Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-342"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.11.3-342"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I too wish to congratulate the rapporteur on attempting to find a compromise between the different points of view on this issue.
However, as was said on a number of occasions in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, we are starting with a flawed proposal. It is flawed because we have moved away from the social dialogue and social partnership model where there was agreement between both sides of industry before a proposal came before this Parliament. This has put us all in a very difficult position, because we who are supporters of social dialogue, of protecting the rights of workers and of increasing the opportunities for employment of all the peoples in Europe want to ensure the best possible conditions for those most in need.
Whilst I have no difficulty with the general tenor or the general intent of this directive, a number of facts have to be recognised before we give greater protection to those who are in temporary work contracts under the aegis of agencies. Firstly, there are various pieces of national legislation which already protect workers and this is merely duplicating or replicating what is already in place. Secondly, we have different types of employment systems in each Member State and a 'one size fits all' approach will not necessarily work. Thirdly, temporary workers work temporarily by choice and sometimes they can earn more money as temporary workers in an agency capacity. Fourthly, there is no provision in the Treaties and no place in this Parliament, the Council or the Commission for laying down conditions relating to workers' pay – that is still exclusively a matter for the Member States.
My last point is on the question of the six-week period. There are amendments tabled for this to be extended to a one-year period. This is far more sensible and practical from the point of view of protecting all workers' rights."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples