ANDOR: “PER FLEXICURITY NON INTENDO UN PURO E SEMPLICE ALLENTAMENTO DELLE PROTEZIONI DEL LAVORO, E NEPPURE UN PURO E SEMPLICE INCREMENTO DEL SOSTEGNO DEL REDDITO AL LAVORATORE CHE PERDE IL POSTO”

Saggio di Lorenzo Zoppoli  pubblicato nei Working Papers C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 141/2012

 Scarica l’intero testo in formato pdf

[…]

Significativa è l’introduzione del Commissario Andor, che dopo aver ribadito che “the concept of flexicurity has been based on a notion that robust active labour market policies, lifelong learning investment and modern social security systems can ensure security of employment and income, even if contractual arrangements become more flexible and job transitions more frequent, as required by the rapidly evolving economic context”, afferma “let me be clear on this. By flexicurity measures, I do not mean relaxation of – in quotation marks – ‘firing and hiring’ rules. And I do not mean either a simple extension of unemployment benefits in time. It is important not to mistake flexicurity for piecemeal or disjointed practices which did not seek to address the four components simultaneously. The question is to understand whether truly integrated flexicurity practices have developed in the EU, which economic conditions allowed for this, and how they have been governed… does flexicurity, as conceived in 2007, continue to help Europe address the challenges it faces now and those we expect in the horizon of 2020?”
E a questa domanda di fondo fanno seguito tutta una serie di altre domande che rimettono in discussione molti dei nodi di fondo della  flexicurity. Andor poi conclude con questa significativa affermazione, seguita da ulteriori problematiche indicazioni: “we should discuss whether flexicurity is the only answer. Can it be an all-encompassing solution or does it need to be supplemented by other measures in order to contribute to a higher level and higher quality of employment? Do the current four components need to be expanded with new elements? Does the structure of flexicurity need to be revisited, putting more accent on other policy instruments such as internal flexicurity, taxation or labour mobility? Or should flexicurity be seen only as part of a larger employment policy agenda for the post-crisis era?”.

[…]
.