Tag Archives: welfare

Studying Finnish labour law: reflections from a research visit to Leeds

by Liisa Lähteenmäki, Postdoctoral Research Fellow (University of Turku)

Liisa Lahteenmaki presenting at CERIC Seminar

Liisa Lahteenmaki talks about labour law and political discourses in Finland.

I had great pleasure to be a visiting researcher at the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC) in September-October 2018. I found CERIC to be an inspiring, multi-disciplinary research environment hosting a wide array of projects dealing with contemporary key employment issues, such as platform employment, employees’ health and welfare, and regulation of transnational labour markets. I also had the opportunity to give a CERIC research seminar about my current research project, which examines the changes made to the Finnish labour and employment legislation during the last 20 years.

Since 2003, Finland has witnessed a period of conservative or right-wing governments, the country being led by either the Centre party or the National Coalition. Historically, protective and empowering labour and employment legislation was forged by social democratic governments, and the period from the 1970s throughout the 1980s is carved into the collective memory of the nation as the years of stable progress in employment rights, labour protections and social welfare. This development was abruptly broken by the 1990s recession as the repercussions mainly meant degradation of welfare, wages, education, health services and stable employment.

Since the 1990s, neoliberal policies and market enhancing ideologies have swept Finland similarly to any other country, rendering the currency and ideals of labour protection and social welfare under attack. The triumphs of the welfare state were suddenly conceptualized as problems, even obstacles to economic growth. These turns have inevitably had effects on law-making.

Besides being interested in the trends and changes in labour and employment legislation per se, my research discusses the interplay between legislation, the reality of the labour markets, and other employment relevant phenomena in the Finnish society. I am particularly interested in the practice of law-making bases on the ideals of unbiased information and broad participation while the outcome, the actual law, is seen as a result of disinterested and rational decision making. Furthermore, I am interested in examining the interplay of legislation imposed and passed in ‘separate’ fields of society that are nevertheless always unavoidably interconnected: Legislation regulating migration, economy or human rights have percussions in the labour markets and vice versa, and this tends to be  ignored in discussions about changing employment and welfare.

Law itself upholds practices of sectoral decision making by, for example, restricting assessments of influence to sometimes generic issues (e.g. influences on the economy and administrative burdens), and by repeating the idea of law as an endogenous system, with its own internal rules and discourses. Laws regulating employment nevertheless always influence a multitude of other domains in everyday life: family and habitation, migration, and education, just to mention a few. Also, events taking place in ‘real life’ – that is, migration, families and lifestyle choices people make – do affect labour market outcomes. In this vein, my research examines what the possible repercussions of labour legislation are beyond the obvious, and how this ‘two-way traffic’ should be better taken into account when planning and justifying new labour legislation.

From the starting point of the idea of social protection as a critical concept, I will be evaluating the changes in the Contracts of Employment Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the Unemployment Benefits Act. My research will ask whether we are still following the original paradigm and ideals of labour law (protecting the weaker party of the employment relationship) and Nordic welfare state (equality and leveling down of social and economic differences) when making changes to labour legislation. Borrowing from Lappi-Seppälä (2007) and Pratt (2008), I will use the idea of Scandinavian Exceptionalism in mapping the trends of labour legislation through some of the most critical years in the Finnish economy: From the unparalleled economic depression of the 1990s to the joining to the EU, the miracle of Nokia, the closures of the paper mills, and the rise of the gaming industry (e.g. Supercell and Rovio) in the 2000s. While Lappi-Seppälä and Pratt refer to the penal policies and the low levels of imprisonment in the Nordic countries, I will use the term in reference to the employment policies which have traditionally emphasized both the social democratic model of tripartite negotiations and the recognition of the unions, as well as the idea of social protection over maximum profits and insecure employment.

It truly was encouraging to be part of this community for a while. I would like to express my gratitude especially to CERIC Member Dr. Jo Ingold for taking an active part in organizing my visit. I hope that my visit in CERIC and Leeds University will lead to inspiring cooperation as my aim is to broaden my research to include international comparisons. It would indeed be an honour to work together again with CERIC colleagues.

Report launch: how do we engage more employers in employability and skills programmes?

Jo IngoldDr Jo Ingold, Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Public Policy, CERIC, Leeds University Business School.

3 December 2017, at an event in Westminster for policymakers, practitioners and academics, we’ll be launching our final report from a four-year ESRC-funded research project about employer engagement in employability and skills programmes.

Employers are critical to the success of employment activation and employability programmes, yet there’s been surprisingly little research about employers’ perspectives on them. In the first phase of our research, we surveyed over 1,500 employers in the UK and Denmark. In the second phase, we undertook more than 100 in-depth interviews with employers and providers delivering employability and skills programmes in both countries, to provide a ‘two-sided’ perspective on employer engagement.

Employers’ perspectives on employability programmes

Employers were generally positive about employing unemployed candidates, but less so about employability programmes, particularly in the UK. A critical difference between the countries was that, while every Danish employer we interviewed had taken part in at least one programme (and often more), among UK employers participation was more sporadic. UK employers were most familiar with apprenticeships above other provision. A key reason for not engaging in programmes was that employers thought they were inappropriate to their needs. They were put off by the large number of programmes and providers, lacked knowledge about them and about how to access programmes, and were unsure about their value. The most popular reasons for engaging were to access an alternative recruitment channel, to develop talent and to ‘give people a chance’.

Critically, employers felt that the benefit conditionality system and employability programmes themselves could ‘tarnish’ candidates. Employers were particularly dissatisfied about receiving large numbers of job applications as a result of conditionality and entitlement conditions. The lack of a tailored service from providers could also result in employers being sent candidates who were of ‘poor quality’, unsuitable, or ill-prepared.

Employers were generally positive about employing disabled people, although only a small number of UK employers had done so, and not necessarily through employability programmes. In Denmark the Flexjobs scheme for disabled people (offering subsidized jobs under special conditions, in-work support and reduced working hours) was popular with employers. Importantly, in both countries very few employers had made changes to their recruitment and selection processes to encourage candidates from disadvantaged groups, despite recognising the shortcomings of the standard application and interview method.

Our survey data found two distinct groups of employers in terms of engagement in employability and skills programmes. Firstly, those who were ‘instrumentally engaged’ on an ad hoc basis in specific initiatives but not that ‘committed’ to them. Secondly, those who were ‘relationally engaged’ and were more committed and involved in a broader range of programmes on a repeated and sustained basis. This distinction was supported by the interview data. The survey and interview data showed that relational engagement was higher in Denmark than the UK. Crucially, UK employers did not feel that employability programmes were designed with their needs in mind and, compared with Danish employers, had very low trust in public policies.

Providers’ perspectives

The data from providers in both countries showed striking similarities with the employer data, in terms of barriers to engagement and reasons for engaging, as well as in their perspectives about what relational (or in-depth) employer engagement meant. However, the fact that UK employers had less ‘institutional’ trust in government policy and programmes critically left more ‘gaps’ to be filled by providers. They tended to achieve this through the development of ‘inter-personal’ relationships with employers, based on trust. So these relationships were largely between individuals from provider organisations and from businesses, rather than based on relations between organisations. But, although these relationships were critical to employer engagement, they were also fragile and trust could be easily lost. This wasn’t helped by changes to programmes, regulations and contracts in localities.

UK providers also expressed concern about employers’ fluctuating demands for labour, which were difficult to meet. Additionally, there was a gap between employer demands and the individuals that providers’ held on their caseloads, who were possible candidates for vacancies. Providers felt that this gap could not be filled by programmes in their current form. One way of providing a good ‘offer’ to employers was by being able to provide a ‘spectrum’ of services (ranging from pre-employment training to in-work support and training). But providers could only really do this successfully if they’d won a range of employment and skills contracts (from different government departments), or merged with or acquired organisations that had. Alternatively, providing a range of services to employers required working with other organisations, sometimes competitors (what is often referred to as ‘co-opetition’).

This research reveals the extremely fragmented landscape of employment and skills provision in the UK, as well as the remoteness of employers from them (notably the situation was slightly different in Scotland, where these policies are devolved responsibilities). The current formulation of employment and skills policy assumes that employers will engage and will provide opportunities for unemployed individuals. But this research (and the previous research we conducted about the UK Work Programme) suggest that employers are not beating the door down to take part in these programmes, despite them being a potential avenue for increasing workforce diversity. If the government wants to seriously address labour market disadvantage and in particular to halve the disability employment gap, an urgent re-think is needed about the current direction of policy.

Policy recommendations

  • In their current form, programmes are not working effectively for employers. Employers still lack knowledge about programmes, don’t recognise their potential benefits and consider them inappropriate to their needs.
  • A smaller number of programmes, with more continuity and stability but less complexity and fragmentation would make it easier for employers to engage.
  • Changes need to be urgently made to avoid employers receiving large numbers of job applications from benefit claimants in order to fulfil conditionality requirements, as this is damaging to employers’ views of initiatives. A critical aspect of this is better targeting of applications to employers.
  • Devolution is an important opportunity to improve employer engagement in the design and implementation of initiatives and to devise programmes that are responsive to local needs.
  • Merging different government departmental funding streams for employability and skills provision would be helpful, especially as the government looks to replacement European Social Fund provision.
  • More employers need to be equipped with information about ways to make their recruitment and selection processes more inclusive and effective.
  • To maximise resources and to provide a better service to employers, we need more mechanisms for sharing evidence-based good practice across different providers, programmes, cohorts and areas, which currently the competitive contracting frameworks mitigate against.

This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and followed on from ‘Seedcorn’ research funded by CERIC and Leeds University Business School. More information about the research can be found here.

 

CERIC to host workshop on Universal Basic Income and the Future of Work

JPEG Yellow-BlueKate Hardy, Vera Trappmann and Charles Umney

In the face of widening disparities of wealth, changes in work and employment in which low pay dominates and the ability of work to lift people out of poverty declines, debates about the future of social protection have come to the fore. In contexts from the Global South to the ‘developed’ North wage labour appears decreasingly able to distribute social wealth or protect individuals and households from poverty.

In this context, scholars, activists and policy makers have begun to examine alternatives to existing systems of welfare, including negative income tax, cash transfers and universal basic income and guaranteed minimum income. Basic income has become the most visible and perhaps most contested of these proposals. The notion of a universal basic income – a non-conditional base income for all citizens – has attracted increasing popular purchase within social movements, institutions and governments. Numerous academic pilot experiments from Canada to Namibia and India have been undertaken, while governments are rolling out experiments in Finland, Barcelona and Utrecht. Proponents of basic income have been drawn from across the political spectrum, finding support from Milton Friedman and Bill Gates to Frances Fox Piven and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

On 26th January, CERIC will host a workshop bringing together theorists, practitioners and social movements to this day long workshop will explore these questions, focusing on basic income, wage labour, work and employment, by asking:

• How does basic income relate to changes in the labour market, including the growth of the digital and gig economy?
• How does it impact on work and employment?
• How might it effect women’s rights and gender equality?
• What can we learn from basic income experiments in progress?

This will be is a CERIC event to discuss key contemporary issues in work and employment.

The event is sponsored by the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC) and Leeds University Business School (LUBS).