Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.4.2-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Behind the convoluted wording of this text, there is an outline of a raft of measures, all harmful to workers.
What is the meaning of the expression “the deadline within which Member States are required to guarantee unemployed individuals a chance to access an active employment measure should not exceed two years”, if not a threat to unemployment benefits?
What is the meaning of “the introduction of the opportunity to move towards retirement gradually, via part-time work”, if not a threat to the age of retirement, which is already far too high in many countries?
There is no ambiguity about the repeated calls for making flexibility in employment more common. With regard to the passage on work experience in companies, apprenticeships, joint work/training contracts, it aims to make more widespread a practice already adopted by many States which consists, on the pretext on helping workers or unemployed young people, of making a partially or completely subsidised workforce available to employers.
The icing on the cake for the property-owning classes is the report’s recommendation of something already practised by many States, which is “the contributions in respect of fiscal and parafiscal charges” by the authorities on “domestic work”, which clearly means taxpayers’ subsidising the maids and chauffeurs that the rich are likely to hire.
Texts like these confirm the fact that the role allotted to the European institutions, including Parliament, is to be of service to the narrow band of the well-to-do."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples