Search

This Policy Department A study prepared at request of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee examines precarious employment, its patterns, trends and policy strategies in Europe. It explores the risk of precariousness of different types of contract, using information from EU data analysis and literature review, as well as case studies. It finds that there are a range and degrees of risks of precariousness associated with all types of contract, based on key indicators of precariousness. A second note presents country case studies of eight EU Member States.

The Great Recession did not only affect European countries to a varying extent, its impact on national labour markets and on specific socio-economic groups in those markets also varied greatly. Institutional arrangements such as employment protection, unemployment insurance benefits and minimum income support, working time flexibility and wage setting played a crucial role in determining to what extent the economic crisis led to higher unemployment, wage cuts or income losses and rising poverty. As the crisis gained momentum, the action of automatic stabilisation mechanisms built into the national tax-benefit and social protection systems was accompanied by heterogeneous sets of discretionary policy measures. While these factors can explain cross-country variation in labour market developments, they also lead to an unequal distribution of economic risks associated with the crisis across socio-economic groups. The present paper aims to investigate and assess to what extent the financial and economic crisis that hit the global economy in 2008-2009 impacted these labour market developments and to what extent different socio-economic groups were affected.

As a famous expression by Johan Cruijff — European soccer player of the century and Dutch icon — goes, "each con has its pro." In the case of welfare for the Netherlands, the con was what was called ‘The Dutch disease.’ The pro was that the disease prompted the Dutch government to engage in creative new employment policies and, more relevant for this book, an early switch from rather passive modes to what came to be known as activation policies. As a result, the Netherlands have achieved a forerunner position amongst continental European countries as ‘activating-welfare-state’ in activation policy as well as in the legal conceptualisation of activation.This chapter is organised as follows. In the next paragraph the general principles and aims of activation will be discussed as well as the legal notion and conceptualization of activation, including the legal framework of activation. The third paragraph goes into the design of the benefit regimes for unemployed, disabled and welfare recipients and deals with changes in benefits, benefit conditionality and eligibility requirements. Paragraph 4 deals with the change in governance and the actual implementation of activation. As the content and organisation of the activation policies of the unemployed and disabled is delegated to the UWV and for those on welfare to the municipalities respectively, we will report on the developments in design and implementation for municipalities and UWV separately. To highlight the organization of activation by the UWV agency for unemployed and disabled we focus on one element, being the relationship between reintegration by tender and by personal budget. For the municipalities, we present the case of Work First and some info on a case study from three northern municipalities. Municipalities regard their Work First strategy as most successful in prevention of benefit and return to regular work. This part is based on a recent benchmark research using 49 municipal Work First projects (Sol et al. 2007). In this research project some very powerful success determinants in terms of design and organisation of activation could be determined. The legal perspective of implementation will be reflected by issues of applying "sanctioning law" and the emerging approaches of "activating contract law". In order to draw near an assessment outcomes of activation are highlighted (paragraph 5), followed by concluding remarks on activation in law in policy.

High levels of unemployment, or high levels of social expenditures as well as the growing demand for a flexible labour force have given new impetus to the world-wide discussion on what model to use for an efficiently operating labour market and in particular on the role of institutions. Although there seems to be a growing consensus on the restricted governmental role in recent decades, this has not been translated into a unanimous appraisal of the role of intermediary organisations, such as trade unions. There is no clear view on an appropriate distribution of responsibility between government, social partners and the market. The research project ‘distribution of responsibility for social security’ aims to create a scientific basis for a clear and consistent view on the role and distribution of responsibilities between the different labour market institutions. As part of this research project, this paper provides an elaborate country study of Germany. In short, it is shown that for both employment protection and unemployment benefits the basic features are defined by law. In that sense, government and parliament are crucial for shaping the system, following more a political logic of office-seeking and vote maximisation. The role of social partners is largely limited to collective bargaining. There are collective labour agreements on additional employment protection through sectoral or enterprise-level agreements. Private actors have become more prominent as contracting-out of active labour market policy services has grown over the last decade, most significantly in the area of job placement and training. As for the labour market performance, the German labour market is highly segmented with persistent long-term unemployment and low labour market integration of more vulnerable groups. Participation rates are modest, mainly due to low female participation and early retirement.

0 KURZER ÜBERBLICK ÜBER DIE ARBEIT 1 VORWORT 2 EINFÜHRUNG 2.1 Die Problemstellung der Arbeit 2.2 Die Gliederung der Arbeit 3 METHODOLOGISCHE ÜBERLEGUNGEN 3.1 Der Erkenntnisgewinn aus einer Fallstudie 3.2 Die Auswahl der nationalen Vergleichsfälle 3.3 Die empirische Basis 4 THEORETISCHE ÜBERLEGUNGEN: SOZIALPOLITISCHE REGULIERUNG IM EUROPÄISCHEN BINNENMARKT 4.1 Europäische Mehrebenenpolitik zwischen nationaler und supranationaler Regulierung 4.2 Sozialpolitische Regulierung im Europäischen Binnenmarkt 4.2.1 Negative Integration im Europäischen Binnenmarkt 4.2.2 Nationale Sozialpolitik angesichts der Standortkonkurrenz 4.2.3 Die Verteidigung nationaler Arrangements durch einzelstaatliche Handlungsmöglichkeiten 4.2.4 Supranationale sozialpolitische Regulierung zwischen positiver Integration und Absicherung nationaler Arrangements 4.3 Fazit: Europäische Sozialpolitik zwischen supranationaler und nationaler Regulierung, zwischen liberalem Wettbewerb und sozialem Schutz 5 ÖKONOMISCHE UND RECHTLICHE RAHMENBEDINGUNGEN 5.1 Ökonomische Aspekte: Die Bauwirtschaft in ausgewählten Ländern 5.1.1 Deutschland 5.1.2 Frankreich 5.1.3 Österreich 5.1.4 Großbritannien 5.1.5 Italien 5.1.6 Vergleichendes Fazit 5.2 Rechtliche Ausgangssituation und Handlungsmöglichkeiten 5.2.1 Die Dienstleistungsfreiheit im Europäischen Binnenmarkt und die Rechtsstellung entsandter Arbeitnehmer 5.2.2 Handlungsmöglichkeiten auf europäischer Ebene 5.2.3 Die Möglichkeiten nationaler Marktbeschränkung 5.2.4 Fazit: Rechtliche Unschärfe und mehrdeutige Handlungsmöglichkeiten 6 DIE EINLEITUNG DES REGULIERUNGSPROZESSES AUF EUROPÄISCHER EBENE 6.1 Die Liberalisierung im Binnenmarkt und die Baugewerkschaften 6.2 Die Rolle der Europäischen Kommission als Agendagestalterin 6.3 Die Rolle der Mitgliedstaaten und der europäischen Sozialpartner 6.4 Der erste Richtlinienentwurf der Europäischen Kommission 6.5 Fazit: Politisches Unternehmertum auf europäischer Ebene 7 DER WEITERE VERLAUF DES REGULIERUNGSPROZESSES AUF EUROPÄISCHER EBENE 7.1 Der Richtlinienentwurf im Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuß und im Europäischen Parlament 7.1.1 Die Stellungnahme des Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschusses 7.1.2 Die Erste Lesung im Europäischen Parlament 7.1.3 Der zweite Richtlinienentwurf der Europäischen Kommission 7.2 Die Verhandlungen über die Richtlinie im Rat der Sozialminister 7.2.1 Der Verlauf der Beratungen im Ministerrat 7.2.2 Die Blockade im Ministerrat: Divergierende Interessenkonstellationen in den Mitgliedstaaten als Hintergrund 7.2.3 Der Soziale Dialog als Ausweichmöglichkeit? 7.2.4 Die deutsche Ratspräsidentschaft 7.3 Fazit: Intergouvernementale Blockade ohne Ausweg? 8 NATIONALE REGULIERUNGEN IM KONTEXT EUROPÄISCHER VERHANDLUNGEN 8.1 Nationale Alleingänge im Kontext des europäischen Regulierungsversuches 8.2 Frankreich 8.2.1 Der Fall „Rush Portuguesa“ und seine Konsequenzen 8.2.2 Die Schaffung einer gesetzlichen Regulierung zur Arbeitnehmerentsendung 8.2.3 Ein Überblick über die französische Entsenderegelung 8.2.4 Die Durchsetzungsproblematik im Bausektor 8.3 Österreich 8.3.1 Die Regelung im „Arbeitsvertragsrechts-Anpassungsgesetz“ 8.3.2 Die Novellierung durch das „Antimißbrauchsgesetz“ 8.3.3 Überblick über die österreichische Regelung zur Arbeitnehmerentsendung 8.3.4 Probleme der europarechtlichen Vereinbarkeit und der Implementation 8.4 Deutschland 8.4.1 Die grundsätzliche Debatte um eine nationale Entsenderegelung 8.4.2 Die Problematik des institutionellen Repertoires 8.4.3 Die Schaffung des deutschen Arbeitnehmer-Entsendegesetzes 8.4.4 Der Konflikt um die Allgemeinverbindlichkeitserklärung eines Mindestlohnes 8.4.5 Ein Überblick über die deutsche Regelung zur Arbeitnehmerentsendung 8.4.6 Implementationsprobleme des Entsendegesetzes 8.4.7 Die Auswirkungen des Entsendegesetzes auf die deutsche Bauwirtschaft 8.4.8 Die Novellierung des Entsendegesetzes 8.5 Vergleichendes Fazit: Institutionelle und akteursbezogene Bestimmungsfaktoren marktbeschränkender Regulierungen 9 DIE EUROPÄISCHE RICHTLINIE UND IHRE UMSETZUNG 9.1 Der Weg zum Kompromiß über die europäische Richtlinie 9.1.1 Die Situation auf europäischer Ebene 9.1.2 Die weitere Entwicklung der Verhandlungen im Ministerrat 9.1.3 Der erfolgreiche Kompromißvorschlag der italienischen Präsidentschaft 9.1.4 Die Verabschiedung der Richtlinie durch den Ministerrat und das Europäische Parlament 9.1.5 Die verabschiedete Fassung der europäischen Entsenderichtlinie 9.1.6 Fazit: Ein „Regenschirm“ für nationale Arrangements 9.2 Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie in den Mitgliedstaaten 10 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 10.1 Ein kurzer Überblick über den Regulierungsprozeß 10.2 Das entstandene Regulierungsmuster 10.3 Schlußfolgerungen zur Europäischen Sozialpolitik zwischen nationaler und supranationaler Regulierung, zwischen Wettbewerb und sozialem Schutz 11 VERZEICHNIS DER VERWENDETEN LITERATUR

The Netherlands is known as a country with a high share of atypical work, largely due to a high incidence of part-time workers. Over the last decades, the share of part-time jobs has substantially increased, and the Netherlands is now the European leader in part-time work both for men and for women (CBS, 2009). However, the growth of part-time work during this period has varied substantially across occupations. Female-dominated occupations such as caring jobs are characterised by more part-time work than male-dominated occupations like construction jobs. Another important gender difference is that men usually work more hours in part-time than women (CBS, 2010). The share of temporary work has also considerably increased over the past decades from about 11 per cent of the employees having a temporary contract in 1995 to 18.5 per cent in 2010 (Houwing, 2010; Eurostat, 2011). This increase was much stronger than in the EU as a whole where the share of temporary workers increased from about 12 per cent in 1995 to 14 per cent in 2010. Currently, only Spain, Portugal and Poland have a higher share of temporary workers than the Netherlands.

Barely having had the time to digest the economic and social aftershocks of the Great Recession, European welfare states are confronted with the even more disruptive coronavirus pandemic as probably, threatening the life of the more vulnerable, while incurring job losses for many as the consequence of the temporal “freezing of the economy” by lockdown measures. Befor the Covid-19 virus struck, the new face of the digital transformation and the rise of the ‘platform’ economy already raised existential questions for future welfare provision. The Great Lockdown - if anything – is bound to accelerate these trends. Greater automation will reinforce working from home to reduce Covid-19 virus transmission risks. At the same time, the Great Lockdown will reinforce inequality, as the poor find it more difficult to work from home, while low-paid workers in essential service in health care, supermarket retail, postal services, security and waste disposal, continue to face contagion risks. And although popular conjectures of ‘jobless growth’ and ‘routine-biased’ job polarization, driven by digitization and artificial intelligence, may still be overblown, intrusive change in the nature of work and employment relations require fundamental rethinking of extant labour market regulation and social protection. Inspired more by adverse family demography than technological change, social investment reform has been the fil rouge of welfare recalibration since the turn of the century. Is social investment reform still valid in the new era of ‘disruptive’ technological transformation in aftermath of Coronavirus pandemic that is likely to turn into the worst recession since the second world war? Empirically, this chapter explores how Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, in terms of the strengths and vulnerabilities of their labour market to digitization, together with their respective social investment aptitude, are currently preparing their welfare states for the intensification of technological change in the decade ahead.

International audience