News
BackOn Tuesday, 14th October, the “High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens” presented its final report. The “Stoiber Group”, named after its chairman, former Bavarian Minister President Edmund Stoiber, which has been dealing with reducing the administrative burden in the European Union since 2007, is part of a major programme of the European Commission for “Better Regulations”.
The significance of “Better Regulations” was not only demonstrated by the fact that it will be the main focus area of First Vice President Frans Timmermans in the new Commission; initiatives, such as the “Stoiber Group” or the “REFIT” Process also want to make the European Union leaner and more efficient by reducing bureaucracy. At first glance, one cannot object to the basic idea of reviewing outdated or unnecessary regulations.
Neoliberal policy disguised as reducing bureaucracy
The problem from the point of view of employees lies in the fact that in the past - to a certain degree ideologically motivated - deregulation policy had been practiced under the disguise of reducing bureaucracy. This also became clear at the presentation of the report of the “Stoiber Group”. Apart from the official, final report, four of the 15 members of the High Level Group published a so-called deviating statement, a clear sign of disagreement within the Group. The “deviators” cite examples, which indicate that in many cases the issue is not a more efficient and leaner administration but more deregulation.
Food safety as administrative burden
For example, food labelling and eco-labelling are suddenly branded a bureaucratic burden for businesses. The same applies to prevention measures, which are supposed to increase workplace health, for example in case of musculoskeletal diseases or Cancer. According to Stoiber & Co, the administrative burden created by this would be so big that one should just abolish them.
European Social Dialogue undermined
Those involved in the “REFIT Programme” have also not refrained from attacking the European Social Dialogue on several occasions. Be referring to reducing bureaucracy, the Commission had simply called a joint agreement between the European social partners on health protective measures in the hairdressing sector into question. The same applies to part-time work rules and fixed-term employment contracts, which were also negotiated by the European social partners. If “REFIT” could have its way, informing and hearing employees would also be scrutinized.
Trade Unions, consumers and environmental associations critical
Hence, it is no surprise that the criticism, not only from trade unions, becomes increasingly louder. Environmental organisations and consumer associations too publicly denounce the problems and dangers of “Better Regulation” in favour of Big Business and at the expense of employees, consumers and the environment. Together with other organisations, AK and ÖGB will continue to cast a critical eye on this process. “Better Regulations” and the alleged “reduction of bureaucracy” must not be misused as empty words to force through neoliberal deregulation policy through the backdoor.
Further information:
Final report der High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens
Deviating statement of four of the 15 members of the Stoiber Group
Resolution of the European Trade Union Confederation on REFIT
Neoliberal policy disguised as reducing bureaucracy
The problem from the point of view of employees lies in the fact that in the past - to a certain degree ideologically motivated - deregulation policy had been practiced under the disguise of reducing bureaucracy. This also became clear at the presentation of the report of the “Stoiber Group”. Apart from the official, final report, four of the 15 members of the High Level Group published a so-called deviating statement, a clear sign of disagreement within the Group. The “deviators” cite examples, which indicate that in many cases the issue is not a more efficient and leaner administration but more deregulation.
Food safety as administrative burden
For example, food labelling and eco-labelling are suddenly branded a bureaucratic burden for businesses. The same applies to prevention measures, which are supposed to increase workplace health, for example in case of musculoskeletal diseases or Cancer. According to Stoiber & Co, the administrative burden created by this would be so big that one should just abolish them.
European Social Dialogue undermined
Those involved in the “REFIT Programme” have also not refrained from attacking the European Social Dialogue on several occasions. Be referring to reducing bureaucracy, the Commission had simply called a joint agreement between the European social partners on health protective measures in the hairdressing sector into question. The same applies to part-time work rules and fixed-term employment contracts, which were also negotiated by the European social partners. If “REFIT” could have its way, informing and hearing employees would also be scrutinized.
Trade Unions, consumers and environmental associations critical
Hence, it is no surprise that the criticism, not only from trade unions, becomes increasingly louder. Environmental organisations and consumer associations too publicly denounce the problems and dangers of “Better Regulation” in favour of Big Business and at the expense of employees, consumers and the environment. Together with other organisations, AK and ÖGB will continue to cast a critical eye on this process. “Better Regulations” and the alleged “reduction of bureaucracy” must not be misused as empty words to force through neoliberal deregulation policy through the backdoor.
Further information:
Final report der High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens
Deviating statement of four of the 15 members of the Stoiber Group
Resolution of the European Trade Union Confederation on REFIT