy in Europe
Social Europe was one of the recurring subjects during the recent referendum campaigns not only in France, but also in Luxembourg.
Some citizens, reckoning that Europe is currently too liberal and not social enough chose to vote against the European constitutional Treaty, which however projected an improvement of the social provisions of Europe, thus certainly limited.
It is certain that the treaty debacle did not cause the EU's current troubles; the EU's long-standing problems caused voters' dissatisfaction. But the way out of the impasse should involve, next to legal and institutional reforms pragmatic steps to improve EU social policy. Social Europe should offer a framework for helping people to come to terms with change and its consequences.
Before throwing a glance at the future of social Europe, we should briefly take a look back at the past fifty years of European history.
1. The past: Social Europe, the outstanding absent of the 1957 Rome Treaties
If the late Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) had a very marked social dimension, the situation was different when it came to the Rome Treaties, even though this particular question was acrimoniously debated.
(Still, the Treaty of Rome recognised the need for a "social dimension":
"It shall be the aim of the Commission to promote close collaboration between member states in the social field, particularly in matters relating to employment, labour legislation and working conditions, social security, protection against occupational accidents and diseases, industrial hygiene, the law as to trades unions, and collective bargaining between employers and workers".)
As a matter of fact, during the initial stages of European construction, France requested a harmonisation of the social legislation as a precondition of the Common Market with a view to avoiding distortions of competition. However, no such provisions were ultimately included in the Treaties.
At the time, the fathers of Europe even anticipated that harmonisation in the progress of our social systems would occur automatically, as a natural consequence of the proper functioning of the internal market. Subsequently, social Europe was practically missing in the Rome Treaties.
Social Europe is the product of a slow evolution. Right from the start of the Community project and in the spirit of the founding fathers, there has been the conviction, on the one hand, that the Member States' competence in social matters should be left to them and, on the other hand, that social progress will very logically follow from the economic progress brought about by the Common Market.
Nevertheless, this original approach was not unrealistic in theory. An example: at the beginning of the European construction process, Luxembourg feared that a too massive immigration of Italian workforce would occur. However, due to the improvement of the social conditions in Italy, following the effectuation of the Treaties, immigration dampened.
It was not until the end of the 1970s, when the first social tensions were beginning to appear - notably with the rise in unemployment - that greater attention was paid to the Community's social dimension. This marked a turning point in the economy and in the political approach, and in the outcome, social Directives were adopted, such as those concerning the transfer of undertakings and the collective redundancies, even in the absence of specific social provisions in the Treaty.
A considerable speeding-up of Community directives was made possible by the adoption in 1987 of the Single European Act which, in order to ensure competition, productivity and protection of workers on an equal footing, provided a specific legal base for occupational health and safety. Indeed, the Single European Act included diverse initiatives to promote integration in the spheres of social rights, aiming amongst others at the health and the workers' security. It was on this basis that the Member States were enabled to develop and to put into practice their policies of prevention of the occupational diseases and of the industrial accidents.
Later on, in 1989, the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers was adopted so that the social dimension would not be neglected in the work to establish a single market in the Community. The preamble affirms that 'the same importance must be attached to the social aspects as to the economic aspects' of the single market. Thus, this Social Charter expressed the determination of all the Member States countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom, which did not share its partners' objectives to make significant advances in social policy.
Hence, at this point, the charter did not yet have any legal effect. But the Treaties of Maastricht in 1992 and Amsterdam in 1997 incorporated the Social Protocol into the Treaties and accordingly marked the end of "the British opting out". Numerous directives were adopted on the basis of this Charter.
At last, we should not forget the Extraordinary Summit on Employment which was organised in Luxembourg in 1997, during the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union4, and which officially laid the foundations of a European Strategy in favour of Employment
Thus, out of fifty years of construction, the European Union has only had a clearly stated social dimension for merely ten years.
2. The present: Social Europe torn between flexibility and security
Hence, social Europe does well and truly exist, even though its development was repeatedly lagging behind economic Europe.
