Flexicurity debate generates mixed response

In September 2006, the Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity launched a debate on the issue of ‘flexicurity’ among experts and social partners in Portugal. The Minister of Labour and Social Solidarity stated that the flexicurity model of the Nordic countries cannot be automatically applied in other EU Member States and pointed to the importance of allowing for the active participation of the social partners in this debate. The ongoing discussion on flexicurity constitutes an extremely important issue for the reform of labour legislation in Portugal, which is set to be concluded by the end of 2007.

Since the end of 2006, the ‘flexicurity’ issue has been the subject of much debate in Portugal. In September 2006, the Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity (Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, MTSS) organised a seminar entitled Flexicurity in the European context: Challenges and opportunities (in Portuguese), which was attended by European and national experts and researchers in the field. The Minister of Labour and Social Solidarity, José António Vieira da Silva, opened the seminar, emphasising the relevance of the debate on ‘flexicurity’ for the reform of employment, as well as social and labour policies in Europe. The minister declared that the design and consequences of flexicurity strategies are highly complex, explaining that they have to be examined carefully and with an open mind and courage.

Views of social partners

In November 2006, the social partners outlined their views on flexicurity to the media, focusing in particular on the Danish case and on the increasing external flexibility in Portugal.

The trade union confederations showed a great reticence in relation to this topic. The leader of the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (Confederação Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses, CGTP), Manuel Carvalho da Silva, stated that the implementation of this concept in Portugal would give employers the ‘freedom to fire’, without ensuring social protection for employees. Furthermore, Mr da Silva expressed his doubts about the possibility of implementing effective continuous training in Portugal, as well as increasing unemployment benefits up to the standards of the Nordic countries. The leader of the General Workers’ Union (União Geral de Trabalhadores, UGT), Joã o Proenç a, contended that the flexicurity model ‘is not exportable’, insofar as Denmark has a very high level of qualifications and a low level of labour insecurity – the opposite of the situation in Portugal. Mr Proenç a also emphasised that what is really required in Portugal is the development of internal flexibility within companies, through innovations in collective agreements.

A range of different views were expressed by the employers. The President of the Confederation of Portuguese Industry (Confederação da Indústria Portuguesa, CIP), Francisco van Zeller, considered that the discussion on flexicurity was somewhat premature, and that the successful models of Denmark and the Netherlands have been the outcome of much better structural economic and social conditions than those existing in Portugal and in a considerable proportion of European countries. However, the Vice-president of CIP, Heitor Salgueiro, underlined the advantages of a model that focuses on employment security rather than on job security. The President of the Portuguese Trade and Services Confederation (Confederação do Comércio e Serviços de Portugal, CCP), José António Silva, was of the opinion that the flexicurity model would be feasible in Portugal, although it would constitute a huge challenge.

On 1 December 2006, in an interview in Brussels, Minister da Silva emphasised that the flexicurity model cannot be applied mechanically in the Member States of the European Union. According to the minister, ‘the debate is starting now and has to be very precise and include the active participation of the social partners’.

In January 2007, during an official visit to India, the President of Portugal, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, stated that he was becoming increasingly concerned about the issue of globalisation, and henceforth declared that he was in favour of flexicurity as an appropriate solution. However, CGTP reacted strongly against this statement, publishing a declaration (in Portuguese) which stressed that it is the duty of the country’s president to bring to completion the Portuguese Constitution, which establishes the rights, freedoms and guarantees of workers, namely the right to work and to job security, and which rules out dismissals without a just cause.

Commentary

The ongoing discussion on flexicurity is highly significant for the reform of Portugal’s labour legislation; the latter reforms are due to be concluded by the end of 2007, in line with the recommendations of the White Paper Commission, designated in November 2006 (PT0606019I).

In addition, the debate on this issue at European level will form part of the agenda of Portugal’s EU Presidency in the second half of 2007. In order to follow up on this agenda, on 2 February 2007, CGTP and UGT decided to establish a joint commission, which aims to focus on the key issues of employment, labour relations and flexicurity.

Maria da Paz Campos Lima and Reinhard Naumann, Dinâmia