(Photo: © Handwerksblatt)
Read aloud:
Carsten Linnemann (CDU) speaks with the DHB about the bureaucratic burden on small and medium-sized businesses. He considers parts of the General Data Protection Regulation impractical.
Dr. Carsten Linnemann is a directly elected CDU member of the Bundestag from Paderborn and Federal Chairman of the Association of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses (MIT) of the CDU/CSU. He is also Deputy Chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group for Business and Small and Medium-Sized Businesses and a member of the CDU Federal Executive Board.
DHB: In your new policy program, you link the concepts of freedom and responsibility. How important is the skilled trades, with their culture of responsibility, as a pillar of the German economy and the social market economy?
Linnemann: The skilled trades, with their many partnerships, embrace the liability principle par excellence. This is pure intergenerational thinking. We, and the federal government, are now in a phase in which we have committed ourselves to strengthening dual training and thus the next generation. For years, we have placed too much emphasis on academic education. The balance has become unbalanced. And that's why I hope we can implement concrete measures to strengthen dual training again.
DHB: In your platform, you call for a government that acts in a manageable manner and sets simple rules. In which areas is this not yet working?
Linnemann: I am convinced that the simple rules of Ludwig Erhardt, Alfred Müller-Armack, and the Freiburg School are more relevant than ever – from the principle of liability and freedom of contract to the issue of monetary stability. In the 1950s, globalization was not yet so pronounced. Back then, it was almost sufficient to implement the rules of the social market economy at the national level. We would have to roll out and implement the rules internationally in many areas, from digital policy to financial market products. However, there is resistance here from other countries that have their own business models. If a Romanian or Bulgarian comes to Germany as a self-employed person in a trade that does not require a license and neither pays pension contributions nor accident insurance, and often "disappears" again after a few years, then that no longer has anything to do with the social market economy and fair competition.
DHB: Where does the European Union need to step back?
Linnemann: In labor market and social policy. When it comes to vocational training, it's also not a good thing for the EU to intervene in national policies, not because the issues aren't important, but because they can be better regulated locally than from Brussels. The principle of subsidiarity must be upheld here, as all examples demonstrate. For example, I don't feel like traveling to Brussels every year to explain that the master craftsman's certificate is not a non-tariff trade barrier, but an educational and quality standard.
Operations management
Operations management
Craft policy
DHB: Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, for example, sees things differently.
Linnemann: Then you have to discuss it with him. I'm not afraid of that at all. The people in Germany are ready for more Europe. Incidentally, they don't mind Europe spending more money, if the money is spent wisely, for example, on controlling the EU's external borders. In my opinion, Europe is all too often a club of intellectuals at the moment that forgets to involve its citizens. The heads of state and government go to Brussels and try to get something out of it for their nation states. Hardly anyone thinks European anymore and formulates visions and goals for where Europe should be in 2025.
DHB: Which European regulations do you think are particularly detrimental to medium-sized businesses? Linnemann: If you're asking me right now, it's definitely the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It prescribes things that are simply impossible and completely out of touch with reality. Sometimes you have to understand the tradesman who says politicians are idiots; they've lost touch with reality. The GDPR makes that abundantly clear. One small consolation is that it also applies to politicians and their offices. So we politicians are experiencing firsthand just how bureaucratic this is for businesses, and hopefully, that will motivate everyone to make some changes.
DHB: How do such guidelines and laws repeatedly come about that ignore the daily practice of business?
Linnemann: Our medium-sized business structure is unique in Europe. Therefore, with legislative proposals from Brussels, we always have to fight to ensure that the regulations are manageable even for companies with five or ten employees. We therefore want to create a general rule at the EU level that relieves small and medium-sized enterprises of bureaucracy. We are also fighting for the so-called "one-in, one-out" principle at the EU level. This means: If the EU Commission wants to create new regulations in one area, it should abolish regulations in another so that the bureaucratic burden doesn't increase. However, a lot of bureaucracy also arises because interest groups talk about reducing bureaucracy but then want to apply fairness to their individual industries. This, in turn, leads to the creation of new, additional bureaucracy. This cannot be denied. Simply blaming politicians would be too simplistic in my opinion. And another point: Companies in Germany need to reach out to their representatives in their constituencies much more. Some entrepreneurs don't even know them. That surprises me. That's what they're elected for, that's what constituencies are for in Germany. Business owners should approach local politicians as early as possible, not just after the law has been passed, perhaps inviting them to their own company to show them how a particular law will work in practice.
DHB: In its policy program, the MIT also addresses vocational training. You see it under pressure from the "academization craze" in Germany and also from Europe. How do you intend to strengthen it?
Linnemann: We don't want to devalue the academic career path, but I believe the balance is no longer right. In recent years, we have placed too much focus on the academic branch of federal policy and too little on the dual training branch. I consider that an objective finding. We want to change that now. To name just one example: the issue of upgrading the master craftsman's certificate. I believe we could achieve a lot with that, also in terms of acceptance. I believe that when we revised the Crafts Act 14 years ago, we simply didn't give enough consideration to how we can ensure long-term quality and training in trades without a master craftsman's certificate requirement. The federal and state governments also made mistakes in education policy by making the Abitur the only desirable school qualification. We must now revise these mistakes. We just mustn't set expectations too high when it comes to crafts law. But if we could, by whatever means, return to more master craftsman businesses, that would be good and would strengthen dual training.
DHB: But you aren't afraid that European law will put a stop to your plans?
Linnemann: I do indeed see resistance from Brussels regarding the reintroduction of the master craftsman's certificate requirement in some trades. In my view, there are four good arguments in favor of the master craftsman's certificate. First, it increases the quality of work. Second, it secures apprenticeships. Third, it makes dual training more attractive for young people overall because it opens up career opportunities. And fourth, it ensures fair competition. But arguments alone will not suffice when dealing with the EU Commission and, above all, with our Constitutional Court. We need watertight facts. Here, I am also counting on the affected trades to provide us with convincing evidence.
The interview was conducted by Lars Otten and Michael Block.
Newsletter
Write a comment