Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.8.2-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The only reason why we voted in favour of these amendments is because the obligation to ‘set up an institution which guarantees that the workers concerned are paid outstanding claims’ is supposed to ensure, throughout the European Union, that workers who have lost their jobs as a result of their employer going bankrupt will receive at least partial legal compensation payments.
This protection is, however, scandalously limited. The texts of the European institutions themselves stipulate that certain categories are excluded from this protection such as home-helpers and fishermen who are paid from shared proceeds. Additionally, however, there is an amendment which states that ‘Member States may set limitations to the responsibility of the guarantee institutions’. In other words, if a general obligation is defined, the States can do what they want, and essentially place a ceiling on compensation payments paid to workers.
As regards the financing of these guarantee funds, Amendment No 6 hypocritically states that ‘the employers shall contribute to the financing, unless it is fully covered by the public authorities’. Although it is, without doubt, better, in terms of the protection of workers, for the public authorities to pay compensation in the event of bankruptcy of the employer, in any…"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples