Upholding our social rights in the 21 st century Central to the economy

Transcription

1 Upholding our social rights in the 21 st century Central to the economy 14 February 2018 On 14 February, fifteen people from various EU institutions and Commission DGs met to debate about My social rights, how to uphold them in the 21 st century. Using the world café participatory leadership approach, they chose to address this issue from three different angles: what does social mean today; how can social rights effectively empower people; and how to deal with paradoxes such as equality versus competition? They came up with out of the box ideas and practical suggestions on how, both individually and collectively, they could uphold their rights in the face of globalisation, digitalisation, demographic change and other challenges.

2 The context - The proclamation of a European Pillar of Social Rights In November 2017, at a special Social Summit attended by the Heads of State and governments, the presidents of the Council, European Commission and European Parliament proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights, which the Commission had adopted a few weeks before as a Recommendation. In so doing, they did not just agree on a floor of minimum rights, such as the European Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted in Rather, they agreed on a series of concrete rights and principles they deemed fit for purpose in the face of today s challenges. Operational rights that political action at EU, national, regional and local levels, can bring to life, in a social investment perspective. On the basis of the Pillar, the Commission has already put forward proposals on issues such as work-life balance, access to social protection for atypical workers, fair crossborder mobility etc. Being aware of those rights and taking ownership of them is the next, immediate challenge for people living in the EU, so that everyone may take part in upholding those rights. What does that mean in practice, for us, EU citizens working in EU institutions and bodies?

3 Sharing states of mind Just imagine a meeting where all participants have a chance at the beginning to briefly express and share their state of mind: It creates an atmosphere of personal implication, mutual attention and connection and gives a boost to the actual quality of the meeting. This is exactly what the participants did and here are a few extracts of what they said: The social dimension: I work in JRC. I am particularly happy to share my thoughts and to be with you. I was born in Bulgaria, lived in several European countries, and studied in several universities. I have been living in Brussels for 23 years and the social dimension was always been present in all the dossiers, which I dealt with in my DG or unit. The golden cage: I work in TAXUD. I was born in Germany and I have been living in Brussels for 28 years. I am very much engaged in trade union issues. Beyond our personal pleasures and sometimes frustrations in our career, we have cases that might seem extreme and perhaps not typical for the Commission. But you can see that this can also happen in the Commission: People can be harassed, dragged to a disciplinary board. The Commission preaches the rule of law and the European Convention of Human Rights but it should start very simply on its own doorstep. One thing that is essential for understanding the Commission is that it is a great multinational experiment under special, sometimes very favourable conditions. If we compare ourselves with the private sector, in the Commission we have a sort of frustration because we are in a golden cage. Perhaps we should leave this employer if we are frustrated. If we are not stupid, we could easily find another employer, although not under the same conditions, especially for officials. However, if we stay put, we can survive until retirement and just swallow our frustration, which accumulates because of this golden cage. In those DGs that have a concrete policy area to manage, people have a sense of purpose, even if they are over-worked. There are more problems such as harassment in the horizontal DGs. Making our action more meaningful: I am the Secretary General of the Central Staff committee. I am attending this meeting because I attended another event like this and found it OK. I am also here because, being a staff representative, I feel a certain

4 frustration about the effectiveness of our action. I would like to hear from colleagues how we can make it more meaningful. What other colleagues think: I am from DG EMPL. I am here to listen to other colleagues views on what social fairness means and how we define social rights in the 21st century, from colleagues coming from different backgrounds. The content and the method: I come from Denmark and work in the European Economic and Social Committee, where I have been working on the European Pillar of Social Rights. I am now working on atypical contracts. I am also interested in the method used because I have received a little bit of training in participatory leadership but have not used it very much. I would like to do so more actively. Social rights are central to the economy: I work in DGT, where I have been for 15 years. I am involved in the European civil service also as Secretary General of an NGO called Group Europe, which is a section of the European federalists. Our basic tenet is that EU officials are also European citizens and should be treated as such, and make full use of their responsibility and liberty as such. As regards the social pillar, I must say my first reaction was doubt. Because I found it was coming a bit too late and, to quote Jean- René Rabier, it is a bit like the ambulance coming after the accident. Therefore, I was sceptical and did not mobilise very much. On the other hand, I do believe that my social rights is exactly the right kind of message to send also to EU officials because we would all like to be above the fray but we are not. My basic belief is that social rights are not just an add-on, a supplement or whatever. Something nice to have. According to me that should be and that is a European basic. Social rights are also essential for the economy and society: it is not just an advantage for individuals; it is also central to stabilising the economy, ensuring that societies function

5 properly and that the optimal allocation of resources is ensured. So to me it is not a separate thing, it should be completely embedded in European policies. In addition, since I work in DGT, I am very much interested in language and multilingualism as part of social rights. In addition, I am very much interested in the process of participatory leadership. Jobs, education and healthcare: I work in DG ENV. For me the Pillar is very much about creating jobs, at a time when digitalisation and globalisation are taking over and some jobs are disappearing. It is also about ensuring good quality education and healthcare. I think it is the basis. We cannot build something else if we do not have the basis. Not just proclaiming but making sense of the Pillar for everybody: I come from Spain. I have been working in Brussels for many years now, in different DGs, and now I am a newcomer to DG EMPL. I joined this DG because I think the social dimension of the EU is something important and I am here today not because of my own rights but to see how we can contribute to making this Pillar not just a proclamation but something that makes sense for everybody in the EU. Therefore, I have plenty of questions! And very few answers for the time being. What is behind the Pillar? I am French and I have also been in many different DGs. My interest in the Pillar is in terms of questions, more than anything I would push forward. Therefore, I am here to listen and see what is behind it. Empowering people: I work in DG EMPL, on disability and social inclusion. Evidently, social fairness and rights are quite linked to my fields of interest and I would be particularly interested in seeing how we can empower people at the more local level to enforce their social rights wherever they are in Europe. What people in the Commission think: I work in DG EMPL. I am German-Brazilian. I am interested in the Social Pillar and I wanted to know what people in the Commission thought of it: what they actually think, their personal opinion. And have a conversation about what it means for us.

6 Social rights from three angles: fairness, empowerment and inequality The participants wrote on a piece of paper what they would like to discuss in particular. Consensus emerged on three angles: How do we define social (e.g. in relation to economics etc.)? And what do we mean by social fairness? How can social rights empower and support people, including through social dialogue? How to address paradoxes such as equal opportunities/inequality, fair working conditions/market dynamics? Three people volunteered to host discussion tables on each of these subthemes: café tables with paper table clothes on which the participants, rotating from one table to the other every ten minutes, could scribble their thoughts and key words, as they would in a Parisian café One round to discuss the deeper meaning of the issues at stake at each table, one to identify the obstacles, and a third round to come up with suggestions for concrete steps, however small, that each participant feels he/she can take when going back to the office to start addressing these issues. The table hosts then shared the outcome of their table.

7 Table 1. Defining social and social fairness : the positive or negative loop between social policy and economics We discussed the concept of what is social. People stressed the issue of employment as key to social rights. There was also this idea that it is the area where something happens, having to do with what you contribute and what you receive. When you work, you contribute something to society and society provides some kind of benefit like health, education and leisure. Also the issue of solidarity, which means the one and the many and that is probably one of the key concepts. As regards social fairness, concepts such as inequality came up and the basic element of social fairness is having the same wage or same minimum wage. General considerations were made on current trends in society, like the fact that integration in the labour market takes place very late in life. This has an impact. We discussed fragmentation in Europe, maternity leave from 16 weeks to 18 months across Europe, which is huge, so we do not have a very homogenous European space. Another dimension that we discussed was the impact of the social crisis and this was a demonstration of the close link there is between economics and the social dimension. With the financial crisis, families split, divorced, children left on the street, health has gone. It is the negative demonstration of the economic impact of social welfare. So there is a loop between social and economic and when this loop is negative, as we observe today, we have a serious degradation. The obstacles to social fairness: fragmentation, social violence, which I rephrased, because this was the essence of the exchange, as the tolerance for abuse in our societies and this was perhaps a trend that deserves being observed: we are more tolerant to abuse, to inequality perhaps; to oppression, (minorities/majorities were mentioned). There was a discussion on corruption and as regards this gradually increasing tolerance for abuse, corruption does not seem so relevant today because very legal things happen like offshore banks and social and fiscal dumping. So somehow, something has happened, which

8 is a recent evolution, which means that social fairness is not so strongly upheld as it used to be. We are much lazier, much more inactive even in the face of abuse. Somebody also mentioned the race to the bottom, the search for competitiveness at any cost, even at the cost of destroying society. We also mentioned weak governance and the rise of mistrust in institutions and in society. For the steps and actions to take: We started with simple actions like circulating information on social rights and one of us promised to do that, on the Pillar of social rights, which is a basic and essential step. Another participant said: statistics, the sheer strength of showing where the money is, is a contribution to the fight for social fairness. There was a discussion on tolerance: How tolerant we should be to the accumulation of profits when it comes to the free market, to luxury industries, as opposed to basic utilities. Should we have a sort of dual economic system, one of entire freedom and another one more strictly regulated for the essential, basic consumptions. Of course, we then came to taxation. Can we accept the dual economy? Or do we have to consider that everything is inter-dependent? This is best described as taxation for all: taxation should not allow pockets of non-solidarity. Therefore, harmonisation of the differences in minimum wage are of course the priority. Somebody mentioned a simple and very basic action but which is courageous, which is to change banks. Instead of putting your money in investment banks that speculate, try to find banks that uphold sustainable development: where does my money go? This is another step that can empower citizens. Finally monitoring and supervising financial agents.

9 Table 2. Empowerment support and social dialogue: quality leadership When we were talking about the deeper meaning of the question, we looked at how effective is social dialogue and who has access to it. Because it is important that the people who would benefit from it most, i.e. people in ordinary working positions, have access to that. Looking at theory and reality, we can talk about these issues on a grand scale but people will seek to meet their immediate needs and they take priority. We looked at the different interpretations of empowerment. It is quite an ethereal word so we noted that it could be interpreted in a negative way as a harmful shift of power, to benefit a certain minority. Alternatively, it can be seen as a positive concept of creating personal independence: the analogy of feeding someone with a fish and he eats for a day, give him a fishing rod and he can eat for weeks. Then we looked at the importance of quality leadership in social dialogue and in support of empowerment, the fact that if you have leaders, be they political leaders or leaders of organisations that do not take part in social dialogue or who do not have the political will to support people, and then it is not going to work. We looked at setting a minimum standard for all, in that if you guarantee a minimum, then everyone would at least have something. Then for the obstacles, we looked at how to reach out to citizens because when you have big social dialogue events, you sometimes have the issue of only academics being involved, not the ordinary workers. We looked at the political will, once more, not only for certain political interests but also the issue of corruption in preventing empowerment, especially if you look at funds that are meant to help the poorest people but somehow get lost on the way. We looked at cultural barriers to empowerment, the feeling that for example if you live in a society where if you are a woman, there is a strong feeling that a woman should not work if she has a young child. That could be a barrier to empowerment: You disempower yourself though these cultural means. We looked at access to EU funds, which from our perspective

10 is quite important, and if you are a private citizen, you do not access that unless you go through the people who are running the project at national government level. Moreover, how can ordinary EU citizens access those EU funds and empower themselves through that? We also looked at access to equality bodies and advice centres, the fact that if you are being discriminated against, you need to know who to go to them, otherwise the discrimination will not stop. Finally, for the part on what can you do?, we looked first at volunteering and donations as a form, a path citizens can take to empower people and provide support. Also political causes, the fact that you might want to influence social policy yourself because the problem may be structural, not just with your local community. Participatory discussions like this one can be very helpful for communication and allowing everyone to become involved, so quieter voices can be heard. Structures for mentoring and skills exchange, and that has to do with the fact that most people have a variety of skills that is not shared by everyone and if there is a formal structure for sharing those skills, then more could be achieved in terms of empowerment. Openness to new ways of working, building bridges between different community groups. For example, we were looking at the way refugees are not included in discussions about refugees. Awareness raising and civil society as a motor for policy change: governments might not listen to an individual but they would listen to an NGO or a charity.

11 Table 3. Inequality and paradoxes: communication and transparency We discussed about the nature of inequality. Inequality and poverty are a natural inclination amongst people and that is part of our culture. We measure ourselves as opposed to other people. And this is reflected in the distribution of wealth and how sometimes this is measured by taxation. Then, we discussed the issue of inequality rise in the EU. Is that really the case? There was no agreement on this but it was at least agreed that the EU is a leader in equality compared to other parts of the world. Then we discussed the necessity of equal opportunities and addressing discrimination. There was the question of the paradoxes between inequality and part of these paradoxes was that we need economic growth in order to afford social measures and social protection. So there was a discussion about whether you should lower social protections in order to raise the competitiveness of the EU and to increase growth, whereas others mentioned that it is not necessarily true, as social measures can actually be seen as investment into a better society and richer societies. The paradox within the EU which is that there a lot of divides: North and South, East and West, in how you see social inclusion and whether inequality is something you should promote more or that you should be addressing. How to overcome those paradoxes? The doubts about whether or not inequalities are rising can be resolved through better information and communication about inequality. The natural inclination towards inequality needs to be addressed through education. We have to think about how to change economic models and philosophy, our perceptions of success, as compared to other people: Changing the culture of how we interact. And reflect about how to ensure a more inclusive society. In order to have more socially inclusive societies, we need to have minimum social rights, a minimum social floor, because research has shown that more equal societies often have less crime, disease, and negative societal developments.

12 Then we discussed what could we do as individuals: we talked about the need for raising awareness, communicating facts about inequality. Citizens have to participate more and lead by example in their individual actions with others, trying to help others and not to discriminate others. It is about changing the culture into a more service-rendering one because society is often very individualistic. We also talked about taking ownership. One of the things we can do is support NGOs, lobby for rights together. Because this is a way to get more influence. We talked about ensuring better transparency, in terms of both taxation tax avoidance and how you recruit and place people in terms of salary.

13 What each of us went away with: We are so different yet we have the same questions so let s stick together! Imagine a meeting where all the participants are asked to briefly share their state of mind before they depart: it helps them fully realise what actually happened during the meeting, the journey they went through, the interactions that took place and what the other participants experienced. They will not quite remember the meeting the same way and it will have more impact on their work and life. It will also change the way they go to the next meeting. Here are some of the things that were said in this final round of expression, before going back to work: It is all about social cohesion: For me, I walk away thinking that society will benefit from people realising their own potential. Rights are connected with potential, with human approaches. The more people are treated humanely, the more integration and social cohesion there will be. Everything comes down to this. So much diversity, so many different opinions! I learnt that for instance, it is possible to go to another bank and that it is difficult to discuss everything. How to uphold my social rights? Everything we discussed has to do with that. We came with all our beliefs, our daily problems and finding really common ground is a bit much. Of course, it is worth spending two hours on that, having some good communication and seeing so many different things. I heard how things are going on in a country where there has never been a minimum wage. Some countries are so rich that minimum wage was never an issue there, because the social partners normally provided for satisfactory wages. Replacing this process by legislation on minimum wage could lead to a reduction of the established partnership. We have so many different opinions, also because we come from different countries. When speaking about issues that are so political, such as social cohesion, we cannot always find common ground here. It was not even requested. We need something more concrete to act on an individual basis. To me the debate proved that the question of social rights is very complex and has no easy solutions. The other thing that struck me is that we still link social rights with employment. This might no longer apply one day, with what we hear about digitalisation and robotisation that might destroy all those jobs. Therefore, it was an interesting debate. Many things were said that I had not thought about. But if the aim is to start each and every one of us to implement this Pillar of social rights, then we need something more concrete, to become active even on an individual basis.

14 We need to start by changing our mindsets. The third question what concrete steps can we take was the most difficult. We remained very abstract. I think that is a problem because we are super privileged, we are working in one of the most powerful institutions in Europe, we have access to resources that other institutions can only dream of, and I think we need a bit more thinking about what we can really do as a next step tomorrow! It might be as little as starting to shift our mind-set, asking ourselves whether we are in the right position Debating about My social rights is a good process that we should carry out with citizens at local level too. Yes, of course, we are here, we are complex bodies, and we are citizens but also policy makers and opinion-makers! It is an interesting mix but a complex one. I appreciated the process very much but to put it briefly, this message of My social rights could be a very good process/experience to carry out with citizens. Also at local level. I am sure it would be very rich. And I am very sure that there might be divergences but there would also be a strong convergence of opinions. That is the strong impression I remain with. Participation in organised civil society is actually going down. I learnt a lot about the participatory approach. For me it was a good exercise. I tried to host one of the tables. In terms of the content, I would also like to join with what some of the former speakers said: I think it was a bit too general. I also think that is the problem with the social pillar in general, it is too wide and can encompass everything. In the Economic and Social Committee, we held meetings in every country, inviting a large part of civil society to give their opinion on the Pillar and the answers were all over the place, because it is quite broad. Therefore, I think this is too big a topic. In terms of what we as persons can do, it was very interesting but also difficult because in fact participation in organised civil society is actually going down. Therefore, how we manage to do that on a personal level is a big question and I think that it is an interesting thing to pursue. May be some of the things that were not mentioned were some of the social media events or movements that are trying to take place on a social level but may be with a lack leadership. Tat that it is a question that needs to be addressed. We need to be more aware about our rights. What I take with me from this session is awareness. We need to be more aware about our rights in different sectors. We talked about maternity leave in different countries: It looks very different from country to country. I want to inform people. We need to remember the six core values of the EU. One of those is equality. We were talking about minimum wage. It should be equality for everyone. Not only in countries with more information. It should be equal for everyone.

15 Different backgrounds but similar questions so let us stick together! My main experience today is that we come from so many different backgrounds, different countries, and still we have the same questions! I think this is the good point. All the issues we have been discussing entail more challenges and the important thing is to remain together. With all the diversity we have, let us try to continue staying together to solve all these problems, otherwise it is really going to be a challenge. The fact that heads of state and governments need to proclaim social rights is already something significant: Something is missing in our societies. There is a lot to do for the new generation, to take up the challenges. Individual empowerment is beneficial to society as a whole. For me, what has been reinforced is this idea of empowerment of the individual person can lead to a real strengthening of society. So empowerment, social rights, and social fairness: it benefits everyone, not just the individual who is being empowered on that occasion. I was heartened to hear about values. I became a bit more aware of what people in this institution think about the concept of social rights. I was a bit heartened to hear about values, and political values, and what you are trying to achieve. That is where it starts, you need to think about the values and then what policy to come up with. And I thought that perhaps people were approaching the problems from a different angle in each case but there was a bit of convergence of views, which is interesting in a place where there are so many people from so many backgrounds. Complexity: The topic is very complex and I will just add that it was very beneficial for all of us to hear the views of many different people.