유럽연합의 유연안정성 모델과 유럽노총의 전략적 선택

The European Union has established the flexicurity model to accomplish thecontradicting labor market tasks of flexibility and security through the processof discussion and consultation. In this process, the Business Europemaintained its endorsement, while the ETUC did not. This study aims toanalyze and explain what kind of position the ETUC chose, why the ETUCcould not maintain a consistent position, why the ETUC did support oroppose it. From the viewpoint of balance between flexibility and security, the ETUChad criticized the European Commission for its biased role in the process ofconsultation and formulation of the EU’s flexicurity model. The ETUC,however, began to show an attitude of critical acceptance, once the EUfinalized its flexicurity model. The ETUC was concerned about the prospect of the flexicurity model whichwould depend on power dynamics. It is because the capitalist organizationskept trying to take advantage of its powerful position to promote furtherflexibilization, and the flexibility-biased European Commission would play therole of intervening in the process of introduction and implementation of theflexicurity model in each EU member state. Nevertheless, it was not a viableoption for the ETUC to reject the EU’s flexicurity model in its entirety, becausethe Council of the European Union established the flexicurity model with theconsensus of member states, it could not develope an alternative policypackage of feasibility which EU member states were to fully agree, and the EUwould not withdraw its final conclusions of the flexicurity model despite the opposition of ETUC or else. Out of this situation of dilemma, the ETUC madea strategic choice which turned out to be the critical acceptance of the EU’sflexicurity model. It is indeed that the ETUC concentrated its criticism on the labor contractsystem component, while it was, in principle, supporting the other three policycomponents of the flexicurity model. Urging the EU and its member states toutilize internal flexibility in a proactive manner, in opposition to the capitalistorganizations and the European Commission, the ETUC argued that theEuropean labor market equipped with sufficient flexibility should strengthenthe security of the labor force further and impose stricter regulations on themisuse and abuse of atypical types of workers. Besides, the ETUC pressed theEU and its member states for the utilization of internal flexibility andactivation of social dialogue to overcome the risk of the flexicurity modelwhich might not control the abuse of external flexibility in the midst ofeconomic crisis which were eventually to prolong the unemployment periodand keep internal market from recovering.