Flexicurity
Not the greatest of words but it's one you need to know about if you are wondering what kind of employment reforms are cooking away in Brussels just now. It was the topic of my FT column this week.
My initial column mentioned the draft of a green paper produced late last year by the European Commission. But after submitting the piece I discovered that the green paper had been revised so I updated the article to take account of that.
The FT had the updated version in plenty of time but a lapse in communication (not mine) meant that the first version was the one that was subbed. It didn't make much difference and it's water under the bridge now.
But it means the version that I wanted to publish can only be read on my website here. Euro-watchers will note that the Green Paper was change significantly from the first draft. If you sift out the specific changes you can see they reflect an awakening that the labour market is changing gradually with increasing numbers of people in temporary and part-time work. The first draft was thought to be too "anchored in the past" to paraphrase my own comments on EC policy.
Somewhere in the piece I make the point that the old "jobs default" is changing to a "work default". Perhaps the use of IT terminology was a bit clumsy but I wanted to get across the need for employers and employees to get away from thinking about jobs and start thinking more about the work that needs doing.
For individuals the need is to think more holistically about work and life, not so much about work/life balance, but about the way that we live, the things we do (in work and socially) and the way we think about our lives. Work and our lives outside our work need not be parcelled in to separate boxes. Some of it can and will spill over and merge.
We are all going to need our earning work but we shouldn't be thinking about earnings all the time. In fact some of the most successful careers have developed when people have simply tried to tackle a problem or to meet a need. That's the thing about work. The best of it is stuff that needs to get done. If it needs to get done it isn't going to go away.
Of course we can prioritise. We can ask ourselves whether the car really does need washing this weekend or whether we want that crisply ironed shirt or polished shoes. That kind of work is a matter of choice. But we don't always have choices about some of the thankless tasks we have to do in our jobs.
It's easy to say that "somebody has to do them". But if you can find a way of doing a job better or if you can eliminate a piece of work, you've done everyone a favour. There is no virtue in doing work for work's sake. There is no virtue in preserving or creating jobs that are not needed. Therein lies the fundamental flaw behind the Lisbon target of 20m more jobs in Europe by 2010.
What really matters is that work is distributed equitably and efficiently among people who have been equipped with the right skills and education to meet the demands of a modern industrial economy that must innovate or die. That should not mean shorter working weeks by compulsion. It should mean greater choice for people about where their work is undertaken and, how they do their work. Employers too must have flexibility to dispense with work or to shift work around.
If people have the skills to work anywhere it shouldn't matter if their jobs disappear. Going in and out of work should be as easy as a trip to the supermarket. A dynamic economy demands that kind of movement. I like the Danish model but it depends on high taxation and an efficient public sector. The new challenge is to adapt the private employment system to feed the labour market so that income tax rises to fund training and education are not an inevitable consequence of a strong welfare safety net.
My initial column mentioned the draft of a green paper produced late last year by the European Commission. But after submitting the piece I discovered that the green paper had been revised so I updated the article to take account of that.
The FT had the updated version in plenty of time but a lapse in communication (not mine) meant that the first version was the one that was subbed. It didn't make much difference and it's water under the bridge now.
But it means the version that I wanted to publish can only be read on my website here. Euro-watchers will note that the Green Paper was change significantly from the first draft. If you sift out the specific changes you can see they reflect an awakening that the labour market is changing gradually with increasing numbers of people in temporary and part-time work. The first draft was thought to be too "anchored in the past" to paraphrase my own comments on EC policy.
Somewhere in the piece I make the point that the old "jobs default" is changing to a "work default". Perhaps the use of IT terminology was a bit clumsy but I wanted to get across the need for employers and employees to get away from thinking about jobs and start thinking more about the work that needs doing.
For individuals the need is to think more holistically about work and life, not so much about work/life balance, but about the way that we live, the things we do (in work and socially) and the way we think about our lives. Work and our lives outside our work need not be parcelled in to separate boxes. Some of it can and will spill over and merge.
We are all going to need our earning work but we shouldn't be thinking about earnings all the time. In fact some of the most successful careers have developed when people have simply tried to tackle a problem or to meet a need. That's the thing about work. The best of it is stuff that needs to get done. If it needs to get done it isn't going to go away.
Of course we can prioritise. We can ask ourselves whether the car really does need washing this weekend or whether we want that crisply ironed shirt or polished shoes. That kind of work is a matter of choice. But we don't always have choices about some of the thankless tasks we have to do in our jobs.
It's easy to say that "somebody has to do them". But if you can find a way of doing a job better or if you can eliminate a piece of work, you've done everyone a favour. There is no virtue in doing work for work's sake. There is no virtue in preserving or creating jobs that are not needed. Therein lies the fundamental flaw behind the Lisbon target of 20m more jobs in Europe by 2010.
What really matters is that work is distributed equitably and efficiently among people who have been equipped with the right skills and education to meet the demands of a modern industrial economy that must innovate or die. That should not mean shorter working weeks by compulsion. It should mean greater choice for people about where their work is undertaken and, how they do their work. Employers too must have flexibility to dispense with work or to shift work around.
If people have the skills to work anywhere it shouldn't matter if their jobs disappear. Going in and out of work should be as easy as a trip to the supermarket. A dynamic economy demands that kind of movement. I like the Danish model but it depends on high taxation and an efficient public sector. The new challenge is to adapt the private employment system to feed the labour market so that income tax rises to fund training and education are not an inevitable consequence of a strong welfare safety net.
Labels: Brussels, Danish model, European Commssion, flexicurity, FT, green paper, jobs default, Lisbon, work default
posted by Richard Donkin at
4:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home