Aliki Mouriki
From the labour perspective, those who are skeptical or dismissive of the flexicurity agenda em-
phasize the fact that the existing systems of employment protection do not prevent a large number
of European firms to engage in structural change, nor the creation of new jobs; despite having a
more regulated labour market than in the US, European economies have the same rate of job crea-
tion and job destruction, with more protection for workers. Moreover, business is already enjoying
historically high profits, so why this urge for more flexibility? Cutting wage costs and competing for
the low skilled does not —according to this line of argument- lead to more and better jobs, rather, it
is moving up the value added chain that constitutes the best reply to the challenges of globalisation
(ETUC, 2008). A further point of union criticism is that while flexibility is usually realized through
cuts in employment protection, the compensations in terms of safety for workers remain uncertain
(see Auer, 2008). 26 Concerns are raised, also, by low skilled workers enjoying relative employment
protection, who are reluctant to relinquish their current sense of security for the uncertain gains of
becoming more flexible, even if this would be translated into more jobs or into safeguarding their
own job in the long-term. Finally, the fiercest opponents of the flexicurity agenda include those
unions and political parties who see it as an attempt to dismantle what is left of job protection and
engage into a “race to the bottom” that could only lead to further labour exploitation, thus becoming
“flexploitation”. 27
From the business perspective, flexicurity is not popular across the board. A large number of SMEs
and traditional industry sectors prefer the “security” of their traditional / taylorist work organization
practices-based on low wages and the low skills’ content of the job, long working hours, rigid pay
scales, and job protection for the core workforce- rather than the uncertainties and the investment
involved in innovation and in adopting new forms of work organization. 28 Micro-firms in particular,
face considerable difficulties in adapting to the new challenges with employee-oriented measures that
might drive them out of business altogether.
26 However, Danish trade unions openly support the Danish flexicurity model, whilst Dutch unions, sceptical at first,
eventually endorsed and promoted flexible employment, as part-time work became increasingly popular.
27 Trade unions in Portugal and Greece adopt a similar stance, as well as some traditional left parties. In Germany too,
trade unions tend to view flexicurity as a disguise for job de-regulation, despite a number of agreements concluded at
the firm level (Leschke et al., 2006).
28 The new forms of work organisation require a significant innovative capacity on behalf of the firm, a continuous
updating of the skills of the workforce, a flattening of work hierarchies, team working, task rotation, multiskilling of
employees, job enrichment, etc., all of which involve substantial risks and additional costs for the firm.
Page • 48