Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.7.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when, for the first time, I became involved in discussing this issue a couple of years ago, I was very surprised that only different forms of shareholder interests were discussed: the German tradition as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon tradition and so forth. Eventually, the matter went back to the Commission, which has had ample time available to it, and it might therefore have been thought that the proposal had been developed.
Now, a compromise is being presented between different owner constructions and owner interests, but still no concern is being shown for the employees. I think that is incredibly strange. It must be obvious that the employees, just like the shareholders, are interested parties in takeover situations, and it is unrealistic to ignore the fact. In a way, the employees are perhaps interested parties to an even greater degree than the shareholders, because hostile takeover bids are almost always combined with plans for restructuring and, perhaps, cut-backs.
In other contexts, we talk solemnly about the social dialogue in the European employment strategy as progress in EU policy. We talk about the Lisbon strategy in which the two sides of industry and the social dialogue are also important. In the present context, all this is conspicuous by its absence, and the old idea still prevails that companies only belong to their owners and that, in general, the employees are no more important than machines or other loose fittings. It is an old-fashioned, unrealistic and out-of-date idea. There can be no legislation on takeover bids that is not in some way grounded in the fact that a company is also its employees. That is absolutely fundamental.
We shall of course support the amendments concerning improved information and consultation. Information is, of course, important, but I want at the same time to say that it is not enough. It must be possible, in one way or another, to use information for something. There must be certain rights. The employees must have certain opportunities to act in situations such as these.
If the matter were now to go back to the Commission, I should like to give Mr Bolkestein a piece of advice. I think that the offeror should also be required to present an adjustment plan for the new company that is coming into being. A development and adjustment programme of this kind should also take account of the employees’ interests and talk about what will happen to them. There should also be a guarantee against at least short-term dismissal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples