employment, health, safety &...

EFM Roundtable Dinner – ‘Employment, Health, Safety & Manufacturing’ – 16-03-11 1

EMPLOYMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY & MANUFACTURING

Key Points for a Future

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

Wednesday 16 March 2011

European Parliament

HIGHLIGHTS

On 16 March 2011, the ninth European Forum for Manufacturing Roundtable Discussion: ‘Employment, Health, Safety & Manufacturing’ was held in the European Parliament, co-chaired by Julie Girling MEP, and Malcolm Harbour MEP, Chair, Committee on the Internal Market & Consumer Protection.

Contributions from the European Parliament were led by Olle Ludvigsson MEP and Julie Girling MEP.

László Andor, European Commissioner, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion made a keynote presentation and Maria Panker, Social Attaché, EU Hungarian Permanent Representation provided the perspective of the Hungarian Council Presidency on the EU Presidency priorities.

Manufacturing companies and associations were led by AB Scania, Dansk Industri, EEF, Ford, Mageosz, Roldelettrotecnica and Tata Steel Strip Products. The Council of European Employers of the Metal, Engineering and Technology-based Industries (CEEMET), sponsor for the Roundtable Discussion, also made a presentation.

The highlights from the oral and written presentations are included below.

EFM Roundtable Dinner – ‘Employment, Health, Safety & Manufacturing’ – 16-03-11 �

COMMISSIONER LÁSZLÓ ANDOR, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DG EMPLOyMENT, SOCIAL AFFAIRS & INCLUSION

There are signs that Spring is just around the corner, and that we are emerging from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. But with unemployment standing at nearly 10% across the European Union, caution is clearly the catchword.

That is why we need to do everything we can to ensure that the recovery is not nipped in the bud, but is robust and sturdy, and that new growth creates jobs that are sustainable — economically, environmentally and socially.

As employers of over 33 million people across the EU today, the manufacturing sector is hugely important. If it is to act as a driver of job-creating growth, it must be competitive in the long term.

That calls in particular for a workforce with the right skills, for education and training systems that can anticipate and respond to skill needs in time, and for a framework that allows social partners and authorities to deal with the consequences of change and restructuring.

An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs It is heartening to see that CEEMET agrees with much of our analysis of the challenges facing the Union and with the approach in the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

I was very interested to read the Position Paper of CEEMET on An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs and pleased that CEEMET largely agrees with the European Commission approach – albeit with some concerns and some points of disagreement.

Let me say something about the four key issues in the Agenda – starting with flexicurity before moving on to skills, working conditions and job creation.

1. Flexicurity We are convinced that the common principles of flexicurity are well-balanced and comprehensive, and therefore remain valid today. But with the current high unemployment and tight budgets, we also see a need to develop those principles further in order to reduce labour market segmentation and support transition.

The Commission wants to explore new avenues for labour market reform in partnership with the Member States, the trade unions and the employers’ organisations. That is why the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs puts forward a number of potential policy priorities, one of which involves open-ended work contracts, which CEEMET seems to oppose. I hope we can discuss this in greater depth later.


2. Skills We need to make sure people have the right skills to meet the employment challenges of the future. Studies by the European Commission and other institutions show that jobs will demand new and more advanced skills in the future, as a result of technological or organisational change or the shift to a low-carbon economy.

This will be crucial if manufacturing industries are to remain competitive and innovative. The Agenda for New Skills and Jobs will call for the development of labour market intelligence and skills governance, as well as closer cooperation between the worlds of labour and education.

The Agenda proposes various initiatives to that end – such as an EU Skills Panorama and the completion in all European languages of the European Skills, Competences and Occupations Classification to provide a shared interface between the worlds of employment, education and training.

It will also mean giving consideration to EU legislation on reform systems for recognising professional qualifications on the basis of an evaluation of the Professional Qualification Directive.

And it will mean promoting worker mobility within the EU and using the potential of non-EU migrants to tackle skill gaps and labour market bottlenecks.

3. Working Conditions More frequent transitions and new forms of work organisation may pose challenges in terms of working conditions and job quality, so we need to make a bigger effort to ensure that more jobs does not mean lower-quality jobs or lower working conditions.

The fact is, there is no trade-off between the quality and quantity of work. On the contrary, high-quality jobs in the EU are associated with equally high labour productivity and employment rates.

That is why working conditions and workers’ physical and mental health need to be borne in mind when we consider the demands of today’s working careers, which feature new forms of work organisation and more transitions between jobs — and jobs that are more demanding too.

Ergonomic-related risks in the workplace are among the major occupational safety and health problems facing the European Union today. For instance, they are responsible for work-related Musculo-Skeletal Disorders (MSD), which account for 61% of all work-related health problems and 60% of all absences for illness in the EU.

They come at a cost too, including lost production, compensation and insurance costs, the loss of experienced staff, the cost of recruiting and training new employees, and lower quality work as a result of discomfort or ill health.

Member State estimates of the economic cost of all work-related ill health range from 2.6% - 3.8% of gross domestic product, with work-related MSD accounting for 40% - 50%.


I would point out – specifically in response to CEEMET’s objections in the position paper – that new forms of work and more frequent job transitions have not been accompanied by suitable working conditions, and this has increased psychological stress and psycho-social disorders.

The social and economic costs may affect the EU’s competitiveness, because unsafe, unhealthy work environments lead to more claims for disability benefit and earlier exits from active life.

The Agenda for New Skills and Jobs accordingly builds on a solid body of legislation that sets minimum standards for all EU workers, and proposes to develop a smarter EU legal framework for employment and health and safety at work.

Legislation may not, of course, be sufficient, and a strategic approach is also necessary to improve working conditions and workers’ physical and mental health.

The Agenda provides for the European Commission to conduct a final evaluation of the EU Strategy on Health and Safety at Work for 2007 - 2012, and in 2012 to put forward a follow-up Strategy for the period 2013 - 2020.

One of the key actions under the Agenda for new skills and jobs is the review of the Working Time Directive. It is a priority for the Commission and for me personally to find a solution to this thorny issue.

I want to thank CEEMET for their contribution. I am also encouraged by the recent declarations of ETUC and BusinessEurope, who may decide to launch EU-wide negotiations on the review of the Working Time Directive.

But I must stress that, for the Commission, any review must be balanced and seek to improve the protection of worker health and safety.

Our consultation paper sets out a range of options to address this need. They include better protection from abuse of derogations, special conditions to protect against particular health and safety concerns, and better reconciliation of work and family life.

I am sure that I can rely on CEEMET’s active participation and support in finding a constructive solution that can win the broad-based support needed for adoption.

4. Job Creation Lastly, if the recovery is based on job-creating growth, the right framework conditions must be in place to create more jobs for both the highly skilled and the low-skilled.

That means bearing in mind the needs of companies, which rely on the highly-skilled or R&D-intensive business models, as well as the need for incentives for employers to recruit the long-term unemployed and other workers furthest from the labour market, including those with disabilities.

Of course, we also need to promote entrepreneurship, self-employment and the social sector, and may I add a special plea to your members to do their best to recruit young people who have never had a job before.


Tripartite Social Forum Lastly, I want to say a word about last week’s Tripartite Social Forum — the first the Commission has called — in which CEEMET took an active part.

The aim was to provide the Social Partners with a venue for a frank and open exchange of views in order to step up their ownership of the Agenda and their participation in its implementation.

The Commission’s aim is to involve all stakeholders, and especially the social partners at European and national level, in designing and implementing future policy to increase employment and bolster social cohesion. During the next few months the Commission will be working out what form this may take.

Essentially, we firmly believe that the Social Partners must play a part in labour market reform because it will be all the more effective if they are involved in its design and implementation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Colin Reed, Liam Benham Indra Hadeler, Lucile Uring, Delphine Rudelli

Adrian Harris, Bjorn Hammar Colin Reed, Liam Benham Jan Briffaerts, Aykut Engin, Hilde Thys

Berit Sørset, Bjorn HammarGerard Nobel

Commissioner Andor, Julie Girling MEP, Antony Fell, Linda Selsager Pedersen, Gerard Nobel, Peter Witt


MANUFACTURERS’ & MEP PRIORITIES: ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ‘NEW WORKING TIME PATTERNS’

JULIE GIRLING MEP (ECR, UK)

Looking at new Working Time patterns, I wanted to examine facts and figures but was unable to do so due to the wide variation in these.

Instead I would like to pose some questions: • Do we really need a Working Time regulation? • Is the whole philosophy around it a thing of the past? Workers now have a variety of different employers and different careers throughout

their working life.• Is exploitation still a reality in contemporary Europe? In the UK and rest of Europe you

have part-time workers, older workers, job-sharing etc. – these are widely recognised and acknowledged. Do we take this into account when setting policies?

• The Competitiveness and Convergence Pact promote employment, flexicurity etc. Is flexicurity compatible with a rigid regime?

• Is legislation based on false paradigm ignoring changes? Should we forget about legislation and try to maximise employment?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OLLE LUDVIGSSON MEP (S&D, SWEDEN) I have spent most of my professional life in the manufacturing industry. A great part of that time has been on the factory floor and later on, negotiating in the board room. There have been good times turning into crises and back again. There have been restructurings, splits and mergers, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

Regardless of the economic situation and where you are in the organisation, or even regardless of any particular situation for the company, there are always discussions about working time. It might be held with colleagues over a cup of coffee while on a short break from the production line or in management meetings trying to figure out what overtime working hours might be needed for the next few months.

No matter what the perspective, there are a lot of pieces of a complex puzzle which have to fit together in order to keep the machinery working for the company, workers, customers and not


least within the surrounding world. In the longer term perspective this context should fill a space in the wider context of the market and society.

As globalisation is becoming more and more present it will be even more important how we structure working time to maintain competitiveness eg. how we meet unforeseen changes in demand such as we have seen in the wake of crises. Another illustration could be how we meet more regularly occurring events such as seasonal variations during the year.

Regardless of the situation I believe that if you try, you often find solutions bringing mutual benefits to both industry and employees. Even if the general framework needs to be be discussed at national level, local negotiations between the social partners could provide possibilities for suitable tailored solutions.

For companies, this can mean not only keeping, but also building competence within the company whilst in a temporary decline. It might not be so hard to hire an additional workforce in general, but once they have to let someone go who was the right person in the right place with the right experience, it will take time to reach the same productivity levels as before, when the economic cycle starts to turn. Inexperienced personnel will affect quality, production rates and be more sensitive to variations in production. This might cost companies more than they think.

On the other hand, employees who, for example, receive part-time education in a downturn will be even more ready to get back to work than before. Lifelong learning is a necessity today to keep up with changing production methods, so using this opportunity to prepare for the future can save time, jobs and money.

Bad working hours for some might be good working hours for others. Needs for flexibility might change over a lifetime as anyone who has children knows. In most, if not all Member States, women take the greater part of family responsibility. In order to get more women into the labour market, which will be needed to fulfil the EU2020 employment targets, this is an issue that has to be addressed.

We can also see changes on the horizon demanding us to work longer in life. If we are to manage our pensions with the ongoing demographic changes, a lot of people will have to work years beyond what we call retirement age today. For some it will not be a problem, for others it will not be possible without adapting hours to health and age.

Over time there will be changes in labour demand in most manufacturing fields, but since there is also a need for flexibility among workers, it is most often about planning to reach the optimal solution for both personal needs and reaching optimal productivity per worked hour.

Increased productivity will not only create larger profits but will also give room for increased wages, leaving us in a win-win situation.

New working time patterns will have to emerge and it is the responsibility of the social partners to make sure that this is done maintaining competitiveness, supporting a good working environment, maintaining jobs in transitions and providing the best flexibility possible for employees for health, safety and personal reasons.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


FORD OF EUROPE – LIAM BENHAM, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Ford manufactures across 6 countries in the EU with a total of 8 major facilities or sites. On some sites, like Cologne or Valencia, there are a number of parts to our production chain – engines, transmissions, etc.

Ford has established various working time and shift patterns, eg.:• one to three shifts per day• different start/stop times• flexible working time (Flexitime)• time in lieu (instead of overtime payment) – various approaches• free shifts (in combination with extension of regular working time)• weekend shifts• Saturday work.

National laws and industry agreements often set a framework for working time patterns (eg. working week definition, holiday days):• national legislation as transposition of the EU Working Time Directive including more specific

national regulations• national agreements between unions and employers (sometimes including governments)• sector specific agreements between unions and employers• site-specific agreements.

Ford has found that, within this complexity, specific shift-patterns really need to be established locally to maximise operational flexibility of the respective facility.

Operational needs and production processes vary by activity and just-in-time delivery is key – working patterns need to reflect this. It is good practice and always the case that working and shift patterns are reviewed with the social partners in the plant – unions and works councils.

The social implications of shift patterns need to be reviewed and acceptable solutions – balancing individual and company needs – need to be established. The flexibility of work-time/shift-pattern is a critical enabler to secure jobs, as in our business we need to maximise production asset utilisation, ‘sweat the assets’. Invariably this flexibility is acknowledged by our social partners and respective agreements have been put in place.

Ford of Europe has a diverse workforce and facilitating the concept of diversity, hence the recognition of individual demands, also in terms of working flexibility, is critical to us to support recruitment and retention of talent.

The auto industry needs this flexibility:• fluctuations in the overall economy and hence vehicle sales, apart from general industry issues

such as a petrol price increase, can influence sales


• very specifically for the automotive sector – to compensate for differences in vehicle type sales, typically there is a 7-year cycle of a new car: in the beginning there will be very good sales, which will then drop after 1-2 years, will pick-up partially after a mid-cycle face lift and will drop then again until a new cycle starts

• depending on the type of job, different time patterns are required eg. maintenance and security are totally different areas as compared to manufacturing: maintenance often needs to be done outside normal working hours, security is required around the clock

• some plants also produce parts for other plants, these areas will have to adapt capacity to the needs of the receiving plant – in-time-delivery is key. So at the same plant, some areas may be on a three shift pattern, others on only one shift.

Below are some examples of working time flexibility in Ford of Europe plants in UK and Germany.

• UK: The FoB Agreement on Asset Utilisation was made in 1999, and allowed local plant management and union representatives to examine different shift systems in order to devise optimum running patterns and asset utilisation. The local proposals then needed to be ratified in the National Joint Negotiating Committee [NJNC] prior to implementation.

The asset utilisation shifts, which Ford of Europe has in place are reliant on the current Working Time Directive opt-out clause as they include scheduled overtime, which in some cases takes the standard hours worked up to the 48 hour per week maximum. This means that any additional overtime, which our plants are currently working, requires the opt-out clause.

• Germany: There is an agreement to generally keep the working week at 37.5 hours, compensating the overall tariff of a 35-hour working week with extra free shift days, that can be spread in agreement between workers council and the company, based on workload. Time accounting allows for the flexible distribution of working hours over a longer period of time, eg. to save to allow earlier retirement.

In conclusion, for all the reasons given above, it is very important that Ford maintain its present flexibility for all manufacturing facilities in all European countries, including the opt-out for the UK. Any revision of the present Working Time Directive must maintain the current level of flexibility (of local social partner agreements) or provide even further means to implement innovative work time patterns.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Indra Hadeler Julie Girling MEPSteve Pointer Christopher Hobley Peter Witt


EEF – COLIN REED, HEAD, EMPLOyMENT PROJECTS

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about my experience of flexible working in the UK. you may have seen from my background that I have been privileged to work in a range of organisation and in various markets. I have also been a member of the EEF Employment Policy Committee for the best part of the last 20 years. It is from this diversity of experience that I have drawn my views.

In all the companies where I have worked, we have valued diversity and as a necessary corollary, we have encouraged flexibility. We have worked in partnership with employees, frequently taking our policies on flexibility beyond the legal requirements. This is an important point - more legislation will not, in my experience, ensure more flexibility, it may even work against it – see below.

We have sufficient legislation to secure the rights of employees. In some cases we have too much.

To put this into context, the employment market in the UK has changed significantly in the last few years. These changes reflect wider social changes :• the reduction in the availability of final salary pension schemes

• the opportunity to take a pension while remaining in employment

• the rising cost of home ownership, demands for higher deposits and the lack of mortgage availability

• the increase in unemployment

• the increasing cost of elder care

• increasing costs of child care, although much more is available.

These have given rise to other changes:

• a greater number of older workers

• the increasing need for an extended working life

• a demand for reduced hours from some older workers

• requests to remain at work beyond the normal or planned retirement ages

• the rightful expectation of reasonable adjustments to allow access to work

• the role of stay-at-home grandparents to support their children with childcare

• the increasing responsibility for in-family support and elder care

These social changes are demanding flexibility of employers who, in the main, are happy to provide it.


In addition the employment market has become more uncertain not just through unemployment but with an increasing transfer of work to specialist supply chains including those supplying services from overseas.

All of these trends have to be accommodated by employers of all sizes, and while the larger employer may have more employees between whom the issues can be spread, for many smaller employers, flexibility of fewer hours for one employee may give rise to welcome opportunities for more hours or overtime by another. But this perfect alignment rarely occurs.

If, as the Government believes, the private sector in the UK is going to significantly relieve the unemployment created by public sector cuts, then smaller employers will be an essential component, and it is on these smaller employers that the burden of legislation falls most heavily.

Let me now move to one or two elements of legislation of particular concern. First the Working Time Regulations and in particular the 48-hour limit and the individual opt-out. We all recognise that the UK has held a strong, almost principled, position for the retention of the Individual Opt Out. We also fully understand that this legislation was introduced as part of safety legislation.

For the last seven years, I have been employed in the energy and nuclear generation sector. In this industry, safety is by far and away our top priority and yet we could not operate the Nuclear Fleet without the use of the individual opt-out i.e. without many of our employees opting out of the 48-hours working time limit.

The nuclear fleet is required to take maintenance ‘outages’ by law. During these outages a substantial amount of work has to be delivered by a combination of company and sub-contractor employees. We do not want more people working on the equipment than is essential because every handover from one person to another creates the opportunity for errors. So from a company perspective so long as everyone adheres to procedures including point of work risk assessments and risk assessments for every time they exceed the working time limits, then we are happy for them to work beyond 48 hours a week with an individual opt-out.

The company and the elected employee representatives monitor the working hours and if there was any suggestion of either inappropriate practices or someone being pressured to opt out against their wishes, that would be dealt with very severely. Similarly to the attraction of overtime pay, the company is well aware of the temptation for people to stay at work longer than they should and it guards against this with Risk Assessments.

Another item of legislation of concern for its negative impact on flexibility is the soon-to-be enacted Agency Workers Regulations. The manufacturing sector, along with others sectors,

Colin Reed, Stephen Pearce Indra Hadeler, Delphine Rudelli, Hilde Thys

Adrian Harris, Colin Reed, Stephen Pearce

EFM Roundtable Dinner – ‘Employment, Health, Safety & Manufacturing’ – 16-03-11 1�

could do without this additional burden, which will increase costs both for administration and in the maintenance of a flexible workforce.

What employers need in my view is the least regulation and legal impediment they can reasonably have, so that they can create the most flexible working environment that they can afford for their employees and themselves.

My final point reflects one legacy of the recession plus the lack of Government support for training. In saying that, I am not excusing employers, who must also take responsibility for failing to refresh the skills of the workforce.

The manufacturing sector has a shortage of skills and is therefore incentivised to retain and make the best use of the available skilled workers. Flexibility is essential to do this. The manufacturing sector do not need legislation to tell it how to address this issue or to incentivise it, but it could do with some help.

In summary, what UK employers would ask for is that the flow of additional employment legislation be checked. We recognise it cannot stop completely. We would also ask for the different needs of the UK economy and social picture to be reflected in a more flexible attitude to the application of legislation both by the European Parliament and by the role of the European Court of Justice.

Finally, and significantly, we would argue strongly that it is essential to retain the UK individual opt-out from working time limits.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Paolo Barbatelli, Uwe Combuechen, Laura Rocchitelli

Gábor Vadnai, Antony FellJohn Wahlstedt, Christoph Kainz

Uwe Combuechen, Liam Benham, Delphine Rudelli

Isabelle Biais, Christoph Kainz, Paolo Barbatelli, Laura Rocchitelli


‘NEW SKILLS, JOBS & FLEXICURITY’

OLE CHRISTENSEN MEP (S&D, DENMARK)

What is Flexicurity? Flexicurity consists of three elements:

• flexibility to hire and fire

• social security

• active labour market policy.

Flexibility to hire and fire means that it should be easy for an employer to hire someone, and it should be easy for the employer to fire that same person, if he or she is no longer needed. This flexibility will also mean

that it would be easy for the employee to leave his or her job. This means a higher degree of job mobility for the employee.

Social security means a system where the employee experiences a high degree of income security and job security. This system can be funded in different ways. Often we see a combination of state funding and private funding, the private funding, for example, being through insurance through a trade union or an unemployment insurance fund.

An active labour market policy means help for the unemployed to find work and access to lifelong learning for everyone in the workforce and the temporarily unemployed. This will provide job security but it will also keep the workforce motivated, better equipped and skilled.

These three elements are equally important for the flexicurity model to work as intended.

To make these three elements work and communicate with each other, Social Dialogue is crucial. Social Dialogue exists at micro and macro levels. At the micro level it is important to have good communication in the workplace, the inclusion of the employees in decision-making is also important for Social Dialogue at the micro level. At macro level we see the Social Partners coming together and finding compromises benefiting both the employer and employee. Collective bargaining on matters of wages, holidays and working conditions is part of the Social Dialogue at the macro level. The Social Dialogue at macro level works best if the Social Partners are equally represented – often we only emphasise the importance of strong trade unions, but it is equally important that the employers are represented in a strong organisation.

When flexicurity is working, everyone involved benefits. Also, resolving problems, setting up systems and making rules through Social Dialogue and collective bargaining is often easier and smoother than through traditional legislation.

What are the problems?Few countries within the EU have succeeded in implementing a well functioning flexicurity model. Why is that?

First, too many countries focus too much on flexibility and less on the security side. This may seem good from an employer’s standpoint, but it is certainly not good from the employee’s perspective, and in the long run it is not good for the employers either. By focusing too much on the flexibility


issue, employees are not treated like the resource they are to a business, the country’s economy and level of innovation in a business and the country.

Second, too many countries completely ‘forget’ about the importance of the active labour market policy. A likely reason for this is the fact that an active labour market policy costs a lot of money. A country needs to see this expense as an investment.

Third, in many countries the trade unions and/or the employer organisation are too weak. This makes the social dialogue unbalanced.

What can be done?It will probably vary from sector to sector and country to country as to how to resolve these problems. A lot of countries would benefit from better labour market policies. An active labour market policy should not just be seen as an expense; instead it should be viewed as an investment in the workforce as a resource.

The trade unions need to be empowered. Employees need to be reminded of the importance of a trade union. Trade unions can also be even better at learning from each other and from confederations on EU level, for example the ETUC.

Employers need to form strong employer organisations. They can also benefit from each others’ different experiences and competences. Employer organisations can most likely also benefit more from contact on EU level.

Presentation prepared but not delivered due to unforeseen circumstances.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ROLDELETTROTECNICA - LAURA ROCCHITELLI, MANAGING DIRECTOR

About Roldelettrotecnica The company I represent is a typical family-owned SME. It was founded in 1963 by my parents and I am, together with two brothers, part of the second generation. We produce electromechanical, and, more recently, also electronic components for household appliances. 100% of our

products are made in Italy and we export almost 70%, including to the far East, China and Korea. The turnover is about €35 million with 200 employees.


Improving Skills and KnowledgeLet me provide two examples of our commitment to improving skills and knowledge of present and future human resources.

The first project is the creation of a research centre, Roldresearch, together with two other SMEs (Componenti Vending and Fluidotech) and the Fondazione Politecnico of Milan, entirely with private funds. The aim of this project is to approach the topics of research and innovation with a ‘long term’ vision.

Very often SMEs seek the help of university researchers just to resolve a specific problem, strictly connected with their actual products and processes. With Roldresearch, on the contrary, the involvement is on a wider range of research sectors and over many years. We are convinced that the strict and continuous relationship with universities can help companies to be more competitive on the global market with the consequence of creating new job opportunities.

The second project regards cooperation with upper secondary schools.

Roldelettrotecnica takes part in the technological and scientific committee of two local schools, within the context of the recent Italian education reform, which provides for the involvement of companies in the educational system. In this case, the aim is to fill the evident gap between the school’s education programmes and the labour market needs, in order to confront the unacceptable level of unemployment among young people. As a result, young people will become increasingly more self confident.

To summarise, we are perfectly aware that the strengthening of skills is a long and difficult process but if we really care about the future of Europe and its competitiveness, we all have to shift from a short- to a long-term vision.

‘Investment’ in new skills and competences of human resources has to be seen in that way. We cannot plan to create new and secure job opportunities if we continue to “export” quality and competence rather than empower them.

What can the European Commission do to Help This Process.?Perhaps it should try to promote the involvement of more companies, especially SMEs, because they can decide faster than big organisations. If SMEs are convinced of the importance of investment in training and innovation, they can implement this more quickly and time has undoubtedly become one of the key factors in the actual global market.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


DANSK INDUSTRI – ERIK KJAERGAARD, HEAD, SOCIAL AFFAIRS

First of all, I would like to thank the EFM for inviting us here today and for giving us the opportunity to meet and discuss such important issues as flexicurity and the future for manufacturing companies.

The Confederation of Danish Industry [DI] represents 10,000 businesses and works to create the best possible conditions for the business community. My presentation will focus on flexicurity which is so important to Danish manufacturing companies.

Danish ModelIn Denmark, flexicurity consists of three pillars: 1. Flexibility:

– External flexibility (i.e. easy to hire and fire): - internal flexibility (i.e. working hours, overtime, part-time) - wage flexibility (i.e. performance or result-based).

2. Security: – the low degree of employment protection means that security in the Danish labour market

does not appear as job security, but rather through income security and employment security

– income security means that we have a high compensation rate for low income groups: 90% for 2 years

– employment security means that the many annual job openings enable the unemployed to get a new job quickly.

3. Active Labour Market Policies: – requirements – people must be available and actively job-seeking – instruments – activation schemes and skills upgrading.

The Impact of the Economic Crisis The global economic decline also reached Denmark, where companies found themselves suddenly with empty order books. The economic crisis meant that some companies had to let people go, while other companies made use of short-term working schemes.

Unemployment rates have now stabilised and we see positive growth rates. We also now know that a lot of the people who lost their jobs during the crisis, found new employment relatively quickly.

Let me give you a few examples: • during the crisis, more than 30% of those who lost their job in November 2008, found a new

job within 8 weeks.

• in the metal sector more than 60% of those who lost their job in November 2008, found a new job within 8 weeks.


• in the construction sector more than 40% of the people who lost their job in November 2008, found a new job within 8 weeks.

There is, therefore, no doubt that the Danish flexicurity system made it easier to recover from the crisis for companies, employees and the unemployed.

So flexicurity is important to Danish companies, because it provides companies with the flexibility that is needed to cope with international competition – especially in a time of economic crisis – while at the same time creating job openings, which enable the unemployed to get new jobs quickly.

However, while learning lessons from the crisis is important, I find that the ‘Agenda for New Skills and Jobs’ puts too much emphasis on this particular – and exceptional – period.

We need a policy that takes into account the full dynamics of a business cycle to cope with the challenges of an ageing and declining workforce, new market conditions, new technologies and international competition – challenges, which all require flexible labour markets.

While Dansk Industri therefore welcomes the Commission’s focus on strengthening flexicurity policies, we very much regret that the Commission seems to be promoting a single form of open-ended contract. I cannot stress enough that an important part of securing flexible labour markets is to secure a diversity of contractual arrangement.

A diversity of contractual arrangements is a pre-condition for companies to stay competitive and to adapt to new challenges.

We further believe that reducing the diversity of work contracts will not contribute to job creation. I therefore would like to warn against shifting the focus from ‘employment-security’ to ‘job-security’. One of reasons that flexicurity works as a very successful model in Denmark, is that we focus on employment-security!

Flexicurity is important – and specifically during a crisis – because it provides better possibilities for maintaining competitiveness in companies and thus for promoting: • low structural unemployment • high employment rate • many job openings • people finding new jobs quickly

To conclude, the future debate on flexicurity should focus on how best to support companies and workers in adapting to changes. And the best way to do that is to secure flexibility for companies and employment security for workers.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


MAGEOSZ – GÁBOR VADNAI, DIRECTOR

First of all, please let me highlight that as the representative of the Hungarian Machinery and Power Engineering Industries, (MAGEOSZ), I feel privileged to participate in the European Forum for Manufacturing that brings European stakeholders as well as employers and company representatives to one table.

In our Hungarian machinery sector - which is basically an exporter and supplier sector - the volume of orders started to fall drastically towards the end of the year 2008. By the end of 2009 we had to face a general decrease of 40-60% in our order-books. Since then growth has restarted but as we see, the crisis has not finished yet, or as I have heard diplomatically expressed “the tangible way-out from the crisis seems currently a little fragile”.

Some fresh statistical figures shows the following (Source: KSH Hungarian Central Statistical Office - 03/2011):

– Hungarian exports in 2010 increased by 17% increase compared to the data of 2009 and imports increased by 15%

– foreign trading excess was €5.525 million as compared to 2009, when it was only €1.727 million. Exports were €73.752 million. From these figures the machinery export represented 60%, or €40.847 million and machinery imports were €36.928 million, which represents half of the total import figure

– capacity take-up is at about of 70-75% but it is clear that there are divergencies between subsectorial and company level.

So, the key message I would like to convey to the representatives from different EU institutions is a fairly straightforward one: • national as well as European policies have to pay more attention to the manufacturing

industry

• Europe is in a really critical period.

Like CEEMET, MAGEOSZ also appreciates that industrial policy has moved up on the European Agenda and that policies are oriented towards sustainable economic growth.

I hope that the central statement in the Commission Communication on Industrial Policy, namely that ‘Europe needs industry’ translates into actions that support manufacturing.

From 2008 to 2010 we had to cope with the massive challenges triggered by the financial and economic crisis. Orders fell steeply overnight and capacity utilisation was at very low levels.

Nevertheless, even during this period, Hungarian industry made many efforts to keep as much of its workforce as possible.

With the aim of not losing our well-educated skilled labour force, companies found a solution in the decrease of working hours, so with the available amount of orders they could retain the major part of the employees.


It is clear that there is now an excess in the labour market, but as far as the really high skilled vocations are concerned (for example the well-known CNC workers gap) there is no free labour force.

As far as salaries are concerned there was no increase but there was no decrease neither. It is true that the workers revenue totally has decreased because of the disappearance of overtime working.

Nowadays that situation has started to change. Some companies try to take advantage of the bigger bid of the labour market. Compared to their competitors, they have started offering more attractive wages with a wage increase of around the inflation rate of 4-6% for the high skilled workers trusting in the economic recovery.

The educational state support for companies could usefully balance the shortfall in the order- books, considering that a small number of employees could take advantage of this type of programme.

We have to be very fit and quick to seize these opportunities as there are many other competitors outside Europe who want to seize their opportunity as well and we do not always compete on the same level playing field.

When it comes to Flexicurity strategies, the current four pillars (i. flexcurity, ii. right skills for employment, iii. supporting job creation, iv. quality of work) are appropriate and sufficient, though the general idea of international competitiveness might be given more attention in the entire concept.

With Flexicurity there cannot be a one-size-fits-all model, as the point of balance varies depending on ever (faster) changing socio-economic situations and country specificities.

Furthermore, I would like to stress the importance of the underlying basic consideration of Flexicurity: that the focus should shift from job-security to employment-security.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Julie Girling, Antony Fell

EFM Roundtable Dinner – ‘Employment, Health, Safety & Manufacturing’ – 16-03-11 �0

COMMISSIONER ANDOR’S RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE POINTS RAISED INCLUDED:

• Responding to a question on Health & Safety and Muskulo-Skeletal Disorders (MSD), as one of the top three causes of sickness absence, concern over lack of understanding that ¾ of these were non-work caused – bad backs due to obesity etc. and the need to treat this as a public health issue. �0% is the whole of MSD, not just work-related.

Commissioner Andor: This is work-related in consequence but I will look into it.

• Responding to two issues:

i) re open-ended contracts - German industry after the crisis has generated �0 000 new jobs which are mostly open-ended. However, companies need other forms in times of uncertainty – flexibility is crucial – there is concern regarding plans in this area.

ii) Working Time – are the negotiations balanced? The instrument in itself means that negotiations are balanced. What is meant and what can be done if the Commission does not think they are balanced?

Commissioner Andor: There is a readiness from both sides to negotiate but the scope is not completely overlapping. It is not good if the range of possibilities does not match. There is a 25 March deadline for Social Partners.

Open-ended contracts differ widely from country to country. This is not a universal recipe from the European Commission. This is particularly the case for countries where segmentation is a particular problem. In Spain there are many fixed-term contracts and it now has the highest levels of unemployment. Open-ended contracts are focused on such countries, not to replace existing contracts.

• Re France and open-ended contracts – employers there are not against open-ended contracts but there is no flexibility in hiring and firing which is very complex and costly. Employers will think twice with open-ended contracts because of difficulties and cost. In times of uncertainty they think that temporary contracts are better, as open-ended ones are not a possibility. Maybe consideration should be given first to reform of labour markets for flexicurity. There is plenty of social security provision in France but a lack of flexibility and therefore open-ended contracts would be very difficult in France.

Commissioner Andor: Will raise this with the Minister. Some countries are reforming, but it cannot be done all at once. EC policy is not tailored necessarily to the political cycles of Member States. We say what we think is right. Annual Growth Strategy is an example of this.

Csaba Kancz, Commissioner Andor


• Re information from the Tripartite Social Forum, the German minister stated that open-ended contracts would be false security – it was just moving the cut-off point and the desired goal would not be achieved. The Netherlands said this would decrease desire for mobility among employees. Additionally on the ‘Precarious Work’ debate, CEEMET was very concerned and had initiated a survey which it would like to share with the Commissioner in due time to place the discussion on a factual basis.

Commissioner Andor: The dialogue will continue. Regarding the false security, there is indeed a cut-off point but no automaticity. Trade unions also think this can be false security so there is criticism from all angles. Academia backs the concept though – but there is a need to find right approach and implementation. Also, there is a shared concern that we need to be cautious when discussing precarious work. There is a need to improve readiness to participate and commit to debate with all stakeholders.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Adrian Harris, Liam BenhamJulie Girling MEP, Colin Reed Christoph Kainz, Hanna Hovi

Malcolm Harbour MEP, in welcoming participants to the dinner, also welcomed Antony Fell as the new Secretary General of the European Forum for Manufacturing. In doing so he also thanked Claudia Hamill for all her work as its first Secretary General, commenting that following on from her would be a challenge. She will be continuing to contribute as Senior Adviser to EFM.

EFM Roundtable Dinner – ‘Employment, Health, Safety & Manufacturing’ – 16-03-11 ��

‘EU PRESIDENCy PRIORITIES’ – HUNGARIAN PERMANENT REPRESENTATION

MARIA PANKER, SOCIAL ATTACHé

We are almost at the halfway point in the Hungarian Presidency and I am sure that by this time most of our priorities are not a secret as we have presented them on several occasions to different audiences. The programme is also available on the Presidency’s website.

I will focus, therefore, on a few important areas related to employment and health and safety at work.

Employment PolicyImplementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy at EU and national level is in the heart of our programme.

We had the challenging task to launch the European Semester (EU new governance architecture), which is a new exercise for everybody and requires a complex and integrated approach. The conclusions of the first phase will be there soon. We tried to involve all Council structures and obtain their contributions on the implementation of the strategy.

As regards employment, we had several exchanges of views at expert level and also with the Ministers in the Council on how we could better contribute and make the Europe 2020 strategy a success.

The conclusions can be summarised as follows: • labour market policies should promote skills, create incentives to work and reduce labour

market exclusion, in particular of vulnerable groups. The focus needs to be on making work more attractive and getting the unemployed back to work.

• comprehensive flexicurity policies - flexible working arrangements are needed and special attention should be made to the better reconciliation of work and family life and to facilitate labour market participation.

At the same time however there was emphasis on the significant mismatches between the supply and the demand side of the labour market (job creation aspect); the lack of work experience was also an important issue which has to be addressed.

We, as Council Presidency have a special priority, namely addressing the challenges and problems young people face when looking for employment. We have the topic of youth employment high on our agenda which is alarmingly high. The Hungarian Presidency is paying special attention to the implementation of the ‘New Skills and Jobs’ and ‘youth on the Move’ flagship initiatives and promotes, among others, vocational education and training and measures facilitating the entry from education to employment.

With respect to Vocational Education and Training (VET), under our Presidency the implementation of the deliverables listed in the Bruges Communiqué (on enhanced European cooperation in vocational education and training for the period 2011-2020) will happen. At a


conference in May titled ‘Increasing attractiveness and excellence of VET through quality and efficiency’ we will pay special attention to such tools and forward looking practices which contribute to the demonstration of excellence and the value of vocational skills, additional to those targeted incentives, which contribute to attracting young people to vocational training.

But of course it is not only young workers who face significant labour market problems, but also the 50+ age group, although different in nature and in terms of needs and solutions. We also gave an opportunity for Ministers to exchange their views on the possible complex measures at the last Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) – with a view to the national reform programs to be submitted soon.

Legislative Activities in the Field of Health and Safety• Protection of Workers Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields:

– this file was indicated as one of our priorities from the very beginning. We are aware of the importance but also the difficulties of this dossier, among others the problem of the MRI sector.

– however, there is a delay in the delivery of the proposal.– nevertheless we would like to start with the negotiations on the proposal which the

Commission intends to adopt by the end of April. Our aim was initially to advance this dossier as much as possible by the end of our Presidency. But as it stands now substantial work will remain for the Polish presidency.

• Another important file is the Maternity Leave Directive:– we took good note of the amendments voted by the Parliament at the end of October

2010.– the Council Working Group had the first exchange of views on those under the previous

Presidency. It is clear that the length of and the payment during the maternity leave are the most sensitive topics and that reaching an agreement on these issues is likely to take some time and reflection.

– but work will not be stop, we are starting to examine the amendments one by one, but we will focus only on part of them. As the amendments are so numerous, it will take some time to have a position on all of them. And at the end of the Hungarian Presidency we foresee we will hand it over to our Polish colleagues with a progress report on the file.

ConclusionTo conclude, I should say that we were expecting to have a more ambitious work programme in terms of legislative dossiers, but we are mostly in the hands of the Commission. I am sure that the coming Presidencies will have a heavy agenda if all those proposals which are in the pipeline are on the table.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


‘MANUFACTURING PRIORITIES’ – EEF

TERRy SCUOLER, BOARD MEMBER, CEEMET & CEO, EEF

Sustainable economic growth is key to the future of Europe. Engineering and manufacturing with its export potential is clearly important to the wealth agenda and requires a good and stable framework to thrive.

Many companies are positive in their outlook regarding investment and recruitment intentions but there is still much uncertainty about the location and scale of these capital investment plans, which are critical to sustaining growth and

competitiveness. These are still major issues in parts of Europe.

One of our highest priorities now and in the future must be to make Europe a more attractive place for global companies to invest in and that of course requires certain conditions to be met.

For CEEMET and its members, flexibility, skills and smart regulation are amongst some of the core issues when it comes to economic growth, job creation, and strengthening employability. It is vital that framework conditions support our competitiveness in the international market place.

The balance between flexibility and security is key and this needs to be clearly understood – as ever, the devil is in the detail. A key element in any legislation must be the consultation process of how best to support companies and employers in adapting to changes required by legislation.

Flexible labour markets are vital if European companies are to respond to the increasing pressures of global competition – employment legislation must facilitate flexible work arrangements, both externally and internally, increasingly being sought by both companies and individuals. CEEMET is not at all convinced by the Commission’s idea to introduce a model of an ‘open ended employment contract’ to reduce ‘segmentation in labour markets’. There are some tasks that do not require a full time employee and on the other hand there are employees who do not desire or cannot work full-time. Over-prescription will endanger employment not increase it – therefore I believe that retention of the working time opt-out is essential.

Highly qualified people are essential for companies to be able to provide Europe with technological solutions to climate change, energy security, demographic change and indeed the further development of incumbent industries. Sadly we have examples of European member companies with inflexible regimes which are simply limiting employment. With, for example, youth unemployment at 43% in Spain and 28% in Italy, if there is resistance to improving flexibility of recruiting youngsters in parts of our European Union, it is nothing short of shameful.

Lifelong learning needs to become reality as well as a mindset – strengthening links between industry, trade unions, education and training providers is an efficient way of ensuring high quality vocational education and training and that skills match labour market needs, thus improving employability. I am pleased to report that there are many excellent examples of


European companies massively investing in the (further) training of their employees – but more can be done.

Smart regulation – clearly we need regulation but I appeal for a regulatory framework which encourages innovation and entrepreneurship.

Reducing red tape and admin burdens produced by existing regulation and new European initiatives is necessary – let us please judge our political legislators not just by the regulations they introduce but also the flexibility and liberties that they create. Let them prove their commitment to us by, on occasion. removing legislation from the statute books.

For many Directives, especially in field of health and safety, our main challenge surely is to ensure appropriate implementation. Attention should therefore be focused on ensuring that original legislation is fully effective before launching new legislative initiatives. To those nations which strongly adhere to the process of implementation it is particularly frustrating to witness those which do not.

Regarding the proposed Framework for Restructuring: national regulation, a number of European Directives, and other tools including the European Social Partners’ Joint Orientations, already deal with this issue. CEEMET questions whether another layer would add value. The Commission Communication on Industrial Policy clearly pointed out in that ‘competitive-driven structural adaptation is quickest and most efficient’. Simply adding rules will not lead to achieving growth in Europe that is smart, sustainable and inclusive as formulated in the Europe 2020 Strategy.

We know, from lessons learnt, that ‘ownership’ is of utmost importance for the successful implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs – this aspect of ownership applies to both Social Partners and Member States.

A genuine involvement of Social Partners in independent, objective and professional impact assessments as well as timely and properly carried out consultations will improve participation and ownership as well as the process of implementation.

CEEMET, representing as it does some 200,000 companies, is a well-functioning and highly responsible employers’ network with the commitment of national employer organisations and companies. We hope to continue and further an objective, transparent exchange with you on these important issues. Please remember that it is only the private sector which can deliver wealth for our nations and its citizens.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hilde Thys Jan Briffaerts, Isabelle BiaisCaroline Holmqvist, Aykut Engin


‘HEALTH, SAFETY & FUTURE PROGRAMME 2013-2020’

AB SCANIA – GERARD NOBEL, MEDICAL OFFICER

Scania operates in some 100 countries and has over 34,000 employees. With its headquarters and R&D facilities in Sweden, it has production facilities in Sweden, France, Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil, Poland and Russia. In addition, about 20,000 people work in Scania’s independent sales and service organisation. Scania focuses on methods rather than results. Results will come as a consequence of doing the right things right. This principle has proven to be successful even in the area of Safety Health and Environment.

PhilosophyRespect for the individual is one of Scania’s Production Systems core values and a base for the Scania House, where ‘Safety, Health and Environment’ is the number one priority. Respect for the individual

is approached in a holistic manner, where the wellbeing and working capacity of the individual is affected by his or her health, a healthy workplace and a balance between work and life. By incorporating management of Safety, Health and Environment in Scania’s management system there is a strong commitment from management and involvement of the workers.

Wellbeing is promoted and supported through Scania’s health principles using ‘traffic light’ thinking, where the aim is to work towards ‘green’; to promote and develop good health on every level in the organisation, Individual, group, and at company level.

Scania’s health principles and philosophy are translated into practice through the document, Health Operating Standard, which is a global guideline for present and future improvement of healthy employers, a healthy workplace and a balance between work and life. In this document, which is based on our core values and health principles, 14 areas, encompassing Safety Health and Environment are discussed and minimal requirements are presented.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Aykut Engin Delphine RudelliLinda Selsager Pedersen, Erik Kjaergaard


TATA STEEL STRIP PRODUCTS – STEPHEN PEARCE, HEALTH & SAFETy MANAGER

We welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate about both the 2013 - 2020 H&S programme and the Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) Directive. The business I represent has a portfolio of risks and a level of regulation that makes it well placed to comment on the impact on current and future programmes.

Health & Safety Future Programme 2013 - 2020The Programme to date has concentrated on the significant risks that have a direct and major impact on the health and safety of people arising out of work activities. The agenda for this programme has delivered a sound legislative framework.

In recent years the work programme has started to address hazards which have limited impact on the health and safety of employees and those affected by work activities. The requirements add requirements which are different from those set out in other legislation. Burdens on business are imposed in a way that is out of proportion to the risk involved. There is an inconsistency in the deployment by Member States of the requirements of existing legislation which is undermining protection.

Industry in an increasingly globalised market place needs the consistency of regulation and guidance. It is in this area that the programme should focus to deliver the desired health & safety improvements.

Proposed EU Directive on Electro-Magnetic FieldsThis Directive is an example of the approach to concentrate on issues where there is limited health effect. A review session with the UK Regulator and Business representatives has been agreed.

The requirements in the current draft are out of proportion to the risk, specifically:• the requirement for measurement (expensive and ultimately will make little difference to the

deployment of best practice)• risk assessment (yet another form of risk assessment for organisations to absorb)• requirement for signs (largely meaningless because of the widespread requirement)• the impact of such activities as spot welding (effectively banning such equipment).

The current draft sees to have ignored comments from the Working Group and the requirements are more radical than in previous drafts

ConclusionThe foundation laid in Europe in Health & Safety has largely to date addressed significant risks and is having an impact on the health & safety of the employed population and those affected by work.


The recent developments are aimed at small and limited risks.

The biggest threat to the foundation laid lies with the inconsistent deployment of existing require-ments and this should be the focus of the 2013 - 2020 plan.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EUROPEAN COMMISSION – ANTONIO CAMMAROTA, PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, HEALTH & SAFETy UNIT, DG EMPLOyMENT

With the EU economies still struggling to exit the crisis and start a sustainable recovery, the European Union has embraced a new strategic agenda for the next decade – the EU 2020 Strategy. It aims at enhancing structural reform in Europe for achieving faster growth. The goal is to shape the future of our economies in order to have, in ten years time, more innovation, less energy consumption, less environmental damage, a more skilled and educated labour force and more social cohesion. Ambitious common EU targets, like increasing the employment rate for men and women to 75% of working age population or reducing the number of persons living in poverty by 20 million, have been set.

Health and safety policies have their full place in this new strategic agenda. Bringing down the rate of accidents and the incidence of work-related diseases is a goal in itself as it reduces human suffering. But it also makes sense in order to reach higher productivity and less absenteeism. It is also essential if we want to ensure improved conditions for people to stay longer in the labour market and to develop a skilled workforce, which is an essential asset towards a competitive, sustainable and innovative economy in line with Europe 2020 goals.

For this reason, in its ‘Agenda for New Skills and Jobs’, the Commission has identified better job quality and working conditions as one of the four key priorities to meet the challenges of the 2020 Strategy.

On the one hand, it is clear that a good working environment plays a crucial role in enhancing the potential of the workforce and is a leading competitiveness factor. EU companies depend for their survival and expansion on a committed workforce, thriving in a high-quality working environment, with safe and healthy working conditions.

On the other hand, workers’ physical and mental health need to be taken into account to address the demands of today’s working careers, which are characterised by more transitions between more intense and demanding jobs and by new forms of work organisation.

In this regard, health and safety policies are fundamental to achieve a sustainable working life for a healthy and skilled workforce, which can use, upgrade and develop its professional


capability throughout its working life, adding meaning to it and value to the European economy.

Based on these considerations, the European Commission will be working in 2011 at a new EU strategy on occupational safety and health which will replace as from 2013 the current strategy 2007-2012.

In particular, the Commission will undertake in 2011 the final evaluation of the EU Strategy 2007-2012 on Health and Safety at Work, and on this basis it will propose in 2012 a follow-up strategy for the period 2013-2020.

The new strategy will provide a political framework, aligned to the EU 2020 Strategy, for the improvement of occupational safety and health at both national and European level and a roadmap for stakeholders to play their role in the implementation of the objectives identified by the strategy.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CONCLUDING REMARKS

EUROPEAN FORUM FOR MANUFACTURING – ANTONy FELL, SECRETARy GENERAL

Our thanks to the sponsoring organisation, CEEMET, and to László Andor, European Commissioner for DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, MEPs, the Hungarian Council Presidency and our manufacturers for a very focussed and useful Roundtable Discussion, which has stimulated a wide variety of views. Thank you also to Julie Girling MEP and Malcolm Harbour MEP for their excellent chairing.

The previous Roundtables have covered employment, environment, research & development, the internal market, trade and competition, and resources, raw materials & green public procurement. Their Highlights can also be found on the EFM Website.

For our next Roundtable, to be held on Tuesday 24 May in the European Parliament, the focus will include Energy Efficiency and New Enabling Technologies. We welcome input from all of you on future topics.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


European Forum for ManufacturingGeneral Secretariat

Avenue Louise 287/16B-1050 Brussels

Email: [email protected]: +32 (0)2 286 1154Fax: +32 (0)2 280 4402

www.euromanuforum.com

employment, health, safety &...

Documents