Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-03-Speech-1-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010903.7.1-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Overall, the progress made in implementing the Directive on the establishment of a European works council has been positive, since there are now approximately 650 European works councils, most of which were set up on the basis of pre-Directive agreements, in other words, on a voluntary and agreed basis.
There are still 1 200 companies, however, which have not established European works councils.
As the effects of globalisation demand new measures, the cornerstone of which are trans-national representation and information, it is advisable to consider the factors which stand in the way of European social dialogue in companies, and the report presented by the Commission which evaluates both legal transposition and practical application of the Directive in Member States now gives us that opportunity. The debates which took place in committee were useful and I would also like to congratulate Mr Menrad for his preference for dialogue and the work he did to achieve conciliation. Nonetheless, the broad consensus which existed within this committee on the need to develop information and consultation, on both a European and national level, must not hide some differences in approach which my colleague, Mr Bushill-Matthews pointed out.
I do believe that it is important to reiterate in this Chamber that genuine social dialogue in a company requires tools that are flexible and which can evolve, and not a standard, restrictive and detailed framework, such as that which some of our fellow Members would like to reintroduce when the 1994 Directive is revised. That is why I would like to stress how important we consider that the imminent reform of this directive does not take the shape of a far-reaching reform of its spirit and particularly, that we retain the difference in terms of function between the Directive itself, which is the tool of social dialogue in a company, and its Annex which punishes the failure of social dialogue.
Furthermore, lowering the thresholds for applying the Directive must not be an aim in itself; rather, this should be perceived as a straightforward option to extend this mechanism. This is why I agree with Amendment No 3, tabled by our fellow Member, and the French delegation will support this, but we are rather more puzzled by Amendment No 14.
Finally, I would like to provide an explanation for the text included in paragraph 2(i), namely that information and consultation of employees must be carried out, with due regard for the principles of confidentiality of the information. This is a very important provision which particularly refers to cases where timely information and consultation of workers, which is perfectly natural, could conflict with the law by virtue of the legislation on the securities market. The provision is therefore fundamental in order to encourage competitiveness of companies in the global economy and the safeguarding of the European social model. I hope that the Commission will take this into account when preparing its proposal for revising the directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples