Is the Orpo-Purra Government Weakening the Heart of Finland’s Welfare State?
Social Security:
The European Committee of Social Rights has repeatedly stated that the level of Finland’s basic social security benefits (e.g., employment support, basic subsistence support, minimum unemployment benefits) is so low that it fails to guarantee beneficiaries’ basic needs in accordance with international obligationsMurto’s working group’s proposals to cut social benefits would further aggravate this contradiction. Instead of raising, for example, the level of unemployment benefits to meet the requirements of the European Social Charter (the committee’s guideline is at least 50% of the median incomebenefit cuts would push the level even further below the minimum. In that case, Finland would continue to breach its international commitments—the committee has already deemed the current situation as a violation of social rightsat the same time, it would call into question every individual’s right to a dignified standard of living as stipulated in Section 19 of the Constitution. For example, if unemployment or subsistence support were reduced or made conditional on compulsory counter-work without adequate compensation, it would be contrary to the obligation to ensure a dignified standard of living and might even violate human rights treatiesLabor Markets:
Murto’s group proposes deregulation of the labor market, which in practice would mean a weakening of workers’ protections, for example, concerning dismissals and the right to strike. Such measures would conflict with Finland’s labor law obligations. For instance, ILO Convention No. 158 and the revised Article 24 of the European Social Charter require that an employment contract can be terminated only on valid, proper groundsIf the protection against dismissal is weakened (as the group’s guidelines and the government program suggest by replacing the requirement of “just cause” with merely a “proper reason”), these binding obligations would be violatedSimilarly, restricting the right to strike would narrow workers’ fundamental rights and would be contrary to ILO principles as well as the right to strike guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Social Charter. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and SAK have condemned the government’s uniform plans to restrict strikes as a serious violation of workers’ rights, which conflicts with Finland’s international commitmentsFurthermore, from a constitutional perspective, restrictions on strikes are problematic – according to expert opinions, the restrictions proposed by the government do not meet the requirements of the Constitution, and the right to strike can only be curtailed in very limited circumstances. In addition, the disintegration of the collective bargaining system through the expansion of local agreements would jeopardize workers’ negotiation rights. The European Social Charter obliges the promotion of collective bargaining (Article 6 §2), so if binding labor agreements were widely circumvented by local contracts, the commitment to protect the collective bargaining system would be weakened.
Taxation and Public Funding:
Finland’s constitutional obligations require that sufficient public resources are secured for the implementation of the welfare state’s core services and social security. However, Murto’s working group proposes significant tax cuts and the reallocation of public funds to businesses, which endangers the fulfillment of these obligations. For example, the group suggests substantial tax incentives for corporate R&D and green investments – which would lower the corporate tax rate towards the minimum level of 15%well as the abolition of inheritance and gift taxesAt the same time, the state would direct billions (e.g., an additional €2 billion) in capital investments to companies through TesiThese measures would narrow the state’s revenue base and shift public funds away from social security towards corporate benefits. As a result, there is a risk that the funding base for social security would weaken so much that Finland would be unable to meet its constitutional and treaty obligations to guarantee every individual a dignified standard of living and adequate services. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has repeatedly urged Finland to ensure that social security covers the true cost of livingIf tax cuts reduce state revenues, achieving the target becomes even more difficult – on the contrary, an increase in public resources would be necessary to raise the level of basic security to international standards. Constitutional experts have also stressed that when preparing the state budget, the implementation of fundamental rights must be prioritized regardless of economic conditionsIf Murto’s working group’s tax cut proposals were fully implemented, they could lead to a situation where the state does not have enough funds to implement fundamental rights (such as social security), resulting in Finland breaching both its constitutional obligations and its international commitments.