Cainzos Clase Sjueto

http://trs.sagepub.com/

of Labour and ResearchTransfer: European Review

http://trs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/588The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/102425890401000410 2004 10: 588Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research

Ben ValkenburgActivation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

European Trade Union Institute

can be found at:Transfer: European Review of Labour and ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://trs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://trs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://trs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/588.refs.htmlCitations:

by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010trs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Activation and trade unions:confronting the dilemma

Ben Valkenburg*

SummaryActive employment strategies raise complex questions and considerations for trade unions.This is especially true for activation. If unions oppose activation it will be hard for them to playa relevant role in the contemporary debate. If they agree with current activation policies theywill share responsibility for the risks attached to them. This article tries to find a way out ofthis dilemma. It explores the central issue of what constitutes an adequate stance for tradeunions with regard to activation, in a situation where full employment is not a realistic aim. Apossible way out of the dilemma is formulated from two perspectives. The first is a reciprocal,client-oriented approach to benefit claimants elaborated in terms of rights and duties that aredefendable from a trade union point of view. The second is a broader concept of social par-ticipation, in which participation is not limited to paid employment on the regular labour mar-ket. Formulating these ideas only makes sense if the unions are also prepared and able to backthem up with union power. The final section of the article addresses the question of howunions can back up their position on activation with union power.

SommaireLes stratgies actives pour lemploi soulvent des questions et des considrations complexespour les syndicats. Cela vaut particulirement pour lactivation. Si les syndicats sopposent lactivation, ils auront des difficults jouer un rle appropri dans les dbats actuellement encours. Sils sont daccord avec les politiques dactivation actuelles, ils partageront la respon-sabilit des risques lie celles-ci. Cet article essaie de trouver une issue ce dilemme. Il sepenche sur ce qui constitue une position adquate pour les syndicats en ce qui concerne lac-tivation dans une situation o le plein emploi nest pas un objectif raliste. Une issue possible ce dilemme est formule partir de deux perspectives. La premire est une approche rci-proque, oriente vers le client, par rapport aux demandeurs de prestations sociales labore entermes de droits et dobligations qui sont dfendables dun point de vue syndical. La secondeest un concept de participation sociale plus large o la participation nest pas limite lem-ploi rmunr sur le march du travail rgulier. La formulation de ces ides na de sens que siles syndicats sont galement prts et aptes les soutenir grce au pouvoir des syndicats. Ladernire partie de larticle soulve la question de savoir de quelle manire les syndicats peu-vent soutenir leur position sur lactivation avec le pouvoir des syndicats.

E

F

* Lecturer in Labour Sciences, Social Science Faculty, University of Utrecht

TRANSFER 4/04588

g g


Introduction In the past years almost all EU Member States have introduced active employmentstrategies. At the European level, this is an ambition that has been laid down in theEuropean Employment Strategy (EES). For some Member States the EES supportspolicies that have been in place already for some time. For others, the EES is a reasonfor developing new initiatives.

The EES combines an active labour market policy, aimed at the creation of new jobs,with activation. This activation policy distances itself from a passive approach to benefitclaimants which focused primarily on income protection. The obligation to actively seekpaid employment is increasingly emphasised, the right to income protection is reducedand the sanctions for failing to fulfil the obligation are made stricter.

Active employment strategies raise complex questions and considerations for the tradeunions. This is true for the attempts to create new jobs, and the social partnerships thatare encouraged to do so. It is especially true for activation. If the unions oppose it andcontinue defending the traditional rights to income protection only, it will be hard forthem to play a relevant role in the contemporary political debate. If they agree with cur-rent activation policies they will come to share responsibility for the risks attached tothem. For the unemployed these risks are considerable, as the discussion and experiencehave made clear by now. Either position, for or against, are problematical in themselves.Currently, most unions are evading the dilemma. They are formulating a critical view-point concerning activation, without distancing themselves from it, and focus mainly ontheir own contribution to the creation of new employment. The unions aim is to ensure

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

TRANSFER 4/04 589

ZusammenfassungFr die Gewerkschaften ergeben sich aus aktiven Beschftigungsstrategien komplexe Fragen undErwgungen. Dies gilt ganz besonders fr Aktivierungsmanahmen. Wenn sie eine ablehnendeHaltung gegenber Aktivierungsstrategien einnehmen, wird es schwierig fr sie sein, eine bedeutendeRolle in der heutigen Debatte zu spielen. Wenn sie hingegen die aktuellen Aktivierungspolitiken befr-worten, dann tragen sie auch die Verantwortung fr die damit verbundenen Risiken. Dieser Artikelversucht, einen Ausweg aus diesem Dilemma zu finden. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Frage, welcheHaltung die Gewerkschaften in einer Situation, in der Vollbeschftigung kein realistisches Ziel dar-stellt, gegenber Aktivierungspolitiken einnehmen sollten. Der Autor beschreibt einen mglichenAusweg aus diesem Dilemma aus zweierlei Perspektiven. Der erste basiert auf einem gegenseitigen,kundenorientierten Ansatz in Bezug auf Anspruchsberechtigte mit Rechten und Pflichten, die ausgewerkschaftlicher Sicht vertretbar sind. Der zweite beruht auf einem breiteren Konzept der sozialenTeinahme, die ber die bezahlte Beschftigung auf dem normalen Arbeitsmarkt hinausgeht. Es machtjedoch nur dann Sinn, diese Ideen zu formulieren, wenn die Gewerkschaften auch darauf vorbereitetund fhig sind, sie mit Gewerkschaftsmacht zu untersttzen. Im letzten Teil des Artikels befasst sichder Autor mit der Frage, wie die Gewerkschaften ihre Position bezglich der Aktivierung mitGewerkschaftsmacht untermauern knnen.

D

g g


TRANSFER 4/04590

that the activated benefit claimant can in fact find proper employment on the regularlabour market, so that the negative consequences of activation can be avoided. ThoughI respect the good intentions behind this position, in my opinion it is not very adequate.The doctrine according to which sufficient jobs can be created for all benefit claimantsto be activated is often professed, but there are few true believers.

This article is an attempt to find a way out of the above dilemma. The question that Iwould like to explore is that of an adequate stance for trade unions regarding activation,in a situation where full employment for all who are able and willing to work can hard-ly be called a realistic aim.

First, I will briefly outline the EES, and activation policy as an important part of it.Subsequently, I will discuss the present position of the trade unions and its inherentproblems, as well as the need to find solutions. An adequate position on the part of thetrade unions would be a first and necessary condition to achieve adequate represent-ation of the interests of the unemployed. I will then seek a possible way out of the pres-ent dilemma, from two perspectives. The first is a reciprocal, client-oriented approachto benefit claimants, in which the relationship between rights and duties is defendablefrom a trade union point of view. The second is a broader concept of social particip-ation, in which participation is not reduced to paid employment on the regular labourmarket.

It goes without saying that the representation of interests does not just depend on ideasabout activation. Formulating these ideas is sensible only when the unions are also pre-pared and able to back them up with union power. The final section will be devoted tothis question of power. I will finish with the proposition that formulating a union posi-tion and backing it up with union power may well have unexpected positive conse-quences for the unions themselves. Formulating a critical point of view on activationpolicy is not only difficult but also worthwhile.

Employment and activation policy in Europe In the EES, improving employability is seen as the most important instrument for reduc-ing unemployment. Employability is meant to prevent unemployment instead of com-bating it.

Important elements are a preventive approach aimed at limiting the growth of long-termunemployment, an activating approach to benefit claimants, development of coopera-tion with social partners focused on promotion of training and lifelong learning, and thefacilitation of the transition from school to work. In addition, the EES aims to promoteentrepreneurship, for instance, by reducing overheads and administrative taxation ofcompanies, the promotion of self-employment, creation of employment in the (local)social economy and the reduction of taxation on relatively low-qualified, low-paidlabour. Modernisation and flexibility of work organisation are to contribute to theadaptability of companies and their workers. Important elements of this are incentives

Ben Valkenburg

g g


to achieve a new balance between flexibility and security, incentives for in-companytraining and investment in human resources. Finally, the aim is to promote equal oppor-tunities for men and women, and the disabled, by promoting a better balance betweenwork and family life, facilitating reintegration on the labour market, and reintegrationof the disabled.

The discourse that underlies the EES can be summarised in three core points.

First, the competitive position of the European economy needs to be reinforced by flexi-bilisation and deregulation of the labour market. A modern economy does not onlydemand flexible adaptability of companies but also of employees. Old securities, andforms of regulation to support them, stand in the way of modernisation. Modernemployees must learn to live with permanent change (in their current jobs, but also bychanging employers) and should be actively involved in their own adaptation to thechanging circumstances and demands they make on them. They should be permanentlyimproving their own employability. The discourse on the knowledge-based society(Crespo and Pascual 2004: 14) presents this development as seemingly inevitable.Anyone resisting it, for instance by clinging to forms of regulation focused on protection,is open to the suspicion of turning their back on the future (ibid. 28).

Secondly, social security should not primarily be aimed at protecting people against lossof income resulting from loss of paid employment. Social security should rather aim to(re-)integrate them into the labour market as rapidly as possible (Van Berkel 2000: 87).This transformation implies a fundamental alteration of the social contract. The mainresponsibility for dealing with unemployment lies with the individual (Crespo andSerrano Pascual 2004: 13). Citizenship is no longer the right of the individual, but has tobe earned by visible efforts, aimed at reintegration into the labour market. Citizenshipis no longer described primarily in social terms, referring to protection against the riskof developments in society and criteria for eligibility for protection on the basis of char-acteristics that apply to large groups, but in individual terms. The right to protection isdetermined by behaviour, choices, attitudes and motivations of the individual. Emphasisshifts from collective responsibility of the welfare state to the individual responsibility ofthe citizen. In this way the welfare state turns into a distrusting welfare state, perma-nently screening its benefit claimants for the extent to which they are exercising theirindividual responsibility. The basic assumption is that, in principle, those citizens willnot do so without coercion. Unemployment is no longer regarded as a consequence ofsocial developments (blaming the system), but as a result of actions of the individualunemployed person (blaming the victim). Thirdly, social integration and participationare equated with economic participation, that is to say paid employment in the regularlabour market.

Under the EES and the underlying discourse, reality is differentiated. Countries like theNetherlands, Denmark and Sweden have had activating employment strategies for along time, and these are now supported and reinforced by the EES. In other countries,for instance Spain, the EES is an important incentive for developing new policies.


TRANSFER 4/04 591

g g


In spite of all the differences there is, however, a general, common tendency. The resultsachieved in the creation of regular employment are usually very modest. Insofar as thereis growth in employment, this is mainly found in atypical jobs in the lowest segment ofthe regular labour market, in forms of subsidised labour and/or jobs in the (local) socialeconomy.

Activation policy is translated into a restriction of entitlement to benefits, for instancethrough higher demands in relation to prior work experience, in making benefits lessattractive through a restriction of duration and amounts, in stricter requirements con-cerning the duty to look for work, to accept work, to participate in education, trainingand work experience, and in sharper sanctions by means of reduction or cessation ofbenefits. Benefit claimants are increasingly faced with officials whose primary duty it isto activate them as quickly as possible, that is to say, to point out what their duties areand to see to it that they fulfil them.

The ultimate aim of activation, (re)-entry onto the regular labour market, is onlyrealised to a very limited extent. The general picture is that the (re)-entry mainly con-cerns short-term unemployed who would probably have also re-entered without activ-ation. In addition, (re)-entry mainly concerns the lowest segment of the labour marketwhere a job is often combined with long-term dependence on benefits and an income onor below the poverty line (see Valkenburg and Coenen 2000). Most benefit claimants atbest enter forms of education and training and/or work experience projects, and formsof subsidised work in the social economy. Many of them seem to be caught in a revolv-ing door: after participating in one reintegration activity, they go on to the next, com-parable, activity. For many of them, subsidised work is not a transient phase, but the laststop.

In short, activation in reality means the vigorous application of the stick, and a situationwhere the carrot is scarcely available. Activation stands for a process of recommodific-ation, with a strong top-down orientation and a high degree of paternalism. It is thepolicy-maker who decides what is good for the unemployed, and how the unemployedcan realise that good. When such realisation fails, that is the fault of the unemployedand they will also have to suffer the consequences. In the meantime, the incentive of thecarrot in the form of growing employment and an intake of unemployed on the labourmarket is hardly discernible.

The question as to what position the unions can or should take under these circum-stances, is not an easy one to answer.

Activation as a dilemma for trade unions As far as I can see, where activation is concerned, the unions are sidestepping the issueat present, which means in fact that they are avoiding the discussion. To prevent mis-understandings, I will indicate first what I do not mean by this proposition.

Ben Valkenburg

TRANSFER 4/04592

g g


I do not mean that the unions are uninterested in active employment strategies in thebroader sense of the word. Almost all Member States and their trade unions are cer-tainly involved in the issue, albeit in widely varying ways and from widely varying tradi-tions. The Dutch situation, with its so called polder model, is a well-known example ofa long tradition of active union involvement, and it is certainly not the only example.Over the years several national social agreements have been negotiated on wage devel-opment, employment, flexibilisation, education, etc. For years the Dutch trade unionshave participated in the tripartite administrative structure for labour market policies. Inthe present situation their national role has been reduced to an advisory one. After ini-tial resistance to the creation of subsidised jobs, in time they came to play a role in the(cooperative) regulation of such jobs through collective agreements. In a number ofcases, they have tried to contribute to collective agreements with regard to developmentand possibilities for regular employment of the workers concerned. At local, sectoraland company levels, they have been involved in various ways in initiatives and policymeasures.

Neither does the above proposition mean to suggest that the unions are avoidinginvolvement in activation policies in the narrower sense of the word: the situation of theunemployed (and other benefit claimants) and the fact that they are faced with astricter, activation-driven regime of social security. In this respect too, the Netherlandscan serve as an example of active involvement, and it is not the only one. On severaloccasions the unions have resisted government policies on social security. Activation ofbenefit claimants, in their view, cannot mean the destruction of the financial guaranteesof the welfare state. In this respect they take a firm stance: current government policy isdiscarded as anti-social and aimed at the destruction of the welfare state. The answer tothe question whether they will succeed in effectively organising this resistance, is open.At the moment of writing this article a large demonstration has been organised andstrikes will follow in the coming months. If they do not succeed, it would certainly be toosimple to blame the lack of effectiveness on the absence of strong opinions or theabsence of the will to back them up. In the meantime, the members who are also bene-fit claimants (and sometimes also non-members) are offered support when they arefaced with activation: they are informed of their rights and duties, supported in cases ofconflict, etc. On several occasions the experience of benefit claimants has been mappedout, and criticism has been voiced as to the practical consequences of activation policies.

In a general sense, the unions take a critical position: activation is not a bad thing inprinciple, but it can lead to substantial, negative consequences and can only be legit-imised when it is combined with a realistic, substantial activation offer. With referenceto this last point, the offer, the Dutch unions follow the discourse underlying the EES.An offer is substantial when it leads to a full and regular job, preferably on the regularlabour market. And that brings me to what I do mean by the above proposition. Thetrade unions are circumventing the issue, because they qualify the legitimacy of activ-ation with conditions which, at the moment, are not being met. Subsequently, they focusattention on creating that condition in the short and the longer term. An answer to thequestion what they think of activation under current circumstances, in which the stated


TRANSFER 4/04 593

g g


conditions have not been met (nor will be met in the future), is lacking for the timebeing. As a consequence their answer is, certainly in the short term, but I also think inthe long term, hardly adequate. What, then, is an adequate answer? If anything is clear,it is that an unqualified yes or no to activation would both be problematical, albeit forvery different reasons.

An unqualified yes has been sufficiently discussed above. It means that the unions wouldconfirm a policy which in the present situation would have far-reaching negative conse-quences, certainly if we look at it from the perspective of the unemployed themselves.

An unqualified no seems, however, scarcely less problematical. Not because there is alack of arguments. From the perspective of the unemployed the unions could againpoint out the negative consequences of activation in a situation of insufficient availablejobs. No activation when there are no jobs. They could add to this the argument thatemployment is not, or is only partly, dependent on the degree of employability ofemployees/benefit claimants. Even if employability policy, macroeconomic policiesaimed at wage restriction and flexibility of the labour market, and active labour marketpolicy are combined, the results in terms of employment are modest (Esping-Andersen2000). The Netherlands are regularly held up as an example of such a coherent approach(Serrano-Pascual 2001: 7), but, contrary to what we are led to believe, it can hardly beviewed as a success story (Valkenburg and Coenen 2000).

Unemployment, according to this line of argument, must not be blamed on individuals,but on economic developments which are hardly affected by employability policies. Fromthe trade unions point of view, a clear stance that there should be no activation whenthere are no jobs could minimise the risks of current policies for the trade unions them-selves. In the event of insufficient growth of employment, activation will contribute to alarger reserve of labour, which in turn is a threat to the negotiating position of the unionsand the working conditions of current employees. Moreover, trade unions run the risk ofbeing made responsible for the negative effects of activation. The claim being made onthe unions in the framework of the EES is quite substantial. The claim is that activation(focused on supply) should be combined with an active labour market policy (demand).The former is primarily a government responsibility; the latter should be developed insocial partnerships. In other words, if social partners do not successfully contribute tosocial partnerships, the negative consequences of activation will become ever more seri-ous. What is said of activation for young people is true in a more general sense: The social partners have the joint responsibility of re-regulating the functioning of the labourmarket, of defining new rights and obligations, in order to achieve a better quality of work.Stability in work, non-precarious work-contracts, and the right to social protection and tolife-long learning inside companies, are part of the collective bargaining agenda to promotebetter integration of young people in the labour market. (Andre 2001: xvi).

The concept of partnership could have an important role to play in finding solutions to theemployment crisis and the crisis of the welfare state, acting as the driver for a revitalisedsocial economy (Serrano-Pascual 2001: 31). In short: if governments activation policies

Ben Valkenburg

TRANSFER 4/04594

g g


have negative consequences, that is your fault, that is to say, the fault of the social part-ners including the unions.

A general rejection based on the above arguments is hardly conceivable, however. This isnot, in my opinion, primarily because of financial problems of the welfare state (a discus-sion far beyond the confines of this article). The impossibility of such a rejection is basedon other arguments, more relevant to the search for an alternative view of activation.

Background to the dilemmaWithout alternative views on activation, a rejection would imply a return to earlier, pas-sive policies focusing primarily on income protection. Such a point of view is hardly jus-tifiable from the perspective of the benefit claimants. It implies that benefit claimants,in a situation of ongoing lack of employment, are offered financial security but are leftto their own devices for all the rest. In the Netherlands that would affect over a millionpeople depending on benefits. If we are realistic, and presume that full employment,also in the long term, is an illusion, a rejection of activation would mean the structuralsocial exclusion of this group of people. That would get little support, and rightly so.

The return to a passive, primarily protective, policy is however also problematical fromthe point of view of those in work. One way of approaching this theme is through thequestion of why, in spite of all the arguments to the contrary, activation is and can becentral to the EES. Lind and Moller (2004) have suggested a three-fold explanation: thefunction of an active labour reserve for the free market economy, a deeply rooted workethos in Western societies, and the rise of a post-Fordist workfare regime. These pointsplay an important role not only in the formulation of the European labour market pol-icy but also for its support in society. Regarding this last aspect, support in society, thereare additional matters of importance which should in my view carry more weight in thesearch for an adequate union stance with regard to activation.

In my view, there are quite a few politicians but fewer workers who think that activationof the unemployed is a good thing because it contributes to an active labour reserve, oris supposed to contribute to the growth of employment. For most working people anactive labour reserve, more job-seekers than jobs, is a threat rather than a blessing. Fromthe point of view of their direct interest, it would be much better not to activate theunemployed. Yet, in spite of all the reservations, the support among people in work iswidespread. This support is, I think, based on two points. First, most people in work dorealise that full employment is an illusion. Macroeconomic developments and their owndaily experience strongly confirm this. Companies move to low-cost countries, continueto replace human labour by new technology, and cut back as much as possible by firingworkers. Secondly, people are faced with deregulation and increasing flexibility in alabour market that is already precarious. Old certainties and forms of protection ofworkers are being eroded. This erosion, as to its consequences for people in work, isreinforced by the European strategy which makes employability a central concern forworkers. In the EES, living with insecurity, flexibility and permanent adaptation tochanging economic circumstances is not regarded as a problem, but as a solution.


TRANSFER 4/04 595

g g


TRANSFER 4/04596

The basic feeling most working people have in this situation is determined by consider-ations of justice: people cannot be left to fend for themselves. In addition, there is alsoa basic feeling that precisely in this situation of structural unemployment, there is no jus-tification for the fact that a working person is permanently harassed and subject to inse-curity, whereas this is not true for large groups of benefit claimants (Baumann 2001;Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002).

These considerations are to my mind of central importance for the union positionregarding activation. Such a position will have to be realistic, or at least more realisticthan the present position where the achievement of full employment is presented as thesolution to all problems. At the same time it will have to accommodate the basic feel-ings of many working people. The rejection of activation policies is not an option in thissituation. That is a strong argument for formulating an alternative position. The possi-bilities for the development of such a position are available. The EES is not as airtightas would appear at first sight. A further problem is the vagueness and weakness of the concepts underpinning the strategy,for example employability, flexibility, activation, and partnership, all of which are ambigu-ous terms which can be interpreted in various ways, making it easy for member states to sim-ply continue their existing policies (Crespo and Serrano Pascual 2004: 17). To a certainextent this vagueness is a problem. At the same time it also creates room for discussionand alternative positions.

Moreover, activation in present policies is an active reaction in a passive adaptation strat-egy to the knowledge-based society. The latter can also be made into an active strategy,with alternative ideas on social participation and the meaning of paid work at its core.

Before suggesting a number of elements for an alternative union position on activation,I will summarise the above into three requirements which such a position must meet: it must do justice to emancipatory objectives. That is to say, it should offer prospects

for reinforcing social participation of benefit claimants, and so contribute to social inclusion, with due regard for the structural nature of the lack of employment.

it should contribute to the solidarity between workers and the unemployed. This means that the position taken, again with due regard for the structural nature of unemployment, should not only accommodate basic feelings among benefit claimants, but equally those current among many working people.

it should contain elements that are also attractive to other actors involved in social policy, more especially politicians and employers, and which make realistic compro-mises as part of a social partnership possible.

The reassessment of rights and duties from an individual perspectiveIn this section I will elaborate on a reciprocal, client-oriented approach. This approachhas primarily been developed in Dutch labour market policy. More recently it has alsobeen further developed for other areas of social policy. In this section I will briefly pres-

Ben Valkenburg

g g


ent the main elements of this approach (for a more elaborated version see Van Berkeland Horneman Moller 2002; Valkenburg and Coenen 2000).

A reciprocal, client-oriented approach is based on the assumption that the unemployedhave a fundamental right to receive active support and that this support should con-tribute to their participation in society. If this support is delivered in an adequate way,the unemployed themselves may be held responsible for their participation and for thecontribution they deliver to society. In this approach unemployed people have rights andobligations.

In a reciprocal, client-oriented approach the central aim of social policy is to enablepeople to be in charge of their own lives in an adequate way. This approach departs fromthe assumption that people always take charge of their life. So the question is notwhether they do, but to what degree they take charge of their life and how adequate theyare in handling things. In enhancing the competences of the unemployed person, the cri-terion is not whether the individual is able to take fully charge of his or her own (life)trajectory, but whether he or she succeeds in being more in charge than before.

In an adequate way means that the way people take charge of their own life should con-tribute to their integration and emancipation, and that there must be reciprocitybetween their individual perspective and the social perspective. The individual perspec-tive is represented by the unemployed as an individual person, with his or her social con-ditions, wishes, motivations and possibilities. The social perspective is represented bysociety in general, and, more specifically, the social context of the unemployed person(friends, relatives, etc.), the system of social security that he or she is dealing with, andthe labour market. An approach that wants to contribute to the way people can takecharge of their own lives, must do justice to this principal of reciprocity between the indi-vidual and social perspective. He or she also wants to do this. The starting point is thatif people are approached in an adequate way by social policy (a right), they may beexpected (an obligation) to give consideration to the consequences of their actions forthe actors with whom they are confronted, including the people delivering social policy.

To the primary aim of a reciprocal, client-oriented approach, enabling people to takecharge of their own lives, secondary aims can be connected: integration in the labourmarket, participation in education, the strengthening of local social networks, etc. In theDutch experience there is strong evidence that the primary aim is the most importantsuccess factor for realising these secondary aims.

In a reciprocal, client-oriented approach the unemployed is first and foremost seen as aperson with strength, possibilities and competences. The unemployed is not regarded asa sum of loose characteristics, but as an individual person in a concrete social context,whose characteristics cohere in a certain manner in the context of his or her background.Competence must not be restricted, as often happens, to the skills that someone has.Competence must be understood in the widest of meanings; it lies in (the coherence of)several aspects: wishes, motives, and realistic prospects; skills (functional and social skills, but also emotional, affective, and communication

skills) and personal factors (certain talents and restrictions);

TRANSFER 4/04 597


g g


learning styles: possibilities and ways of learning; social background and (natural and professional) networks; personal sphere and personality.

Furthermore, competence must be understood in terms of the discursive and practicalknowledge people have about themselves and their social conditions. These aspects andtheir mutual interrelation are the resources that an individual can fall back on, andwhich can be further developed.

Realising the primary aim presupposes that the unemployed person must be enabled totake charge in the process of activation and that, as a precondition for that, this processtakes into account the starting situation of the unemployed person, the process of his orher daily life, and his or her strength and competences. The unemployed person mustbe given the opportunity to think and reflect upon the upcoming decisions, and to con-sider them effectively and emotionally. His or her decisions must be of a substantialquality and imply more than just a formal yes. He or she has to understand what theprofessional is doing and must agree with the steps which are taken. In this respect, thisapproach is based on a fundamental element: clients must have the fundamental rightto make decisions, including on the propositions made by the professional, without thisdirectly having consequences for their financial situation. I will elaborate on this furtherin the next section.

This does not mean that the unemployed person has no obligations and responsibilities.In terms of rights and responsibilities: it is the duty of the professional to set up the tra-jectory in line with the starting position, context and competences of the unemployedperson. Only when this connection is established can the unemployed person be askedand expected to carry responsibility for the choices and decisions made.

The above approach implies that the basis for the interaction between unemployed andprofessional is the everyday life processes of the unemployed. This does not mean thatthe professional takes these processes for granted. It means that the professional givesback the things he sees and hears from the unemployed person, in such a way that theunemployed person himself can do something with it in his own situation.

A reciprocal, client-oriented approach breaks with the traditional, supply-drivenapproach that currently dominates many existing policy practices. Many of these prac-tices are still characterised by a top-down approach, in which the role of the objects ofthe policy with regard to the development, enactment and administration of the partic-ular policy is very limited. Usually, the most important steps have already been takenbefore the individuals for whom the policy is designed enter the picture. In most cases,the problem has already been defined, the causes have been determined and the possi-ble solutions have been described, for which instruments are developed. Only then arethe individual clients whom the policy concerns involved in the process.

In my view there are good arguments for taking the most important elements of a recip-rocal, client-oriented approach, as set out above, as a basis for a trade union position on

Ben Valkenburg

TRANSFER 4/04598

g g


activation. In so doing, it is important to stress that these arguments do not only refer tojustice, but also to efficacy. A reciprocal, client-oriented approach not only stands for adecent way of treating unemployed people. Certainly in Dutch practice, it also stands forbetter results in the realisation of social policy objectives. Accommodating the require-ments of the individual, putting direction as much as possible in the hands of the unem-ployed person, and reciprocal adequacy are not just morally justifiable principles; theyturn out to be important success factors for social policies.

I would add that a reciprocal, client-oriented approach offers a good basis for counter-ing, on practical grounds, all sorts of ideological arguments underlying current activ-ation policy, and for formulating alternatives. When people are in fact approached inthis way, it turns out that as individuals they hardly conform to the general image prop-agated by current activation policies. These policies project an image of a category ofcalculating, exclusively self-interested and unwilling citizens. When the image is individ-ualised, no real evidence can be found to support it. Of course there are exceptions.Most unemployed people, however, turn out to be ordinary people trying to make thebest of life, who are open to correction, whose so-called calculating behaviour primar-ily reflects the way they are usually approached by social policy, and means little in con-nection with their motivation, etc.

When the reciprocal, client-oriented approach as set out above is summarised as anapproach to activation, it means the following: clients are entitled to active support; they are entitled to an accommodating approach to their personal daily lives; they are entitled to take charge of their own lives as well as their own activation

trajectory; they have the duty to enter into a discussion on an activation trajectory, based on their

personality and daily life; they have the duty in that discussion and in their own trajectory to take into account

the reciprocity between their own individual perspective and the social and societal perspective;

when, on the basis of the principle of reciprocal adequacy, a trajectory has been deter-mined, they have a duty to live up to the agreement.

In order to avoid misunderstandings, a few remarks should be added. First of all, thereciprocal, client-oriented approach as set out above can be equal or similar to moreindividualised approaches towards benefit claimants, already in place in a number ofEuropean countries. But that is not true by definition. In the United Kingdom, underthe New Deal, there is individual case management, and in Denmark there are indi-vidual contracts. In both cases, the aim is to tailor activation trajectories as much as pos-sible to the needs of individual clients. Such a more individual approach can, however,be combined, and is in fact, combined (also in the Netherlands), with the top-downapproach that is characteristic of dominant activation policies, even when a holistic viewof the individual client is acknowledged. It is anything but hypothetical that the profes-sional talks with an individual client in a situation where the objectives to be realised arefixed beforehand, where the professional has far greater power at his or her disposal


TRANSFER 4/04 599

g g


than the client, and where the clients options are in fact limited to agreeing to any pro-posal made by the professional. The result will be a contract that is individual, but hasnothing whatsoever to do with reciprocity or management by the client. Experience withBritish practice shows that such a situation, in which an individual approach is combinedwith traditional activation policy, is anything but theoretical. The professionals involvedin this situation are soon caught between taking the individual, holistic approach to theirclients seriously, and the objectives as defined from above which are translated into tar-get scores (Darmon 2004: 394).

A reciprocal, client-oriented approach, then, is not just based on a holistic view of theunemployed person. It is at least as important that management is as much as possibleleft in the hands of the unemployed person, and that activation trajectories are devel-oped on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.

Secondly, the above formulation of rights and duties does not solve all possible prob-lems of activation; on the contrary. The principles set out above lead to numerous newquestions and problems. All I am saying is that the above principles lead to better ques-tions and problems than those raised by the dominant, top-down approach to activation.One of those questions is how to clarify the principle that the client has the duty to takeaccount of the social and societal perspective. That takes me to the following section.

The reassessment of rights and duties from a societalperspectiveAs indicated at the beginning of this article, the EES equates social participation withpaid work, preferably on the regular labour market. Activating employment strategiesare also aimed at forms of subsidised work, at work in the local social economy and, ina number of European countries, at voluntary work. All these forms of participation,however, are not regarded as forms of full social participation, but as a possible steptowards the final goal, paid work in the regular labour market.

The arguments in support of this central meaning of paid work are diverse. Raisinglabour participation is regarded as a condition for the financial basis of the welfare state,certainly in a situation of ageing populations. Paid work is supposed to offer peoplesocial contacts, opportunities for development, economic independence, structure andself-respect. It is also the royal road to other forms of social participation. Finally, wecan refer to the work ethos that is deeply rooted in our society, proclaiming that if youdo not work, you will not eat.

The trade unions are apparently in agreement with this central meaning of paid work;unjustly so, in my opinion. This point does not need extensive discussion here; it hasbeen dealt with elsewhere, for instance in Transfer (2001). I will confine myself to a shortsummary of the main arguments. The ongoing deployment of new technology is leadingto a situation of growing productivity, with ever decreasing deployment of humanlabour. In this situation it is hardly realistic to expect the free operation of the economy

Ben Valkenburg

TRANSFER 4/04600

g g


to generate sufficient paid jobs for all people who are willing and able to work. Fullemployment is an illusion in the short term, but also in the long term. Unqualified striv-ing for, and foregrounding of, economic growth as a basis for growing employment, isincreasingly creating life-threatening ecological risks. Furthermore, it is hard to main-tain that all paid work makes a meaningful contribution to society. Nor can it be main-tained that all forms of unpaid work do not. And finally, at the level of the individual, apaid job does not always entail development, independence and economic self-suffi-ciency. Certainly in the lowest segment of the labour market, a paid job more probablystands in the way of development, and entails stronger dependence and enduringpoverty as well as benefit dependency.

This discussion becomes more urgent as far as activation is concerned. At the risk ofmisusing the metaphor: in the current policy the availability of jobs is the carrot thatlegitimises the use of the stick. This in fact means that the stick is legitimised by an illu-sion. This has sweeping consequences, however. Not only do many benefit claimants getto feel the stick, whereas the carrot remains far beyond their reach. If there is no realresistance to the legitimisation of this situation, there is every risk of a social climate inwhich the lack of paid work is not blamed on economic developments, but on the insuf-ficient efforts or cooperation of the unemployed in finding employment. That such achanging climate in society is anything but theoretical, can be demonstrated by a recentDutch example. The minister of finances proposed that it should be made possible torequire people on social benefits to do cleaning work in schools and other public areas,as a compensation for such payments. Everybody, so he argued, could hold a broom-stick. His proposals hardly raised an eyebrow. The only protests of any significance weremade by the cleaning companies: they queried whether the minister knew that cleaningwas professional work that could not be done by just anybody. There was hardly anyprotest against the principle involved in his proposals, that of forced labour in compen-sation for benefits.

This situation makes it of paramount importance that the trade unions should combinetheir position on activation, as set out in the previous section, with a position concern-ing social participation that does justice to reality. That is to say, a position in whichsocial participation can take various forms, in paid or unpaid work, and in economic,cultural and/or social participation.

The point of departure is that people are entitled to social participation which: accommodates the person and the daily life of the individual; contributes to the individuals management of his or her own life; can be realised by the individual concerned in a realistic way.

A broader definition of social participation will mean that individuals will be able to fulfilthis right in various concrete ways, other than in the present situation where it is restrictedto paid work. In that situation it is legitimate that this entitlement entails the duty to: make individual choices in such a way that social participation will mean a contrib-

ution to society as a whole.


TRANSFER 4/04 601

g g


Here too, this position does not solve all problems, on the contrary. An important prob-lem, of course, underlies the clause make a contribution to society. For who is to deter-mine what that means and what the consequences are? In a complex, multiform, indi-vidualised society the problem cannot be solved in a general sense or on a general level.One may question whether we should even want to do so. Any government which deter-mines on behalf of all of us what will and what will not be regarded as a contribution,and stipulates sanctions, is a frightening prospect. It should, of course, immediately beadded that a number of European governments have in the meantime increasingly takenon this frightening form for many of their benefit claimants whose contribution is to bemade in the form of paid work, or failing that, there will be far-reaching consequences.To leave the answer to the question what is a contribution to society entirely up to theindividuals concerned is not an attractive option either. That might well lead to a situa-tion where the will of the individual is the final word.

When you cannot do what you should, then do what you can. In this case that means twothings. First, there is the desirability, that is, the necessity, of a social discourse, basedon a broad view of social participation, on the question of meaningful contributions tosociety. Such a discourse does not aim to arrive at clearly defined, generally valid crite-ria. At best, it could lead to the development of arguments, the creation of room forexperimentation, the search for new perspectives and, last but not least, to a better socialclimate than the present one in which this complicated discussion is circumvented byequating a meaningful contribution to society with paid work. Secondly, the (by defini-tion) undecided nature of this discourse implies that the citizen who is to be activatedmust, in the final instance, always have a deciding say. A minimum, though not alwayssufficient, condition of a meaningful contribution is that the individual concernedshould also regard it as meaningful. A citizen, as indicated in the previous section, mustbe allowed a categorical no to certain forms of social participation, without far-reach-ing consequences for his financial situation. There are ideological, but few empirical,arguments to assume that this point of view will put a bonus on laziness and anti-socialindividualism. Current policy is based on this negative view of humanity: when peoplehave the opportunity they prefer to do nothing; so we should not give them that oppor-tunity. In practice, however, there are few people who really fit this image. In practicemost people are in search of possibilities for doing something meaningful with theirlives, and meaningful also implies social aspects, not just individual ones. A bonus onlaziness for the (small) minority who in fact prefer to do nothing at all represents a smallprice to pay, in my opinion, so as to allow us to treat adequately the majority who haveother ideas. This option is much to be preferred to the present one, in which the pre-sumed image of a minority is a determining factor for the negative treatment of themajority.

In short, unions are currently joining in the dominant political discourse, in which thedebate on social policy is restricted to a debate about combating unemployment. Anadequate union position on activation presumes, however, that the debate is put on abroader footing. At stake in activation is the realisation of social participation, on thebasis of a reciprocal approach (see the previous section) and with a position regarding

Ben Valkenburg

TRANSFER 4/04602

g g


participation that allows for the possibility and desirability of other forms of work besidepaid employment.

Among other things, that also means the reformulation of the notion of fitting employ-ment. In the present situation employment stands for paid work, the concept of fit-ting has hardly any meaning. In an adequate union point of view, employment standsfor various ways of contributing to society, and fitting stands for a good matchbetween the individual and his or her contribution to society.

Organising union power It goes without saying that the influence of the unions on activation policy is not restrict-ed to a theoretical position on activation. The unions will have to back up their positionwith union power: without an adequate carrot, we will not accept the stick. Organisingunion power, however, entails major problems.

It not only presumes an adequate vision of the issues, but also sufficient support for thatvision. That support is not self evident, and cannot be achieved by the simple publica-tion of the views propagated. Support will have to be gained by engaging in a discussionwith benefit claimants and working people. That requires a substantial investment. Thepoint of departure is that the thinking of members (those in work and benefit claimants)and non-members (large groups of benefit claimants who do not benefit from employ-ee insurance) is fed to a high degree by traditional ideas, reinforced by the dominantpolitical discourse. In everyday thinking a reciprocal, client-oriented approach is usu-ally equated with an approach in which the will of the benefit claimant determines whattakes place. This everyday view is reinforced by the political discourse in which this con-ception is used as an argument to discredit a reciprocal, client-oriented approach.Breaking through this common point of view not only requires an explicit union posi-tion, but also an explicit and extensive discussion on the subject. Also, breaking throughthe equation of social participation with economic participation, that is, the reduction ofobligations to society to finding and accepting paid work, will not be simple. The tradi-tional work ethos is deeply rooted. Nor will breaking the link between labour particip-ation and the economic viability of the welfare state, much stressed in political dis-course, be an easy matter.

Even if the unions are prepared to make this investment, complicated problems willremain. Union membership by now only partly mirrors the groups targeted by the invest-ment. Large groups of working people, who are highly relevant, socially and politicallyspeaking, are scarcely represented among union members. Many of the benefitclaimants that are organised have formerly had paid employment and are now coveredby unemployment or disablement benefits. People who depend on social benefits, thegroup most negatively affected by activation policy, are rarely found among union mem-bers. They also belong to the group that is hardest to reach in a more general sense. Ofcourse, in this respect, the standpoint from which the unions approach them and theconditions they create to do so, play an important role. Approaching these people


TRANSFER 4/04 603

g g


presumes localised union structures, close to the daily lives of benefit claimants. Thatcondition is not met, at least not in the Netherlands. Regional union structures havebeen cut back over the years or are strongly focused on formal, internal union activities.The problems are also connected, however, to factors concerning the target group itself.In many cases these are people who keep their distance from social institutions, becausethey expect little from them. They regard the trade union primarily as one of those instit-utions. In addition, these are people who do not feel they are in need of complicated dis-cussions concerning a reciprocal, client-oriented approach and a broader definition ofwork. In their experience, their daily lives are taken up by more urgent and more prac-tical matters. In discussions, in our experience, they soon tend to foreground these prac-tical matters, and tend to regard all the rest as words that you can neither eat nor sell.

Finally, there is a question of what forms of action are feasible where benefit claimantsare concerned. Large demonstrations are currently regarded merely as a means of vent-ing frustrations. Over the past few decades they have failed to make an impression onpoliticians. To make an impression, tools must be downed. The question with regard tobenefit claimants is, of course, which tools. Employees can (and may) strike. Benefitclaimants lack such possibilities. The comparison with strikes can also be made posi-tively, however. The right to strike was achieved after strikes had been held for manyyears in a situation where they were still prohibited. In other words: forceful forms ofaction by benefit claimants presume the willingness to break the law. Such action is cer-tainly feasible. There have been examples. In the past decades, Dutch farmers have usedtheir tractors to blockade important motorway junctions, on several occasions. That isnot legal, but it proved to be very effective. Hundreds of benefit claimants, supported bythe trade unions, could do the same thing, albeit without tractors.

The positive effects of an alternative positionThe discussion above would imply considerable investment by the trade unions. It alsowould mean that they should break new ground for discussions. This would not be justa burden. It might also have surprising positive effects. In my experience, the generalfeelings on activation and active employment strategies are mixed and double.Politicians are propagating clear visions and strong statements. It is not clear whetherthey themselves believe everything they say. There is, however, a big gap between whatthey are saying and what is actually achieved on a practical level. Of course we shouldbe careful to speak of the people in the street who do not believe much of what thepoliticians say. Nevertheless, I think the everyday experience of people is that they seea lot of problems (among them unemployment), see traditional solutions that prove tobe inadequate time and again, but do not see alternatives. This is a worrying situation.If trade unions seize their chance to deal with this situation in a realistic, creative way,the effect might be a strengthening of their position and image. The current image isthat they are old-fashioned and traditional. A realistic, creative discussion on activationmight help to break through this dominant image.

Ben Valkenburg

TRANSFER 4/04604

g g


ReferencesAndre, M. H. (2001) The role of social and civil partnership in combating youth unem-

ployment, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2001).Bauman, Z. (2001) The individualized society, Cambridge: Polity Press.Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim (2002) Individualization, London: Sage.Van Berkel, R., (2000) Activering in Nederland, Tijdschrift voor Arbeid en Participatie,

21, No 2/3, Utrecht: Van Arkel.Van Berkel, R. and I. Horneman-Moller (2002) Active social policies in the EU, Bristol:

Policy Press.Coenen-Hanegraaf, M., B. Valkenburg, M. Ploeg and H. Coenen (2000) Begeleid

Werken; theorie en methodiek van een individuele, vraaggerichte benadering, Utrecht: Van Arkel.

Darmon, I. (2004) Activation strategies or the labour market imperative, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2004), 373-412.

Crespo, E. and A. Serrano Pascual (2004) The EUs concept of activation for young people: towards a new social contract?, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2004), 13-45.

Esping-Andersen, G. and M. Regini (2000) Why deregulate labour markets?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lind, J. and I. Hornemann Moller (eds.) (2004) The Danish experience of labourmarket policy and activation of the unemployed, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2004), 163-195.

Serrano Pascual, A. (2001) The role of social and civil partnership networks in com-bating youth unemployment bridging the gap between the European and the local level, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2001), 13-59.

Serrano Pascual, A. (ed.) (2001) Enhancing youth employability through social and civil partnership, Brussels: ETUI.

Serrano Pascual, A. (ed.) (2004) Are activation policies converging in Europe?, Brussels: ETUI.

Transfer (2001) Special issue on Inclusion through participation, 7 (1).Valkenburg, B. and H. Coenen (2000) Working poor in the Netherlands, Transfer,

6 (4), 612-630.


TRANSFER 4/04 605

g g


Cainzos Clase Sjueto

Documents

Transcript of Cainzos Clase Sjueto