Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-09-Speech-1-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040209.5.1-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is approximately a hundred years since the labour movement in Europe demanded statutory working time. Eight hours’ work, eight hours’ leisure time and eight hours’ sleep were what were then demanded. Gradually, that programme was implemented. It was important in many ways, because it meant that companies stopped competing on the basis of working time. They had to compete in other areas instead. It also meant that workers were protected and that society was given a fixed framework for work, schooling, leisure and other activities.
I am really shocked that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, together with several other political groups, seem to want to break with this tradition and, instead, go back to the situation that existed a hundred years ago when a voluntary ethos prevailed in the labour market. I note that there is no talk of voluntary agreements between trade unions and employers’ organisations. Instead, the talk is of voluntary agreements between individual employees and individual employers. That is a retrograde step that is incomprehensible. I do not understand how people can argue in that way or put forward a proposal along those lines. It is deeply irresponsible and will lead to strife and conflict in the labour markets. In a labour market so exposed to competition, it will lead to a situation in which people are forced to take jobs on the conditions that apply. Call it voluntary or involuntary, but the fact is that, in a labour market exposed to competition, people may expect to have a pre-determined market value. They have to take what is on offer. So much for matters being voluntary.
As many have said, family life is also affected. Parents are forced to work hours that make it difficult to combine work and family life and take care of their children. I also want to add that all of us, as consumers, are affected. This has not been emphasised so much, but we are in danger, for example, of being injured when we are operated on by exhausted surgeons or of being run over when we encounter lorry drivers that are half asleep. We are all victims of stress and of pressure at work. It would be much better for all parties if we could agree to put an end to these opt-outs obtained by the United Kingdom at the time when the directive was adopted. In actual fact, they were contrary to the rule concerning competition under equal conditions. Now, employers in other countries are saying, ‘If the United Kingdom can have opt-outs, we too want opt-outs.’ This will lead to the exception becoming the rule. That is not something we can live with. We must therefore call a halt and instead go down the opposite route. We must remove the United Kingdom’s opt-out and find other ways of solving these flexibility problems, for we cannot cope successfully without labour legislation that is applicable across the board."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples