As outlined by Tom Theves, the Comité de Conjoncture has existed in Luxembourg since 1975, when the domestic steel industry was in its death throes. It takes the form of monthly meetings involving the Ministry of the Economy, the Ministry of Labour as well as union and employer representatives. Once again, thanks to these decidedly wobbly economic times, the Comité is finding itself busy. As the ultimate arbiters of the provision of chộmage partiel this is no great surprise, although the growth in volume of applications, from three in September 2008 to 114 for January seems to illustrate two prominent features in the lay of the land. The first is the domino effect that company hardships are causing. If one or two companies in any given sector are in trouble, this can have an adverse effect on another dependent on their business. The second is a certain corporate concern for employee welfare that, although equalled in some countries, is vastly superior to that in others. Put simply, chộmage partiel allows a company to put staff on temporary leave for a certain period of time. During this time, they are paid 80% of their salary, which is in turn reimbursed to the company, in a bid to avoid redundancies. It is at the discretion of the Comité which companies are eligible, but as Theves stated, they are there to help and look out for the interests of people. Of the 114 applicants in January, 87 were provisionally successful.

The HR advantages of the scheme are clear. Employees are still identified with the company, which suits both parties, and they can resume their previous function relatively quickly, meaning the company can regain old levels of productivity as painlessly as possible once temporary difficulties have been overcome.

Dexia: the avant-garde

Having encountered a crisis of its own in 2003, Christian Scharff outlined Dexia’s evasive action at the coalface of human resource uncertainty. Their solution was apt and canny, placing an emphasis on restructuring the profile of the workforce in order to minimise redundancies. Among the steps taken was the introduction of “career breaks”, which granted extended periods of leave to allow staff to follow personal projects and fulfill personal ambitions while the company regrouped. According to Scharff, they often returned more dedicated and grateful to the company for affording them these chances. The company also exchanged with employees a percentage of salary for increased holidays, again shifting the work/life balance towards the latter. From affording staff the chance to spend more time outside work in the medium term, Dexia then increased the proportion of part-timers on their books from 9% pre-2003 to today’s level of 27%.

Finally, the company increased levels of internal movement and training, seeking to hire and transfer from within wherever possible. While this offered, and continues to offer, an incentive to ambitious members of staff, whether it could also breed resentment is a moot point. What is clear is this: the plan employed by Dexia took individuals into account as well as company figures. That, in itself, is commendable, and cushioning the blow to individual employees also cushioned the blow for Dexia as a whole.

Significant changes will always be invasive. The best HR practices seek to minimise that invasiveness. There are different methods of implementation but the overall goal of avoiding redundancies keeps things steady. From that platform, the tools can be forged to emerge from these times.