If you had to set about the task of 'modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century' what might be your priorities?

Personally, I'd take two approaches.

Firstly, I'd decide what are the most pressing social problems and then look at how labour law might help address them: too many people are living in poverty, for example, so I'd see how labour law might be adjusted to ensure that a greater proportion of the population could have access to adequately-paid and otherwise fulfilling employment.

The number of people who suffer from industrial diseases or the effects of industrial accidents remains unacceptably high, and surely reforming aspects of labour law could do something about that. Gender and race equality persist in the world of work, so we might look at how laws protecting people from discrimination could be made more effective.

You could, I'm sure, add to and improve on this list.

A second approach would be to look at labour law in the world's most successful economies. As the success of an economy should self-evidently be defined primarily by its ability to deliver the means to enjoy a comfortable and secure life to the people who depend on it, northern Europe runs out a clear winner. So we might look at the rights of workers in places such as Sweden, Finland or the Netherlands.

Given that all of the above seems so obvious, why do we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that no evidence of any such thinking will be found in a consultative document, recently published by the European Commission, entitled 'Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century'.

Why, in fact, does the title of this Green Paper send shivers down my spine?

Here are some of the things that the European Commission considers out of keeping with the modern way of doing things:

""Overly protective terms and conditions" in contracts, which can "deter employers from hiring during economic upturns".
""stringent employment protection legislation" which "tends to reduce the dynamism of the labour market"
""...making principal contractors responsible for the obligations of sub-contractors" which "encourages (them) to monitor compliance with employment legislation" but which, unfortunately, "may serve to restrain sub-contracting by foreign companies and could therefore present an obstacle to the free provision of services in the Internal Market."

Sometimes, the Commission's logic defies reason. Criticising the member states for introducing 'flexibility' only at the 'margins', it points out that this produces a 'segmented' labour market, with core workers enjoying secure employment, while the low-paid and unskilled can be hired and fired at will.
This has long been a concern of those who recognise that well-organised workers can look after themselves, while vulnerable groups need the protection and solidarity of the state and public authorities. The solution to this was to have strong labour laws. This was, throughout the twentieth century, one of the cornerstones of social democracy, of progressive political action within a capitalist economy.

The Commission's Green Paper turns this on its head. Instead of advocating a strengthening of rights for workers on the margins, it suggests (logically enough, I suppose) that 'segmentation' could be overcome by weakening the position of the rest of the workforce!

As Francis Wurtz, president of the United European Left political group in the European Parliament said recently, the Commission clearly believes that "the work relationship is that of an individual worker to his or her employer, which must be agreed in a contract. Labour law is a product of the archaic bureaucracy which destroys the productivity of companies in the face of their competitors..."

The assumptions behind this approach are revealed in one of the questions to which people responding to this consultative document are asked to address themselves.

"Do existing regulations, whether in the form of law and/or collective agreements, hinder or stimulate enterprises and employees seeking to avail of opportunities to increase productivity and adjust to the introduction of new technologies and changes linked to international competition?"

Almost twenty years ago, after a decade of Thatcherism, many British trade union leaders looked to then Commission President Jacques Delors to force the UK to bring the standard of its labour laws up to those of other northern European countries. It never happened, of course. Instead of harmonising us all upwards to Sweden's level, the EU wants to make us all, Sweden, Britain and every other member state, into an employers' paradise, where such things as the right not to be dismissed without good cause, to decline to do overtime or refuse to do work other than that for which one was hired, or to participate in a clear, collectively-bargained set of agreements designed to protect workers from exploitation (and, incidentally, employers from sweatshop competition), are regarded as 'old-fashioned'.

The consultative process goes on until 31st March. You can read the Green Paper and respond to it at European Commission, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. Steve McGiffen edits spectrezine.