And yet some people still challenge the mere concept of social Europe. Sure enough, each Member State, or each group of Member States, would have a very specific social model. Admittedly, there are incontestable differences between Scandinavian, continental, Anglo-Saxon and other models, but certain common values can be pointed out:
- Solidarity, in particular when it comes to Social Security
- The social dialogue, nowadays well anchored at European level
- The value of human labour, which has a more profound significance than the economic notion of employment.
But it is precisely on the latter subject that there seem to be uncertainties at the moment. The discussions on the organisation of working time or temporary work directives regularly oppose those who stress the legal basis of these directives, the protection of workers, to those who are in favour of only having a minimum of constraints with a view to encouraging employment.
However these two positions must be reconciled: there certainly is a need to create more jobs, but at the same time there is a requirement to create more, better quality jobs. This is exactly what the current flexicurity debate is all about. Across the European Union, employment and social policy reflect the conviction that a strong competition between companies is necessary in order to improve productivity and growth. But at the same time, there is also a strong impression that we need a reinforced solidarity between citizens to improve the conditions which generate a cohesive and inclusive society.
This debate is not only technical, it is highly political. Some people not only plead for a stand-still of the European social policy, but even for a regression. Nonetheless this would not only mean a return to a past situation, but also a resignation from the requirements of our citizens and from the realities of life.
3. The future: Towards establishing minimum social standards in Europe?
In the future, the challenge of social Europe will undoubtfully revolve around two major elements:
- Is there a need to enlarge the legal basis of social Europe in the Treaties?
- How can the current social Treaty provisions be brought to life?
As a matter of fact, we presently no longer really proceed with the implementation of the existing provisions. We should ask ourselves what could be the aim of the conditions stipulated by the Treaties, in the absence of the political will to use them and to bring them to life?
In this respect, the principle of subsidiarity which precisely guides social Europe must be put into evidence. Social Europe does not aim to standardise, or even to harmonise the benefits of labour and social legislation. A standardisation of the European social legislation would certainly not be in the interest of the Luxembourg social system!
Europe has as a unique ambition to enforce minimum social standards. Moreover the social directives do not only explicitly enable the Member States to provide for more favourable provisions for workers, but they also regularly comprise clauses of non regression according to which Member States cannot take advantage of a directive to lessen the protection of workers.
Therefore, we should try to convince more protagonists to establish a higher degree of social protection in Europe. However, we also need to consider the fact that, in contrary to us so-called "old Europeans", certain actors in the new Member States may still have a different understanding of the term "social". Hearing the word "social", some might be lead to a "socialist" way of interpretation and may think of it in terms of "Soviet" as well. Nonetheless, these Member States also aspire to more freedom and are sometimes afraid that the "old Europeans" may only want to inflict their social Europe criteria for reasons of protectionism. And certain anti-globalisation speeches could unfortunately consolidate theses fears.
Our social Europe cannot be based on national protectionisms.
Our social Europe has to guarantee all European workers, no matter which country they live or work in, minimum social rights, in the full respect of freedom of movement.
When it comes to this particular issue, the provisions of the Treaties are incomplete. The constitutional Treaty would have brought interesting projections. Part II of the Treaty, which was supposed to set up the fundamental values of the European Union, would have inserted concepts like solidarity or the social market economy, which were unthinkable of up to this date, into the Treaties. Part III, which turned out to be the most criticised part, but which in fact would only have consolidated the current Treaties, would have introduced other improvements, such as those anticipated by Article III - 117 establishing a horizontal social clause.
Still, the current Treaties do not devote any complete foundation of minimum social rights:
- The Treaty does not commit any provisions for protection against individual layoffs.
- The Treaty should, in our opinion, grant each employee in Europe the right to a minimum social wage, whether this right would be implemented by law or by the social partners. The level of such a minimum social wage would of course have to be determined in consideration of the basic national or regional data. However, we also think that this minimum social wage should be established at a level such as to at least enable the employee taken individually to not fall under the limit of poverty in his country.
Therefore, the idea of our Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of working on a new social protocol seems to be a rich inspiration that should be dug so that social Europe will become a factor of social cohesion and of citizens' rallying.