Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-22-Speech-2-419"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080422.53.2-419"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for the recommendation for improved administrative cooperation and better options for the labour inspectorates. However, Commissioner, you are aware of the fact that our delight about this has been negated by the Laval and Rüffert rulings? These caused a great commotion, not only in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, but also among the trade unions outside Parliament and among the countries that are currently ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.
We have long thought that the Posting of Workers Directive was an excellent directive with a clear principle. In view of the fact that we cannot ensure that wages and working conditions are equal throughout Europe, it is not unreasonable for employees to be able to expect equal treatment in the place where they work, regardless of their nationality. It is right that the Posting of Workers Directive does not employ a comprehensive State of employment principle, but simply imposes a number of binding conditions. Yet the directive also allows the Member States the space to impose more generous provisions for the protection of workers, in accordance with their own social traditions and in keeping with collective agreements or generally binding collective agreements.
The rulings took away the ground of equal treatment from under our feet. The minimum protection provided by the directive is gradually becoming a maximum. For a long time now, it has no longer been a problem of poor transposition in certain Member States. Our awareness is growing, however, that the basic philosophy of the directive is wrong and that is: workers should be protected, but in moderation. Social rights to negotiate and strike exist, but on the condition that they do not interfere with the free movement of services. This is not a question of xenophobic remarks; on the contrary. Foreign employees are more than welcome. Indeed, the free movement of workers guarantees equal treatment from day one and that is also what we want to achieve with regard to the free movement of services.
My group therefore requests a revision of the Posting of Workers Directive for three reasons: firstly, to ensure that the equal treatment of native and foreign workers is guaranteed; secondly, to guarantee that national systems for social dialogue are fully respected; and thirdly, to ensure that fundamental social rights are safeguarded for everyone. We are relying on your support, Commissioner."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples