Europe has to admit the need of more flexible labour market

Milan Cabrnoch is Member of the European Parliament since 2004. He's member of European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) and he focuses, among other things, on the area of employment and social policy.

...

Mr. Cabrnoch, you are, among other things, member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European Parliament, which is an area, where you cooperate very closely with entrepreneurs and employers. But don't you think that your efforts focus more on "damage limitation" rather than on achieving any bold goal for employers? It is surely also because of majority of left-wing parties in the European Parliament, is that right?

I'm member of Employment of Social Affairs Committee since my beginnings in the European Parliament. In my second parliamentary term, I'm also spokesperson of ECR for this area and I have to admit that my work partly consists of preventing from excessive regulation, or we can say some kind of damage. I think that a major part of legislative proposals - and these are not entirely proposals coming from the European Commission, but rather those that originate from the left-wing parties of the European Parliament or from European trade unions organizations, have a negative impact on competitiveness of European businesses. The question is who the left-wing is and who is the right-wing in the European Parliament? If we look on formal definition of political parties, then there is majority of right-wing parties both on plenary sessions and in the committee, where we have 26 right-wing members out of 50. But the reality is that left-wing parties win most of the votings, because the parties are either inconsistent or some members have different views on discussed topics.

You are shadow rapporteur for the proposal of the European Commission that aims for enforceability and empowerment of implementation of the Posting Workers Directive. Don't you think that the Commission is making it easier for itself when it comes to being responsible for respecting and adhering to the rules of the directive and is shifting the burden on employers and businesses? Especially in the article 12 which says that the contractor should guarantee for behaviour of its subcontractors?

This is one of the important points of the directive. The situation concerning the directive is very confusing, because there already is a Posting Workers Directive, and now there is a new one which proposes, in fact, only enforcement of its operation. The new directive looks as if it only clarifies certain matters, but it introduces new principles as well. One of them is the principle of joint responsibility, which simply says that the main contractor should hold responsibility for its subcontractors and ensure that they comply with all the rules on social and legal protection of workers. We strongly disagree with this principle and we demand deleting it from the proposal. So does the main rapporteur Mrs. Jazlowiecka. The question is, she will be able to maintain her position under pressure from various sides. In general, ECR supports reduction of administrative burden related to posting of workers, or let's say we are against its increasing, especially for businesses. We consider posting of workers one of the main pillars of EU membership, because it enables businesses and workers to successfully enter the European labour and services market. In the long term, we protest against hidden protection of national markets under the pretence of protecting social safety of posted workers. Paradoxically, sometimes the efforts to protect posted workers are so strong that they are never posted abroad. Apart from that, we also advocate for national states not to delegate its responsibilities on businesses. The function of the state is to create business-friendly environment and not to make it more confusing. If it is inevitable to increase the administrative burden, the state should carry out duties related to it, not employers.

In this context I have to come up with the second proposals of the Commission related to posting of workers, which aims for provision of the right to strike on EU level, the so-called Monti II proposal. The Commission proposal was blocked by "yellow card" shown by national parliaments. What is your opinion on this proposal? Was it right to use this mechanism to protect subsidiarity?

It certainly was. I think that this directive proposal was a clear attempt to strengthen the position of European trade union organisations at the expenses of employees, whom they should represent, and to further increase the imbalance between rights and duties of employees and employers. I'm glad that national parliaments rejected this proposal and used the "yellow card" system. I participated at discussions of the Czech Senate on this topic myself and its position was also negative. However, in general, the mechanism of "yellow card" is not used often enough, especially in the area of labour-law relations and we should aim for more subsidiary solutions. The effort to unify labour law on EU level is a step heading in the wrong direction.

Recently, the proposal of Commissioner Reding to introduce women quota among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchange aiming for 40 per cent representation of women provoked quite negative reactions. Employers undoubtedly support development of women potential, but rather on voluntary basis. The European Parliament will prepare a report on this proposal. What are the chances to reverse it? Pressure from the Commission will be strong, is that right?

I have a feeling that the idea to administratively impose a certain share of women in companies or authorities will be rejected by every reasonable person. We have always supported balanced rights of women and men. As a paediatrician, I'm used to working in groups with majority of women and I've never felt limited by that in any sense. I find it discreditable and rude to introduce quota on number of women. I know many women who gained their positions in natural competitive environment, simply because they are better, hard-working, and more sensitive and they don't need any quotas. I'm convinced it is unnecessary to regulate this area and I will not support such a regulation. What will be the result in the European Parliament? We might be surprised, because this is a very populistic topic and that's what many Members of the European Parliament look at first. However, from my point of view, this is a senseless and needless regulation which might, on the contrary, be harmful for qualified and capable women.

Negotiations of European social partners on the revision of Working Time Directive failed. Now it is up to the Commission to present new legislative proposal. Do you think the new proposal might succeed? And is it good to regulate working time on European level?

In fact, some aspects of working time, like for example working break requirements, have been regulated on European level for a long time. From my point of view, it is an excessive regulation. The directive is very rigid and complicates creation and continuity of quality working positions. It seemingly protects workers, but in my opinion this directive looks like being prepared for the beginning of the last century when evil capitalist exploited powerless worker. But the situation is completely different. Nowadays, employee is as dependent on its employer just as employer is dependent on its employee. In addition, the directive hinders better flexibility of labour relations and does not allow adjusting contracts on the basis of mutual agreement between the two. I don't see any reason why such an agreement between employer and employee should be blocked by European or national rule. In the Parliament, we managed to reject the proposal and I don't expect that the Commission would come up with a new one by the end of this plenary term, which is by June 2014. Negotiations related to this directive reflect the general unwillingness to admit the indispensable need of better flexibility of labour-law relations in Europe these days, which creates a serious disadvantage for Europe compared to rapidly developing economies.

Let's focus now on the fight against unemployment in the EU. One of the ways how to deal with the situation is to make better use of flexible forms of employment. Which of these forms do you consider efficient?


As I've already mentioned, flexibility is what we are missing today for being competitive compared to non-European economies. The state should set such labour-law conditions so that it is easy to hire new worker, but it should also enable to discharge him/her from work easily if necessary. As for particular forms, there are always some new models. In the Czech Republic, we usually use agreements to complete a job, partial employment or flexi-time. But we still forget about people taking care of seniors, elderly workers or parents on maternity or paternity leave, which would very much welcome more flexible forms of employment. It is naive to think that if we won't offer someone a flexible form of employment, he/she will agree to take a full-time job. I'm afraid it is the contrary.

Do you think that there is a country which the Czech Republic could use as an example when it comes to effective use of flexible forms of employment?

When we look at percentage, the Czech Republic uses these modern forms of employment very little compared to Germany, Ireland or others. Each country has its specific historical and demographical specifics and I think that there is no reason for coordination of labour-law relations on EU level. Of course, we can learn and get inspired in other countries, but it is not necessary to look for "one size fits all" solution.

What is your opinion on introducing traineeships in companies for young graduates? Could this measure help to reverse the negative trend of increasing youth unemployment?

The percentage of youth unemployment in the Czech Republic is not as high as in other countries like for example Spain. Firstly, we have to ask ourselves why does this happen? I think it's because of the rigidity of European labour market. Of course, one of the reasons is also the current public budgets deficits and in some countries, the number of job vacancies was too dependent on public budgets. However, I am against using a youth guarantee programme which ensures that all young people up to age 25 receive a quality job offer, education or internship within four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed. This measure will only generate artificial jobs and of course, it will also create another burden for national budgets. On the other hand, it is very important for young people to gain working experiences because without it, it is very difficult to find a job as most of the companies require it. Therefore, I support the idea of allowing graduates to go for a traineeship; on the other hand, we will oppose any binding regulation on EU level directive.

Thank you for the interview and I wish you a lot of success in your wok.