Mapping a future for social Europe: report of the policy commissions

Mapping a future for social Europe

TUC Conference

Friday 18 April 2008

The three policy commissions held during the conference covered the environment; equality, social and economic policy; and international work. Here are the reports of the commissions, which are being digested into TUC proposals for the future of social Europe. They will then be submitted to the European Trade Union Confederation and the Party of European Socialists.

Environment commission

Chair: Paul Noon, TUC General Council.

Linda McAvan MEP set out the main issues in the PES consultation on the environment, 'Save Our Planet'. Climate change is now a mainstream political and economic issue - prompted by the Al Gore film, the hard scientific evidence on climate change from the IPPC, and public experience of too many extreme weather events across Europe to be written off as one-off events. The EU is seeking to take a global lead in supporting a new Kyoto Treaty, committing to 30% cuts in CO2 by 2020 if a new treaty can be won.

The EU's Energy Package is based on this assumption and commits the EU States to play their shared part in the key policy initiatives:

• the EU Emissions Trading Scheme - with its tough limits on CO2 emissions imposed through a new cap-and-trade system from 2012, affecting heavy industry, energy supply, etc;
• low carbon vehicles - with mandatory emissions limits on new vehicles from 2012;
• 20% renewable energy target by 2020; and
• 20% of CO2 savings through energy efficiency.

Some nervousness among unions has developed since the package was adopted about the jobs impact of some of these measures - eg in the car and steel sectors. EU therefore needs to take measures to protect jobs in most energy-intensive sectors and other measures to promote research into low carbon technologies. We mustn't lose our nerve.

Anne Paneels (FGTB) outlined ETUC's response to the PES Manifesto. For EU unions, the fundamental issue is building consultation amoung the EU social partners - unions, business, EU Commission - on climate change and energy policies. The ETUC supports the Manifesto, but believes that it should address three key principles:

• social solidarity;
• integrating economic, social and environmental issues - the social dimension is often forgotten; and
• a Just Transition - with a clear voice for unions.

Just Transition is emerging as the central principle of ETUC engagement in climate change:

• there will be job gains and losses, with many of the new opportunities not emerging at the same time and place as job losses and other negative impacts;
• the ETUC is calling for social dialogue among social partners, a managed transition, involving investment in green jobs, skills and training programmes, investment in new industries, and economic diversification in area that are hardest hit;
• strengthening workers' rights for information, consultation and social dialogue at all levels; and
• adaptation strategies in Europe also call for a new role for public services in health, education and emergency services.

It is vital that the Manifesto addresses legitimate concerns about the negative impacts of energy and climate change policies:

• energy must be available at a fair price for all, especially low-income households who are even now bearing the brunt of energy shortages;
• job losses - the 'leakage' of jobs in heavy energy-using industries like steel, aluminium, cement, to countries without carbon limits; and
• tackle the contradictions in policies.

In discussion:

• carbon capture and storage had a vital role to play in cutting emissions from heavy industry, but the technology had to be developed rapidly to see if it was both viable and provided secure storage of CO2;
• new trade agreements would have to take on board the question of job losses to countries without carbon pricing schemes; and
• the ITUC had been working closely with the US unions on energy and climate change policy, where there were real concerns about further de-industrialisation if the US joined the Kyoto Treaty.

Linda reported that the Commission had agreed to set up a social dialogue task force with the ETUC and industry, and would take back our comments on a Just Transition to the Commission.

Social, economic and equality commission

Chair: Judy McKnight (TUC General Council)

Glenis Willmott MEP recalled that it was 20 years ago that Jacques Delors had addressed the TUC. The agenda he had then established had had a major impact on Social Europe - and on TUC attitudes. The PES had to try to adopt a manifesto that would have a similar impact. Among the key challenges to be faced were poverty and inequality, unemployment and job insecurity, ageing, and globalisation. All new legislation should be subject to a social impact assessment. There should be a right to life long learning. The resources of the European Global Adjustment Fund should be increased. The EU budget had to be reformed with the proportion spent on the CAP being reduced to increase resources available for social objectives. The decent work agenda and the observance of core labour standards had to be progressed at the international level.

Claude Moraes MEP concentrated on equality issues which had received insufficient attention so far in PES preparations for the 2009 elections. In particular, the coverage of the equality and non-discrimation directives had to be extended to cover access to goods and services, as well as to employment, with regard to disability and race and not just gender. The rights of migrant workers to equal treatment had also to be assured.

Reiner Hoffman, ETUC Deputy General Secretary, said that the Lisbon strategy had to be rebalanced with social and environmental issues receiving greater attention at the expense of free market economic policies. The EU had to become its own engine of growth, especially through coordinated investment policies. Labour market flexibility policies which sought to enhance competitiveness through a lowering of standards, and in particular through lower real wages and longer working time, had to be resisted. The focus should instead be on issues such as better education and training, and the right to life long learning. The CAP did indeed need to be reformed.

In discussion the following points were made:

• decent work, which was also the basis for a decent life, should be at the centre of the manifesto. Progressive solutions to the problems posed by migration must be proposed. With the Commission backpeddling on the extension of the equality directives to goods and services this issue too had to be highlighted;
• an explicit commitment to the defence and promotion of quality public services should be in the manifesto. Internal market rules must not be allowed to undermine the NHS;
• the defence and celebration of Europe's cultural dimension should be covered;
• the importance of quality jobs, and the need to fight precariousness in all its forms and to guarantee equal treatment especially in the media sector, was underlined. Public service broadcasting had to be defended. The problems caused by the excessive concentration of media ownership had to be addressed;
• the exclusion of workers in shipping from a number of social directives had to be ended so that competition took place on fair terms and not on the basis of social dumping;
• an explicit commitment from the PES was required that the recent European Court of Justice judgements on industrial relations issues (Viking, Laval and Rueffert) would be overturned. The decent work agenda, and the respect of Core Labour Standards had to be pursued with regard to the WTO, trade liberalisation, and globalisation;
• rather than being defensive Europe should actively promote the export of the European Social Model. The extension of workers' information and consultation rights was an appropriate response to globalisation;
• the Directive on the Taxation of Income from Savings should be strengthened to help ensure that the super-rich couldn't escape taxation;
• transport issues should be fully covered in the manifesto; and
• international institutions such as the WTO and IMF were unelected and unaccountable; ways had to be found to increase the influence of working people on their activities.

International commission

Chair: Owen Tudor (TUC)

Richard Howitt MEP, began by stating that these are real elections and therefore our policy demands need real focus. He noted we were faced with a situation where some would be portraying global developments as entirely positive: globalisation was great, the cold war is over, conflicts are being resolved across the world. Whilst our analysis was often much harsher: a race to the bottom to attract investment, economic growth delinked from job growth, unfair distribution of the benefits of increased trade, trade unionists being murdered, millions being trafficked and forced and child labour still common place.

These contradictions were also evident at the European level. On the one hand the European project was indeed a huge exercise in building long term regional peace and stability, the world's leading source of development aid and a positive force for defence of the environment, but we are also faced with the reality of a Europe failing to meet commitments to increase aid and with no agreement yet on how best to fight climate change.

We needed to maintain a positive message at the same time as demanding more meaningful change. The manifesto has to reflect this. Richard outlined six principles the manifesto should enshrine:

• support for inclusive globalisation e.g. supporting trade agreements only where they lead to better standards, including labour standards;
• honour and increase commitments on development assistance and the environment;
• support multilateralism and reform of global governance structures;
• support for policies on migration based on migrant workers' rights;
• promote increased linkages within the EU and support for enlargement; and
• support for decent work and the core labour standards agenda.

He followed this by looking at a number of practical asks that could be included relating to different areas. On international development we should push to get increased involvement for unions from both Europe and developing countries in the development projects supported by the EU and ensure EU programmes are fully aligned with the ILO.

On trade, we should challenge the naked mercantilism of the EU's 'Global Europe' policy paper and secure policy commitments that will lead to the EU exporting higher standards rather than reducing our own and others' - Richard set out various ways this can be done eg through the use of social clauses at the WTO and in regional trade agreements linking trade and labour standards, through the GSP+ scheme of preferential trade access to the EU, through ensuring proper impact assessments for proposed trade agreements and through taking a more robust approach to things like sanctions when called for by our colleagues on the ground eg in Burma.

In the wider arena of foreign and security policy, we need to call for unions to be more involved institutionally eg. in EU human rights dialogues with countries like China and as part of the teams looking at the conditions candidate countries for membership of the EU should introduce.

In addition to these points a number of other areas were touched on including the possibility of an EU seat at the ILO, the need to build support for an international convention on corporate social responsibility and a plea for the Parliament to settle in a single base - Brussels.

Tom Jenkins from the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) focused on a number of key areas that the ETUC would like to see reflected in the PES manifesto, with an emphasis in particular on trade as an issue where the EU has lead competency rather than the member states.

He noted that our 'Social Europe' agenda was not just about Europe, but something we wanted to see spread globally. Currently it was clear that the balance between the power of markets and rights is wrong - when looking at the WTO and ILO it is clear that the former has more weight and the manifesto should begin to look at the policies that could rebalance this.

He noted that there is much talk of the need for coherence at a European level but in fact at the moment at least four EU directorates worked on 'foreign affairs' issues: Foreign Relations, Trade, Development and Enlargement, and often these took different and contradictory positions.

The trade union movement in Europe needed to consider what improvements could be made to the EU's institutional framework to allow us to become more directly involved. He also noted that under the Lisbon treaty the European Parliament had gained more power and so it was more important than ever that we worked with them.

A central issue for inclusion in the manifesto would be what action could be taken to ensure that European trade agreements in all their various forms (regional trade agreements such as those be negotiated with Korea, India and ASEAN, Economic Partnership Agreements and GSP+) work to strengthen the adherence to international labour standards globally rather than weaken them. We needed to work more closely with MEPs who were involved in these processes such as Labour MEPs acting as rapporteurs on two of the main sets of trade talks. The role of EU - China trade were likely to be key areas of work for the ETUC.

The group discussion focused on policy proposals and began with broad agreement with the points made by both speakers. Points raised included:

• the PES needed to reflect more on achievements of progressive forces in Latin America and look at the issue of GSP+ and how it was possible for countries with records like Colombia's could benefit. However, a note of caution about raising Colombia's GSP+ status was sounded: it would be difficult to secure the required ILO examination if this was raised publicly at this stage;
• the PES should call for a formal link between core labour standards and trade agreements;
• the wider possibilities for the EU to use things like trade agreements to apply pressure in various countries and regions such as the Middle East should be considered;
• there was consensus on the need to reflect more on relations with China and India and how we could use the development of Europe's institutional links with them both to help workers there and ensure growth in Europe. There was debate on the need to work with 'progressive forces' from these countries to bring about improvements as opposed to appearing to seek to impose European views;
• the manifesto should include support for the legal changes that are needed to allow unions to work cross border including mergers and solidarity actions;
• the manifesto could look at highlighting the fact that the UN/ILO Decent Work agenda is in fact very close to a globalised European social model; and
• the need to defend the ILO and in particular its tripartite structure in the process of UN reform was highlighted. It was also noted that a number of European governments including the British were amongst the least supportive of the ILO.