Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-25-Speech-3-429"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061025.30.3-429"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur for her very constructive work.
As many others have said, this is an important directive not only for freedom of movement but also for the protection of workers. There are quite a number of deficiencies – we know this from the surveys - when it comes to information, cooperation between Member States and the ability to carry out checks.
Allow me to state that we are in favour not of protectionism but of open borders. We are in favour of competition on equal terms between companies, but we are also in favour of the equal treatment of workers. That is what we are concerned with here – equal treatment. Some of the Members who referred to the Vaxholm case have left now. That precise case was about the need for Latvian workers not to be treated worse than Swedish workers. They were to enjoy precisely the same treatment – not worse, but precisely the same, treatment.
One issue on which there has been disagreement between ourselves and the Commission is that of the importance of having a representative. You propose that it would be enough to have a link with someone in the other country with whom to negotiate. That would be incredibly bureaucratic and enormously difficult. A representative must be able to act as a channel of communication in those countries that take care of the negotiations, so it would be necessary to have someone with a negotiating mandate. He or she would also have to be able to communicate with, for example, authorities responsible for occupational health and safety. Anything else would be quite impossible. There is no case law that contradicts what I am saying. The Arblade case was about something else. It was about documents that had to be kept for five years under Belgian law and is therefore irrelevant to what the Commission is saying.
I nonetheless hope that we shall get this Posting of Workers Directive operating successfully in society. In that case, it will, however, have to include the parts to which I have referred."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples