Flexibility and security: an asymmetrical relationship?
creased protection for regular workers and no protection to flexible workers: the Bill slightly reduced
dismissal protection for standard workers, whilst it improved security for non-standard workers, es-
pecially part-time workers (Viebrock & Clasen, 2009).
Part-time work, especially for women, was perceived as an answer both to the need of business
to adjust labour to the economic fluctuations, as well as to requests by a growing share of the female
workforce to work reduced hours, and thus reconcile their conflicting work-life balance requirements.
Following long negotiations between the social partners (with the active involvement of female union
members) an agreement was reached to increase the attractiveness of part-time work by providing
equal treatment to part-workers with full-time workers, on a pro-rata basis, in return for greater work-
ing hours’ flexibility. During the 1990s, any discriminatory clauses in collective agreements marginal-
izing part-time jobs in terms of training opportunities, early retirement, taxation, and redundancy
schemes were eventually removed (Tijdens, 2005). The principle of equal treatment of non-standard
employment patterns was later extended to temporary work, whose level of protection substantially
improved. The “Flexibility and Security Act” (1999) strengthened the position of temporary workers
by reducing precariousness and gave employment and social security rights (including training oppor-
tunities, career development and supplementary pensions) to temporary agency workers, reflecting
a balanced approach to flexicurity measures. More recently, with the 2000 “Adjustment of Working
Hours Act” employees were given the right to request an adjustment of their working time (an in-
crease or a decrease), according to their needs. The employer usually has to accept the request, unless
there are serious budgetary or organizational constraints (ibid.).21
The EU countries can also learn from policy measures that have been adopted in other countries
- either through legislation, or following collective labour agreements - and have proved successful
in coping with labour market and social protection problems. These initiatives do not necessarily
constitute a rational or deliberate policy choice to promote flexicurity per se; rather, they constitute
attempts to enhance competitiveness and social cohesion, but also to address economic under-per-
21 See section 6 for a more detailed account of the Dutch experience.
Page • 41