Flexicurity: Seeking short fixes?

Flexicurity, as an issue, has lately been featuring prominently in industrial relations. This may be due to the initiatives of the EU Commission to promote a new flexibility approach in order to improve the quality of jobs.

The secretary general of the General Workers' Union, Toni Zarb, in his address to the ILO international conference, earlier this month, stressed the need to adopt a new policy about flexicurity.

The debate about flexicurity among the Maltese social partners tends to centre on the issue of family-friendly measures and work-life balance, often ignoring other issues pertaining to this concept such as active labour market policies, social security and contractual arrangements.

The main institution in the sphere of active labour market policies is the Employment Training Corporation (ETC), Malta's public employment service, which offers an array of services and programmes to job seekers, employers and persons wishing to enhance or acquire new skills.

Through its continuous endeavours to match supply of labour with demand, the ETC has made a serious attempt to diffuse the principles of flexicurity and in the process contributing to the much-needed cultural change.

The social security system is under the control of the Ministry for Social Policy. Among the stated strategic objectives for the system, two are perhaps of practical relevance here. The first is to tune social protection and employment training systems to parallel active labour policies and the second is to ensure that Maltese citizens enjoy the same benefits and rights as other European citizens.

Moreover, the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (EIRA), which regulates employment relations in Malta, make provisions for family-friendly measures. It also provides protection for part-time workers in the sense that provisions are laid down for pro rata leave entitlement and benefits. The state has, thus, put into force legislative and social security systems that require and enable employers to design their patterns of work to suit the demands of their employees. But legislation can only guarantee the minimum standards to be achieved. The law is not enough in itself to encourage real commitment to the implementation of the principles of flexicurity.

The government and trade unions have shown a very favourable disposition towards such a commitment. The collective agreement in the public sector includes family-friendly measures that go beyond the minimum provisions of the law that are related to flexibility and work-life balance. This indicates that, given the right circumstances, both the government and trade unions are very much committed to the implementation of the principles of flexicurity.

However, employers in the private sector have proved to be less compromising in changing the contractual arrangements to implement these principles. The thrust of their argument is that the implementation of such principles induces costs which, ultimately, have to be passed on to consumers. Their main complaint is that there is too much rigidity in the labour market, which tends to impede their actions. One of the rigidities, often stressed by the employers' associations, is the statutory annual wage increase, known as Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), given to all employees. Reducing these rigidities may contribute to a better balance between flexibility and security of employment.

Among the employers there may also be a number of purists who argue that some of the regulations promoting the principles of flexicurity can impede economic growth and job creation. To these purists, flexibility is equated with some relaxation of the employment contracts. Such changes are seen by trade unions as an assault on workers' rights and are resisted at all cost.

Thus, the issue of flexicurity, in widening the gap in the conditions of work between the public and private sectors, has not helped much in strengthening the consensual ethic among trade unions and employers.

The public sector, maybe because of its insulation from the rigours of the market, has proved to be much more amenable to the implementation of the principles of flexicurity than the private sector.

The broad-based support that can induce a high level of commitment to the implementation of these principles is still lacking. The notion of flexicurity in Malta is associated more with seeking short fixes to problems rather than long-term systematic changes. The culture of work in Malta is still dominated by the deeply-held belief based on the dualism of the ideal worker (male) who has to commit himself to a strict working time schedule and an ideal carer (female) who has to be more compromising than her male counterpart in balancing her working and family life.

The social partners have still to acknowledge and act upon changing the ways that we live and our different and ever changing lives. In spite of a reasonable level of support for the concept of flexicurity, there is still need for a much wider public debate that can provide a critical analysis of its ramifications.

Mr Rizzo is acting director, Centre for Labour Studies, University of Malta.