Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.4.3-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, thanks are due to Mr Haarder for a basically splendid piece of work. There is, nonetheless, one point on which I have to say that I disagree with the rapporteur. When I read the Danish version of Mr Haarder’s report, I thought for one brief moment that Mr Haarder had grown wiser with the years, and I had taken note of the fact that there is now a judgement from the Danish Supreme Court stating that so-called ‘exclusive agreements’ do not contravene human rights. I believed and hoped that I could declare myself in agreement with Mr Haarder in emphasising the individual’s right to membership of trade unions. When, however, the report is read in other languages, it can be seen that Mr Haarder has not grown wiser. Either that, or he is hiding it very well. From a number of unclear wordings, it looks as if the rapporteur is continuing his crusade against the Danish model, in which employees and employers are able to agree that only members of a specific trade union can be employed in a specific area of work. No one is being deprived of the right to work and no one is being deprived of the right to belong to a trade union, but individuals cannot benefit from extensive social agreements without also being themselves members of precisely that union which has produced the agreements. Mr Haarder goes much further in his assault, for he tries indirectly to strengthen those unions which do not recognise precisely those collective victories which have helped create the welfare and the human rights which we have spent all day debating."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples