Conference on The Future of Work, Employment and Social Protection
Annecy, January 18-19, 2001
Opening speech by Ms. Guigou, Minister of Employment and Solidarity
Mr. Director General,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you, dear Juan Somavia, for those words of introduction.
It gives me great pleasure to be with all of you today to open the first France-ILO meeting on "the future
of work, employment and social protection". The meeting is the tangible outcome of an initiative taken
jointly by the International Labour Organisation and the French Ministry of Employment and Solidarity
in the framework of the co-operation agreement signed by France and the ILO in 1999. Martine Aubry
worked very hard with Juan Somavia to ensure that the initiative took shape.
I am delighted to see how many of you are here today, and thank you for having accepted our invitation
and in some cases for having travelled quite far to be with us.
I should like to start by thanking those from both the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity and from
the ILO who organised the meeting. My gratitude goes to Gerry Rodgers, Peter Auer, Jean-Michel
Servais, Emmanuel Reynaud and Françoise Weeks from the ILO, and to Marie-Thérèse Join-Lambert,
France's representative to the ILO, Christine Daniel and Dominique Méda of France for their efficiency.
As you know, Juan Somavia will conclude the conference for both of us, for as we have already had
occasion to observe, in particular at the meeting of G8 Ministers of Employment and Social Welfare held
in Turin in November, he and I have shared views and a common vision.
At this point, I should like first to speak to you about the purpose of our colloquium, which is to examine
the future of work, employment and social protection from all angles, before turning to the role of the
International Labour Organisation in that process.
I. Our objective: multi-faceted reflection on the future of work, employment and social protection
In the minds of both Juan Somavia and myself, our aim is to open a dialogue, within the ILO, among
knowledgeable people, practitioners and researchers working on the issues of interest to us.
We wish to create a venue and an opportunity for debate in which views can be expressed freely and
independently. Such venues are all too rare and obviously lacking for political officials, but perhaps also
for trade union and employers' representatives.
Better understanding for more effective action
Our ambition here is born of a necessity: the need to enhance understanding of the world in which we
live, the forces shaping it, the changes it is undergoing, to invent new forms of collective security,
prepare new jobs, foresee and face developments. In a word: to endeavour to master the future and lay the
groundwork for an improved collective approach to risk-burdens.
Ours is an ambitious project, all the more so in that it will not suffice to reach a conclusion, no matter
how detailed and accurate it is. We must define avenues for the future, the means of responding, both
nationally and internationally, to the new forms of insecurity emerging. How, in the industrialised world,
is the legal framework for employment and work to be restructured so as to reconcile business demands
for flexibility and the protection of wage-earners? What are the jobs of the future? What will be the place
of work in the society we wish to build? How are the objectives of social protection to be redefined so as
to enable us to cope with the new social risks, what I call "the new risks of life"?
A wealth of contradictory approaches
The specificity of this conference is that it will bring people from widely different backgrounds, and their
points of view, face-to-face. Economists, sociologists, political scientists, will speak out on the extent of
current changes and on the new factors of insecurity for wage-earners.
In this respect, I am struck by the fact that while trade liberalisation and what we usually call
globalisation are indeed cited as new factors of insecurity for wage-earners, they are not the only ones.
I refer in this connection to the contribution of Eileen Appelbaum,(Endnote 1) head of research at the Economic
Policy Institute, whose introduction to the first round table later this morning will report on the
undermining of traditional forms of employment for all wage-earners, even those who are skilled. She
also demonstrates that in the United States, one of the biggest factors of insecurity in families in which
both parents work is the difficulty of coping with family responsibilities and professional constraints
simultaneously. Companies continue to define the "ideal worker" as someone who behaves at work as
though he had no family responsibilities. There is therefore a gap between developments in the labour
market and changes in family and employment structures. From that gap stem new forms of insecurity.
On this subject, you will also hear the points of view of trade unionists and officials from employers'
organisations, of company leaders and human resources officers who deal with the issues at first hand.
And let us not forget the people whose political responsibilities give them an overview of the measures of
reform required.
That, therefore, is the meeting's first objective: to move towards an accurate analysis of current changes
in work and employment, a prerequisite to defining how best to respond to those changes, be it nationally
or internationally. The future of employment and work is a central issue, one which lies at the heart of a
country's social fabric. For that reason, progress must be made on the analysis but also on proposals of
the kind, I am sure, we shall invite the participants at this meeting to formulate and about which Juan
Somavia will speak again tomorrow.
Progress in this field is no easy matter, but it must be steady. Last Thursday, for example, I was at the
National Assembly to present, on behalf of the French government, the social modernisation bill that
paves the way for action to protect wage-earners against moral harassment and to validate professional
experience.
*
The International Labour Organisation plays a key role in terms of that ambition, in terms of the
transformation of employment and work and the consequences thereof, in terms of social protection.
II. The International Labour Organisation provides the ideal framework of expertise for broaching
these issues
ILO impetus
Let there be no doubt: the ILO is at present a reference point for the establishment of global social
standards and their promotion, first and foremost in developing countries. The ILO must also be the most
industrialised countries' contact point concerning the world of work. Of all the UN agencies, the ILO
should be the natural host for the debate on social issues emerging in our developed societies as economic
modernisation prompts us to rethink and further improve the social contracts they have adopted.
Indeed, the ILO's history and its tripartite method of functioning guarantee that the interests of
governments, wage-earners and employers are represented, lending its voice on such matters special
legitimacy at the international level.
Juan Somavia, the ILO's new Director General, has repositioned the organisation at the heart of the
international system and strengthened its credibility. At the annual Labour Conference in 1998, the
ministers in charge of employment and social welfare acted on his initiative and focused the international
agenda on the issue of social standards by adopting the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights
at Work.
The heads of State and of government had met, already at his initiative but in another role, in Copenhagen
in 1995 for the first World Summit on Social Development, a precursor in that area.
Social concerns finally top the European and international agenda
Indeed, social concerns are becoming ever more crucial internationally, contrary to what was the situation
ten or twenty years ago.
Such is the case, and I am sure you understand why I speak of this first, at the European level. As I turn
my attention back to European social matters after a three-year absence, I am surprised and pleased to see
that social concerns are at long last at the top of the European agenda.
Economic and monetary integration have heightened the speed at which social debate and policies have
risen in prominence in the work of the 15 Member States. It is very satisfying to observe that within the
EU the ministers in charge of social policies and the social protagonists lost no time in agreeing on the
need for an ambitious 5-year vision of our priorities in the entire social field, of what we call
modernisation and the enhancement of the European social model.
The social agenda validated in Nice last December and reflection on the European social model can,
moreover, constitute reference points for the discussions to take place at this conference. The EU Member
States made it abundantly clear that economic performance and social progress must go hand-in-hand. I
was struck at the G8 meeting by the fact that this call was reiterated by non-European ministers.
This interest in the social dimension has also been expressed in more unexpected quarters, such as the
international financial institutions.
It is in particular within the geographical area of developing countries that financial institutions such as
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, under the impetus of Michel Camdessus, have
expressed "social concern", a preoccupation to promote "the social aspects of structural adjustment", for
example by being more attentive to the consequences of those adjustments in the fields of health,
education and the environment.
The example of social protection
Of course, those institutions tackle the problem from a specific angle, that of social protection as an
instrument in the fight against poverty carried out within the framework of structural adjustment, the
social dimension of which aims to attenuate the effects thereof.
I think that that approach to social protection must be enlarged. Social protection cannot be used only as
an instrument in the fight against poverty. It must also be aimed at reducing inequality between
individuals or groups, at expanding access to services of general interest, in particular health and
education, at supporting growth and even at improving human capital. Indeed, social protection systems
have played a fundamental role in attenuating and cushioning the social effects of financial crises.
The social systems set up in the developed countries have enabled those countries, by different means, to
bear the cost of the risks that deprive individuals of their ability to work. Risks such as unemployment,
illness and retirement. Maybe those systems should be expanded in the future to cover the new risks
emerging, those related to technological developments that require lifelong training or to family changes.
Tomorrow, as life expectancy rises, the dependence of the elderly will pose another risk.
The loss of independence of the elderly is presently handled in different ways by industrialised countries.
Some have developed an insurance-based approach that is part of the social security system, others still
rely on family solidarity.
The French government, for its part, is working on a bill that will considerably compensate the loss of
independence of the elderly. We will replace the current great disparities with an objective right that will
vary with the degree of dependence and income and will be applied the same throughout the country.
Pensioners are also a major factor. They were often the driving force behind the social security
mechanisms in industrialised countries, yet they will more likely than not be confronted with a difficult
demographic situation. Each country will of course have to find its own best answer, depending on its
history, its collective choices, its institutions. We for our part are working to preserve the system of
retirement benefits that the French hold so dear. To that end, a reserve fund has been established to
supplement pension funds in the long run.
On subjects like this, the International Labour Organisation can and must speak out. It may not
necessarily speak as one with the international institutions I mentioned earlier, since its point of view is
also shaped by the interests of wage-earners and through permanent dialogue among its three
components.
Employment and work
On employment and work, too, the ILO has developed concepts that I find decisive. I refer to the notion
that everywhere the focus must be on promoting forms of employment that are dignified and satisfying
for the individual - an idea summed up in one of Juan Somavia's favourite expressions, the English term
"decent work".
The concept is indeed an interesting one, for it covers all aspects of work.
This is a very topical issue in industrialised countries. Within the framework of the European Union's
employment strategy, the key point of discussion in 2001 will be the quality of employment. How are we
to combine the trend towards full employment with the search for quality in the components of
employment: pay, the balance between flexibility and security, working conditions, of which working
hours are part and parcel, development potential, lifelong training, and so on?
But, and this is a point to which the ILO attaches, quite rightly I think, great importance, decent work also
supposes that the possibility exists for wage-earners to speak as one on the very conditions in which they
work. The importance of trade union representation takes on a new dimension as new forms of insecurity
emerge. As Alain Supiot,(Endnote 2) who will introduce the fourth round table, underscored, the search for new
forms of "regulation" implies a change in the forms of collective organisation of wage-earners. He will
submit for discussion three very concrete avenues to explore in changing those forms of organisation.
First, how is the right of workers' representatives to spread information to be effectively strengthened, in
particular in terms of giving them adequate financial resources and guaranteeing that the information
disseminated is reliable?
How finally to heighten shareholder awareness of company social policies, again focusing on the
production and dissemination of information?
Lastly, could not the International Labour Organisation become a regulatory body with the authority to
make progress on social labels internationally? If the ILO neglects these issues, the labels, instead of
being a fair and transparent means of promoting fundamental rights in developing countries, could
become mere commercial instruments used by businesses whose competitive behaviour could undermine
the labels' effectiveness and meaning for NGOs and consumers.
*
In conclusion: working for the expansion of the France-ILO meeting
Ladies and Gentlemen, as you will have understood, we expect a great deal from the exchanges that are
going to take place here, because we face the daunting task of preparing the future and endeavouring to
make it a just one for all, in particular future generations.
This year, the meeting takes place in France, and we decided to limit its initial scope to the industrialised
countries. This is evidenced by the geographical origin of the participants, who hail from European
countries, the United States and Japan.
It is our fervent hope, however, that the organisers of subsequent meetings will come from countries other
than France and that the participants will reflect on issues that go beyond the countries on which today's
analysis will focus.
We hope, therefore, that this is the first step in a process that will lead next year to meetings between the
European Union and the ILO, between which ties must be strengthened, and to simultaneous meetings in
developing countries, the ultimate goal being an international gathering in Geneva.
To that end, and having discussed the matter with Mr. Somavia, I suggest that an Internet site be opened
on the ILO home page and that the deliberations of the Annecy meeting be put on-line without delay.
This will enable you to consult articles, reference works and analyses of the topics on which we meet. I
also think it would be useful for the participants to stay in touch, thus creating a pool of expertise and a
decision-making aid. In the long term, and with the help of the ILO, a focal point of knowledge and
reflection could be set up for those working on the future.
In fact, my deepest ambition is for us to create, in time, a "social Davos", not an "anti-Davos", which
already exists. The mould of the "social Davos" remains to be cast, but it will be characterised by the
seriousness of its approach and pave the way for discussion of the topics we have mentioned.
Indeed, I do not believe that the experts and decision-makers belonging to economic and financial
institutions, their vital contribution to the decision-making process and the expertise they provide
notwithstanding, should be given the exclusive right to forecast or dictate the social future, and ultimately
to make up our minds for us and without us.
This is why, Ladies and Gentlemen, our hopes are pinned on the Annecy meeting, which is now open.
Allow me to wish you every success in the deliberations the organising committee will now describe in
greater detail.
Thank you for your attention.
Endnote 1:
Eileen Appelbaum is an American economist and the head of research at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. She introduced the first
round table on Thursday morning, just after Ms. Guigou spoke. Her contribution identified the principal new sources of insecurity for wage-earners.
Endnote 2:
Alain Supiot is a French legal expert, professor at the University of Nantes II. He introduced the fourth round table, on the search for new forms of
regulation.
| 
Opening speech by Ms. Guigou