Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-17-Speech-3-242"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-12-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081217.16.3-242"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-12-17-Speech-3-2432
lpv:speaker	lp:Anneli Jäätteenmäki2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AFET (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2006-11-28--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Suomen Keskusta (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; FEMM (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 vice-chair; AFCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; SEDE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-13--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"− If the proposal by the Council of Ministers had gone through in Parliament’s vote, as many as 10 million workers would have been excluded from any working time protection in the EU. It was for this reason in particular that I voted in favour of Parliament’s view at first reading. The Council’s position on the regulation of working time for academic employees would have been nothing less than a leap backwards. It would not have been acceptable for the Council to have excluded senior personnel – and in Finland the number of these at present stands at 130 000 – entirely from working time protection. The internal European market needs clear and common rules on working time. The Council’s position would have wrecked working time protection and would have been a threat to the development of work life in Europe."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph