Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-15-Speech-4-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011115.6.4-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, before I start my speech I would like to inform Mr Bouwman that the company he was referring to is the Sintel company, which went bankrupt, forcing unemployment on a large number of its employees. However, several months ago the Spanish Government took on the responsibility of making backdated wage payments to Sintel’s employees, relocating or finding other such solutions for all those affected. I say this so that you may be fully informed, Mr Bouwman.
Now I will move on to my speech on this report. The document we are debating refers to the proposal for amending Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of national laws relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. Mr Bouwman has, in fact, given a very clear example of this situation. The amendment aims to take into account changes to insolvency law in Member States and the need for consistency with other Community directives on labour law already adopted. All of this should be based on a political will to provide employees with a minimum degree of protection under Community law in the event of their employer becoming insolvent.
The difficulties involved in achieving the intended objective of the Directive are, in my opinion, threefold: firstly, the concept of insolvency; secondly, the complexity of the arrangement introduced to allow a time and quantity limits to be placed on the guarantee; thirdly, insolvency cases with a cross-border dimension.
With the aim of clarifying the situation, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has once again tabled two amendments: No 16, which includes cases of externalisation or similar, subcontracts, the ‘fake self-employed’, etc., all of which could conceal a true employment contract. In our opinion, we need to reveal the truth before protective methods are implemented, to protect the salaried employee. To not do this would be to open the floodgates which would quickly exhaust the fund in question.
Amendment No 17 clarifies the notion of protectable earnings from the corresponding national fund and prevents fraud. All of this is inherent to the protective nature of labour legislation and is inspired by the desire to clearly define the concepts needed for the fund to serve its purpose. This is a clarification of ideas which aids progress towards legal certainty and harmonisation.
Regrettably, this is a case which, as we have recently witnessed with another Belgian company, is taking place in large companies, due to the restructuring of these companies and the relations which currently exist in the economic world."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples