Flexicurity in Austria and Germany - is a "floor of rights" for agency workers necessary

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Employment Title and the Lisbon Strategy

2.1. The Review Process of the Employment Title

2.2. The Luxembourg Jobs Summit and the Employment Guidelines

2.3. Flexicurity and the EU

2.4. The Lisbon Strategy

2.5. The OMC

2.6. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

3. Flexicurity

3.1. Flexicurity and Agency Work

4. The Austrian Agency Work Legislation

4.1. The Agency Workers Act (AÜG)

4.2. Application and Exceptions

4.3. Duties of the Employers

4.4. Remuneration

4.5. Other Provisions of Interest

5. The German Agency Work Legislation

5.1. AÜG: The Licensing System

5.1.1. Exceptions from the obligation to obtain a licence

5.2. The Personnel Service Agencies (PSA)

5.3. Obligations of the Employer

5.4. The Principle of Equality: Remuneration & Working time

5.5. Other Provisions of Interest

6. Protection in Austria & Germany

6.1. Austria

6.2. Germany

7. A floor of Rights for Temporary Agency Workers

7.1. Protection in the Proposed Directive

8. Conclusions

Objectives and Core Themes

This work examines the legal regulation of agency work in Austria and Germany within the context of the European 'Flexicurity' model. It explores whether the existing national legislations provide sufficient protection for temporary agency workers or if a mandatory European 'floor of rights' is necessary to prevent exploitation and social insecurity.

• Analysis of the 'Flexicurity' concept and its implementation in EU labour policy.
• Comparative examination of Austrian and German agency work legislation (AÜG).
• Evaluation of the principle of equality and collective bargaining impacts on agency workers.
• Review of the proposed European Directive on Working Conditions for Temporary Workers.
• Discussion on the balance between labour market flexibility and worker protection.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1. Introduction: Introduces agency work as a central element of the 'Flexicurity' debate, highlighting its growing importance in the European labour market and the tension between economic flexibility and worker security.

2. The Employment Title and the Lisbon Strategy: Examines the development of European employment policy, focusing on the Essen job creation priorities and the shift towards the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and Corporate Social Responsibility.

3. Flexicurity: Defines the concept of 'Flexicurity' as a combination of flexibility and security, exploring its different interpretations and its application to agency work.

4. The Austrian Agency Work Legislation: Details the Austrian 'Agency Workers Act' (AÜG), emphasizing the legal compromise between employers and trade unions, with a focus on remuneration and social security protections.

5. The German Agency Work Legislation: Analyzes the German AÜG, including the licensing system, Personnel Service Agencies (PSA), and the 'principle of equality' regarding remuneration and working conditions.

6. Protection in Austria & Germany: Compares the levels of protection for agency workers in both nations, concluding that while both provide stricter regulations than the proposed EU Directive, gaps remain in social protection.

7. A floor of Rights for Temporary Agency Workers: Reviews the proposed European Directive on Working Conditions for Temporary Workers and questions whether it provides adequate security for the workforce.

8. Conclusions: Summarizes the conflict between flexibility and protection, arguing that a statutory 'floor of rights' is necessary to avoid social instability and worker abuse in the agency sector.

Keywords

Flexicurity, Agency Work, Employment Legislation, Austria, Germany, Labour Law, Lisbon Strategy, Open Method of Coordination, AÜG, Principle of Equality, Remuneration, Social Security, European Employment Strategy, Worker Protection, Working Conditions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the central focus of this research?

This work fundamentally investigates the tension between labour market flexibility and the necessity of legal protection for temporary agency workers, comparing the legislative frameworks in Austria and Germany.

Which key policy areas are covered?

The study covers the European employment policy, the 'Flexicurity' paradigm, national agency work acts (AÜG), collective bargaining agreements, and the proposed European Directive on temporary work.

What is the primary objective of the author?

The primary goal is to assess whether current national legislations sufficiently protect agency workers or if a binding European minimum standard (a 'floor of rights') is essential.

What methodology is used in this analysis?

The work employs a comparative legal analysis, evaluating national legislations against the backdrop of European policy frameworks and existing EU proposals.

What topics are discussed in the main body of the work?

The main body treats the conceptual evolution of 'Flexicurity', the specific regulatory mechanisms in Austria and Germany, and the debate surrounding the effectiveness of EU-level interventions.

Which keywords define the scope of this research?

Key terms include Flexicurity, Agency Work, Labour Law, Principle of Equality, and Worker Protection.

How does the Austrian system of remuneration differ from the German approach?

Austria focuses on a proportionate and locally customary pay guaranteed by law, whereas the German system heavily relies on collective bargaining agreements and a specific principle of equal pay.

What is the author's critique of the current German situation?

The author argues that German agency workers face declining remuneration and that the 'valve' function of agency work leads to potential exploitation and social insecurity despite legal protections.

Why are Personnel Service Agencies (PSAs) in Germany controversial?

PSAs are criticized for potentially creating a two-class system of unemployed individuals and for conflicting with their own self-financing models in the attempt to transition workers to standard employment.

Does the author consider the proposed EU Directive sufficient?

No, the author concludes that the Directive provides too little protection due to its limitations and exemptions, arguing instead for a non-deviable statutory floor of rights.