EFM Ceemet Employment Roundtable Dinner Highlights 02-12-2009 Page 1 EMPLOYMENT & EUROPEAN MANUFACTURING Key Points for the Future ROUNDTABLE DINNER DISCUSSION WEDNESDAY 2 DECEMBER 2009 France Room, Hotel Leopold, Rue Luxembourg, Brussels The second European Forum for Manufacturing (EFM) Roundtable Dinner on 2 December focussed on one of the areas identified as critical in the first EFM Roundtable Dinner (30 September 2009) on the Future for European Manufacturers – Employment. Robert Verrue, Director General, European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, and Pervenche Berès MEP, President of the Employment & Social Affairs Committee were joined by Commission officials and MEPs with an interest in this, the Council Presidency, the ETUC and many manufacturing companies. After an overview from the Director General, the focus was on specific issues where legislation affects industry: •pregnant workers, • electromagnetic fields • musculo- skeletal disorders • ‘flexicurity’ and working time.
EMPLOYMENT & EUROPEAN MANUFACTURINGKey Points for the Future
ROUNDTABLE DINNER DISCUSSION
WEDNESDAY 2 DECEMBER 2009
France Room, Hotel Leopold, Rue Luxembourg, Brussels
The second European Forum for Manufacturing (EFM) Roundtable Dinner on 2 December focussed on one of the areas identified as critical in the first EFM Roundtable Dinner (30 September 2009) on the Future for European Manufacturers – Employment. Robert Verrue, Director General, European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, and Pervenche Berès MEP, President of the Employment & Social Affairs Committee were joined by Commission officials and MEPs with an interest in this, the Council Presidency, the ETUC and many manufacturing companies. After an overview from the Director General, the focus was on specific issues where legislation affects industry: •pregnant workers, • electromagnetic fields • musculo- skeletal disorders • ‘flexicurity’ and working time.
Welcomed by Claudia Hamill, Secretary General of the European Forum for Manufacturing, who chaired the Roundtable Dinner, she thanked the sponsoring organisation CEEMET and highlights of the speeches included:
INTRODUCTION
Robert Maglione, President CEEMET
CEEMET is the European Employers’ organisation for the metal, engineering and technology-based industries.
CEEMET’s member organisations come from 22 countries and represent the interests of 200,000 companies. These companies, from the automotive, aeronautics, defence, engineering, electrical, IT, machine building, metalworking, shipbuilding and many other industries, employ approximately 12.7 million workers.
As is evident from the agenda of this European Forum for Manufacturing meeting, the main focus of CEEMET is on social policy related issues.
I think this is the right time for organising this Forum, not only because the newly elected MEP’s have recently set up their Committees, new Commissioners have been nominated last week and Commission President Barroso has sketched a broad vision for ‘Europe 2020’. But also because of the positive, though timid and uncertain signs that we are on a way out of one of the biggest financial and economic crisis, leaving behind massive budget deficits and the highest debt rates in OECD countries in 60 years.
In this difficult context European manufactures have to cope with increasing international competition and ever faster technological change. The reflection paper of President Barroso’s ‘EU 2020 strategy’ stresses the need to ‘strengthen the industrial base’ in Europe. We fully share this statement, as we believe manufacturing industries will also in the future be at the heart of European economies. However, now, more than ever, our companies need good and stable framework conditions to strengthen their competitiveness,
not least with the opportunities offered by greening economies, and to ensure a thriving and competitive environment.
We are happy that we today have the opportunity to share with key stakeholders of the Commission, European Parliament and representatives from Council and Presidency, not to forget from trade unions, our views and experiences on selected European initiatives in the area of social policy. I am convinced that it is of particular importance to have associations supported by company experience and expertise, especially on the sometimes very difficult dossiers, such as the ‘electromagnetic fields’ and I look forward to a fruitful discussion.
CEEMET is a well functioning employers’ network. With the commitment of national employer organisations and companies, we hope to continue and further an objective and transparent exchange with you on these important issues.
Robert Verrue , Director General, European Commission, DG Employment and Inclusion
• The global financial crisis has plunged the European economy into its worst recession in six decades.
• Our efforts to find a way out of the crisis coincide with the preparation of the new European Strategy for the next decade.
• The Commission is currently working on the so-called EU 2020 strategy: On 24 November, the Commission launched a public consultation on EU 2020 entitled ‘EU 2020 – A new strategy to make the EU a smarter, greener social market’.
• Until mid January, everybody is invited to share their views which will contribute to the preparations for the new strategy.
• The Commission expects to present its proposal for the new Strategy before the March 2010 European Council.
• As you know, the September ‘political guidelines’ of President Barroso include 5 priority areas:o Making a successful exit from the crisis;o Taking the lead on climate change;
o Developing new sources of sustainable growth and social cohesion;o Advancing the people’s Europe; o And opening a new era for Global Europe
• This will require both immediate and longer term action.• President Barroso stressed the necessity of reinforcing the social dimension
for the future: an EU 2020 strategy should deliver the kind of inclusive and sustainable social market economy we want to live in.
• In view of employment and social policies for the future, emphasis should be placed on:o Exiting the Crisis: The European Employment Strategy has already
saved millions of jobs during the crisis. The Strategy establishes common EU objectives and priorities, and ensures coordination of employment policies across the EU, creating more and better jobs. The employment agenda must enhance workers’ rights. New skills have to be adapted to new jobs. The transition between jobs, and the transition between training and jobs will have to be managed. This is where flexicurity should be deployed to the full. Restructuring is taking place and is never easy. It should be implemented through active social dialogue to find the best possible solutions in difficult circumstances.
o Leading on climate change: this means promoting the positive employment impact of green jobs; taking into account the social impact of climate change on vulnerable groups.
o Developing new sources of sustainable growth: this means developing a modern service sector, developing a new approach for social inclusion, equity and social justice (including the fight against child poverty), and tackling the demographic challenge.
o Advancing a people’s Europe: this means promoting gender equality, fighting against discrimination and protecting the rights of minorities. This also means removing obstacles to mobility and promoting the integration of legal migrants.
