The term European Social Model currently refers to a series of laws, rules and practices that reflect a real social dimension in Europe. However, the choice of the word ‘model’ is rather unfortunate:
Instead of having just a single model, there are several national ones.
Within the European Union, rather than seeing a ‘model’ in action, we are witnessing a growing social deficit and an imbalance compared to the European Monetary Union.
Rather than a ‘model’, we would prefer the term ‘heritage’ since there is an identifiable heritage shared by Western European countries. The word is an important one: in the contemporary sense, heritage is what rich people leave to their descendants and which they themselves once inherited from their ancestors. For the vast majority of people who did not inherit much and will not leave vast fortunes to anyone, their ‘heritage’ is the collection of rights inherited from the century’s struggles, and it is central to the legacy we will leave to our children.
Although the industrial revolution of the 19th century and savage capitalism left populations with NO RIGHTS, at the dawn of the 20th century a certain ‘social heritage’ was already beginning to emerge, which then went on to establish itself and spread in all European countries – always based on the same principles, though implemented in different ways – until 1975.
This social heritage can be divided into six key areas, applying throughout Europe and ignored (and envied) almost everywhere else:
1. Social security: borne out of different forms of mutual insurance of risks (illness, accidents at work, unemployment, and retirement), social insurance tools, solidarity and distribution of income. The social security system also paves the way for gradual emancipation in relation to work: individuals receive an income, without being forced to work tirelessly every day of their lives;
2. Collective agreements (collective bargaining and collective agreements): instead of approaching his or her employer alone, there is a more equal balance of power if an employee joins forces with other workers when approaching management.
3. Civil liberties and universal suffrage: for a long time only proprietors were entitled to vote. This privilege was gradually whittled away but not without resistance; men were the first to receive the vote, followed some time afterwards by women. But immigrants have yet to be granted the right to vote, even if they are legally resident in a country.
4. Education for all: until around 1910, child labour from the age of 6 or 7 was commonplace, and abolishing it took a 70-year battle: It was not until 1920 that child labour was prohibited for children up to the age of 12 (see Education). More broadly speaking, health and all public services are part of our European heritage.
5. Social laws: are compulsory for all companies (working hours, health and safety at work, vocational training, equal treatment and so on). In the 19th century, the business world believed that it was the only element of society qualified to decide on economic and social matters. There was no question of the State laying down the law, especially not in social matters (compare this situation with today’s European Union).
6. Public services which guarantee everybody decent access to basic services, such as water, energy, transport, education, health, social protection for people of all ages, culture and so forth. All these services are essential for a life of dignity.
7. All these rights, which were wrested in the face of resistance from businesses and reactionary forces, have contributed towards the social cohesion of European companies and helped boost their technological and economic capacities. Although some progress was made back in the early days of the European Union, it always proved very difficult.
40 years ago a Belgian trade union leader (Gust Cool, President of the CSC) gave a clear analysis of the situation:
“Whatever was accepted at national level was done so reluctantly. Capitalist forces saw European construction as an opportunity to take back at European level all the authority which they had been forced to share at national level”.
How is national heritage being taken on board by the European Union?
Within the European Union, the unions have tried, from the outset, to ensure that European legislation takes on board – and improve on – the respective Member States’ social heritage (see the quotation by Gust Cool).
The EU has preserved and indeed consolidated that heritage in a number of areas, such as gender equality, certain aspects of the protection of health and safety at work, and so on.
By contrast, the general concepts underlying European construction, and, in particular, those adopted by the Maastricht Treaty, have jeopardised and undermined social legislation in the Member States, without any realisation of when or how Europe might be able to establish for itself strong, democratic governance structures and succeed in imposing social priorities.
This begs the question of whether the European Union is a component of the global market economy and a driving force behind neoliberal globalisation, or rather an alternative political, economic and social structure based on a unique social heritage?
There is no straight answer to this: the European Union is both these things at once. It is one of the capitalist world’s poles of development thanks to its commercial and technological might and the clout of European firms in the international arena, and its domestic and foreign policies are imbued with the spirit of neoliberalism.
But the European Union is also a political structure that mediates between governments, political parties, members of the European Parliament elected by universal suffrage, and the actors in civil society.
So there are openings to take action and arenas of contention, negotiation and opposition, all based on Europe’s social heritage.
The struggle for ‘a different Europe’ appears to be an essential step towards a different kind of globalisation geared towards enriching the social heritage we hand down to future generations.
The opponents of social heritage are still active
Acting as irresponsibly as ever with regard to the future, employers, businesses and the political forces which advocate their views have shown their hostility to the European social dimension during debates on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in work related to the European Constitution.
Similarly, European employers have done all they can to hinder the negotiation of European collective agreements, as provided for in the EU Treaty.
Social heritage is now being challenged
Is social heritage being called into question one more?
There have been various attempts to challenge the core of our social heritage via:
the general spread throughout Europe of less secure jobs and the deterioration of working conditions;
the deterioration of social security systems;
the deterioration of collective bargaining and relations between employers and unions;
the weakening and partial privatisation of public services.
Social heritage can be strengthened through texts (like the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and by attributing roles to the respective social and economic actors, and via European collective agreements and collective bargaining) and policies (the amended Lisbon Strategy, social inclusion and so on).
The struggle for ‘a different Europe’ appears to be an essential step towards a different kind of globalisation geared towards enriching the social heritage we hand down to future generations.
Gérard Fonteneau – ETUC advisor – October 2004