Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-359"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.11.3-359"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I regret that the concept of social dialogue has been jettisoned by the Commission with this directive. With talks having broken down, it has run with the views of one side, namely the EU trade union, ETUC, and has largely ignored the EU employers' body, UNICE. If social dialogue is to work, then there needs to be a more balanced approach to social measures, particularly in line with commitments on labour market flexibility in the context of the Lisbon competitive process.
The definition in Article 3 of a comparable worker will cause major difficulties, and by adopting a user comparison agency workers will find their conditions of employment varying depending on where they are assigned.
In Article 4 the inclusion of a limitation on the use of temporary work runs counter to employment policy at EU level and there is no economic or social justification for it. It could even constitute gender discrimination.
In relation to Article 5, the reference to 'essential' employment conditions is unclear and has no precedent in EU law. The Commission has departed from normal practice and the wording used in previous social dialogue agreements should be the template, rather than the views of only one social partner. The same applies to Article 6 and the matters governed by points 6.2 and 6.3. These should be left to the discretion of Member States. Point 6.4 in Article 7 reflects a poor understanding of employment and commercial relationships.
The reference to 'sanctions' in Article 12 again departs from previous approaches and social dialogue agreements, and should be dealt with at Member State level, in line with national industrial relations practices.
It is inappropriate to include reference to pay as an aspect of basic working conditions, given the limitation imposed by Article 137(6) of the Treaty. Six weeks is far too short a period to decide whether a temporary agency worker should be made permanent or not. All workers have a probationary period. Ireland is behind in transposing EU law in this area but we have true social dialogue and a comprehensive body of national law where there is a general qualifying period of 12 months' continuous service for entitlement to rights.
In conclusion, the approach of this directive is an example of where an idea in theory has not been thought through in practical terms, both from a temporary employee's perspective and that of an employer. My congratulations to our rapporteur, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities for their amendments. We need them, without them this would be inoperable."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples