Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-09-Speech-1-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040209.5.1-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, who has prepared a very constructive report.
Sometimes when I listen to the speeches, I get the feeling that health and safety aspects as they relate to the private individual – which, strictly speaking, is what the legislation is really about – are not the main point. I am, to be honest, frightened when I hear the British representatives of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. They say that, in view of the fact that certain jobs have such low wages, we must allow employees to work longer hours so as to compensate for these low wages. What is this other than the model that exists in the United States where people sometimes need two or three jobs in order to be at all able to take care of their families? Is that what we agreed to in the Lisbon Process? Certainly, we must have competitiveness and growth, but we must also have challenging social objectives and the opportunity to combine family life and working life. These principles, about which we have expressed our opinions, are directly contrary to flexibility of that kind.
The problem is that the exception has become the rule in the United Kingdom. It is never the intention that an exception should become the rule, but it has become so in the UK. If the opt-out is extended, there is a danger of the Member States competing by means of longer working time in order to attract production. Is that the kind of Europe we want: one in which we compete in terms of social legislation? No, I do not want a Europe like that.
I think, however, that we must have flexibility, just as Mrs Thorning-Schmidt said. I do not, however, see the individual opt-out as a possibility. Think how dependent the individual employees are on their companies when they are to agree upon wages and working time. The word ‘voluntary’ does not apply, no matter what people say. It is much better to involve the two sides of industry. There are differences between various industries and, sometimes, certain industries may require special arrangements in order to achieve flexibility and, at the same time, maintain the principles of health and safety. I therefore recommend collective agreements through which this flexibility can be achieved.
I am not in favour of renationalisation, because it would have the same effect. It would mean countries competing with each other by attracting capital available to them because of their not prioritising health and safety.
We want to use our European model to stimulate competitiveness but, at the same time, have challenging social objectives and the opportunity of combining working life and parenthood. Let us comply with this model, in which case we must remove the individual opt-out, at the same time as preserving flexibility and a high level of safety."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples