Is short-term aid enough to address long-term economic disruptions, or are we just softening the blow without fixing the root problems?
Recently, over €3 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was earmarked for former Goodyear workers in Fulda and Hanau, Germany. The move may look like strong support on paper — but it also highlights deep questions about Europe’s readiness to deal with the global forces reshaping its industries.
In 2024, tyre manufacturer Goodyear announced a major restructuring. The factory in Fulda was completely shut down, while operations in Hanau were partially scaled back. Why? Falling demand for tyres, rising production costs, and increasing competition from cheaper imports — especially from Asia.
As a result, 1,171 people lost their jobs. The local impact was swift and painful: unemployment rose by over 10% in Fulda and 6% in the Hanau region. For small communities that depend on large employers, such a shock can be devastating.
To help those affected, German authorities applied for funding from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF). Set up in 2007, the fund aims to show EU solidarity with workers who lose their jobs due to global economic shifts. Since its launch, it has helped over 172,000 people in 20 EU countries, providing more than €709 million in support.
The Fulda and Hanau case is set to benefit from more than €3 million in EU funds — about 60% of the total aid package. The other 40% (around €2.1 million) will be covered by the German government and the country’s Public Employment Service.
The aid will support 915 former Goodyear employees. This includes job counselling, retraining, upskilling, help with starting businesses, job fairs, and employer networking events. It’s a long list of well-intentioned tools. But the big question is: Do they really work?
According to Eurofound, the restructuring of large factories often takes more than a year — and in some cases, nearly three. So can short-term training and job fairs truly replace the stability of industrial employment? Especially when workers’ existing qualifications don’t match the skills demanded by today’s job market?
The answer depends largely on the quality of support — tailored training that matches local economic realities — not just the number of workshops delivered.
Germany began its local support efforts in November 2024, shortly after Goodyear’s layoffs were announced. EU rules allow the EGF to reimburse earlier spending, which is helpful for ensuring continuity. But still, the official application for funding only came months later. That delay raises concerns about how quickly EU institutions can react — and how efficiently their decision-making works in times of crisis.
The application is now waiting for approval from both the European Parliament and the Council. While democratic oversight of EU funds is important, this process takes time. And for those facing unemployment, every week counts. How can the EU balance transparency with urgency in times of economic upheaval?
Goodyear’s restructuring isn’t an isolated case. More and more, European manufacturers are struggling to stay competitive in the face of global pressures — cheaper labour, looser environmental standards, and more flexible tax systems elsewhere.
In this context, the EGF serves as a compensation mechanism, not a structural solution. The support helps individuals, yes — but it doesn’t stop factories from closing or industries from shrinking. So we need to ask: Can a reactive fund be Europe’s answer to global economic disruption? Or should it be part of a broader EU industrial and investment strategy?
While the EGF may help several hundred people get back into work, the damage to local communities often runs deeper. The loss of a major employer doesn’t just mean more jobseekers — it leads to lower tax revenue, service closures, and declining quality of life. And the EGF doesn’t cover infrastructure investments or local development — it focuses only on individuals.
This raises important questions about fairness. Why do some industries or regions receive EU help, while others don’t? Who decides which workers deserve support and which don’t? To many citizens — especially those who feel left behind — this kind of selective solidarity can erode trust in EU institutions.
Bottom line?
Funds like the EGF are important. They show that the EU can stand with workers in tough times. But they can’t be the only answer. If the EU wants to stay economically strong and socially fair in the age of globalisation, it needs more than emergency aid. It needs a plan.
Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.
