Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-17-Speech-3-978"

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.20081217.16.3-978"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-12-17-Speech-3-2452
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; IMCO (2008-07-14--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Kansallinen Kokoomus (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ITRE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"− Mr President, I would like to give my explanation of vote on the opt-out principle in the Working Time Directive. Firstly, this act is intended to protect employees. Besides workers’ burn-out being a human problem, it also reduces productivity. The prospect of improved opportunities for reconciling work and family life depends very much on European values, and the issue of working time is a contributory factor in this. There is therefore a solid argument for restrictions on working time. Secondly, we should make it possible to consider circumstances on a case-by-case basis. A chance for flexibility is important for both employer and employee. Flexibility also helps improve the reconciliation of work and private life. I supported the idea of a 48 hour working week but I think it is very important to have an adjustment period of sufficient length. In my opinion, an adjustment period is a better way to guarantee flexibility than an opt-out. Let it be emphasised that Finland did not think it necessary to take up the opt-put option, and that is a good thing."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph