The European Commission has today announced its proposals on EU social security coordination.

They include plans to tighten the rules for accessing benefits for non-working citizens. For example, EU citizens currently receive unemployment benefits in the country in which they last worked. Under the Commission’s proposals, citizens would only receive benefits if they have worked in a country for three months. Where this threshold has not been met, the responsibility falls to the previous country in which the citizen worked, even if unemployment benefits are lower than the standard of living in their current country of residence.

Commenting on the Commission’s proposals, Greens/EFA member of the Committee for Employment and Social Affairs Jean Lambert said:

“With social security a critical concern for EU citizens, the European Commission should be looking to strengthen, not undermine, the protections offered across Europe.

“Mobility of workers and free movement are at the very core of the European project and must be maintained. We will fiercely oppose any proposal that would negatively impact upon citizens’ rights to receive social security benefits across the EU.

“We are pleased that the Commission has held firm and resisted the demands of some Member States for an indexation of child benefits. All children should be equally valued across the EU.”

The post Commission labour mobility proposals could undermine ‘social Europe’ appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Jean, along with the group’s president and two other vice-presidents, has urged him to consult widely with the most vulnerable, and to make tackling poverty and social exclusion a priority for the European Commission he will head.

You can read the letter here:

The post Letter to European Commission re Poverty and Social Exclusion appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

We have heard in Emilie Turunen’s excellent speech this afternoon that social Europe is not yet dead; there is vision. But we should also be aware that there are some very nasty things going on in parts of our societies which, if not challenged, could see a wider, negative shift.

Inequality is growing in this crisis; it was already an issue in the boom years.

We risk what was described in a recent conference on quality work, as a “collapsing bottom and floating top” – a hollowed-out labour market of well-paid, highly skilled “floaters” and a low-skilled, poorly-paid bottom – scrabbling for whatever they can get. Not a recipe for social cohesion.

The same conference also raised the growing issue of “social jealousy” – particularly between the public and private sector. A resentment of those seen to have a steady job and the prospect of a pension: a feeling of “Why should you have something I don’t have”? – a levelling-down, not a levelling-up. No fight. Not even an argument as to how to ensure that all have better working conditions and decent pensions.

This is a significant win for those political forces arguing for greater privatisation and a smaller state per se: it’s not a search for greater quality and better performance, although it may be cloaked in those words. This resentment makes it easier to cut back on the public sector, yet we know that strong public services are crucial for social inclusion and social progress and in many countries it is the public sector that has been at the forefront of genuinely flexible working practices (benefiting workers) and anti-discriminatory recruitment practices.

We are also seeing a return to 19th century (or even earlier) concepts of the “deserving and undeserving” poor. I often feel I could scream when UK politicians speak of “hard working families” as those in need of support and thus excluding others – as if hard-working single people don’t exist, for example, of those who are looking for work and can’t find it don’t count.

We have a language developing that blames people on benefits for creating the crisis or preventing a solution. The re-examination of the claims of those on disability benefit is an example. In the UK, we have seen a rise in hate crimes and hate speech against people with disabilities; others report being accosted by people demanding “Why aren’t you at work? Why are you taking my money?” etc. Treated as if they are lazy or fraudsters. We have a hardening of language and attitudes towards workers from other countries seen as “stealing” jobs, rather than contributing to our societies and economies.

We see the facile maths of 100 job vacancies and 100 unemployed – where’s the problem? As if there is automatically an easy fit: low-skilled workers can become professional engineers with the wave of a magic wand! Moving to where there is work is pushed as a solution. Greens are all in favour of labour mobility, when it makes sense. However, you have to recognise that many people – especially in difficult times – are not willing to leave their family and social network and move themselves and their families (assuming they can find affordable housing elsewhere) for a temporary, minimum wage job.

At least most EU countries have a minimum wage – whether set by law or social-partner agreement. Greens believe a living wage would be even better. We can try to solve in-work poverty (affecting at least 1 out of every 8 workers) by state subsidies to employees or we can expect employers to pay a wage people can live on.

We are seeing attacks on security in the workplace. One British MP from a governing party has said that we could easily lose 80% of health and safety legislation. Now, the Working Time Directive is health and safety legislation – it’s revision currently under discussion between social partners. It’s designed to limit working hours so that tired workers are not a risk to themselves or others. We will probably return to the fight later in the Parliament.

In the name of flexibility, we are seeing more short-term contracts, part-time and casual work but social security systems are generally not able to respond to this flexibility. This prevents people taking opportunities: if you take a few days of casual work but lose benefits and then it takes weeks before the system can kick in again, wouldn’t you be tempted to either put the money straight in your pocket and stay quiet, or turn down the offer of work? Flexicurity is increasing off the agenda as flexibility takes a stronger hold.

Many of us in the European Parliament increasingly feel we’re fighting for what should be obvious.

Greens have been working with the International Social Security Association and the ILO to promote the message in the EP that social security systems are important as they:

• Provide a buffer
• Are an economic stabiliser, which keeps the local economy moving
• Have enabled countries to soften the impact of the crisis (although it may not feel like that)
• Help to reduce inequalities

Greens are fighting for:

• Social conditionality on the so-called bail outs
• An adequate minimum income, with a statutory basis
• A core wage, ideally a living wage

Some parts of the Commission are fully on board with this and need to be supported.

We are determined to ensure that all Member States remember they have a commitment to socially inclusive growth under the EU 2020 strategy and this must be reflected in National Reform Plans.

Social Europe still matters – we have to help build it.

The post Why social Europe matters appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

We have heard in Emilie Turunen’s excellent speech this afternoon that social Europe is not yet dead; there is vision.  But we should also be aware that there are some very nasty things going on in parts of our societies which, if not challenged, could see a wider, negative shift.

Inequality is goring in this crisis; it was already an issue in the boom years.  We risk what was described in a recent conference on quality work, as a “collapsing bottom and floating top” – a hollowed-out labour market of well-paid, highly skilled “floaters” and a low-skilled, poorly-paid bottom – scrabbling for whatever they can get. Not a recipe for social cohesion.

The same conference also raised the growing issue of “social jealousy” – particularly between the public and private sector.  A resentment of those seen to have a steady job and the prospect of a pension: a feeling of “Why should you have something I don’t have”? – a levelling-down, not a levelling-up.  No fight. Not even an argument as to how to ensure that all have better working conditions and decent pensions.  This is a significant win for those political forces arguing for greater privatisation and a smaller state per se: it’s not a search for greater quality and better performance, although it may be cloaked in those words.  This resentment makes it easier to cut back on the public sector, yet we know that strong public services are crucial for social inclusion and social progress and in many countries it is the public sector that has been at the forefront of genuinely flexible working practices (benefitting workers) and anti-discriminatory recruitment practices.

We are also seeing a return to 19th century (or even earlier) concepts of the “deserving and undeserving” poor.  I often feel I could scream when UK politicians speak of “hard working families” as those in need of support and thus excluding others – as if hard-working single people don’t exist, for example, of those who are looking for work and can’t find it don’t count.

We have a language developing that blames people on benefits for creating the crisis or preventing a solution.  The re-examination of the claims of those on disability benefit is an example.  In the UK, we have seen a rise in hate crimes and hate speech against people with disabilities; others report being accosted by people demanding “Why aren’t you at work? Why are you taking my money?” etc. Treated as if they are lazy or fraudsters.  We have a hardening of language and attitudes towards workers from other countries seen as “stealing” jobs, rather than contributing to our societies and economies.

We see the facile maths of 100 job vacancies and 100 unemployed – where’s the problem? As if there is automatically an easy fit: low-skilled workers can become professional engineers with the wave of a magic wand! Moving to where there is work is pushed as a solution.  Greens are all in favour of labour mobility, when it makes sense.  However, you have to recognise that many people – especially in difficult times – are not willing to leave their family and social network and move themselves and their families (assuming they can find affordable housing elsewhere) for a temporary, minimum wage job.

At least most EU countries have a minimum wage – whether set by law or social-partner agreement. Greens believe a living wage would be even better. We can try to solve in-work poverty (affecting at least 1 out of every 8 workers) by state subsidies to employees or we can expect employers to pay a wage people can live on.

We are seeing attacks on security in the workplace.  One British MP from a governing party has said that we could easily lose 80% of health and safety legislation.  Now, the Working Time Directive is health and safety legislation – it’s revision currently under discussion between social partners.  It’s designed to limit working hours so that tired workers are not a risk to themselves or others.  We will probably return to the fight later in the Parliament.

In the name of flexibility, we are seeing more short-term contracts, part-time and casual work but social security systems are generally not able to respond to this flexibility.  This prevents people taking opportunities: if you take a few days of casual work but lose benefits and then it takes weeks before the system can kick in again, wouldn’t you be tempted to either put the money straight in your pocket and stay quiet, or turn down the offer of work? Flexicurity is increasing off the agenda as flexibility takes a stronger hold.

Many of us in the European Parliament increasingly feel we’re fighting for what should be obvious.  Greens have been working with the International Social Security Association and the ILO to promote the message in the EP that social security systems are important as they:

Provide a buffer
Are an economic stabiliser, which keeps the local economy moving
Have enabled countries to soften the impact of the crisis (although it may not feel like that)
Help to reduce inequalities

Greens are fighting for:

Social conditionality on the so-called bail outs
An adequate minimum income, with a statutory basis
A core wage, ideally a living wage

Some parts of the Commission are fully on board with this and need to be supported.  We are determined to ensure that all Member States remember they have a commitment to socially inclusive growth under the EU 2020 strategy and this must be reflected in National Reform Plans.

Social Europe still matters – we have to help build it.

The post London’s Green MEP welcomes strengthening of proposed EU Financial Transaction Tax appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

23/04/2012   In our April session, the European Parliament voted to update rules on social security co-ordination; a vital piece of legislation which enables citizens to move within Europe while maintaining their rights to core social security benefits – such as healthcare, pensions and unemployment benefits. This latest revision closed a loophole, which was being exploited by certain low-cost airlines that were registering their highly mobile flight staff at PO Box offices in member states with low-cost social security systems. This left their employees with social security rights in a different country to that in which they habitually worked or lived. So, flight crew working out of Ireland might find themselves covered in Malta, or those working out of Belgium could find themselves in the Irish system.

The European Union regulation now includes a definition of “home-base”, in-line with an already existing legal definition. Effectively, the place where the personnel normally starts or ends a duty period or a series of duty periods and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the aircrew member. In the debate, the EP made its position clear; these rules were not designed to provide businesses with an opportunity to cut costs, but to protect the rights of individuals.

We also changed the rules on unemployment benefit for “frontier” self-employed workers – those living in one country, working across the border in another and returning at least weekly. Some had found they lost the right to unemployment benefit when they had to return their country of residence. They can now retain this payment for a period of time to help in their search for work. This is an important new step as a bridging mechanism between different systems and an example of how member states are starting to recognise the need to make mobility work for people.

This coordination, not harmonisation, of social security systems was an early piece of European legislation first introduced in 1971. It covers core social security sectors, although it does not cover access to housing – contrary to the claims of some ill-informed MEPs. It is complex in administration and a constant source of query and complaints to the European Commission and parliament’s Petitions Committee. Not least, because it has to try and keep up with the changes at member state level. Next year’s “European year of Citizens” is aiming to highlight the rights people have and this area is high on the agenda.

One change brought in when the parliament finished the major overhaul of the coordination in 2009, when I was rapporteur, is that all citizens can now request information about their social security status when moving within the EU – and that this information should be automatically sent to posted workers. At least you can then be sure as to which system is covering you. However, the regulation’s basic principle is clear: when in a cross-border situation, you generally have equal treatment with nationals of the state in which you work or reside and only one system applies.

This article was published by Public Service Europe on the 23rd April 2012: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1830/ending-social-security-chicanery-in-europe

The post Public Service Europe: Ending social security ‘chicanery’ in Europe appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.