Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-334"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.11.3-334"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I did indeed intend starting with the difficult legacy of this dossier, which goes back to the early nineties when a number of proposals for directives on atypical work were submitted. You have already referred to the agreements of social partners and also to the failure of their negotiations in this regard. Considerable effort has been expended on tabling this proposal in the Commission. It has taken nearly a year. Indeed, that whole legacy shows that it was extremely difficult to draft the directive and that it was also highly controversial. People have therefore often asked me what on earth possessed me to think that I would get it through just like that.
Secondly, they are contesting the fact that the directive should have anything at all to do with pay. We now have the legal opinions of all three institutions that this is very much possible, because it is a question of a comparison and not of fixing the level of pay. With this attempt, however, they are also trying to take the sting out of it, because pay is of course the most important condition of employment.
Thirdly, they are trying to exclude the exception that was in paragraph 5.4 of the Commission’s proposal, concerning short temporary assignments, and to make it general and even to raise it to 12 months. That will mean that the directive no longer has any point, because then the majority, if not all, temporary work will fall outside of its scope. I know that this is also a major problem in the United Kingdom. I have also tried to make a proposal to make this possible for a transitional period, that is for the first six weeks. That has not been supported in this Parliament so far, but I hope that further discussion on this subject will prove possible. There is one final comment I should like to make. Last week, parliament in Germany agreed on a system that is very much in line with the directive. I therefore hope – and I would like to conclude on this point – that the Social Affairs Council on 3 December will try to reach a common position, because in any event the way is now open for Germany too to do this in the line of the directive, and because it would be very good and, in fact, be proof that social legislation is indeed still possible if we could have a decision quickly and then proceed under the Greek Presidency.
Why have I sunk my teeth into this as I have? In the first place, because I have 25 years of experience of atypical working relationships of this kind and of providing protection for people in the weakest positions.
Secondly, because I am utterly convinced of the usefulness and the need for flexibilisation of the European labour market and I see temporary work as a worthwhile tool, provided that the protection of temporary workers is also regulated in a sensible way.
Thirdly, because I believe in the opportunities that temporary work offers workers with specific wishes or problems. People who need a leg-up into the labour market or people who are seeking tailor-made work patterns that are not provided by the ordinary employers in the ordinary work patterns.
Fourthly, because I believe in the entrepreneurship of the temporary sector and the art of combining the wishes of workers and employers with regard to flexibility in a positive way. However, I would also say, the art of entrepreneurship is also for example not transferring the risk of underutilisation to the workers, but guaranteeing to workers that as an employer you will ensure that they have work and that they can be deployed at the times that they themselves would want.
Fifthly, because I believe in the regulating and salutary effect of collective employment conditions, which have an important part to play in this proposal too. It is a question not only of collective bargaining agreements in the sectors in which that work is used, but also collective bargaining agreements in the temporary employment industry, the temporary sector itself.
Finally, because I totally disagree with the trend to declare European regulation in the social sphere out of order. I actually think that it is very important, especially in view of enlargement and the developments that are under way, to lay this basis in European legislation and to ensure that from here we also go further in Europe.
All this I can see in the proposed directive. It includes flexibility and security, promotion and patronage, acceptance and protection, liberalisation and regulation. I think that there is a good balance in the Commission’s proposal, but that this balance has been enhanced by what we in this Parliament have done. I therefore strongly oppose the attempts of some in this Parliament to remove precisely this balance of flexibility and security. Their assault focuses in particular on three things.
Firstly, they are trying to remove the equal treatment principle by not linking it to the conditions of employment in the user company, but taking other temporary workers as a reference point. Then you have something like the equal treatment of women by comparing them only with other women and not with men."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples