A cover for reducing bureaucracy for attacks on social and ecological standards

dossier

“Under the guise of “better legislation” or “reducing bureaucracy”, attacks on social and ecological standards have been carried out for decades. (…) “Democratic regulation of the economy and administrative modernization in the interests of society” could be the working title for theoretical and practical projects of concrete debate and alternatives. This is about nothing less than reflecting on the political functions of the state and its administration to protect a democratic socio-ecological and constitutional economic order. The importance of this question is clearly growing, because political regulation, democratic legitimacy and social acceptance are falling apart and are expressed in dissatisfaction with central elements of government policy as well as in the successes of nationalist and right-wing populist forces..." Contribution by Uwe Wötzel from June 13, 2016 at annotazioni.de (“Reducing bureaucracy: regulation in the interests of society instead of “better regulation”) – every industry and every aspect of politics is now affected by austerity measures under the label of reducing bureaucracy…

• [Reducing bureaucracy in occupational safety] Occupational safety: Criticism of the reduction in occupational safety by the BMAS
  "... The "concept for efficient and low-bureaucracy occupational safety" presented by the BMAS claims to modernize, digitize and align occupational safety more closely with the actual danger situation. Statements from specialist occupational health organizations, occupational safety specialists (their associations) and the trade unions show a largely consistent opposing position: The announced "reduction in bureaucracy" not only affects unnecessary formalities, but also central elements of the prevention architecture such as the safety officers (Sibe), the binding nature of DGUV Regulation 1, the self-administration of statutory accident insurance and operational participation. (…)
  From an occupational health perspective, the skepticism towards the BMAS projects is particularly understandable because prevention is systematically understood as the forward-looking identification, assessment and limitation of health risks. An orientation of occupational safety exclusively towards “actual dangerous situations” is in tension here. Occupational health care is aimed at latent, cumulative and long-term effects that need to be eliminated at an early stage. (…)
  The statements from the field of occupational safety specialists and their associations are centrally along these lines. The Association for Safety, Health and Environmental Protection at Work (VDSI) emphasizes that the appointment of safety representatives in particular is not a dispensable formality because they perceive operational risks, promote safety communication and act as low-threshold contacts in the work areas with employees and superiors. Increasing the number of employees as a threshold for appointing safety officers is met with considerable incomprehension, as in practice there is a risk of uncertainty and greater risks, but hardly any cost savings can be expected. (…) There is also criticism of the planned political access to the autonomous accident insurance regulations. Occupational safety specialists and their associations see self-administration as a key reason why accident prevention regulations can be developed in a sector-specific, technically sound manner and based on real operational conditions. A government-driven dismantling of rules shifts this balance to the detriment of professional expertise. (���)
  The trade union criticism of the dismantling of occupational safety standards also includes the perspective of interest groups, which, for example, have a strong position in shaping occupational health and safety through the Works Constitution Act. (…) The enforcement of occupational health and safety law is already inadequate. Only around ten percent of the risk assessments correspond to the legal requirements (…) Statements and documents are particularly critical of the intended weakening of DGUV Regulation 1 and the interference with the autonomy of the self-administration of the statutory accident insurance. The accident prevention regulations developed in close proximity to the industry are considered an essential link between abstract standard setting and operational practice; their loss of commitment would relativize obligations, reduce certainty of action and weaken risk control..."Freely accessible part of theArticle by Thorsten Schäfer in “Gute Arbeit” 9/2026 from September 15, 2026 at Bund Verlag 
• [“Reporting Relief Act” in the federal government’s reform package] Radical restructuring of the federal administration: The chainsaw now also in Germany 
  "When criticizing the federal government's reform package, it is easy to overlook the radical reduction in bureaucracy. There is a lot of explosive stuff here. (...)
  On the other hand, the reform proposals to reduce bureaucracy are met with less opposition. There are signs of a radical state restructuring in DOGE style - US tech billionaire Elon Musk and the right-wing libertarian Argentine President Javier Milei would be proud. Two measures in particular promise a far-reaching restructuring of the federal administration: a blanket abolition of all reporting and documentation obligations and an 8 percent reduction in personnel at federal authorities, with every 12th position to be eliminated. What does that mean specifically?
  The list of reporting and documentation obligations for companies that are presumably affected is long. For example, it concerns reporting obligations for pollutant emissions from industrial plants, proof of disposal of hazardous waste, incident and safety documentation when dealing with dangerous substances, self-monitoring for the discharge of wastewater, risk assessment in the workplace, reporting obligations for temporary and temporary work. The federal government is now planning a blanket abolition of all of these reporting and documentation requirements that are based on federal law. A “reporting obligation brake” should apply to future legislation, which only allows reporting obligations in exceptional cases. The obligation for companies to appoint their own safety, waste, pollution control or dangerous goods representatives should also be abolished.
  Company released from responsibility
  Instead of dealing with the objective reasons for bureaucratic regulations in environmental, labor and consumer protection, the coalition labels the measures across the board as an avoidable burden. In this way, the political conflict over the responsibility of companies is avoided and instead the competitiveness of the business location is debated. The best thing about it: The affected regulations remain formally in place, but the probability that violations will even be discovered decreases drastically. (…)
  It is still unclear what scope the announced “Reporting Relief Act” will have and which obligations will specifically be affected. However, it is doubtful that the expected consequences for the protection of the environment, consumers and employees will be adequately discussed. The demand to cut every 12th position in all federal authorities and the indirect federal administration is not new; it can already be found in the coalition agreement. (…) Essentially, it is a selective shift in state control capacity – away from monitoring economic actors and towards monitoring individual people, especially those dependent on the welfare state. At its core, this is an authoritarian state restructuring that treats employees, basic security recipients and its own public administration with distrust and suspicion, while companies should fundamentally regulate themselves in the market…”Guest commentary by Dominik Piétron from July 23, 2026 in the taz online , see background:
  • Federal government decides on further relief: over 10 billion euros in relief implemented since November / Wildberger: “Government keeps its word on reducing bureaucracy”
    “The Federal Cabinet met today to form its second relief cabinet and decided on extensive relief in, among other things, the health sector, transport and labor law. The approved projects will directly relieve companies and citizens of around 10.4 billion euros annually…”Press release from July 15, 2026 from the BMDS 
• Initiatives to reduce bureaucracy and better regulation: a Trojan horse?
  "In a new communication, the EU Commission announces 32 measures that are intended to modernize the EU legislative process and relieve the burden on the general public. Efficient laws and reductions in bureaucracy are clearly to be welcomed: Unfortunately, it quickly becomes clear that the initiative is a Trojan horse. In fact, other goals are being pursued: protection standards for employees, consumers and civil society are to be undermined and deleted. The winners would mainly be large companies - at the expense of all other parts of the world Society (…) One of the favorite terms that the Commission and corporate lobbyists use is the so-called “gold plating”. This refers to national rules that go beyond EU minimum standards. (…) This should give EU countries that still need to catch up in terms of living standards more time to catch up with countries with higher standards of prosperity. However, with the empty phrase “gold plating”, the Commission is turning this goal around: it is not the EU member states that have some catching up to do that should expand their living and protection standards, but rather the EU states that already have higher standards that should reduce them! (…) According to the EU Commission’s plans, so-called “sunset clauses” will be used more extensively in the future. Certain legal provisions would automatically expire if they are not actively extended. (…) Especially when it comes to employee rights, environmental standards or consumer protection, this could lead to important provisions automatically disappearing without being checked.(…) Another point of criticism concerns the planned changes to impact assessments and public consultations. In the case of “urgent” initiatives, the Commission should in future be able to decide for itself whether there is an impact assessment. (…) The Commission is now also exchanging information about planned new legislative initiatives as part of so-called “reality checks”. Here too, the Commission reserves the right to specifically select specific groups for the exchange of information. In practice, it appears that in a number of cases the Commission only invites company representatives to such meetings. (…) The EU Commission’s plan to establish a connection between “Better Regulation” and the EU semester is particularly bold. The European Semester is fundamentally intended to address imbalances in policy areas and eliminate them through so-called country-specific recommendations. However, the Commission now wants to classify the protection interests of the population as obstacles to the internal market (for companies) and thus build pressure on the EU member states. This significantly restricts the Member States' scope for action. In addition, the EU semester has democratic weaknesses, as the European Parliament does not have traditional co-decision rights. (…) Crises, wars and political and entrepreneurial mistakes in recent years, such as relying on outdated technologies from the fossil fuel industry instead of technical and ecological progress, have significantly led to the current situation in Europe.Trying to compensate for this by cutting living standards under the pretext of reducing bureaucracy is clearly a step in the wrong direction..." Article by Frank Ey from June 22, 2026 in the A&W blog 
• Reducing bureaucracy as clumsy deregulation: The black-red infrastructure future law is dangerous
  “»Excessive bureaucracy has become a synonym for everything bad in politics. Across all parties there are calls for a reduction in bureaucracy in order to tap into thwarted economic potential. Since this can also score well with the population, there are all sorts of under-questioned legislative proposals at the European and national level. This poses dangers: “Politicians are increasingly placing the costs for part of the economy above the overall economic, environmental and social benefits of a government measure,” as the NGO Germanwatch puts it.
  The federal government's future infrastructure law is particularly blatant. In it, the reduction of bureaucracy becomes a cover for clumsy deregulation. There is nothing to be said against faster approval processes through digitalization. But the fact that a lack of staff in the public sector is the real obstacle is ignored…”Article by Kurt Stenger from February 26, 2026 in ND online 
• Reducing bureaucracy as reducing democracy: Sounds harmless like relief - but it has long since become a political slogan against central human rights
  “There is hardly any other political issue on which there is such agreement across all political spectrums as there is on the demand for the dismantling of “excessive” bureaucracy. Lobby groups have done a great job here. (…)
  There are certainly bureaucratic regulations that simply cannot be dispensed with. But what is increasingly lost in the discussion is an understanding that many state or EU regulations were created to protect vulnerable groups or vulnerable nature. (…)
  A lesson from Baden-Württemberg shows what this can mean for the future and for the defense of these rights and what it already means now. In 2021, under pressure from a broad civil society alliance, the introduction of a state anti-discrimination law (LADG) was anchored in the coalition agreement. (…) Immediately after the first reading in the cabinet, a campaign was launched by the Association of Cities and Municipalities aimed at preventing the Equal Treatment Act. One argument was that the law would show general suspicion towards employees of authorities, educational institutions and the police and imply that they discriminate. (…) But the argument that the law would promote an increase in bureaucracy in the authorities was much more politically effective. Someone brought the word – I would almost call it a non-word – “bureaucracy monster” into the world, and it was adopted and spread by the media unchecked. Bureaucracy bashing sells. (…)
  This certainly also has to do with a changed mood in the Federal Republic and Europe. The defense of minority rights and human dignity is no longer an issue that parties want to use to make a name for themselves. Above all, however, it is obviously difficult to make objective policy in these times against the accusation of building up bureaucracy. And it is completely irrelevant whether there is actually a build-up of bureaucracy associated with the proposed law. (…)
  Human rights activists can also criticize bureaucracy themselves in order to make bureaucratic regulations that are directed against minorities visible. Ilya Trojanow showed this in the commentary “Death of family members: Dying in bureaucratistan” in the taz. (…) It probably makes sense to re-appropriate criticism of bureaucracy in this way so as not to leave it completely to populism. However, this will not do much to counter the expected further erosion of human and natural rights achievements in the name of reducing bureaucracy. Simply because it’s not about reducing bureaucracy at all.” Article by Andreas Foitzik from August 26, 2025 in MiGAZIN (“Reducing bureaucracy as reducing democracy”)
• Reducing bureaucracy: DGB warns against the erosion of employees' rights
  “Dismantling bureaucratic rules is seen by economic experts as the silver bullet to more growth. This raises concerns among the German Trade Union Confederation.
  DGB state leader Susanne Wingertszahn warns against populist demands to reduce bureaucracy. “Reducing bureaucracy is a slogan that is often thrown into debates by employers and economic liberals,” said the trade unionist in Mainz. "But from the unions' point of view, it's too one-sided." Because not every rule and regulation is just an end in itself.
  Fear of arbitrariness and exploitation
  “Something is going very wrong when people jump on the bandwagon of cutting bureaucracy in order to weaken social protection standards,” warned the chairwoman of the German Federation of Trade Unions in Rhineland-Palatinate. Because bureaucracy can also mean protection for employees. "I'm thinking of the obligation to document working hours, where without it people often use tricks to cheat employees out of their wages," explained Wingertszahn. "Or I'm thinking about occupational health and safety or an efficient public service." In these areas, bureaucracy serves to protect employees from arbitrariness and exploitation by companies…”Agency report from July 14, 2025 in Spiegel online (nothing found at DGB)
• [Using the USA as an example] The ideal total destroyer: The right imagines bureaucracy as the enemy of freedom - capitalism needs the state to organize its self-preservation 
  “…In order to cushion the first social consequences of the clear-cutting policy of the "Department for Government Efficiency", the movement "50501" (50 states - 50 protests - 1 movement) organizes demonstrations and concrete neighborhood help, for example through food collections. The government austerity measures are increasingly affecting Trump supporters, who are now unexpectedly finding themselves without a job and thus a source of income. But while protests are unfolding against Trump's rigorous immigration policy, the willingness to protest against the DOGE cuts seems to be (still?) low across society, even though one scandal has followed the next since the authority was established.
  Immediately after Musk took over in May 2025, DOGE sent notices of dismissal to thousands of federal agency employees, some of which had to be withdrawn, for example because they did not want to do without a functioning nuclear protection agency. However, such concerns are not to be expected regarding the cutting of funding for the development aid agency USAID or the Ministry of Education, whose main purpose is to promote educational opportunities for poor or otherwise disadvantaged population groups. There are also signs that the Trump administration will attack the state pension system.
  The Trump administration justifies all of this with the need to reduce government spending, prevent corruption and tax waste and break the power of unelected bureaucrats in order to make "America" ​​(meaning the USA) great again - and above all: to "give back" power to the people, of course represented by their elected president. Although Trump's approval ratings have fallen to a record low of 44 percent within a very short time, almost half of Americans still support "their" president. How does the absurd situation come about that so many Americans are willing to see the arbitrary actions of multibillionaires as a just fight by ordinary people against the elites?
  Propaganda hit: reduction of bureaucracy
  The demand for de-bureaucratization is actually always and everywhere popular. Who wouldn't wish they didn't have to wait months for appointments at Citizens Services or fill out stacks of incomprehensible applications for the shoddiest social benefits? At the moment, most of the Bundestag parties in Germany are promising more efficient administration and the associated tax savings; The EU wants to reduce the burden on companies to comply with its regulations by at least 30 percent.
  In this public debate, state bureaucracy appears as a pure goiter and superstructure: a department of the state that, with its regulations, application procedures, commandments and prohibitions, acts as a pure hardship and obstacle to free citizens - but above all to the "free economy." It is precisely the capitalist, free economic order itself that, through its absolute ruthlessness towards its own foundations, i.e. people and nature, makes state support through restrictive regulations necessary, be it in terms of labor protection or environmental protection, through pollution limits or product standardization, the welfare state or the healthcare system. (…)
  In this respect, the state restrictions on capital are not a declaration of war on it, but rather a service to it, or at least meant that way. However, any relaxation of government regulations or restrictions - be it the extraction of natural resources (drill, baby, drill!) or the abolition of a consumer protection authority - frees capital from restrictions and additional costs and thus directly increases profits for individual capitals. Whether this will remain the case for a longer period of time and overall, in the USA and globally, will be seen in the next few years. The success of this policy will depend not least on how much deprivation and harm people are willing to accept and how much of it they can endure. (…)
  The loudest advocates of a “lean state” already know one exception: the keyword is law and order. The state monopoly of force, which uses the police and judiciary to ensure compliance with the law internally and protects its external interests with its invincible military, is explicitly excluded from the austerity requirement. This very extensive state power, especially in the USA, creates the conditions in which the owners of goods, capital and labor face each other with opposing interests. And in Trump's eyes, it should actually be used solely (and vigorously!) to enable free competition - and otherwise refrain from any further interference, for example high legal hurdles in deportations..."Article by Jan Benski from July 10, 2025 in ND online 
• Reducing bureaucracy: Less bureaucracy always sounds good. But who really benefits from it?
  “Whether hurdles are removed when it comes to citizens' money or when setting up a business makes a difference - something that journalists rarely explain.
  In times of seemingly insurmountable political divides, there is one demand that allows everyone to continue to campaign in a relaxed manner: “cutting bureaucracy”.It's a term with a smell: the smell of a waiting room in any government office, where everyone's pants become threadbare from sliding around on uncomfortable plastic seats while you wait to apply for your new ID card live and on the spot, completely unnecessarily. It is a topic that raises hopes for a simplified everyday life. (…) That's exactly why parties and politicians love reducing bureaucracy. Because it ties in with the German dislike of their own lame-duck administration. (…) If you look closely, the term is no longer as apolitical, as commonplace, as innocent as it often seems. Most of the time, no one asks in more detail which processes, controls, and administrative hurdles should actually be eliminated in the future. (…) The CDU-led house is unlikely to lower the bureaucratic hurdles when applying for citizens' money. Or when applying for asylum. On access to abortion. When local staff and threatened civilians from Afghanistan who are threatened by the Taliban enter the country and who have been promised admission. For requests for information from citizens and journalists to authorities using the Freedom of Information Act (IFG). (…) According to the coalition agreement, the coming government promises to reduce bureaucracy, but only in certain areas. It should be possible to set up a company within 24 hours. There should be an immediate program to reduce bureaucracy, especially for small and medium-sized companies. The supply chain law should be abolished, as should the receipt requirement and the obligation to appoint company representatives, for example for data protection or occupational safety. (…) Hardly any medium succeeds in conveying this fact.(…) It would be the job of journalists to peel back the murky shell of the term “cutting bureaucracy” and reveal what lies beneath. If the media wants to use the term, it must not only be used where the government uses it, but also in relation to all political decisions that reduce or increase bureaucracy. (…) Abolishing the supply chain law would be a relief for many companies - but one accepts what the law was actually intended to prevent, namely human rights violations in the producing countries. Operations representatives mean additional work for companies that they would be free of after the reform - but then there would be no contact persons with legally regulated powers for matters such as data protection and occupational safety. (…) Bureaucracy is not bad per se. It organizes the complexity of our world and creates clear rules for areas in which different interests conflict. Instead of weighing these concerns against each other and thus feeding the democratic discourse, many media outlets join in uncritically when the Digital Ministry sings the praises of reducing bureaucracy.” Column by Jana Ballweber from May 20, 2025 at ÜberMedien 

We recommend reducing bureaucracy:

• full-text research in LabourNet
• as well as BigBrotherAwards 2025 – Oscar for data octopuses– “What really makes me angry”: cutting bureaucracy as a pretext for deregulation
• and the show on ZDF“The bureaucratic institution” from March 11, 2025
• Quote on the topic
  “Nobody benefits from fewer rules and “cutting bureaucracy” and the kind of freedom that right-wing politicians like Merz demand, except the top 10%. Reducing bureaucracy doesn't mean it's easier for you to submit an application, it just means it's easier for them to pour poison into your drinking water.”Post by Johann van de Bron on February 11, 2026 on bsky

The post“Cutting bureaucracy” as a cover for attacks on social and ecological standardsappeared firstLabourNet Germany.