Working poor and People at risk
of social exclusion in Europe
Despite an ambitious goal of reducing 20million by
2020 the number of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, poverty is
increasing in the European Union steadily: in 2009 113millions 119millions
2011.
Beyond, this issue is the phenomenon of the working
poor who raises much concern and interest.
In 2011, 8.4% of workers in Europe were poor.
Disparities exist in the EU, 3.7 % in Finland and 4.6 % in Belgium against
17.6% in Romania and 13.8 % in Greece.
Understanding the phenomenon of the "Working
poor" is essential to understanding the changes in society, social policy,
working conditions. A poor worker means a person who has a job most of the
year, but remains in poverty because of his low income (income plus social
benefits activity). In many cases, poor workers are unskilled or low-skilled
jobs, they have part-time jobs and do not have the benefits of a stable
contract, entitlement to unemployment insurance.
The latest statistical report of European commission on « People at risk of
poverty or Social exclusion » remains that in 2012, 124.2 million people, or 24.8 % of the population, in the
EU-28 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE), compared with
24.3 % in 2011. The AROPE indicator is defined as the share of the
population in at least one of the following three conditions: at risk of
poverty, meaning below the poverty threshold; 2) in a situation of severe
material deprivation; 3) living in a household with very low work intensity.
At one extreme, the Member
States with the highest AROPE rates in 2012 were Bulgaria (49.3 %),
Romania (41.7 %), Latvia (36.2 %), Greece (34.6 %), Lithuania,
Hungary and Croatia (all three around 32.0 %). At the other extreme, the
share of the population at risk of poverty or social exclusion was the lowest in
the Netherlands (15.0 %), the Czech Republic (15.4 %) and Sweden
(15.6 %). Overall AROPE rate has slightly increased at EU-28 level between
2011 and 2012 (0.5 percentage points (pp)). The risk of poverty or social
exclusion rose by 3.6 pp in Greece and 2.5 pp in Cyprus, decreasing by more
than 3 pp only in Latvia (-3.9 pp).
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/People_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion)
Looking
at each of the three elements contributing to being at risk of poverty or
social exclusion, 17.0 % of the population in the EU-28 in 2012 were
at-risk-of-poverty after social transfers, meaning that their disposable income
was below their national at-risk-of-poverty threshold. At-risk-of-poverty rate
has overall remained almost stable in the EU-28 compared to 2011. The highest
at-risk-of-poverty rates were observed in Greece and Romania (23.1 % and
22.6 % respectively), Spain (22.2 %) and Bulgaria (21.2 %), and
the lowest in the Czech Republic (9.6 %), the Netherlands (10.1 %),
Denmark (13.1 %), Finland and Slovakia (both 13.2 %). It is important
to note that the at-risk-of-poverty rate is a relative measure of poverty and
that the poverty threshold varies greatly between Member States. The threshold
varies also over time and in a number of Member States it has fallen in recent
years due to the economic crisis. When considering country-specific situations,
the risk of poverty (after social transfers) increased the most in Austria (1.8
pp), although this maybe, at least partly attributed, to methodological changes
causing a break in series in 2012, Greece (1.7 pp) and Luxembourg (1.5 pp) in
2012 and it decreased the most in Bulgaria (-1 pp). (Eurostat, 2014)
Standard of living and Low incomes
This phenomenon opens the debate on the level of income
for certain jobs or social benefits. However, it is not so simple when you know
the failure of social insurance policies implemented by some governments to
allow out of poverty. The minimum wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly remuneration
that employers may legally pay to workers. Equivalently, it is the lowest wage
at which workers may sell their labor. Although minimum wage laws are in effect
in many jurisdictions, differences of opinion exist about the benefits and
drawbacks of a minimum wage. Supporters of the minimum wage say it increases
the standard of living of workers, reduces poverty, and reduces inequality. The minimum wage is an income level that government decides to provide a
minimum to live to all their citizens. In practice, this income is adjusted
according to the type of household (number of children). Other benefits and
other allowances can be simultaneously granted to the poorest citizens (e.g.,
housing assistance).
In France, the RSA is a good example. Five years
after Martin Hirsch launched this allowance, only a third of potential
beneficiaries have it. Does this mean that, somehow the working poor have found
other income supplements? Do the working poor adapt their standard of living to
low levels of pay? Minimum wages or income are they enough?
Not to dwell on the reasons for the failure of RSA,
this article aims to describe circumstances in which certain jobs are low paid
and what are the mechanisms resulting from certain wage policies. To do so,
this article describes the case of wage compensation strategies at the heart of
the system of the Communities of Emmaus Charities.
Social enterprises and Work
Integration communities
The so-called Emmaus Communities are part of Work
Integration social Enterprises (EMES, Borzaga, Defourny, 2001). Work
integration social enterprises – WISE – are present in all the European
countries. They have evolved from earlier experiences of Homeless shelter and
housing charities, and based- on employment Workshop; but with at least two
important differences: first, social enterprises generally are, or try to be,
less dependent on public funds and pay more attention to market dynamics;
secondly, they pursue the objective of ensuring that disadvantaged people earn
income comparable with that of other workers. Those social enterprises provide disadvantaged
workers with job training, to integrate into the open labor market. In some
countries, WISE employ very specific groups of workers.
The second field of activity of social enterprises
is represented by Social and Community care institutions. These social
enterprises have been established to provide new services or to respond to
groups of people with specific needs.
The emergence and subsequent development of social
enterprises is due to a mix of factors, for instance, the decline in the rates
of economic growth and the rise of unemployment, the increasing inability of
traditional macroeconomic and employment policies to reduce unemployment,
especially long-term unemployment among the disadvantaged and the low skilled,
and the failures of traditional labor policies and from the difficulties in
shifting from regulatory, and mainly passive, policies to active ones.
Social enterprises contribute to the creation of
additional jobs. The WISE employ workers with minimal possibilities of finding
a job in traditional enterprises. However, social enterprises make a sector
with a high employment potential more dynamic, especially in countries in which
the level of employment in the sector is still low (Borzaga, Defourny, 2001).
The social enterprises are innovative in the
economic and social arena is that they are neither outside of the market, as
are most public and traditional non-profit organizations, nor outside of the
public system of resource allocation, as are for-profit enterprises. Rather,
they use the reasons and the rules of both the market and the State, though not
identifying themselves with either of them. Such a peculiarity makes social
enterprises different from traditional non- profit organizations, which tend to
be either “third parties” with respect to the market and the government (this
is the case when they are funded either through donations or volunteers), or
depend exclusively upon the allocative action of the public sector. Indeed,
social enterprises represent a concrete and successful example of how civil
society and private organizations can directly and autonomously deal with some
of the problems shared by the community, without necessarily relying upon
public funds.
There are different kind of WISE and this paper
focuses on a specific WISE: the WIC means Work integration communities;
First, as far as employment and wages in the
voluntary sector, we must know that the employees of associations find their wages
and non-monetary benefits (health insurance, paid maternity leave) lower than
in private and public sectors, but they do not consider their remuneration as
particularly unfair. However, in the case of Emmaus Work Integration
Communities, employees are not the only staff to receive compensation.
In the communities, there is three types of workers:
Salaried staffs, Volunteers and Companions. The conditions of living of third
type of staff is more relevant for our analysis, because Companions are both
workers and beneficiaries of Communities Insurance and Aid system. Before to
integrate Community Houses, they were homeless people at risk of poverty and
social exclusion. So in the Communities, they can find a place to live and
productive activities to do (such as Recycling, Deliveries and sales of second-hand
furniture, goods, and white goods). Such specific structures that so called
Work Integration Communities provide Companions a specific monthly income (stipend)
of an amount that totaled around € 212. Therefore it is difficult for any
salaried employee to complain of his own compensation when the Companions that
are the main labor force, receive remuneration (fixed compensation) as derisory.
However, in interviewing salaried employees, they explained that, at the end of
the month after paying rent, fixed charges, food, taxes, they do not possess as
much as € 212, while the Companions do not have any charges or taxes to pay.
This is the most common case. But in some communities, some Companions must
give or donate a part of their social benefits to the Community.
The compensation is an issue more and more present
in the debates inside Emmaus Movement. Moreover, some of the Companions complained
to provide a significant productive force and resources to such a low salary.
The monetary incentive is a variable in the minds of staff because they are not
the main labor force in the WIC organization. However, this does not seem to
influence motivation.
One of the reasons that justify the low income is
due to the fact that motivation is not pecuniary and often refers to solidarity
organizations in which they work. In sum, Charity employees more easily accept
a low pay. But the question is what motivates employees to work at Emmaus. The
difference is the quality of the service provided by WISE and WIC, Charities,
and Social enterprise; Even though, Staff employed in such organizations reach
up results. The difference is based on creation of cultural values. The involvement
of Charity workers depends on Ideals and values they share with the Charity
they got to involve in. This intrinsic motivation is essential to describe the
working relationships and Management at Emmaus.
An analysis of several Work Integration Communities
(in France, Spain and Britain) is used
to describe the performance of employees at Emmaus. Some authors state that
"monetary incentives may decrease the performance of individuals by
affecting their intrinsic motivation" (Frey, 1997).
Working Poors and Companions in Emmaus Work Integration Communities
My investigation in Emmaus Communities in Europe
provides a comparative level of remuneration in Emmaus Communities in France
and Spain. This comparison sheds light on Pay performance relationship in Emmaus’
WIC in different national contexts. The two communities differ: in the French
community, there are staffs, volunteers and companions; while in Spain, all the
staff is paid. In France, the amount of income allows to distinguish one who is
"helping" and the one who is "helped".
The first element of comparison is based on the
qualification of the paid staff. In the Spanish structure, all the staff is
employed. In France, the majority of salaried staff occupies management and
administration functions. Otherwise, the Companions represent the majority of workers
in the French Community. The survey describes the level of executive: Compensation
of Salaried coordinators in Spain vary between € 1,163 and € 932 (respectively
Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator’s incomes). In France the income of
coordinators ranges between:
-
€ 2,393.90 + 13th months for the
Director,
-
€ 2,218.57 + 13th month for the
Deputy Director,
-
€ 2,295 + 13th month for the
manager of Work Integration structure.
The wages of team leaders in Spain is 848 €; while
the income in France for the same position is between € 1321 + € 145 bonus
seniority for the manager of the shops and € 1,348 for the manager of the
groceries.
Finally, compensation of staff involved into work
integration program is approximately € 802. But this compensation depends on
working time (full time, part time).
The comparison is difficult for several reasons:
minimum wages are different in France and Spain. Functions and positions are
not the same from one community to another. Indeed, the hierarchy in Spain is
such that there is more coordination by sector of activity. Each sector has a
manager and an assistant manager. While in France, the only coordinators and
managers are in the shops and the Work Integration Workshop.
The difference in the payroll results of the different
step of the Work Integration process. In Spain the majority of functions is
occupied by employees. In Spain, the organization of work is related to a
better distribution of positions and salaries. The remuneration policy
particularly tends to balancing positions, functions, salaries.
This strategy is based on the fact that there is
not the same hierarchical relationship between supervisors, workers, and
beneficiaries as in the French community. Is the abolition of the status of Companion
allows harmony in wages.
In Spain, this wage policy is based on ideological changes
in the Emmaus International Movement, and so compared to France. In France,
ideology is based on helping the people at risk of poverty and the one who
suffers the most. The criteria of Exclusion makes the Companions principal
beneficiary of the system. In Spain, Emmaus Ideology is based on the defense of
the environment. The entire group is identified as Environmental operatives.
Therefore, there is no differences between the people at risks of Exclusion and
the staff supervising them. This elimination of disparities allows a better
group cohesion and greater job satisfaction. In the French Community, the high
level of staff remuneration, added to differentiation between the helper (the
staff) and the helped (the companions) do not promote group cohesion.
But beyond the level of compensation of employees,
the question thickens in the case of the Companions. At first, a companion is a people at risk of
exclusion that has not made the choice to work in an Emmaus community: to put
it simply, the choice is limited between to work and to live in a community and
to be on the street.
In
France, Companions have a special legal status: they are Solidarity Workers : In France, the compensation
called is € 212.33 / month. Work rules are close to the Labor rights law: 36h
weekly, 2 ½ days off per week. The savings adds € 6 allocation hygiene.
Companions receive a commission on Seasonal sales. The low income is offset by
the allocation vacancy. These are 40 € per day of holiday. (Either 15 days
holiday after 6 months, 2 days ½ per month). For each of the companions, the
community contributes to social security on the base of 40% of the hourly rate
of the minimum wage (7.61 * 40 % = 3 € 04/h. The number of hours was divided on
the basis of 169heures per month).
In England, Emmaus companions can
integrate WIC by multiple ways: They can be run by other services: in general,
the penitentiary and probation services; Social services working on addiction
to drugs and alcohols, accommodation and night shelters, and other social workers
who work in the field (in the street). The beneficiary may come by itself.
Finally, the third scenario, but more rare, the companion is redirected by another
Emmaus structure. Emmaus Cambridge Community provides food, basic clothing, health
and safety, medical expenses and accommodation in exchange for a commitment to
work 40 hours per week to the best of their ability. An essential aspect of the
Emmaus philosophy is that the Companions waive all benefits and social benefits
(unemployment, minimum income allowance, disability living); they waive all
access to other benefits (pensions), as they integrate the community. However,
it is recognized that the Companions need a subsistence income.
In England, the weekly allowance is currently a
total of £ 48, £ 8 are spared on account to ensure the release of Companions.
This amount is reviewed annually by the Board of Trustees.
After 13 weeks in the community, the Companions are
entitled to a long weekend. This weekend starts from 17 pm Friday until 8:30 on
Tuesday. For the first two long weekends, the Companions may receive a loan of
£ 60 in addition to their compensation.
This loan is repaid at £5 per week deducted from
the allowance. In addition, the Companions are entitled to a travel allowance
of up to £ 65 as a ticket pre-booked trip.
After 26 weeks, the Companions are entitled to a
week's holiday. This leave extends from 17 pm Saturday until 8:30 on Monday after
the week off. The Companions receive Holiday allowances of £135 for 5 nights or
more. Companions are also entitled to Travel benefits of £65 on the same terms
as long weekends. If a Companion is in the community for one year, the vacancy
allowance is treated as a gift, not a loan. This is not refundable.
Emmaus Cambridge recognizes that there are
occasions when employees need to take time off work to meet family commitments,
or to deal with sensitive events, such as bereavement or serious illness of
close relatives. Executives at Emmaus Cambridge encourage staff to take their
leave, but under specific conditions.
In Spain, a community applies a remuneration linked
to a Work Integration process. Thus, workers can apply to the same positions
and be paid differently. All Companions brings together workers from social
profiles and programs under different state aid. This transition path then
allows the control of workers and income distribution (Salanié, 1997; Malcomson,
1999). This is done on various levels to integration contract. In this case,
the beneficiary group is divided into integration contracts involving a minimum
income recipients. This distribution of status and income is as an incentive
for many Companions. This promotes the Inclusion process leading up to
obtaining the minimum income.
Group A includes persons who may be signing a
contract of employment, if the possibility existed. So these are people who
have the level of skills, and social skills to perform work in a standard
company. In this case, it is a cyclical problem. They have an income of 512.46
euros/month and work 132heures monthly and more.
Group B includes persons who are in the structure
long time and have acquired skills and work skills to work independently
without need for support. The document describes them as people who can work,
but they are not on their full availability, for reasons of physical disability
or absence from work or either of other reasons. But they are motivated to develop
their work and advance in the process. These individuals are not fully re
–inserted. They have an income of 497.86 euros / month and 132 monthly and work
more hours.
Group C consists of people who, for some time past,
and who have developed certain skills may pass into group B. These are people
who, unlike the previous group , show no interest or motivation to change the
situation. These individuals do not achieve the objectives specified in the
contract of compromise. They have an income of 438 euros / month and 132
monthly and work more hours.
D is the group of people without contracts. These
are people who in the circumstances unable to produce a standardized work. Their
work rate is low. These people suffer from a large set of complex issues; but
also of those who arrived in the program for less than a month. They receive an
allowance of 395.66 euros / month and 132 monthly and work more hours.
Finally, the last group E includes those who have
signed a contract with the association according to the operational
requirements. They are ordinary contracts, full-time. Individuals with incomes
of 763, 20 Euros / month and work full days (40 hours). Of course, the risk is
to lead to conflicts and inconsistencies.
Indeed, this leads to some paradoxes.
For instance, an infidel X is a senior person over
the age of 45, he integrated the WIC with an integration contract. The compensation
of individual X is € 763 monthly.
Individual Y is another senior over the age of 45,
he integrated the WIC with an allocation of type A until its status as
beneficiary becomes insertion contract. The compensation of Individual Y is €
512.46 monthly.
However, Individual Y is a former teacher in industrial
technology, speaking 4 languages. He has a high skills level, while Individual
Y is a former gardener. Individual Y is the manager of X; Y is less well paid
than his subordinate X.
In conclusion, the condition of work of Companion
in Emmaus Work Integration Communities is one of very good examples of the
working condition of Working Poor in Europe.
As many working poors, Companions is both the
beneficiary and the main force working Communities. Its position should
legitimately provide it with the means and resources necessary for their well
-being. However, the field survey showed that the latter sometimes suffer from
a lack of recognition and low pay. . Was instilled in the principle that the
companions make their work with dignity. But apart from the dignity and
solidarity benefits related to community life they are winning at working
within the Communities.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire