[FR] Balancing work and family life: a European ambition to be fulfilled

Gender equality is one of the 20 principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights that the heads of state and government of the European Union (EU) proclaimed last November at the Social Summit in Gothenburg. To put this principle into practice, in 2017 the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive laying down common minimum rules for a better work-life balance: at least 10 working days’ paternity leave, at least 4 months’ parental leave, non-transferable, for each parent, and at least 5 days’ leave per year to care for a dependent relative (known as carer’s leave). For these three types of leave, the Commission proposes minimum compensation equivalent to sickness benefits. The Commission also proposes the right to flexible working arrangements (including adjusted working hours or remote working) for carers and parents until their child reaches the age of 12.

At the Employment and Social Affairs Council meeting on 21 June, the EU labour ministers adopted their general approach to this European directive. This agreement between the 28 Member States is, in itself, good news, as the reluctance of leaders and their differences on this text had raised fears that the Council would be unable to reach an agreement. It should be remembered that in 2015, the Commission was forced to withdraw its proposal to revise the Maternity Leave Directive (which aimed in particular to increase the minimum length of maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks) due to a lack of agreement in the Council after seven years of negotiations.

While the agreement on this text is to be welcomed, the position adopted by the Council is nevertheless disappointing. The EU-28 have considerably watered down the Commission’s proposal: the minimum duration of non-transferable parental leave for each parent has been reduced (from four to two months), as has the minimum duration for which this leave must be paid (from four to 1.5 months). There is no longer any reference to a minimum duration for carers’ leave and, above all, for the three types of leave covered by the directive, no reference to minimum compensation has been retained (this compensation is left to the discretion of each Member State) (see table).

European leaders have thus severely limited the scope of this European legislation, which was supposed to provide impetus for a better sharing of family responsibilities between men and women. It is particularly regrettable that the labour ministers did not retain a minimum rule for compensation for the three types of leave. With regard to parental leave, it has been conclusively established that men’s use of parental leave is strongly influenced by the level of compensation for the leave. When such leave exists but is not compensated or is poorly compensated, fathers do not take it. This is the case in France, where parental leave compensation is very low – €396 per month – and only 4% of fathers exercise their right (although since 2015 there has been a six-month period of parental leave that cannot be transferred to the other parent). Only high compensation rates will make it possible to reverse the financial logic that, in order to limit the impact on family income, parental leave is taken by the parent who earns the least (often the woman).

If many Member States did not support the Commission’s proposal, it was certainly because of its budgetary implications. President Emmanuel Macron, who has made gender equality one of the causes of his five-year term, said in the European Parliament last April that he “fully approves the principle [of the Commission’s text], but paid parental leave at the level of daily sickness benefit is a nice idea that could be very expensive and ultimately unsustainable.” European leaders view the costs associated with this legislation solely as an expense, when in fact they represent above all an investment in a more egalitarian model of society.

This investment would have not only social and demographic benefits (a better sharing of family responsibilities would have a positive effect on child development and on families’ decisions to have children), but also economic benefits. Indeed, numerous studies highlight that the unequal sharing of family responsibilities between mothers and fathers is one of the main causes of unequal access to the labour market between men and women (the employment rate for women is 11.6 percentage points lower than that for men in the EU) and the gender pay gap (women earn on average 16% less than men and receive pensions that are on average 40% lower). While the French Minister of Health points out that the Commission’s proposal on parental leave would cost France €1.6 billion per year, the Commission points out that the cost of the gender employment gap amounts to €370 billion in the EU.

However, the Council’s agreement does not mark the end of the game. European citizens can hope that MEPs, who will vote on their report in July, will restore ambition to this European law. Indeed, the European Parliament is moving in the opposite direction to the Council and wishes to preserve or even strengthen the Commission’s proposal. For example, it should set a minimum remuneration for parental leave compensation as a percentage of the worker’s salary (75% of the salary according to the rapporteur’s proposal). This would allow for greater harmonisation between countries, as the Commission’s reference to sick pay would lead to significant differences between countries (sick pay amounts to 50% of salary in France, for example, compared to 100% in Luxembourg). The challenge in the coming months will therefore be to bring the positions of the Council and the European Parliament closer together so that the text can be adopted before the end of the current Commission’s term of office in 2019. On the Council side, Austria, which holds the Council Presidency during the second half of 2018, will have to negotiate with the Parliament and the Commission. While Austria’s lack of interest in this text is well known, citizen mobilisation for an ambitious directive is more necessary than ever.