Abusive subcontracting detrimental to all workers, says European trade workers’ union

When done abusively to cut costs and circumvent regulations, subcontracting is detrimental to both the subcontracted workers as well as local workforces who end up approaching the negotiating table from weaker positions, says a leading European trade unionist.

Euractiv’s Christoph Schwaiger spoke with EFBWW General Secretary Tom Deleu ahead of their upcoming breakfast debate during which the organisation will be posing the question of whether the EU can do more to end abusive subcontracting practices.

The event will also centre around a recent study from Aalborg University on the working environment of migrant workers and safety in the construction industry in Denmark.

CH: Is all subcontracting bad?

TD: We’re not opposed to subcontracting. Not all subcontracting is bad. Sometimes companies need to hire people with specific expertise that their current employees lack. It’s a common model in our industry: a main contractor needs painters for a job and uses subcontracting to hire a painting company. That’s not an issue. However, in the last 20 years we’ve seen a shift from this subcontracting to hire expertise towards subcontracting to cut costs. Therein lies the problem.

CH: The new report highlights many concerns. But would you say these are universal concerns of migrant workers regardless of the industry or are these issues specific to subcontracting?

TD: It’s mostly a subcontracting issue because all of these situations involve workers who work in the subcontracting chain. It’s also a mix of different elements and setups. The construction industry is very fragmented with a lot of SMEs. But also, with a lot of subcontracting and a highly mobile workforce where there’s a higher risk for abusive practices.

These abuses vary. Typically, it’s cases of subcontracted workers not being treated according to collective agreements. Other times it’s discrepancies in overtime payments or requirements to work longer hours.

There are also health and safety issues. Many times, the subcontractors don’t receive adequate protective equipment or safety briefings. Other times they’re not aware of all the risks on a construction site because some of them lack industry experience.

This ends up also impacting workers who aren’t subcontracted as they then face pressure to also work overtime. It also becomes harder to negotiate new collective agreements and pay rises because sometimes subcontractors offer cheaper prices.

CH: When you saw the report’s finding did you identify anything that was new, or did it mostly confirm what you expected would be found?

TD: There weren’t really any surprises for us. It very much confirms what we’ve known and what our people on the different sites who talk with workers tell us.

We’re actually quite impressed by this study, because I think it’s also the first time this topic has been approached in such a broad and systematic way. The research institute also spoke directly with workers.

It’s a very important report for us because it really gives a voice to those workers whom we usually don’t hear in these debates. It’s a very important report coming at a very important time.

CH: These same workers you just mentioned highlighted that they didn’t have a lot of interaction with their Danish colleagues. So, since you’d need everyone on board to change the status quo, how would you convince workers who aren’t subcontracted that they should also care about changing the system?

TD: We often hear about systems being used to keep these workers apart from each other. We need to find systems where workers can talk with each other on site. Then we need to empower representatives of subcontractors.

The communication between workers also needs improvement. It’s important to have a common language.

However, ultimately the main focus is to ensure that only real subcontracting takes place. Such as when there’s a technical issue that needs solving. We need to limit the chain of subcontracting and promote direct jobs. The construction sector has always welcomed migrant workers and given them a pathway towards integration. But this works only when you have a decent job with decent salaries and with decent skills. Where you’re treated equally as your colleagues.

We are not against migration or mobile workers. We know that our sector is changing and that there are huge labour shortages. We need to welcome workers from other parts of the world. But let’s do it in a decent way.

Does a company need to hire people? Then hire them directly and invest in them. Invest in their language skills and in their safety. Give them proper wages. From our point of view that’s one of the main issues that we need to address.

CH: Speaking of language skills. Some political parties are emphasising a need for expat workers to learn the local language. Are these genuine concerns or is this an excuse to limit the rights of migrant workers? Where do you stand on this?

TD: When there are workers working on complex sites, with long chains of subcontracting, and 15 different languages on site there are actual health and safety concerns. People need to be able to talk to each other.

What do you do if you see a hazard coming up and you cannot warn the guy working next to you? Or if you need to speak with the person who is up in the tower crane, and you don’t speak their language? These are real issues.

Having said that, there’s new technology that can help. But on the other hand, if everyone needs to look at their phones to start to talk to each other that’s also a concern. So, I think working on some common languages is something to reflect on.

CH: I previously asked you about roping in workers on board. But how are we going to do the same for directors to change a system that benefits many of them?

TD: Construction is a key industry that will help us deal with most of our societal challenges related to the climate transition and housing crisis. We need to build, renovate, refurbish, and insulate many buildings. We need to build homes to address the housing crises in many European countries and we need to build infrastructure for the energy transition.

We already have a huge labour shortage but if you want workers you need to make the industry attractive. It’s not that difficult, it’s about paying correct wages and giving adequate protection.

The current model based on cutting costs and cheap labour is hindering us from moving forward. Luckily there are already a lot of companies that agree with us. But we need to take the bad guys off the market. We need clear sanctions.

We expected the Commission to come forward with a report on subcontracting which was finished in spring last year but for some reason the Commission isn’t publishing it. We have clear expectations and demands, and this must be a priority for the next Commission and Parliament.

CH: And on the issue of other intermediates and temping agencies, is this something the EFBWW also tackles?

The posting of workers directive wasn’t created to move large portions of the workforce across Europe through agencies. That’s now clearer following the 2014 enforcement directive. But we’re opposed to business models based on agencies sending workers, including many non-EU ones, around Europe for short periods of time.

It loops back to the issues we discussed before. We’re not against agencies on the national level but we think it’s creating too many issues around exploitation, fraud, and social dumping when it’s done cross-border.

CH: Now you’re heading to Brussels to discuss the Danish report. Do you see the event as a first step or more as a continuation of the work you’ve been doing over the last months?

It’s more of a continuation. We have been managing this subcontracting campaign for a while now. As we approach the elections, we adopted a manifesto approach. We’re glad to have the support of MEPs from three major political groups. The event will focus on the report and keep the issue on the agenda. We’ll return to these topics again right after the elections.

CH: What are some key takeaways you want people to leave the room with?

Agreement that subcontracting isn’t working as it should and that we need to take action. It’s probably not easy to find common ground across political groups but we don’t see this as something ideological. We see this as doing the right thing. It’s about regulating a key industry that deals with major societal challenges.

CH: Do you envision change coming mostly from the EU or national level?

From both. Many things have to do with how the European internal market is functioning. That’s also why we’re doing this as a European-wide campaign.

Some have tried to solve many of these issues in the past by putting forward proposals, but these were then blocked by the European Court of Justice for infringing rules of the free movement of services and the functioning of the internal market. Hence one of our aims is to have member states take action to regulate markets on the national level.

The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

[By Christoph Schwaiger I Edited by Brian Maguire | Euractiv’s Advocacy Lab ]

Read more with Euractiv

EU push to make private sector finance key investments is misguided, analysts warn

The EU’s recent push to encourage the private sector to step in to finance critical investment - especially through the revival of Capital Market Union (CMU) plans -  is both unrealistic and misguided, experts warned.