Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-367"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.11.3-367"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to start with three general comments. First, several honourable Members raised the question of subsidiarity. There is a whole body of evidence on subsidiarity; I should just like to make one very important point. At a time when national markets are fast turning into European markets and we are on the threshold of enlargement, highly diverse labour legislation and differing rights from one country to another are obviously creating distortions on the internal market. So there is clearly a need, just as in all other sectors of labour legislation, for a common, flexible framework.
The new wording for the group of workers that Member States cannot exclude from the scope of the directive is a vast improvement.
I agree with the addendum specifying the means to be used to inform employees about any vacant posts in the user undertaking. I also think it is helpful to state that agencies may receive a reasonable level of recompense for services provided to user undertakings but that agencies must not charge workers a fee if they enter into a permanent contract of employment with the user company at the end of their assignment.
I accept the amendment rewording the reference to social services more clearly. I also welcome the reference to collective agreements and worker representation because worker representation can indeed be set out in collective agreements.
I agree with the amendment requiring the Member States to ensure that both workers and their representatives are equipped to press the provisions of the directive.
That brings me to material amendments to the directive, which add or delete certain important provisions. I shall deal first with the amendments that are acceptable and then with the amendments that are not.
I agree with the amendment extending the scope for lifting restrictions and prohibitions on temporary agency work. This scope was very restricted in the proposal for a directive, because it only applied to restrictions or prohibitions on certain groups of workers or certain sectors. And of course, I accept the spirit of the amendment designed to ensure that temporary agency workers are not used to replace workers taking part in collective action such as strikes and so on.
I also think the principle of non-discrimination has been cleverly reworded; I think it is clearer and easier to focus on the working conditions which temporary workers would enjoy were they employed directly by the user company. I can allow the exemption for permanent contracts to be restricted solely to pay but I cannot allow this derogation to be extended to fixed-term contracts. Nor can I allow the 6-week period which allows temporary agency workers to be used in certain countries for a very short space of time for work of minor importance to be deleted. This is a factor which will help significantly in the overall negotiations.
To summarise, I accept Amendments Nos 1, 4, 22, 28, 33, 43, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 85 and 92 in full. I accept Amendments Nos 6, 15, 16, 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 44 and 49 in part or in spirit, if they are reworded. The remaining amendments are rejected.
I should like to thank you all for helping to bring about a new text which will facilitate the final acceptance of the directive, what is without doubt a politically and technically complicated directive. May I again congratulate Mrs van den Burg and urge the Danish presidency to take whatever action is needed in order to reach agreement at the Council on 3 December.
My second comment concerns whether we evaluated the repercussions of this directive. May I remind you that this directive will apply to 1.5%-2% of workers in Europe. But what is important politically is that this sector is mushrooming and workers' rights are being distorted left, right and centre, which is why we need to be pro-active and regulate it as quickly as possible within – I repeat – a general framework.
We have taken account and I would ask you to examine the study – available to any Member who is interested – which was carried out by the CIETT, the
. The companies themselves clearly conclude in this study that employment legislation is needed in order to resolve the problems which generally arise on the questions of pay and working conditions and underpin the development of this sector, which has a very bad press in numerous countries. There is a clear reference to the Netherlands and the Dutch model, a model which has managed to combine flexibility with social insurance and protection for workers in a country in which some of the biggest and most successful temporary employment agencies are to be found.
Serious concerns were expressed about the model getting tied up in red tape. I would say they are completely unfounded. The legislation does not introduce any new procedures for recruiting or transferring workers and each country keeps its present system. Flexibility, at least as we interpret it in Europe, means a set of policies and practices to help the company, the worker, the public sector and the law to adapt to new production requirements. Flexibility must not be interpreted as meaning fewer or no rights as a prerequisite to job creation.
Specific references were made to Great Britain, to the effect that jobs will be cut etc. All that will happen in that particular country is that there may be a small increase in labour costs due to the minimum social rights granted to workers on the British job market.
I should like if I may, Mr President, to comment on specific amendments in order to give the Commission's position. There are two types of amendment. The first type clarifies the proposal and adds a number of definitions. The second type amends the proposal materially by adding or deleting certain important provisions.
As far as the first type is concerned, I welcome the proposed new title. I think it conveys the objective of the directive much better.
I agree with the amendment designed to convey more fully the triangular relationship between worker, agency and user undertaking innate in temporary employment. We support the amendments that redefine temporary agency work, the user company and the temporary work agency.
We also accept the amendments that clarify the text. The definition proposed for the term ‘assignment ‘ is far more accurate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Confédération Internationale des Entreprises de Travail Temporaire"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples