Trade unions criticise NAP

Download article in original language : GR0006177FEL.DOC

In May 2000, at the request of the Greek government, the GSEE trade union confederation issued its position on the 2000 National Action Plan (NAP) for employment, in response to the EU Employment Guidelines. GSEE's critical observations on the NAP are consistent with the position it has taken previously, which has been cautious or even negative towards current structural changes in the labour market and has attributed great importance to macroeconomic policy and the introduction of the 35-hour working week. GSEE has questioned how useful the third NAP really is, as it is generally a repetition and reformulation of the two previous Plans, whose results are seen as questionable.

The Greek government submitted its new National Action Plan (NAP) for employment in response to the EU's Employment Guidelines for 2000 (EU9909187F) in May 2000. Although the results of the evaluation of the two previous NAPs have not yet been made known, the government asked the General Confederation of Greek Labour (GSEE) to give its observations on the third Plan. On 18 May 2000, GSEE responded to the request by formulating a series of critical observations regarding: first, Greece's overall strategy for combating unemployment (ie all the policies relating to the problem); and, second, the specific content of the NAP. GSEE also put forward a number of proposals for inclusion in the NAP.

The strategy to reduce unemployment

GSEE notes that Greece has seen successive increases in the unemployment rate in recent years. As a result, the rate reached a record 11.7% in 1999, the highest level since the Second World War. For the unions, this shows that the NAPs implemented to date have failed to meet expectations for reducing unemployment. The fall in the unemployment rate in the other countries of the European Union makes it imperative that a scientific analysis of the differentiation between Greece and the other EU countries be carried out. GSEE stresses that attempts to reduce unemployment have generally been based on the introduction of flexibility into the labour market. However, such efforts have not kept unemployment from rising.

As far as macroeconomic policy is concerned, GSEE states that the objective of creating new jobs is conditional on a strategy of structural change, fuelled by public and private investments for the restructuring and modernisation of the country's system of production, with the aim of increasing productivity and improving structural competition. These changes must be made in an environment of macroeconomic stability and of fair distribution of products.

This policy, says GSEE, should be accompanied by an increase in public spending in order to stimulate employment and combat unemployment, given that the level of public spending in this area is lower than that of other EU Member States - 0.85% of GDP, compared with an EU average of 3%.

On the institutional level, the objective of job creation presupposes the re-examination and redefinition of the role of the institutions and bodies responsible for planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of public policies for employment. Therefore it has become necessary, claims GSEE, to ensure the complementarity of their activities and the coordination of their actions, the aim being the effective linkage of all the individual policies for increasing employment.

Criticism of the NAP's contents

The main critical observations of GSEE on the content of the NAP are the following:

• vocational training, in the opinion of GSEE, should not be regarded as a panacea for combating unemployment. There should be a more effective evaluation of the system of vocational training and the limited results it has produced. Also of decisive importance is the effective interconnection of the systems of initial and continuing training with the labour market and their full congruence with the desired skills. Designing and certifying vocational training with regard to the knowledge and skills acquired is a question of top priority;
• new areas of employment creation in the social sector must include broader fields of activity (environment, health, welfare, education, etc), apart from childcare, schools and cultural pursuits. Alongside this, the terms of employment for the workers concerned should also be defined (labour rights, social insurance rights, etc.).
• the notion of "employability" should not be interpreted or transformed, when implementing policies, into a shift of the responsibility for increasing employment from the state to the individual;
• the development of entrepreneurship and support for small and medium-sized enterprises through provision of incentives should not put a burden on the social insurance system and the state budget. Instead additional resources should be drawn (taxation relating to energy, the environment, etc); and
• the modernisation of work organisation should not take place through a reduction in real wages. Often, by violating labour legislation and taking advantage of the lack of mechanisms for state control, the modernisation of work organisation makes the workers' position worse, claims GSEE. Instead, policies for organising production through technological innovations and modern "human-centred" forms of personnel management should be adopted.

Proposals for the NAP

GSEE considers that the NAP will bring about an effective fight against unemployment only if three conditions are met: first, there should be a consistent, long-term policy for development; second, there should be systematic monitoring of policies with an annual examination and evaluation of their results; and third, there should be effective implementation of employment policies.

GSEE's specific proposals regarding the content of NAP are the following:

• introduction of a 35-hour working week without loss of pay;
• proper implementation of labour legislation, abolition of much overtime, a drastic reduction of overtime exceeding normal working hours, and an increase in the cost of overtime, rendering it unaffordable;
• an increase in the resources available for conducting employment policy;
• modernisation and upgrading of the role of the Labour Force Employment Organisation (OAED) and all employment policy-making bodies;
• increased importance of the participation of the social partners in employment policy formation;
• job creation in areas of activity associated with social work and the satisfaction of new needs on the local and regional levels;
• a more careful examination of discrimination on the grounds of sex and additional measures for the elimination of such discrimination;
• initiatives to give the restructuring of enterprises the character of technological and organisational modernisation, by upgrading the role of labour in the process of production, and not by reducing staff, overturning labour relations, or reducing real wages or non-wage costs;
• an increase in unemployment benefits to 80% of the basic wage and a longer period during which benefits are paid;
• protection of workers from dismissal by creating counter-incentives for employers;
• subsidisation of employment, subject to preconditions, for special categories of the population (eg pockets of unemployment); and
• effective, continuing monitoring and evaluation of employment policies.

Commentary

To date, two NAPs have been implemented in Greece, but their outcomes have not been evaluated adequately and they are therefore relatively unknown. The uninterrupted rise in unemployment during the 1990s, as well as the fact that the unemployment rate is now the highest it has been since the Second World War, are strong indications that the first two NAPs did not succeed in producing substantial results. Thus the positions taken by GSEE from the beginning of the 1990s have been borne out: first, that current developments in the labour market are not particularly conducive to an increase in employment; second, that to combat employment there must be a consistent policy for constant economic growth, because in Greece increases in GDP are accompanied by significant increases in employment; and third, that it is necessary to reduce the working week to 35 hours. As far as the NAP is concerned, GSEE has made critical observations and proposals, which all converge on the aim of protecting workers from any worsening in their pay, conditions of employment, social insurance rights, etc. (Elias Ioakimoglou, INE/GSEE-ADEDY)