Herman Noordegraaf (ND) Moderator, Peter Hayler (Wales & Eng)) Rapporteur,
Doris Scheer (Ger) Resource, Tomaš Tožička (Cz) Storyteller,
Zusan Filipkova (Cz), Sandy McDonald (Scot), Christoph Sigrist (Switz),
Helen Bjørnøy (Nor), Juhani Veikkola (Fin), Rainer Volz (Ger).

After a full round of introductions the group identified the most significant changes in work and employment, from the regional contexts represented:

۰ De-industrialisation

۰ Agricultural Crisis (disease and socio-economic consequences)

۰ Short-lived Hi-Tech enterprise

۰ Economic migration (due in Germany to unification)

۰ Decreasing Welfare State

۰ Growth of knowledge-based economy, and attendant training deficit

۰ Decreased concept of the Social State – to private individualism

۰ Widening gap between rich & poor – also in areas of low unemployment

۰ Welfare State dependency – 3^rd generation unemployment

۰ Back-to-work schemes – no concern for quality of work offered

۰ Unemployment traps – loss of benefits – not worth working

۰ Sense of personal outrage about poor employment prospects

۰ Not enough work to go round

We found that there were 3 common themes in all this:

1. Questions about the meaning, value, quantity and quality of work
2. Concern to address Long-term Unemployment
3. A Complex matrix of issues around the idea of Welfare State

Our discussion, analysis and theological reflection followed these three themes, and the different plenaries enriched our discussion.

In earlier times of de-industrialisation (e.g. 1980’s), ‘soft landings’ were provided for people who were made redundant (e.g. miners in Germany were able to retire early on a comfortable pension). A balance has previously been achieved between state and private sector, but this balance is changing, and overall provision is decreasing.

We noted that the various models of Welfare State across Europe show different balances between Taxation and Insurance, but all are modelled on full employment for industrial man. This is no longer the reality. Where the Welfare State is provided primarily through Taxation (e.g. Norway), those who earn the most feel that they are subsidizing the welfare of the poor, and increasingly want to opt out. Discussion on the abandonment of the Welfare State has taken place in Finland; resistance was voiced by the Church: (1999 Bishops' Paper "Common Good"). This has led to some polarisation between employers and trade unions, in respect of their working relationship with the church.

In Switzerland the sense of privatisation is more developed, as is the polarisation in wealth. (80% of wealth resides in 20% of the population). There is current concern about the risk of civil unrest. Current events have also affected stock market confidence, and the collapse of Swissair as a flagship company is iconic of this change. The power dynamic between economy and politics is in flux.

In other places, it is felt that the balance between Taxation and Insurance means that the middle classes are bearing the largest burden of the Welfare State. The power of the State to determine such balance raises questions about the role and self-understanding of the state:

۰ Is the State a form of social machinery? A commonwealth?

۰ Is the state most useful to the rich?

Similar questions were also asked about infrastructure and externalities.

Further questions followed:

۰ Who is the Welfare State for? For rich, for poor, or for all?

۰ Does the Welfare State actually speak of solidarity between rich & poor?

۰ What is the motivation behind any Welfare State system?

۰ Where motivation to contribute is decreasing – how to re-motivate?

۰ How much do we take the Welfare State for granted?

(See Priority 3)

Meaning of Work…

Changes in working practice were also discussed, together with the balance of societal activity, and the place of volunteering, leisure and family. It would seem that paid employment is still idolised – that people are only finding personal worth through paid work. It was suggested that a ‘new distance’ is needed between the concept and value of work and the reality of paid employment/unemployment. To some extent, the European ‘Year of the Volunteer’ had addressed this.

We listed the forms in which our churches have real contact with the reality of work.

The Swiss church regretted that its only real contact was with employers – a bourgeoisie church concerned with issues of wealth creation and profit. This raised questions of how the church could connect with and participate ‘neutrally’ in contrasting proletariat concerns of wealth distribution and work.

Participants from UK and Finland talked about the ‘Good Work’ project of the ECG (Next Conference Sept 2002, Helsinki – New book to be published (in Finnish!!) – Dec 2001). This work is also being undertaken by K.D.A. and their partners in Germany. Generally it seeks to invite dialogue at all levels about ‘Good Work’.

The group sensed that this work needs to be developed. (See Priority 1)

Members of the group from countries where the church is a significant employer (e.g. Germany, through structures such as Diakonische Werk) saw that the church needs to be challenged as an exemplary employer providing ‘Good Work’. Concern was expressed that such an exercise would be like ‘treading on eggshells.’ The church has its own ideas about its role as an employer and about its relationship with employees. This is expressed in the term Dienstgemeinschaft (built on Christian va

(See Priority 1)

Other models of real contact were:

۰ Community Centres – providing a place for the unemployed,

offering counselling in careers and job-seeking.

۰ Factory Visiting and advocacy in industrial relations.

Theological and Ethical Reflections:

In the area of ‘work-life balance’ we reflected on the idea of time. The Celtic idea of creating ‘thin’ space was shared, and we moved to talk about the practice of Sabbatical rest, in terms of ‘Keep Sunday Special’:

۰ UK – secular view dominates, Saturday primarily leisure, Sunday shopping.

۰ Ger – seven-day working in industry, increasing in the face of competition.

۰ Fin – there is fierce public debate – church is opposed to liberalisation.

۰ Cz – post-communism, trade is led by multinationals on a secular basis.

۰ Sw – Sunday markets are common.

There is a new sociological typology of time:

Work-time; free-time; social-time; family-time; ego-time; recreation-time; volunteer-time.

In the area of the ‘Value of Work’ there was concern not to reduce the understanding of work to paid employment. The idea of citizen’s income was discussed briefly, questioning whether such a system might be deployed to assist in a radical redistribution of time and work. Citizen’s income could be linked with, and therefore encourage a broader participation in voluntary work, study etc.

(See Priority 3)

Concern was expressed about the polarisation of experience between unemployment and over-employment/presenteeism. More needs to be done to share work. This includes concerns about gender, the value of raising family as work, and access to the labour market for women. We talked about the creative aspect of work – work as birthing.

In our discussion about the Welfare State and the widening gap between rich and poor, theological ideas such as righteousness and justice, compassion, stewardship and gleaning were all mentioned – but remained rather undeveloped. We asked questions about the church’s role in public debate, particularly concerning the values basis and ethical outcomes of free market economics. Can the balance be tipped towards stakeholders? Should/could the church launch a public debate on the criteria for

(See Priority 3)

An awareness of low electoral turnout across Europe was discussed. It was felt that the church should/could do much more to stimulate participation as the actualisation of democracy, and that this needed to happen within the structures of the EU.

There was a concern, but not enough time to develop the area of an affirming Christian anthropology. This theme was developed most in the later plenaries.

(See Priority 3)

2. Work Book Project – addressing the question of long term unemployment.

Already in Action: Basic Relief Projects:
Small Scale employment projects
Micro Credit / Credit Unions

New Priority – collect: Stories, Methodology, Analysis, Contacts
To create an Interactive E-book for sharing good practice in local action.
High Profile European Launch – Secular Publisher – not too churchy!!!

3. Research Project - addressing questions of Welfare State, Value of Work and

Overall Orientation & Imperatives

Dialogue!
Participate!
Respect Dignity! Be Self Critical!