In Greece, the prolonged economic crisis, there is a strongly the degradation of this relationship between employers and employees, in favour of employers. However, it is assumed that the trend of redirection of industrial relations is dictated by many factors, but primarily by economic conditions. Recently the Minister of Labour, mr. Effie Αχτσιόγλου stated that “of 125,000 workers are paid less than 100 euros per month and 1,000,000 workers earn less than 1,000 euro a month”. Accepting as true the evidence of the Minister is readily understood that the situation, to put it mildly, would be described tragic. So I wonder from where are derived the requirements of the institutions on the labour relations in a highly deregulated as a fragmented labour market.
Key word with regard to the working environment and the parliaments of the european union is the Latin neologism “flexicurity”, which is delimited by the words “flexibility” and “security”. Greek the νεολογικός term “Flexicurity” best represents the new model of industrial relations and, respectively, derived from the words “Flexibility” and “Security”. The model of flexicurity originates from Denmark where it was first created in the 1960s, and flourished with great success its final form after 1994. Feature is that the employment flexibility has now become a traditional element of the temperament of the Danish worker and a fundamental element of the structure and organisation of the welfare state of Denmark.Indicative of the very great success of a decision from the impressive results showed a pre-crisis where the level of employment amounted to 79,7% (the largest in the Europe of the 27) and the unemployment rate fell to 3,5%.The Danish model is characterised by the “Golden Triangle”, which consists of (a) Flexible Employment Market, b) the generous System of Social Welfare and (c) the Active Employment Policies. With the first pillar, the employers have the discretion to dismiss with easy procedures for workers without a high cost. With the second the Danish unemployed receive between 70% and 90% of the salary of the last job, while at the same time has established a high threshold for collective dismissals, where in some cases such as the enterprises from 100-300 people reaches 10%. And the third pillar keeps in constant mobilisation of the unemployed and workers through programmes of lifelong education and upgrading of workforce.
However, the cornerstone of the model of flexicurity is the sincere social dialogue that happens between the actors, the high level of social capital and the capitalist κοÏποÏατισμός from which it is distinguished by Denmark. Situations that ensure a smooth environment in order to implement the flexicurity model on the labour market. Robert D. Putnam(i) reports in his study Making Democracy Works, that “trust, norms and networks provide an internal mechanism of mutual engagement such as to enable rational individuals to transcend collective dilemmas”.
At the same time the financing of the system is derived from a direct tax imposed on all wage-earners and the self-employed and corresponds to 8% of gross income, respectively while employers contribute 0.6% of the sum of the wages of workers in the enterprise (ii).
With the order of the E.E. inspired by the Danish success, since 2007, raised the flexicurity model as a best employment policy and standard model, incorporating the European Employment Strategy to enhance achievement of the target for the employment of the Europe 2020 Strategy (iii).Despite the fact that the model has been successfully implemented in Denmark, it is legitimate to ask for a conditional flexicurity in industrial relations. It is evident in the first level that the two terms that very optimistically, the model tries to reconcile competing among themselves and in particular with voltage flexibility through the reduction of labour costs to covets the acquired rights of the workers ‘ safety.
In addition to intense faulting is found within the text of the European Council in 2007 through which institutional model of flexicurity.E.. With an ambiguous wording, reference is made to the fact that the social welfare system, which is one of the three pillars of the model will have to be “modern, adequate and sustainable”.
Driven by the above-mentioned ambiguous formulation of the flexicurity model can turn into a nightmare for the workers, if it is not applied with all its manifestations and in its entirety. It is likely that the influence of the extreme neoliberal enclaves that thrive in Europe and earnestly desire the deregulation of industrial relations to use the flexicurity model as a trojan horse. It is not possible to thrive in the flexicurity model without the full and balanced support of the three pillars, flexible labour market, generous welfare system and active employment policies. The model easily turns into a nightmare for the workers and their working relationships when they get discounts to one of the three pillars.
In closing, it would be fruitful to mention that as it is widely understood that the success of such a model is extremely difficult to extend to the whole of the union, it would be a challenge to be studied and to draw lessons for the union and the member states of the path travelled by the Denmark reaching and creating the model of ευλισφάλειας. We remind that the model he started his first steps in the 1960s to its final form in 1994. The Cavafy’s journey is who has the greatest interest, and in this case it is the level of social harmony and relationship that has been created in Denmark in the effort to built this model of flexicurity. Let’s make an example of all the member states of the particular journey up to flexicurity, and then Ithaca for each country, it will be easy to built.
Source
Flexicurity: Beware of the Danes and gifts
—