This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52007IE0997
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy)
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy)
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy)
OJ C 256, 27.10.2007, p. 93–101
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.10.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 256/93 |
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy)’
(2007/C 256/18)
On 14 September 2006 (confirmed on 26 October 2006) the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 31 of its Rules of Procedure and in the framework of its work initiated at the request of the European Council of 23-24 March 2006, to draw up an information report on Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy).
On 15 March 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to convert this information report into an own-initiative opinion.
The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 June 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Greif.
At its 437th plenary session of 11-12 July 2007 (meeting of 12 July 2007), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to none, with two abstentions:
1. Conclusions and recommendations
1.1 |
This opinion argues that in quantitative terms the ambitious Lisbon employment objectives have been achieved only to a limited extent and with clear differences between countries which should always be borne in mind. The picture is also contradictory as far as the quality of employment is concerned: welcome examples of good practice in the employment policies of individual Member States, which the EESC believes should be identified and evaluated more systematically in future, are counterbalanced throughout the EU by sobering facts:
|
1.2 |
Against this background, the Committee considers it important that, in the context of the ongoing debate on flexicurity, any general definition and all measures designed to increase the adaptability of firms and workers should always be associated with a high degree of social security, active labour-market policy, education and training and access to social services. |
1.3 |
The EESC calls for greater prominence to be given to the following points in the context of national social and employment policies aimed at the priority groups referred to in this opinion in the labour market:
|
1.4 |
Special measures are needed for socially excluded groups:
|
1.5 |
The EESC stresses that in many EU Member States implementation of the priorities sketched out in this opinion will require renewed employment-policy efforts and that appropriate budgetary funding must be provided.
|
1.6 |
In this connection the EESC has on a number of occasions pointed out that this budgetary funding requires a favourable macroeconomic backdrop, with the emphasis on a growth-orientated economic policy to overcome persistent cyclical weaknesses (2). |
1.7 |
In many Member States social levies which are tied to labour costs have risen to a level which may act as a disincentive to the creation of jobs. In some cases the insignificant difference between after-tax earnings and benefits may make working unattractive. These ‘unemployment traps’ need to be prevented, without however endangering social security systems. In this connection the EESC endorses the recommendation of the high-level group on the future of social policy in an enlarged European Union that the basis for the financing of the social security systems be broadened and the fiscal charge distributed more evenly across the production factors so that the charges are not disproportionately put on labour (3). |
1.8 |
With regard to the forthcoming review of the employment policy guidelines in 2008, the EESC considers that in several of the areas discussed in this opinion more priorities need to be set and policy needs to be spelt out more clearly.
A separate EESC opinion will look in detail at the adjustments to the employment policy guidelines required from 2009 which have been sketched out here. |
2. Background
2.1 |
In its Conclusions of 23-24 March 2006 the European Council asked the EESC, with a view to the 2008 Spring Summit, to draw up a summary report in support of the partnership for growth and employment with a particular focus on the employment of priority categories. The EESC is now submitting the following own-initiative opinion on the subject, which draws on the expertise of the national economic and social councils. |
2.2 |
The EESC has always stressed that improving competitiveness and achieving sustainable economic growth in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy are not ends in themselves, but, rather, are intended to lead to a reduction in the high rate of unemployment in the EU, aiming for full employment, placing social security schemes on a more stable foundation and providing protection against social exclusion (4). |
2.3 |
To this end the Lisbon Strategy was intended to give a new impetus to the European employment strategy, thus raising the employment rate and the quality of work. Lisbon aimed not only at more jobs, but also better jobs. Investment in human capital, research, technology and innovation are therefore logically given equally high priority alongside labour-market and structural-policy measures (5). |
2.4 |
In this opinion the EESC will focus its analysis of trends on the European labour market and its policy recommendations on those target groups in respect of which the Council has repeatedly called on the Member States to provide measures in order to:
|
2.5 |
The EESC will propose a package of preventive and active (re-) integration measures for each of these target groups which should be given more careful consideration in the labour-market and employment policies of the Member States. Socially marginalised groups, which are often excluded from the labour market, will also be covered. Building on this, policy recommendations will be formulated, inter alia with a view to the review of the employment-policy guidelines to be carried out before the 2008 Spring Summit. |
3. Rate of employment, jobs and unemployment — current situation (6)
3.1 |
In 2005 and 2006, for the first time since 2001, employment in the EU grew and there was a noticeable fall in the unemployment rate (from 9,0 % in 2004 to 7,9 % in 2006). The growth of the employment rate of women, at 0,6 %, contrasts more clearly with the stagnation of recent years than the corresponding rate for men. This welcome trend has continued in 2007 (7). |
3.2 |
It is nonetheless sobering to consider that:
Against the background of these changes in the labour market, there is, despite progress in some areas, still a long way to go to meet the ambitious Lisbon employment objectives. |
3.3 |
All the more so as employment trends reveal the following characteristics and tendencies, which vary greatly in their extent from one country and sector to another:
|
3.4 |
The growth of the informal sector, with insecure employment conditions and often low wages, entails the risk that groups unable to make the transition to the standard labour market will be forced to accept work on a long-term basis which does not enable them to use their skills. This trend (which is difficult to quantify) not only means considerable uncertainty for those affected but also leads to loss of tax revenues and ultimately poses a threat to the sustainability of production capacity in the EU. |
4. Creating a framework for growth and more and better jobs
4.1 |
For years the dominant thinking in European policy-making has been that labour-market problems are structural in origin. In many EU countries the one-sided focus of employment policy has been on dismantling general labour law standards, making entitlements more difficult to acquire and cutting social services, while making employment conditions more flexible. |
4.2 |
Active labour market policy measures, such as, for example, promoting employability, eliminating skills shortages and programmes for the integration of disadvantaged groups into the labour market have, on the other hand, been insufficiently implemented in many countries, although some of these countries have increased their spending in this area since 1995. In most countries for which data are available, active expenditure on labour market measures (active and passive support) has actually fallen in recent years as a proportion of total spending. It is very important that resources earmarked for active labour market policy be provided on a scale commensurate with the challenges and, at the same time, the effectiveness of labour market policy measures increased and focused on the relevant target groups. |
4.3 |
In this context the EESC has on a number of occasions pointed out that labour-market measures and structural reforms can ultimately only succeed against a favourable macroeconomic backdrop, with the emphasis on overcoming persistent cyclical weaknesses and consolidating growth (9). A commitment is therefore needed to an expansive, growth-orientated economic policy at national and EU level, with appropriate monetary, fiscal and economic conditions:
The Lisbon objectives determine the direction in which investment must flow: development of communications and transport infrastructure, climate protection, a research and development initiative, comprehensive childcare, support for education and training, active labour-market policy and job quality. The national reform programmes must be designed to result in a coordinated, Europe-wide programme to strengthen economic growth, to which all players at national and EU level can make their contribution. |
5. Effective combating of youth unemployment
5.1 |
Youth unemployment continues to be one of the burning issues for employment policy in the EU. In all EU countries the unemployment rate among young people is above the overall rate and in most countries at least twice as high as for the general population. In some of the EU 15 Member States and in a number of the new Member States the situation is even worse. In a number of Member States job insecurity has increased even in the higher-skilled segment of the market. |
5.2 |
Increasingly entry into employment is via alternative forms of employment, sometimes with much more insecure working and social conditions. The boundary between the formal and informal employment sectors is becoming increasingly blurred. For certain groups of young people, such as the low-skilled, those from a migrant background or those from the disadvantaged population groups, the transition to regular employment is becoming increasingly difficult. The risk of remaining trapped on the margin of the working population is rising, particularly when there is a combination of any of the above characteristics. |
5.3 |
The aim is as far as possible to give all young people secure prospects for the future. The question also has demographic aspects: the economic situation of young people significantly influences their willingness to start a family. In this sense it is a welcome development that in its spring report the European Commission calls for the strengthening of active labour-market policy measures, in addition to improvement of skills, and in particular urges the much earlier deployment of support for young jobseekers and the elimination of structural problems affecting the transition from training to employment. |
5.4 |
Positive examples of this are the tried and tested models which exist in some Member States (Germany, Austria and to some extent the Netherlands) for combining vocationally orientated training systems geared to companies' needs with teaching in school. Numerous studies have highlighted the quality of this ‘dual vocational training’ system and they ascribe to it a vital role in easing the transition from school to work and in reducing the disparity between the youth and general unemployment rates. |
5.5 |
Active, pre-emptive initial and further training measures to improve young people's chances of finding employment (10):
|
6. Improved integration prospects for migrants
6.1 |
In most EU countries there has been little change in the discrimination against migrants and their families in the labour market. They continue to be overrepresented in sectors with low pay and poor working conditions; they have a far higher risk of becoming unemployed and often they remain in jobs with little security, significant health risks, poor safety and (in some countries) little regulation of wage rates. |
6.2 |
A particular worry is the extent to which this precarious labour market position is ‘inherited’ by second-generation migrants as a result of massive disadvantages in schooling. In most Member States young people from migrant backgrounds belong to the groups with the highest levels of job insecurity and the highest risk of being pushed to the margin of the standard labour market. |
6.3 |
The EESC has stated on a number of occasions that it considers labour migration necessary given the demographic trends in the EU and has pointed to positive examples in several Member States, such as Spain and Ireland. This must, however, always be reconciled with the prospects for integration policy in the Member States, in particular with regard to employment (11). The migration situation varies greatly from one Member State to another, as do the integration policy measures adopted, e.g. in labour market and education policy. The Member States should pay particular attention to the situation of asylum-seekers, who often suffer particular disadvantages. |
6.4 |
Priorities for improving the integration of migrants:
|
7. Making use of opportunities for employment of older workers
7.1 |
The key response to the demographic challenge has to be targeted growth policy and increasing employment. The necessary labour potential is available in sufficient quantity. And yet throughout the EU the employment potential of older workers continues to be under-exploited. |
7.2 |
The risk of long-term unemployment rises rapidly with age. The EU-25 average long-term unemployment rate of older workers (50-64) is over 60 %. Against this background it has to be ensured that older workers have a real chance of finding employment and being able to work in the longer term. |
7.3 |
The main reasons for older workers giving up work early are health problems caused by difficult working conditions, the intensity of work, early dismissal of older workers, lack of ongoing training and lack of (re-)employment opportunities. Efforts to increase the employment rate of older people based on alterations to pension systems, which boil down to less favourable access conditions and entitlements, are wide of the mark. |
7.4 |
Only a conscious policy of ‘active ageing’, including comprehensive opportunities for participation in further training measures and lifelong learning, can produce a sustainable rise in the employment rate of older people. Successful models, in the Nordic states (especially the integrated package of measures adopted in the framework of Finland's national action programme for older people) point to a socially acceptable way in which, by closely involving the social partners, a functioning labour market with a high rate of employment stability can be created for older people. |
7.5 |
Key aspects of a systematic move towards a world of employment more favourable to older people (14):
|
8. Improvements in the employment of women
8.1 |
Although women have caught up significantly over the last 30 years in terms of formal qualifications, inequality of opportunity in the labour market continues to be widespread. Women continue to work mostly in the traditional service sectors and industrial sectors which have traditionally have had a high proportion of female workers. Women have much fewer opportunities to make use of their educational qualifications in their work. Reconciling career and family continues to be incomparably more difficult for women than for men. |
8.2 |
The proportion of part-time workers is much higher in all age groups for women than for men. The increase in part-time employment, which, if freely chosen and not a dead end in terms of wages and prospects, is actually something to be welcomed, continues to be a major factor in gender-specific labour market segmentation. |
8.3 |
In almost all areas of employment major income disparities persist, independently of labour-market status. Long career interruptions as a result of care obligations have a particularly negative impact on career advancement opportunities, incomes and social entitlements. Whilst men can expect progressive pay rises with increasing age, women's incomes tend to stagnate in the age groups in which they interrupt their careers or often switch to part-time working in order to bring up children. |
8.4 |
Examples from Denmark and Sweden show that things can be different and that gender mainstreaming in labour market policy can be more than a slogan. In these countries income disparities are much smaller, and the employment rate of women and the availability of day-care facilities for children (especially children under two) are much greater than in other EU Member States. The Netherlands offers another positive example. Here there is a high rate of employment of women together with a very high rate of part-time employment, which is in most cases chosen freely. |
8.5 |
Key measures to tackle structural problems affecting women's employment (15):
|
9. Improving labour-market opportunities for people with disabilities
9.1 |
People with disabilities continue to figure prominently among those who are excluded from the labour market. Disabled workers are more likely to be in low paid jobs and are often discriminated against in access to training and career promotion. As 15 % of the EU working-age population has a disability of some sort and given the low employment rate of this group, increasing the employment rate of disabled people would significantly contribute to the goals of the Lisbon Strategy. |
9.2 |
In this context the EESC welcomes the Commission document on ‘Disability Mainstreaming in the European Employment Strategy’ (16), which is a positive starting point to advance in the labour integration of people with disabilities and recalls that labour integration is the best weapon to fight social exclusion. The EESC recalls that most people acquire the disability during their working lives but very few are offered the opportunity to return to work adapted to their disability. Positive examples here are Great Britain's strict anti-discrimination laws, which provide for complaints mechanisms, and the Danish model of combining labour market flexibility with sufficient social guarantees and a high level of education and training. |
9.3 |
Priority measures to promote the employment of people with disabilities (17):
|
Brussels, 12 July 2007.
The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Dimitris DIMITRIADIS
(1) See the EESC opinion of 17.5.2006 on the Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, rapporteur: Mr Greif (OJ C 195, 18.8.2006).
(2) See the Report of the high-level group on the future of social policy in an enlarged European Union of May 2004.
(3) Ibid.
(4) See the EESC exploratory opinion of 13.9.2006 on the Quality of working life, productivity and employment in the context of globalisation and demographic challenges, rapporteur: Ms Engelen-Kefer, OJ C 318, 23.12.2006.
(5) See the EESC own-initiative opinion of 9.2.2005 on Employment policy: the role of the EESC following the enlargement of the EU and from the point of view of the Lisbon Process, rapporteur: Mr Greif (OJ C 221, 8.9.2005).
(6) See various graphs in the appendix.
(7) Employment in Europe 2006.
(8) See Green Paper entitled Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century, COM(2006) 708 final.
(9) See also the EESC opinion of 11.12.2003 on the Broad economic policy guidelines 2003-2005, rapporteur: Mr Delapina (OJ C 80, 30.3.2004) and the EESC opinion of 17.5.2006 on the Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, rapporteur: Mr Greif (OJ C 195, 18.8.2006).
(10) See also the EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council on European policies concerning youth — Addressing the concerns of young people in Europe — Implementing the European Youth Pact and promoting active citizenship (26.10.2005), rapporteur: Ms van Turnhout (OJ C 28, 3.2.2006); Communication from the Commission on the Social Agenda (13.7.2005), rapporteur Ms Engelen-Kefer (OJ C 294, 25.11.2005); Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States in accordance with Article 128 of the EC Treaty (31.5.2005), rapporteur Mr Malosse (OJ C 286, 17.11.2005).
(11) See the EESC opinion of 10.12.2003 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 immigration, integration and employment, rapporteur Mr Pariza Castanos (OJ C 80, 30.3.2004).
(12) See the EESC opinion of 28.11.2001 on the Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States, rapporteur Mr Mengozzi (OJ C 48, 21.2.2002).
(13) Eurostat is currently working on an ad hoc module on the labour situation of migrants and their immediate descendants that will be implemented in the 2008 data collection. It has the objective of improving the EU-Labour Force Survey coverage of foreign-born persons.
(14) See the EESC opinion of 15.12.2004 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 increasing the employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market, rapporteur: Mr Dantin (OJ C 157, 28.6.2005).
(15) See the EESC opinion of 13.9.2006 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010, rapporteur: Ms Attard (OJ C 318, 23.12.2006) and the EESC opinion of 29.9.2005 on Poverty among women in Europe, rapporteur: Ms King (OJ C 24, 31.1.2006).
(16) EMCO/II/290605.
(17) See the EESC opinion of 20.4.2006 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Situation of disabled people in the enlarged European Union: the European Action Plan 2006-2007, rapporteur Mr Greif (OJ C 185, 8.8.2006) and the EESC exploratory opinion of 17.1.2007 on Equal opportunities for people with disabilities, rapporteur: Mr Joost (OJ C 93, 27.4.2007).