- Employment & Labour markets
- Social security: A block for cross border businesses?
In the tradition of showing the practical impact of (EU) legislation on business, Ceemet organised a technical seminar that focused on the revision of social security coordination regulation.
Co-hosted by Shadow Rapporteur Jeroen Lenaers (EPP; NL) Ceemet gathered legal experts, policy makers and representatives from industry.
The CEO of Deutsche Mechatronics GmbH Wolfgang Deinhard brought the hands-on business perspective which came to live when he shared with the audience his story of his trip to Brussels. His A1 document was not delivered in time. He took a screenshot of his online application and hoped that he would not run into a control. Apart from the everyday difficulties this way of operating offers no legal certainty nor for the employer, nor for the employee.
Hilde Thys, renowned legal expert and regular speaker at congresses on i.a. labour mobility, shone her light on the legal side. During her presentation:
- She replied to the question what the nature of an A1 is: declarative. Not constitutive.
- She explained why business trips must be exempted from A1 : it creates no added value in informing a business trip or short postings to the competent social security authority.
- She called for a pragmatic approach regarding the registered office: avoid changing between social security systems.
Ceemet presented during the technical seminar its updated position paper on the Revision. The Tech & Industry Employers have -in general- been positive about the proposal but current discussions are going in a direction where companies are burdened with excessive unnecessary organizational requirements. This eventually limits labour mobility which is essential for businesses and a strong asset of the Single Market.
The revision of the regulations on the coordination of social security systems aim at facilitating labour mobility. However, the plans that are on the table would put sever strains on labour mobility. And Ceemet is convinced that this was never the intention of the regulation.
PDF - 270 K
PDF - 313 K
PDF - 160 K