• The Lisbon Strategy has played an important role in fostering progress in policy implementation through common objectives, targets and guidelines and for allowing Member States to learn good practices from each other.
• For the future strategy, we need to review our way of working to ensure stronger commitment and delivery of reforms.
• The transformation of the EU into a smarter, greener, and more competitive economy will boost new job creation and respond to high levels of unemployment.
• The EU 2020 strategy is now our first priority. We depend on everybody's input for shaping EU 2020 policy and for bringing this into force.
In addition I would draw your attention to the fact that under the Lisbon Treaty, from January 2010, every Commission initiative will have to undergo an impact assessment on the qualitative effect on the labour market.
PREGNANT WORKERS LEGISLATION
Petra Schott, European Commission
The proposal of the Commission is to amend the existing Directive on maternity leave 92/85/EC by extending the leave from 14 to 18 weeks, by ensuring better protection against dismissal, allowing more flexibility for the women and by encouraging Member States to ensure a high level of maternity allowance, preferably 100% of former salary. This proposal aims to better ensure reconciliation of private and family life, one of the priorities of the Roadmap 2006-2010 for gender equality. I will expand on this with some more detail.
I. Content of the proposal
The Pregnant Workers Directive 92/85/EEC1, a directive agreed in the context of worker’s health and safety protection, currently stipulates a right to a minimum of 14 weeks of maternity leave paid at the level of at least sickness pay, the right to return to the same or equivalent post and a protection from dismissal.
In order to address the employment rates of women with children, improve the conditions for the take-up of family-related leave, provide financial support during family-related leave and improve worker’s health and safety, on 3
1 See under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:�1992L008�:EN:NOT
October 2008 the Commission adopted a ‘reconciliation package’ consisting of two legislative proposals, a stocktaking report on childcare facilities as well as a policy communication. The two legislative proposals concern the amendments to the directive on self-employed women 86/618/EEC2 and the proposal to amend the ‘Pregnant Worker Directive’ (92/85/EEC).
The main points of the new proposal3 are:
• an extension of the duration of maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks including 6 obligatory weeks after birth;
• the introduction of the principle of full pay during the 18 weeks, with a possibility however for Member States to introduce a ceiling that must not be below sickness pay;
• the right for women coming back from maternity leave to ask for flexible work arrangements. The employer must examine such a demand but has no obligation to accept it;
• increased flexibility for women to decide when to take their maternity leave, before or only after giving birth (= no obligatory maternity leave before birth);
• increased protection against dismissal: the preparation of dismissal during maternity leave is prohibited.
II. Content of the impact assessment
Before proposing amendments to the directive, the Commission carried out an impact assessment4 on the economical costs and benefits of amendments in the legal framework.
The impact of having children on women’s labour market participation is huge: the employment rate for women with dependent children in 2007 was only 65.5%, compared with 91.7% for men, a difference of more than
2 See under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2008&nu_doc=063�
3 See under: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st1�/st1�98�-co01.en08.pdf
4 See under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2�9�:FIN:EN:PDF
26 points. In 2007, the employment rate of women between the age of 20 and 49 fell by around 12 percentage points once they had children, while that of men rose around seven points�.
Reconciliation policies enable both women and men to exercise real choices and, in particular, may result in a higher employment rate for women and in families deciding to have more children. These policies may also reduce gender segregation on the labour market and close the gender pay gap. However, even where various flexible working arrangements have been put in place to support reconciliation, they are in fact used much more by women than by men for reasons of economic necessity.
III. Situation in the Member States:
13 Member States (MS) already provide for 18 weeks or more (BU, CZ, DK, EE, FI, HU, IE, IT, LT, PL, RO, SK and UK).
Only 3 MS have remained at the level of 14 weeks (DE, MT and SE with special arrangements).
Maternity leave rights in the Member States :
Duration Obligatory period payment Piecemeal way
AT 16 weeks 8 weeks before and 8 weeks after
100% of average earnings No info
BE 15 weeks 1 week before birth, 9 after birth
Dependent on SPF (‘Sécurité sociale’)
No info
BU 45 weeks 45 days before and 95 after birth
135 days are paid at 90% of average income, the rest at social security benefit
No info
CY 16 weeks No info received 75% of previous salary according to our info)
No info
CZ 28 weeks no 69% of average income of 12 months with ceiling
No info
DE 14 weeks 6 weeks before, 8 weeks after birth
100% of last earnings No info
DK 18 weeks no According to most collective agreements: 100% of salary
No info
EE 20 weeks No, but maternity benefit decreases if maternity leave starts less than �0 days before expected date of birth
100% of average earnings of preceding calendar year
No info
EL 17 weeks � before, 9 after birth 100% No info
� See for more details and references the impact assessment under footnote �
Payment is dependent on previous earnings (decreasing after the first 56 working days after birth) minimum amount is 1�.20 EUR per day, otherwise dependent on collective agreements
Yes
FR 16 weeks 2 weeks before and � weeks after
100% of earnings in last � months with ceiling
HU 24 weeks As a recommendation � weeks before birth
�0% of the former salary (sickness pay)
No info
IE 42 weeks 2 weeks before birth, � weeks after birth
2� weeks are paid at a level of 80% of earnings with ceiling
No info
IT � months (=more than 20 weeks)
2 months before, � months after birth
80% of average daily remuneration paid in the month preceding leave
No info
LT 18 weeks yes 100% of average earnings No infoLU 16 weeks and
20 weeks under special
No info 100% according to our info) No info
LV 16 weeks 2 weeks before and 2 weeks after confinement
100 % of average earnings
MT 14 weeks � weeks before, � weeks after birth
Full pay No info
NL 16 weeks � weeks before and � weeks after birth
Full pay No info
PL 18 weeks (parts of which can be taken by father)
8 weeks after birth 100% of average earnings No info
PT 15 weeks and 5 days (120 days), a period that increases for 30 days (4 weeks and two days) for every
additional child
� weeks after birth 100% of the base salary No info
RO 18 weeks 42 days after delivery Maternity allowance on the basis of 85 % average income
SE 14 weeks (7 weeks before and 7 weeks after confinement,
then until child is 18 months old)
2 weeks before or after confinement
390 days are paid at 80% of earnings, 90 days are paid at a minimum allowance
Yes
SI 15 weeks 28 days before due birth date
100% of average earnings No
SK 28 weeks 14 weeks 55% of daily assessment basis, upper limit 15 000 SKK (about 500 EUR)
UK 52 weeks 2 weeks after birth Employer pays 90% of former income for first 6 weeks, then lump sum (about 151 EUR)
No
IV. State of play
a) Council:
The Employment, Social Security, Health and Consumer Affais Council (EPSCO) on 9 March held a general discussion the proposal. For the EPSCO Council of 9 June 2009, under the Czech Presidency the Czechs adopted a Progress Report. The Swedish presidency did not schedule working group meetings in this dossier.
b) Discussions in European Parliament (EP):
First Reading: In the EP FEMM–Committee the report drafted by Edite Estrela MEP (S&D) was discussed in the plenary in May 2009. However, the EP plenary did not adopt the report but sent it back to the FEMM-Committee.
Ms Estrela has meanwhile prepared a second report6 which was discussed in the FEMM Committee on 1 December 2009. The report7 proposes 20 weeks maternity leave (thus 2 weeks more than the Commission proposal) and asks for the inclusion
6 See under: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-��0.�9�+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
7 See information under: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-�18.21�+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
The adoption of the next report by Ms Estrela in EP plenary is foreseen for 23 February 2010.
Maxence Demerle, IBM
The proposal for the directive is very close to the French current law.
The position of IBM is to hire and retain women, and the question of maternity leave is especially important for young parents. A two weeks extension of maternity leave of two weeks is not seen as being a major problem.
However we are concerned about any regulation which would encourage, or result in women having to stay at home as consequence!
A French MP on 1 December made a proposal to have 50% of women on all Boards of Directors. How could this happen if qualified women cannot easily stay at work or easily return to work and progress in the corporate hierarchy?
In France we have law but there are also often company collective agreements and specific company agreements. The increase in the basic period of maternity leave rules could lead to an increase in others and result in a woman, for a first or second child, being out of work for six months, which is probably a maximum period to ensure that she could return to the same job.
We do not want to see countries use the increase of maternity leave as an excuse to step back from providing safe, good and affordable baby care.
Daimler as a company is not against maternity leave and appropriate protection, but we are against everything which creates more cost or more administrative burden; and we see no reason for this extension - why?
In Germany we have 14 weeks maternity leave (6+8), followed by up to 3 years parental leave.
•During parental leave employees receive ‘Elterngeld’ (14 month), followed by ‘Kindergeld’.•There is an already existing generous system of protection meet ing high social standards
For us the extension of maternity leave is no real step forward. We see no real necessity, and it provides no solution for the problem. Early return to the workplace most often fails due to lack of childcare facilities.
At Daimler we offer childcare possibilities at each German plant. This offer is increasing and is well perceived amongst employees
We do not want further cost increase without compensation, on grounds of competitiveness Companies/ countries that are already ahead of others, especilly in terms of investing money in childcare, should be penalised If any extension of maternity leave is decided, safeguards should be included in the legislation:
- no increase of cost (at least not without any kind of com pensation) - possibility of setoff versus already existing parental leave (already foreseen in the Directive) - consideration of current national legislation and the whole social systemIn conclusion, we believe any extension of maternity leave will not solve the problem
Edite Estrela MEP, Womens Rights Committee, Raporteur, Pregnant Workers Directive
The new report is based on the report adopted in the FEMM committee of the European Parliament, last April (2009 – pre European Parliament elections), supported by all political groups at the time. It contains some changes, in order to get broad support for this new proposal.
The amendments made by the proposal relate specifically to longer minimum maternity leave, which is increased from 14 to 20 weeks; the principle that the allowance paid to a worker on maternity leave should be equivalent to her full salary; workplace safety and health requirements; a ban on dismissal; and provisions to promote a work-life balance.
I would like to remind you that the European Commission’s proposal for revision of the Directive has a triple objective:
i) To guarantee better health for pregnant workers and those who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding;
ii) To ensure better safety to those workers;
iii) To promote equality between men and women.
The legal basis in the proposal under consideration, which combines the Article 137 of the Treaty (providing for worker’s safety and health to be protected) with the addition of Article 141 (relating to the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women) makes the directive better balanced, giving us provisions to better protect the rights of both mothers and fathers as workers and to promote better work-life balance.
Therefore, in my report, I propose the following:
• The principle of full payment for the remaining period of leave, which must never fall below 85% of the salary;
Additional maternity leave in the event of specific situations of the mother and/or child that should be proportionate to their needs;New provision on paternity leave, ensuring the right to the father of a minimum period of 2 weeks of leave, after the wife’s or partner’s
confinement, non-transferable, fully paid and also protected from dismissal; The protection of maternity is applied to all workers employed under any type of contract, including domestic workers;Preventive approach on risk assessment procedures, in order to protect the reproductive health of women and men at any workplace;Prohibition of dismissal during pregnancy until 12 months after the end of maternity leave;Pregnant workers, workers who are breastfeeding and women workers with a child under 12 months shall not be obliged to work overtime;Improvements on the night work provisions, ensuring women are not obliged to perform night work:
- 10 weeks before childbirth or during all the pregnancy, if necessary - During breastfeeding - Until 12 months of the child, for both parents
New provision on breastfeeding: women should be entitled to have 2 daily breaks of one hour each, without losing any privileges connected to her employmentNew provision on adoption leave, ensuring the same parenthood rights in the case of adoption
Edit Bauer MEP, Employment Committee
The challenge is tremendous: it is difficult to find a good and balanced solution under such conditions, when
• European societies are facing the dramatic consequences of ageing, and mainly decreasing birth rate
• Companies, social insurance systems and budgets of the Member States are suffering from crisis,
• In different Member States there are different systems of social policy, including maternity protection and paying for maternity leave.
In addition, short-term goals of companies and societies are often, as in this case, in contradiction. Saving financial resources today could lead to shortage of labour force in the future.
Meanwhile it is important to find a proper way of protection to avoid the adverse impact – so as not to cause young women to be unemployable.
The legislation on maternity leave therefore is difficult – responsibility of the legislators is high.
The EPP Group is of the opinion, that a good solution could be to keep health and safety legislation under the framework of pregnant women and to combine the other types of leave – parental, paternity and familial - in another piece of legislation. This would provide for higher flexibility and freedom to enjoy the rights in order to achieve a fairer sharing of responsibilities in the family and contribute maximally to reconciliation of the working and family life.
Marije Cornelissen MEP (Greens/ALE)
Pregnant workers
As you might know, we are discussing a new directive to set minimum standards for the protection of pregnant women and for maternity leave in the EP.
The leftwing and rightwing parties do not agree on many aspects of the directive, the main points of contention being the length of maternity leave and the inclusion of paternity leave. The debate is fierce.
In my view, a proper package of leave surrounding the birth of children is of great importance. At the moment we might be dealing with an economic crisis, but before long we will be severely hit by a shortage of employees in an ageing society. We will need every single able bodied man and every single able bodied woman in the labour market. And moreover, we will also need a lot of not so able bodied men and women in the labour market, but that´s for a different discussion.
Proper possibilities for leave for both parents are necessary to make the combination of work and family life not only possible but also attractive to men and women, and to facilitate a balanced division of care tasks between mothers and fathers.
This means a period of leave for mothers that is long enough to recuperate, get to know her child and breastfeed her child for the prescribed half a year if she chooses to do so. This period should be no less than 20 weeks and preferably the 24 weeks prescribed by the World Health Organisation.
The 24 weeks are the period that is most beneficial for babies to receive only breast milk. To avoid having to stop breast feeding or having the stress of breast feeding while working, it would be good if mothers had this time to devote to their new babies.
Why no shorter than 20 weeks? How many of you have children? The ones that do know that it is one of the most daunting experiences ever.
Women need some time to recuperate physically. I had a baby one and a half years ago, and even though it was a model delivery, I still felt like I was run over by a truck - twice.
But aside from the physical aspects, you need time to come to terms with the emotions, the changes in life that a child brings.
Before becoming an MEP, I ran an organisation with 7 people, 4 of whom had a baby over a period of one year, among them myself. The Netherlands have a leave period of 16 weeks, which all of us found too short. So we lengthened it by adding holiday time. This seemed like an excellent idea at the time, but later in the year we so needed a holiday to cope with all the changes and have a bit of breathing space that two of my employees had to report in sick. I don’t think its ever been researched properly, but my theory is that in countries that have less than 20 weeks maternity leave, much more sick leave is taken in the first year after returning to work. If that is true, it would do away with the idea that it is too costly to afford a longer leave period. Employers and state will pay the costs anyway, but then in the form of sick leave.
Aside from the cost aspects, my rightwing colleagues also argue that longer maternity leave will hurt women’s chances of employment. It sounds logical: if you employ a woman between 20 and 40, you might loose her for half a year if she has a baby. But that argument is not supported by the facts at all. It would mean that labour participation of women should be lower in countries that have longer leave periods. If anything, it’s the other way around. Sweden has one of the longest leave periods, and one of the highest degrees of female labour participation. And Hungary has a short leave period and a very low number of women in the labour market - something to consider.
As for fathers, it is very important that they get a fair period of leave too. They don’t need it as much for their health, but the emotional experience is no less daunting for them than for mothers. In my view, the fathers independent leave should be at least a month, but already the proposed two weeks would be an improvement on what many countries have now.
Leave for fathers after their baby is born is essential for the bond between father and child, and more so for the equal division of child care between mother and father. It is in the first weeks that you learn to change your baby’s diapers, how to bathe your baby, what your baby’s gurgles mean. If fathers are left out at this stage, they will often be left out from caring for life. A pattern is established in which the mother is more responsible for and better at all the caring tasks, and such a pattern is very hard to break. If we want a society in which men and women share care tasks and are both active in the labour market, we need to afford men the chance to learn how to take care of their children from the beginning.
My rightwing colleagues don’t actively speak out against paternity leave in general, although I do suspect some of them think it is nonsense and that women are actually supposed to be the ones to mainly take care of children. They mostly argue that paternity leave has no place in a directive on maternity leave. I strongly disagree. A couple become parents together and they should have leave together. Having a child is a package deal. And aside from that, we all know that parliament has no right of initiative, so as long as the Commission does not propose a directive for paternity leave, we have to find other ways of taking the necessary steps.
To conclude: we need both women and men to be able to work, and have children, and care for them in order to have a sustainable and pleasant society.
Gustaf Lindgren, Chair, Working Group, Swedish Council Presidency
Maternity and parental leave, the protection of pregnant workers and related questions are core issues in EU social policy and fundamentally important for the reconciliation of work and private life.
One key priority of the Swedish Presidency has been to focus on how we can provide for more inclusive labour markets. Possibilities to reconcile work and family life are a vital component in this regard. We must see to it that both mothers and fathers can combine parenthood and responsibility for their children with a strong position on the labour market. The positive impact of a greater labour force participation on growth and welfare can not be overstated. This is especially true in the case of women, whose employment rate is currently, on average, 14 percentage points below that of men in the EU.
Greater access to systems that can contribute to better reconciliation of work and family life - such as affordable childcare and well functioning systems for family-related leave – as well as tax systems favouring labour market entry - can boost employment rates among women. The Maternity Leave Directive can play an important role in contributing to equal opportunities for men and women on the labour market and to increased participation of women in the European labour markets.
It is fair to say that among Member States there is in general a positive view on the ambitions to provide an effective regulatory framework for this category of workers. However, it is clear from the discussions that opinions differ widely on the ways and means of achieving this. Some Member States suggest that the current Directive is sufficient. Others agree that there is a need for amendments, but disagree in various ways and from different angles on the suggestions put forward by the Commission. It is equally clear that different traditions and systems in Member States concerning various forms of family leave and measures to reconcile work and private life are deeply rooted, both in society at large and at the level of individuals.
During the Czech Presidency the Council was able to identify a number of issues where we have yet to find common ground on the revision of the Maternity Leave Directive. It is, however, clear that we need the in-put of the European Parliament to gain momentum and take our deliberations further.
Protection of Workers Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
Directive 2004/40/EC of 29 April 2004 establishes occupational exposure limit values for electric and magnetic fields, varying in time with frequencies between 0 and 300 GHz. No worker may be exposed to values exceeding these limits, which are based on health impact and biological considerations.
Although these limits were established on the basis of the recommendations issued by ICNIRP (International Commission for Non Ionizing Radiation Protection) in 1998, since the adoption of the Directive, stakeholders have claimed that the provisions of the Directive related to the exposure limit values would definitely unduly hamper the carrying out of some medical and industrial activities. The Commission acted to find remedies to the situation whilst keeping in mind the need to ensure adequate protection of the safety and health of the workers in the EU.
DG EMPL has undertaken the legal preparatory steps for a new proposal that may introduce substantial amendments to Directive 2004/40/EC, in order to take into account specific situations such as medical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures and the results of the most recent research and technical evolution.
This initiative is subsequent to the commitment taken by the Commission when presenting its proposal COM(669)2007 that led to the adoption of Directive 2008/46/EC, by which the deadline for transposition by the Member States was postponed until 30 April 2012. It was understood that the Commission would take advantage of this delay to make a comprehensive review of the situation in order to be able to present a new legislative proposal in due time.
In the meantime, the Commission has launched 2 studies, one to quantify the problems in the medical MRI domain (finalised in April 2008) and one to prepare the compulsory Impact Assessment (finalised September 2009).
On the other hand, the first phase of the consultation of the social partners foreseen under Article 138 (2) of the Treaty was finalised at the end of
September 2009. The second stage should be launched at the beginning of 2010. The objective is to make a new proposal to the European Parliament and the Council as soon as possible, realistically around June 2010.
As far as the new proposal of the Commission is concerned, work is well advanced and has taken due account of the latest scientific evolution in the area. Besides the formal consultations, a lot of informal contacts have taken place with the stakeholders, bilaterally or in the framework of the dedicated working party set up by the Advisory Committee for Safety and Health at Work. Appropriate proposals will be described in the document relating to the second phase of the consultation of the social partners.
Ergonomics and Work-Related Musculo Skeletal Disorders (WRMSDs)
WRMSDs are one of the major safety and health problems facing the European Union today (according to Eurostat statistics; WRMSDs account for over 50% of all occupational diseases; data available from recent Community surveys also show that WRMSDs are on the increase in many Member States.). The current EU health and safety regulatory framework does not cover all types of work situations or address all risk factors leading to WRMSDs. This has led to a very varied coverage of WRMSDs in the Member States. On the other hand, the technical development of the IT industry in the last twenty years makes it necessary to revise and update the provisions of Directive 90/270/EEC on ‘work with display screen equipment’.
Considering the results of the two-phase consultation of the European social partners under Article 138 of the Treaty (2004 and 2007) and of the outcomes of a preparatory study on the social-economic impact of a number of potential policy options designed to improve the prevention of WRMSDs at EU level (2008), the Commission intends to propose a new legislative initiative laying down minimum health and safety requirements to protect workers from ergonomic risk factors and improve ergonomic conditions at the workplace, with particular regards to WRMSDs and computer-related visual problems.
The Commission has included this initiative in its legislative working programme, as a simplification initiative that aims at making legislation easier to apply (reducing the number of reference texts), less burdensome (simplifying administrative and technical obligations) and more effective (making the legislation easier to implement and enforce than it is at present).
In particular, the new legislative initiative would reduce the number of
regulatory texts covering aspects of prevention in the area of ergonomic-related problems and work-related musculoskeletal disorders by integrating the provisions of Directives 90/269/EEC (manual handling of loads) and 90/270/EEC (work with display screen equipment) into a single new directive. It would also provide employers with a clearer and more streamlined framework for risk assessment and prevention.
Divergence exists between employers and workers as to the practicality of new legislation in this area. Employers advocate a no regulatory approach to be conducted mainly at national level, whereas workers are in favour of new EU legislation.
Ralf Bodemann, Siemens
Adverse health effects related to electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure are acute effects with well-known thresholds.
Thus, limit values with an incorporated safety factor ensure protection against all established health effects.
In the low-frequency-range, the recommendations by ICNIRP are over-conservative. Several expert groups say that higher limit values are applicable without any health risk (recent German ministry proposal, IEEE standards C95.6-2002 and C95.1-2005).
The current directive requires inappropriate efforts re risk assessment by companies which do not operate relevant EMF sources. Adoption of those limit values and additional language in the Directive would considerably ease the burden.
These requirements would raise unnecessary costs especially for SMEs. Due to time contraints and lack of expertise, they will need to hire consultants.
On the other hand, the current directive would impede - if not prohibit - the use of MRI machines, although high safety levels and strong and effective protection measures are already in force. Both MRI operators and manufacturers call for flexible regulations which meet the need of their branch and take account of the medical benefits of MRI as well as the long-term experience without any
Therefore, CEEMET calls for a revision of the current Directive with special consideration of recent recommendations by scientific expert groups.
Patrick Couderc, Air Liquide
EMF and Welding industry
Welding industry uses several sources of energy to melt materials in order to ensure both mechanical and metallurgical joining. Electricity is the main source of energy used and is transformed into heat when flowing through work piece resistance or, most commonly, through electric arc (others energies are flame, laser, friction). Typical electrical current values are from few hundred Amps for arc welding and several KAmps for resistance welding.
In order to drive electric arc along the weld, arc welders handle torches through which current is flowing. This process, based on coated electrodes, was first introduced industrially (MMAW) in the 1900s. The electrode wire process protected by shielding gas (GMAW) dates from the 1920s. Together with resistance welding in the car industry, MMAW and GMAW are welding processes that are used worldwide in all major industrial activities which have been used for nearly one century.
Arc welding process introduced several well-known risks to health and safety for workers: voltage, heat, optical radiation and fumes. Collective and individual protective equipment mitigate these risks. Directive 2004/40/CE addresses a new risk ‘arising or likely to arise’ from exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Typical current waves used in welding are DC current with ripple, AC or pulsed. In any case frequency stays below 100 KHz. The foreseeable risk is induced current in the human body.
This risk is not directly measurable and therefore not comparable to applicable limit values. That means that employers will have to measure electromagnetic fields at the workplace and compare them to action values. But in common welding applications (almost 80%), action values are exceeded; the employer has to and, if necessary, calculate whether the exposure limit values are exceeded.
Employers do not have this skill and will have to pay for a workplace assessment that will conclude that, in most of cases, there is no risk. This approach will lead to excessively high administrative costs for the welding industry and no real improvement of health and safety for workers.
This cost could be better addressed, by applying the exposure limit values listed in 2004/40/EC to generic cases in order to fix applicable action values in consequence. This approach will reinforce the European Regulation by concentrating costs on Generic Risk Assessment and not spreading them globally across European Industry. The benefit of such Generic Risk Assessment is the elimination of end user interpretation and improvement of global efficiency.
Another example of open interpretation domain is the current REACH regulation. Classification between article and mixture/preparation is the importer’s responsibility. Some importers have decided to classify welding consumables as ‘articles’. As a consequence, these importers avoid carrying out health, safety and environmental risk assessment for substances included in welding consumables.
In fact, for no improved applicable limit values, exceedingly low action values given in Directive 2004/40/EC have increased both the administrative costs and the area of interpretation available to employers.
Erik Öhman, Volvo Cars
Spot welding is, regardless of Brand, one of the main processes for car manufacturing and also well known for creating high EMF values
Until 20 – 25 years ago this was mainly manual work, today it is automated to a high degree. However there are still a considerable large number of manual spot welding stations, as pre-assembly and back up for the main process. At Volvo Cars alone, there are several hundreds and if you include all car brands in EU the amount is huge.
We estimate that more than 100 of these stations at Volvo Cars will be subject for corrective actions following the new Electromagnetic Fields Directive proposal.
The cost of monitoring will be considerably high and there will be a need for specialists and equipment which we do not have today. Constant changes in process and products, as we have in the automotive industry, will also create a need of constant monitoring
The results from measurements with the technology in use are too weak for taking decisions on very expensive investments. The range of variation is too broad and the results are very difficult to duplicate. Our experience shows that even the size and posture of the operator affects the result to an unacceptable degree.
The cost of corrective actions will be huge and unrealistic compared to the benefit.
The only known solution, theoretically, is automation. On top of the investment cost this will not only increase cost for maintenance and spare parts but also increase cost and time for product and process changes
And there would still be unavoidable exposure to EMF left, connected to calibration and maintenance of the equipment.
We have had a professional health service department since the 1970s with specialist doctors, nurses and toxicologists, monitoring and follow up all aspects of occupational health issues.
During all these years there has been no confirmed report on health issues connected to EMF and spot welding.
FLEXICURITY & WORKING TIME
Armindo Silva, European Commission
The situation - where we are – identification of the problems
• Failure of the conciliation after � years of inter-institutional debate left unresolved all the issues that had led the Commission to propose an amendment of the Working Time
Directive in 2004: individual opt-out, extension of the reference period and on-call time/compensatory rest
• Other issues were opened during the inter-institutional debate such as the reconciliation of work and family life, the concept of ‘autonomous worker’ and the situation of workers with multiple jobs
• As a result of the failed conciliation, a difficult situation has arisen for a large number of Member States. In a number of cases, there is non-conformity of national law or practice with EU Law and Court rulings and also there is legal uncertainty on how to interpret certain provisions
The special responsibility of the Commission
• The Commission cannot accept the continuation of the present situation. The status quo is not an alternative. Therefore we have a special responsibility to act. An initiative by the Commission has been called for by a number of Member States, for instance during the Informal Council of Jönköping. Such Member States are interested in clarifying the legal situation and preventing an eventual action by way of infringements.
A ‘comprehensive review’
• The President designate has announced before the Parliament, in September, his intention to carry out a ‘comprehensive review’ of the Directive. There are two possible options to approach the review process.
- To limit the review to those issues which were left unresolved by the previous revision process with the purpose to propose solutions that might reach a compromise between the co-legislators.
- To enlarge the scope of the review in order to assess the extent to which the current Directive is able to respond to the needs of workers, businesses, consumers and public services in the 21st century.
•The first option risks putting the co-legislators before the same type of confrontational issues that proved so divisive recently. Also, the Commission would be losing a key opportunity to review in depth a directive whose most important provisions were first proposed nearly 20 years ago. During
this period very important changes took place in the world of work, which should be reflected in an adaptation of the working time regulation at EU level.
• Key changes influencing the organization of working time
- Transition from industry-based to knowledge-based economy, with concomitant growth in number of knowledge workers;
- Widespread use of information and communication technologies, less dependence on a centralized work location;
- Increasing role of Working Time management in business competitive strategies;
- More diversified workforce; increased female participation in workforce;
- Demographic changes leading to a reduced workforce
• The review of the Working Time Directive should take these fundamental changes into account in order to address the needs of the workers, businesses, public services and consumers of the 21st century:
- for workers, the need to prevent negative health and safety effects derived from intensification of work, and better reconciliation between family and working life especially in case of non-standard working hours.
- for business, the need for greater flexibility in adapting the volume and distribution of working time to activity fluctuations
Next steps
The Commission services are currently preparing a comprehensive review of the Directive. As for any other initiative in the social policy field, the adoption of any proposal will be preceded by a two-stage consultation of the social partners and an impact assessment, which will emphasise the social aspects since this is a Directive which occupies a core position in the EU social legislation.
David Yeandle, Chair, EU Affairs Committee, CEEMET
CEEMET supports ‘flexicurity’ as it considers this can help Member States to improve the performance of their labour markets and therefore meet the employment targets that were set as part of the Lisbon Agenda. It is therefore encouraging that the importance of ‘flexicurity’ has been referred to in the Commission’s recently published consultation document on ‘The future EU 2020 Strategy’.
‘Flexicurity’ is a difficult concept to describe simply and it is important to recognise that it comprises 4 important and inter-related elements. These are:-
- Flexible contractual arrangements
- An active labour market
- An adequate social security system
- Life long learning
Member States must implement ‘flexicurity’ policies in a way that reflects the differences in their employee relations history/culture, social security and taxation systems, collective bargaining arrangements etc. There cannot therefore be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to ‘flexicurity’ for Member States but the Commission has a key role to play in encouraging Member States to share their practical experiences of which policies work and which do not, through the ‘open method of co-ordination’.
To date, a lot of emphasis has been placed by Member States on the first 3 of these elements with probably insufficient attention being paid to the important contribution that life-long learning can play.
CEEMET understands that the Commission is shortly going to issue a consultation document on revising the Working Time Directive. It will be important that this helps to take forward and not impede ‘flexicurity’ policies in Member States. Adversely it should not affect the ability of European
businesses to compete in an increasingly challenging global marketplace.
This consultation document should reflect the significant changes that have taken place in the European labour market and the way in which work is organised since the Working Time Directive was first discussed almost 20 years ago.
It should also recognise that the current Directive is creating practical difficulties in many Member States. There now needs to be some lateral thinking on how these practical difficulties can be resolved, rather than simply try to address issues which have proved to be irresolvable problems and on which so much unproductive time has been spent over recent years by the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
Paola Assorgia, Finmeccanica
The Finmeccanica Group
The Finmeccanica Group is an Italian corporation, with a significant international dimension, both in terms of markets and in terms of footprint and operations.
We are mostly active in the defence electronic, aeronautics, and helicopters sectors, but we also have operations in the space, energy and transportation areas.
Our headcount is approaching 80,000 employees worldwide, 44% of which are non-Italy based employees.
Our presence, in addition to Italy, is concentrated mostly in the UK, where we have more than 10,000 employees, and in the USA, where we employ more than 12,000 resources.
Flexibility and Flexicurity - Current Legislation, Trade Union Relations Environment in Italy
The current economic climate requires that international Companies, in their efforts to remain competitive, push for efficiency and for the adoption
of flexible organisational models. This will allow them to face the number of challenges that the market is producing, as well as take advantage of the potential opportunities offered by an era of change.
The Italian policy decisions on the matter of flexibility, and subsequent industrial relations, are affected by a common virtual association of the concept of ‘flexibility’ to the concept of ‘uncertainty’.
At the same time, the recent international economic events have demonstrated that stability of employment is not sufficient on its own, unless accompanied by a real stability of the industries.
This is why we believe that the current discussions might be useful in better qualifying the approach behind a successful implementation of ‘flexibility’ in the current political and social scenario.
An appropriate level of flexibility is necessary to support businesses in rightsizing their operations and, therefore, in remaining competitive and potentially to grow to the benefit of the market as well as their employees themselves. This, though, should not produce uncertainty in the workforce, but rather be accompanied by elements of support to the employees, to maintain their skills as attractive for the industries. They should be supported in potential periods of unemployment with economic or material incentives, with a view to re-allocating their capabilities within the labour market.
Training programmes and life-long education, flexibility of working time and adjustment of company regulations to enhance the work-life balance, government support in case of unemployment, all look promising tools, therefore, that should be analysed in conjunction with any discussion on flexibility.
In the last few years, a number of ‘flexibility’ instruments were introduced in Italy to support our industries and improve the static labour market. With a varying degree of success, and sometimes leading to confrontational situations with the Trade Unions, all of the Italian companies have been trying to experiment with the newly introduced instruments, while at the same time, striving to maintain stable relationships with the workforce and its representatives and, most of all, ensuring that any change was as less disruptive as possible for the employees.
Successful experiences of flexibility within the Finmeccanica Group
Taking into account this social context, and while facing the international development of its operations, Finmeccanica has actively collaborated with the Trade Unions in reaching an agreed approach to face the current
challenges, successfully balancing the need for flexibility into its business organisation with the protection of the employees’ rights and security of their professional course.
I would share with you three successful experiences we had in this area:
The first one has been the introduction of the new ‘Apprenticeship Contracts’, following our Italian reform in 2003. The new legislation has designed a system of gradual introduction of young and qualified resources into the business, providing for a process spread over a number of years where the employment relationship, even if not yet permanent, is sustained by a high degree of training and education, whose costs the Company can afford also thanks to social security savings provided by the new regulations.
This has transformed the apprenticeship contract into a real investment on our young resources, and it is now in the best interest of the Company and of the employees that the training path is successful and the induction process within the day to day operations leads to a final permanent hire.
Finmeccanica, whose training and education efforts are significant for all clusters of employees at any level, has fully embraced the concept of rewarding our young employees not only through the ordinary remuneration but also through an effective and comprehensive on-the-job training. Since 2007 our Group, in fact, also thanks to multiple company collective agreements, has hired more than two thousand young resources as apprentices, one thousand six hundred of which are in the blue-collar area.
Secondly, I would like to note the good use of temporary contracts and agency workers that Finmeccanica has tried to pursue.
Like any other international and diversified business, our Group has been subject to alternate peaks in its operations, both in negative and positive terms. To support an appropriate management of extraordinary circumstances, temporary contracts were demonstrated an effective tool, which could support our industrial processes when a peak would happen.
At the same time, our policy has consistently been one of ‘security within flexibility’ and therefore, whenever possible, the temporary employment relationship has always been considered an investment on the resources. As such, since 2006 we have hired on a permanent basis more that 2.200 of our temporary or agency workers. That is the equivalent of 95% out of the total.
Finally, and in line with the current discussion over the European provisions, we have dedicated a lot of attention to understand how we wanted to plan flexibility on working time.
We are a high-tech corporation, with extremely significant manufacturing plants and lines of operations. Our advanced technologies and industrial processes often require particular treatments, not to mention the design of unique command and control procedures. To successfully run the business, therefore, in a number of cases we had to define an articulated architecture of shifts so as to guarantee a 24/7 coverage of the industrial processes.
Once again, the collaboration of our Trade Unions has been crucial to the definition of a joint decision on these matters, as for example in the case of our Alenia Aeronautica site in Grottaglie, which we built for the manufacturing of the Boeing 787 ‘Dreamliner’ fuselage. Such an important programme, while requiring efforts in terms of working time flexibility, has brought an important increase of employment in the local area and led to the creation of a high technology centre of excellence.
Moreover, while the success of the business is always in the interest of both the company and the workforce, we believe that flexibility of working time should also be understood as a mean to facilitate the work-life balance of our employees. From the promotion of safety in the workplace, to the protection of health and security, to the support of female workers and maternity, Finmeccanica has launched a number of initiatives that will invest in the welfare of its employees.
Final remarks
As these examples have shown, Finmeccanica has pursued flexibility when the business was requiring it to remain competitive. At the same time, though, we have always tried to highlight the potential opportunities for our employees where there is an opportunity for flexibility.
Naturally, we will closely follow the development of the current discussions over flexicurity and working time legislation, offering our active involvement in any future occasion.
I am very sceptical about the Commission’s new thoughts concerning the Working Time Directive. The Commission should have a completely new approach in this dossier in order to reach a compromise between the legislative institutions of the European Union.
Concerning on-call time, the EP considers it as working time, as the employee has to go to his/her workplace during it and cannot decide about this period of time freely. But according to us, the Member States should have the choice to agree with the trade unions, etc. on the salary for on-call time.
As for an opt-out, the European Parliament is still against this option. In our opinion there was no chance to agree on this question during the co-decision procedure, because the opinions were so far away from each other. But we have to appreciate that the EPP and S&D Parliamentary political groups have a different approach in this matter.
The S&D cannot accept that a Member State can have an opt-out from such a binding obligation. As for the EPP, there are so many SMEs especially in the new Member States, that we want them to apply obligatory working time measures, because it would have bad effects on the health of those employees.
Besides all this, I consider it a sad fact that while the institutions are negotiating so long on the Working Time Directive, we don’t take account of the changing world and the new forms of employment and work contracts, even though very soon we should have legislation for them as well.
Gustaf Lindgren, Chair, Working Group, Swedish Council Presidency
Neither the Member States’ positions, nor problems stemming from the ECJ jurisprudence have changed since the failed conciliation last spring.
It seems clear that the European Commission will take the initiative. The Council is awaiting the first consultation with the Social partners.
CLOSING REMARKS
Uwe Combuechen, CEEMET
Thanks
On behalf of the European Forum for Manufacturing (EFM) and CEEMET, as the sponsoring organisation tonight, we would like to thank all the contributors to this Roundtable Dinner on Employment and European Manufacturing. In particular we convey our thanks to the Director General and the European Commission officials for their expertise on the variety of issues we have covered in a very full programme. We are pleased to have had MEPs, from across the political groups, with specific interest providing European Parliament input . It was good to have contributions also from the Swedish Presidency of Council updating us on the latest positions as well as the Trade Union contributions. Last but not least, manufacturing company input providing solutions as well as examples has, we hope, provided a good two way flow of information this evening.
From all of this we take certain elements which the EFM and CEEMET, with its focus on Social Affairs and Employment legislation in particular, could take forward. We are convinced that despite the ongoing effects of the financial and economic crisis, for the future, manufacturing will be at the heart of the European economy. To cope with the challenges of the economic crisis, internationalisation of markets and ever faster technological change, industry needs sound and stable framework conditions.
With regard to the topics discussed at this European Forum for Manufacturing, the following key issues should be considered by EU institutions:
Pregnant Workers:
Whilst CEEMET members fully support the principle of the protection of pregnant workers there should be no increase of cost due to extending the existing protection of pregnant workers without compensation.
The EU institutions should consider that the overregulation of the protection of pregnant workers might have the opposite effect of the intended one and lead to declining labour market participation of women.
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Musculo Skeletal Disorders (MSD)
The EU Commission should provide the possibility of clear and inexpensive procedures to demonstrate compliance with reference levels on EMF.
The Commission should consider the particular case of MRI (8 million investigations / examinations did not show direct effects of EMF), but at the same time massive impact on manifold welding processes which are at the heart of many manufactured products.
CEEMET would welcome the Commission focussing less on legislation and monitoring and instead redirecting its activities more towards prevention guidance, an approach which should also apply for the MSD dossier (companies would be prepared to share good examples of prevention guidance).
CEEMET stresses that the forthcoming Commission consultation document on working time should encourage rather than impede Flexicurity.
Huge changes in economies and markets, including labour markets, have taken place since the Working Time Directive was initially adopted 20 years ago. These need to be clearly reflected in the Commission consultation paper.
Innovative thinking is needed to find solutions on inactive time at work (on-call time).
Next EFM Roundtable
The European Forum for Manufacturing programme of roundtable meetings bringing together Manufacturers, MEPs, European Commission, Council Presidency, Trade Unions and other stakeholders will hold the next Roundtable early in 2010 on:
