Unlike the evolution of countries that have a tradition of negotiating for other enterprise-level agreements, Estonia, given the eclectic nature of labour regulation, should place greater emphasis on the role of collective agreements at the sectoral level, in order to better generalize labour relations regulation while enjoying the benefits of regulation at the enterprise level. Therefore, the author of the decision is that the application of the combination of the law and collective agreements requires the support of the law and that, instead of the law, the regulation of collective agreements should be encouraged in the definition of working conditions, to the detriment of the worker, if any. Such a diversification of the regulation of working conditions would allow flexibility and safety adapted to the current situation, giving the level of workers of the company evidence of decision-making ability for important aspects of the working relationship rather than to individual workers. Traditionally, most collective agreements in Estonia regulate periods of work and rest, as these conditions depend to a large extent on the particular type of work and the current regulation is sometimes so detailed that it is not possible to specify it by law. As a result of the economic recession, there has been no increase in unemployment insurance or unemployment benefits, nor has there been an extension of the range of beneficiaries. The final conclusions of a study completed in 2010 concluded that Estonia was more focused on improving labour market flexibility and that social and labour policies did not facilitate the implementation of the balanced European social model in Estonia. However, according to the general spirit of the CAA, it may be agreed in a collective agreement that certain working conditions (minimum wage, quality of work requirements, etc.) apply to both the conditions applied in the company to temporary workers and to the self-employed mandated by the employer for the work.