Keynote speech at FinUnions 30th anniversary seminar in Brussels on September 23th 2025.
Dear friends and guests,
It is truly an honor to be speaking here today, to celebrate the work that FinUnions have been doing for workers rights and workers protection for three decades already.
This really feels like a good moment to not only celebrate past achievements but also talk about what we want from the future, as we in many ways are living very defining moments right now. The world order is changing.
For a longer time, we have seen how global power and economic relations have been changing, with the emergence of the BRICS-countries and the global South. During the past years, we have also seen the growth of authoritarianism and how international law and rule-based multilateralism has been attacked and challenged stronger than ever since the end of the second world war, first and foremost by Putin, but his ideology is in many ways shared by the likes of Orbán, Netanyahu, Erdogan and Trump.
In addition to this, we are seeing how the rules for the global economy and trade are being rewritten, and how old neoliberal ideals of minimal governmental influence in the economy and maximally free global trade are being thrown in the dust bin by both China and in the US.
All of these developments, of course, affect us Europeans and the European workers. And we need to be honest, Europe is struggling. We are now seeing the consequences of our dependencies on other global powers. We see it in our leaders inability to stand up for European values and ideals at a time when it is needed more than ever. We see it in the lack of self-esteem, which leads the EU to agree on a fundamentally unbalanced trade agreement with the US.
Never before has it been as clear as now that we need a programme for real European sovereignty. We need to be able to stand on our own feet when it comes to energy, defence, data, people and our values. We have no time to lose, this project is the most important task of European decision makers during this mandate. The actions and decisions taken now will define the future of the European projects and of European workers for years to come.
And I want to be honest with you. I think we risk seeing this mandate turn into a lost opportunity in this regard. This is the time when Europe should be doing big. Thinking big and doing big. Draghi talked about the need for 800 billion in annual investments. Instead of following through on this, the Commission is keeping itself, the Parliament and civil society busy with dozens of Omnibus-propsals, doing small things in hundreds of different pieces of legislation, without anyone really checking if what is done is even beneficial for business or whether it actually even makes the rules simpler in the end. The deregulation agenda will not solve Europe’s problems.
I therefore think that one of the most important tasks we share together at this moment, is to work to make sure that this mandate does not become a lost opportunity, and to make sure that the EU does not make some fundamental mistakes, when it comes to the task ahead.
So, how to avoid them?
Firstly, everyone needs to understand and respect the popular demand for an ambitious employment and social agenda.
According to the post-election Eurobarometer published a year ago, there were two key reasons for Europeans to vote in the last European election. The first was rising prices and the cost of living, and the second was the voter’s economic situation.
The latest Employment and Social Developments in Europe report shows similar worrying trends. Although employment in Europe is at a record high and unemployment is at a record low, more and more Europeans cannot keep their homes adequately warm during the winter. According to Eurostat, over one in ten Europeans experienced energy poverty in 2023. This figure has steadily increased in recent years.
Add to this Trump’s tariffs on EU imports, creating more insecurity within manufacturing industries that are already heavily affected by global competition, and the insecurity already experienced due to global competition and slow progress in the green transition in the automotive industry. There is a lot of insecurity among many many workers in the EU right now.
All these findings show that people are genuinely concerned about making ends meet. Many people are struggling to afford housing, especially in large cities. The rising cost of living affects millions, including employed individuals.
These are the issues that people expect political decision makers to fix. These are the issues they want us to focus and deliver on. At a time when more and more citizens are growing increasingly frustrated with the political system, they are channeling the anger and frustration at the lack of tangible improvements in their everyday lives to vote for the parties that are the opposite of the system that have failed them.
Therefore, one of the most important tasks in order to safeguard our democracies is to respect and understand the popular demand for an ambitious employment and social agenda. That is what we need to deliver on.
Secondly, it is the year 2025. We really should know that there is no competitiveness without social and environmental well-being by now.
The European social model is not a problem. It is not a regulatory burden or too costly. The European social model is our competitive advantage. It ensures our quality of life, social mobility, and economic equality. Although we are succeeding well against our global competitors in these areas, these elements of our competitiveness are often overlooked.
Draghi’s report also emphasizes this point, warning European decision makers against repeating the US’s mistakes regarding the social model. The most promising message for workers in his report was that Europe’s competitiveness cannot be based on wage cuts but should rely on skills and technological development.
When envisioning the future of Europe, we must consider a broader context. We should be creating new structures that promote people’s well-being and protection of workers and investing in both social and technological innovations.
European industrial policy must place quality jobs alongside competitiveness objectives. Such workplaces engage in constructive collective bargaining, they respect workers’ rights to organise, to adequate pay, to safety and social security, and active skills maintenance. They also take equality and non-discrimination seriously. As we adapt to the new more hostile geoeconomic circumstances with new ways of doing competitiveness and industrial policies, social and environmental conditionalities must be put at the center of doing this.
Reducing poverty, delivering quality jobs in every sector and region, improving working conditions, and enforcing social dialogue, collective bargaining, and workplace democracy must be at the heart of the European project.
We need a bold, mission-oriented political mindset to move forward. I will now focus on some of the concrete issues I hope we will be focusing on.
Dear friends,
As the chair of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee, I have sometimes been asked why we need EU legislation in the field of labour market policy. ”Is this not something best dealt with on a national level”, I have been asked. My answer has always been, that the issues we work on in the European parliament usually are issues that affect all member states, where common minimum standards are beneficial for all and the problems to be tackled of an international character.
The effects of technological development for working life and workers rights is a great example. Rapid technological development and the increasing use of artificial intelligence are affecting the world of work in many ways. Currently, we are drafting legislation and guidelines that will apply not only to the present, but also to the future. Everyone is faced with the same issues: we recognize the potential that new technology brings, but also the risks. We want to maximize the good and minimize the bad.
When it comes to AI, risks include workers losing control over their jobs, increased work intensity and performance pressure, decreased social support from managers, and a blurring of work-life balance. These risks may lead to negative consequences for workers’ physical and psychosocial well-being.
However, we also acknowledge that technological development reduces hazardous situations and monotonous tasks and provides access to employment for aging workers and those with disabilities. AI could also reduce exposure to various risk factors and provide early warnings of stress, health problems, and fatigue.
This is a prime example of an issue affecting all Member States, where a joint set of rules is much better than 27 different solutions. The first step in this process was the Platform Work Directive, that includes rules on how data can be collected and used. However, further regulation is required, in the form of a general directive on AI in the labour market. This technology is not only used in the platform economy, as examples from Amazon warehouses show us.
Decisions related to worker performance, salary, and termination of employment should not be outsourced to AI because these decisions affect fundamental workers’ rights and have a real impact on people’s lives. Workers must retain the power and responsibility to make decisions in the workplace, and they must have sufficient access to challenge automated or semi-automated decisions that concern them. Furthermore, to ensure that algorithmic systems benefit workplaces and workers alike, workers and their representatives must be involved in their development and implementation.
Dear friends,
The Draghi report points out that European workplaces are generally unprepared to take advantage of widespread digitalization of work. AI has rapidly transformed many sectors — not necessarily by replacing jobs with artificial human-like intelligence, but by introducing algorithmic systems of automation and increased worker control that substantially change work and its environment.
Addressing the current skills shortages and tackling the twin transition will require us to do things differently than we have so far. EU member states are far behind our targets regarding the number of people participating in adult education. By 2030, the participation rate should be 60%, but currently, it is only 35%. Progress has been slow.
To change this, we must first acknowledge that there is a lot of empty hype when it comes to the skills agenda. If we want to be serious about adult education, then we need to really address why so many workers do not participate.
Nearly half of all workers reported that they did not have enough opportunities to apply their skills and knowledge at work. Training opportunities continue to differ by occupation, with the most highly skilled receiving more training than those who need it most.
Many workers have pointed out that they do not work in an environment that supports skill development. Those who struggle to access these opportunities are often immigrants or considered ”too old.” In order to have all kinds of people doing all kinds of work, we need to provide the correct types of support. This also highlights the importance of equality and non-discrimination in the workplace.
Lack of money and lack of time are very real obstacles for many to participate in adult education. To tackle these obstacles we need partnerships between employers, trade unions, and educators but we also need a European-wide minimum standard for the right to participate in training during working hours for all European workers.
Dear friends,
In December, the Commission will present a Quality Jobs Roadmap, followed by a legislative Quality Jobs Act in 2026. This act would combine various legislative initiatives, such as directives on AI at work, psychosocial risks at work, and the right to disconnect.
During the previous term, social partners at the EU level made progress negotiating an agreement that would have limited teleworking and prevented work from spilling over into workers’ free time through various digital channels.
In Europe, work-related accidents kill around 3,300 people and work-related illnesses kill up to 180,000 people every year. Efforts must continue to ensure a safe working environment, and legislation is needed to promote psychological well-being in the workplace. Psychosocial and ethical stress is the main risk factor for workers’ well-being in many sectors.
If we combine these elements and the need for a general directive on AI in the labour market into one legislative initiative, we must ensure that each area is addressed adequately.
Next year we are also anticipating a Mobility Package, with proposals to strengthen the European Labour Authority and ESSPASS and potentially doing something on subcontracting.
The reform of the Public Procurement Directive is also anticipated for next year. This will be one of the biggest political challenges of the entire mandate because it involves major, conflicting political passions and significant public funding. One of our key objectives is to establish more binding social and environmental criteria that would allow companies to be excluded from procurement processes, for example, on the basis of an absence of a collective agreement. The EU must put an end to the deterioration of wages and working conditions by making public contracts conditional upon respect for workers’ rights.
Dear friends,
An ambitious social agenda is also about money. It is closely tied to the economic policies and fiscal rules of both the European Union and its member states. In fact, our economic policies in the end determine the success or failure of our social model.
Therefore, I think we have three crucial common goals when it comes to the social agenda and money.
The first is to secure an independent and strengthened European Social Fund in the next Multiannual Financial Framework in addition to keeping the target of at least 14% spending on social targets on the national level.
The Commission proposal includes a significant restructuring of funds. The European Social Fund is proposed to be one of the funds grouped under the 27 National and Regional Partnership Plans. These plans will cover cohesion policy, social policy, regional policy, common agricultural policy, migration, border management, and internal security, among other things. The change will also shift the decision making power of allocation of funds to member states and the Commission.
The ESF+ has been the EU’s main instrument for promoting and strengthening social cohesion, and it should remain so. It has a strong history of addressing poverty and regional and social imbalances across the EU. In order to address the social issues Europeans are facing, we need to invest in social programs in areas such as education and housing, as well as ensure fairness in the green transition. ESF+ has been instrumental in this regard.
Secondly, social objectives need to be included throughout the entire multiannual financial framework. Integrating strong social and environmental conditions into industrial policy has been done in the U.S. with the IRA program, and it can be done in Europe as well.
Social conditions should be included in all direct and indirect public business support at the EU and national levels in addition to environmental criteria. This is how we couple competitiveness and industrial policies with a strong social agenda. These criteria should apply to different Member States and sectors. Additionally, these conditions must be developed in consultation with social partners.
Companies that submit abnormally low bids, violate working conditions and safety legislation, or undermine trade unions should be excluded. Funds and aid programs should also set targets for creating good jobs.
In Europe, social conditions could include the right to organise and the right of trade union representatives to negotiate collective agreements. It should also include a minimum wage in line with the collective agreement. In particular, proactive planning should be required to speed up the green transition, so that retraining and further training needs are taken into account at the application stage and redundancies are avoided. In order to receive support, there must also be a commitment to refrain from making additional dividend payments and increasing the profit share, and instead to invest in the development of activities. Nor is it justified to support companies that engage in aggressive tax planning. We must ensure that the quality criteria are carefully designed to create quality jobs in all sectors, both old and new.
Lastly, we also need a reform of the fiscal rules, to enable investment in welfare services, employment and the green transition on a national level. By making an exception for the defence investments, we have already been shown the political nature of these rules: changes and flexibilities can be made when it is deemed necessary.
Dear friends,
I want to end by saying a few things about Finland. When I first heard that I will be given the opportunity to hold this speech, I thought that the headline could be ”The Finnish example shows us why we need to safeguard workers rights on EU level”. I will explain the two different ways in which I think this is relevant.
Firstly, in Finland we see the importance of the EU when workers’ fundamental rights are being attacked on a national level. Finland is known as a Nordic welfare state with comprehensive public services, a successful strategy for combating homelessness, a high-quality education system, and labor market structures typical of Nordic welfare states, which are characterized by a high level of unionization and effective social dialogue. Our social model has been an ideal that many other countries in Europe and around the world have sought to emulate in their own policies.
But this social model is now under attack, with restrictions on the right to strike, reforms to local agreements that reduce unionization rates, tying the hands of the National Conciliator, making it easier to dismiss employees, the abolition of adult education subsidies, and a long list of other cutbacks mean that Finland is taking a permanent step away from the Nordic model. Ironically, at the same time, the European Union is trying to push other member states towards the Nordic model, by emphasizing the role of collective bargaining in the Minimum Wage Directive and setting a standard of 80% collective agreement coverage.
Maybe it is because we have seen and experienced what happens when one side is no longer committed to social dialogue and collective bargaining, and maybe it is a national understanding of how legislation and collective agreements can co-exist, but I think Finnish trade unions also have been wise to not to see EU legislation as a threat to the Nordic labour market model and the collective agreements.
After all, we still have a long way to go to create those structures all over Europe. In many many member states, EU labour legislation has been crucial to enhance gender equality, workers health and safety and raising the level of minimum wage. It is about setting minimum standards for the good of all European workers and they are especially important where progress has not come so far.
Recognizing the value of this is in my opinion what trade unionism has always been about, and what it will always be about in the future – solidarity.