Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-27-Speech-3-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991027.5.3-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
First of all, I would like to comment on the issue raised, i.e. whether we are actually discussing the case of one company in particular and whether or not we are, in fact, justified in doing so.
Enhancing social dialogue is, in my view, of fundamental importance. Yesterday saw the beginning of the technical element of the first form of macroeconomic dialogue in Europe. The political element of this dialogue will begin on 8 November and for the first time social partners expressing their social concerns on the issue of employment, banks outlining their monetary policy, and the Member States, which are the political forces in Europe, will sit at the same table. Supporting and promoting social dialogue is not only essential but it is also a prerequisite on a more microeconomic level for every form of restructuring within firms.
This brings me onto my third issue: actions and policies. At a European level, we have, and for the first time this is being enforced, a European Employment strategy, with 22 directives which have been incorporated into the Member States’ employment plans. As I mentioned earlier, substantial funding is also available. These broad guidelines and the funding of many of these policies include a lot of the proposals we have heard here, such as special tax relief for workers and for small and medium-sized businesses, financial assistance for the education or further education of those workers facing either redundancy or restructuring, social packages to support the social network in cases of major restructuring, continuing training and providing workers with new skills and qualifications so that they can respond to restructuring. Naturally, at a time when changes are taking place at such alarming rates, enough can never be done. Plans drawn up yesterday will never suffice for today.
I would like to mention the issue of state aid and how we can combine state aid with company profits. History shows us that companies cannot operate under laws which prescribe employee numbers or profit margins. But the political forces can clearly intervene in how those profits are invested and in how much is invested in high technology, the environment or in manpower in ways which were mentioned earlier. Such guidelines can be imposed and can be adhered to. Therefore, at a time of such rapid change, there will have to be scope for modification and reorientation of these guidelines on a daily basis. There has already been exceptional cooperation and exchanges of views at this level within Europe. I would like to assure you that constant communication between the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Works Councils will steadily pilot the Commission towards further and, as far as possible, more flexible and fundamental intervention in this area.
Quite clearly, the Michelin issue is an issue which is at the heart of the preoccupations of the European Union at this time; that is, the issue of competitiveness on the one hand and social cohesion on the other. Comparisons have been made with other countries and other continents by way of example. I believe that we have a lot to learn from the United States of America on the issue of monetary policy and on the issue of the use of high technology and the fast functions at that level. However, there is, of course, a significant difference in Europe: the cultural, social and historical model of Europe is based on stringent social forces and on the balance between society and the economy.
It was said that Europe will have to create an environment for our companies. However, we should also have a corresponding environment for our citizens and the two must be created at the same time.
It is clear from the extremely productive debate which has ensued that this preoccupation applies to both sides. The means may differ but it is clear that both sides have the same preoccupation. Can the European Union intervene? I think the answer must be “yes” because the market does not operate according to natural laws, it is not a natural phenomenon. It calls for intervention by the political powers. And we, the European Parliament and the Commission, form part of the political powers of Europe. At the European Union level, therefore, there should be three levels of intervention.
The first level is in the area of legislation and institutional intervention. There have already been proposals from the European Parliament on the two directives you mentioned, the Directive on the European Works Council and the Directive on collective redundancies. The initial assessment of these two directives shows that they work well, but at present amendments tabled by Parliament are being processed and in January 2000 we will be able to begin discussions on these two directives.
The second directive, concerning information and consultation of workers, has, as you are aware, already been tabled for discussion at the Council of Ministers. I believe that it would not be wise at this stage, since we are working on promoting the directive, to begin amending it. It is, however, certain that this will be one of the areas in which the European Parliament will be playing a pivotal role. Again in the area of institutional and legislative intervention, interesting proposals have been made to shift the tax burden away from labour costs, away from the taxation of workers, and on to environmental factors and the directives on employment have provided an initial incentive to move in this direction.
I consider that at this level, we can, within a general framework of either broad economic guidelines or broad employment guidelines, learn a lot at national level, i.e. we could have a form of benchmarking, an exchange of information and successful models already in place at national levels to address this major problem of restructuring which faces us on all levels. Banking was mentioned, and this is one of the problems which will face us, but of course, Europe has vast experience and a history of restructuring, beginning with the textile factories and shipyards, through to the industries of today.
The second level is that of institutional operations. I would like to refer here to social dialogue, an issue which a number of MEPs have already raised. Please allow me to refer to an extract from the recent document by UNICE, the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe. The document concerns the issue of liberating the workforce of Europe and includes the opinions of companies on European social policy beyond 2000. It states that European companies regard themselves as an integral part of society which means that they operate in a socially responsible way. It mentions that European companies view profit as their main goal, but not their sole reason for existing and they prefer to take a long-term approach to strategic decisions and investments. In addition, they are prepared to accept their responsibilities and one of the main challenges which they face is the complexity of the demands made on them by the various social factors (workers, consumers, capital investors, public authorities, environmentalists and other interest groups).
Therefore, when one side of industry – the side faced with global competition and which, we all agree, should be supported and protected since we have a strong interest in European companies being able to compete at a global level – begins to voice its concerns over society and maintaining social equilibrium, we have a very strong argument for developing and supporting social dialogue. Please allow me to make one political remark: these positions are based neither on charitable perceptions nor on socialist ideas. They are based on the completely realistic assessment that, without social cohesion in Europe, which is an area of powerful social forces, social conflict will arise. In turn, this social conflict will have negative repercussions on economic stability, i.e. the environment which competition and companies need in order to develop."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples