Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-15-Speech-1-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081215.14.1-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to commend the remarkable work of my friend, Mr Cercas, the rapporteur of this text, which is now back on the table, at second reading, thanks to a surprising compromise by the June Council.
Belgians, Cypriots, Hungarians and Spaniards rejected it, and they were right to do so, because it is aimed at greater flexibility, and this, at the expense of workers’ safety, which is unacceptable. Do you sincerely believe that, at a time of widespread lay-offs and a proliferation of redundancy plans throughout the European continent, employers need to be able to impose 65 hours a week, or more, on employees?
A bit of consistency would be to the European Union’s credit. We are currently subsidising entire industrial sectors in order to avoid redundancies, and we are right to do so. However we should also protect workers in their jobs, when they are still in companies, or in their administrations. At a time when citizens have their doubts about Europe – and this was mentioned just now – the Council’s compromise, were Parliament to accept it, would send out the worst possible message.
This directive must set a maximum weekly limit on working hours for health and safety reasons. It must not be a damaging directive in social and human terms. This is the position upheld by our rapporteur and the European Trade Union Confederation, and this is the position that I too am going to uphold alongside him."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples