Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-09-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040209.5.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to stress the importance of the text on which we are going to vote on the revision of the directive on the organisation of working time, which, as Mr Pronk stressed, Commissioner, ought to have taken place by 23 November 2003. It is because we have waited for too long that we find ourselves in this situation.
Recently, President Prodi presented to us a document entitled ‘Delivering Lisbon’. We cannot deny that, to make Europe the most dynamic economic power in the world, we need to have policies that perform to help businesses adapt to new production conditions and to ever-increasing economic competition whilst taking into account the safety and health of workers.
This is why, in order to adapt to the realities of the market, we need to evolve in a relatively flexible framework. Given this, organisation of working time is dependent on a number of factors and on the characteristics of the sector of activity concerned and of the profession in question. It is on that basis, for example, that we have already legislated for mobile workers in the transport sector, but we have recognised and accepted the concept of flexibility for people driving goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes. We also have a certain number of problems as regards homeworkers and also those working in situations that involve caring for others, because private and professional life are often intermingled in this area. That is the first point.
The second point is that, in addition to these differences according to sectors, we must draw attention to the specific characteristics of national industrial relations systems. Some Member States call on collective or workforce agreements to establish the average working time, whilst others resort to individual derogations which make it possible for workers in, for example, supervisory positions, not to be subjected to restrictions in working time.
I do, of course, agree with the fact that the European Union is duty bound to lay down minimum conditions governing the organisation of working time in order to guarantee a high level of health and safety protection for workers. Should it not at the same time, though, give enterprises the option of reacting contrary to general practice when faced with different constraints? This is why it seems to me that the rapporteur’s opinion would have to be qualified by accepting, for example, as you initially proposed, Commissioner, the gradual abolition of the opt out, provided for in Article 18 of the Directive, in return for the introduction, in the future draft revision of the directive, of a derogation at Article 6 to allow periods of inactivity partially to be taken into account. This would probably be a transitional solution that would make it possible to have minimal social rules whilst, at the same time, taking into account the constraints of each sector."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples