Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-307"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030604.9.3-307"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of the financial participation of employees in companies is a matter of intense debate. Recent events relating to the collapse of various companies that had systems of employee participation in capital demonstrate the potential risks linked to this system. The case of
and others like it show how crucial it is to study the consequences of applying existing systems, to look more closely at the various alternatives for participation, whether they are associated with pension plans or linked to participation in capital, profits or share options.
Previous experiences not only warn us of the risks but also raise many doubts about the incentive that employee participation schemes might provide for job creation and about the dangers of these being used in order to get around labour legislation and to call into question workers’ rights, specifically in the field of pay, work organisation and hours, equal opportunities for men and women and maternity and paternity rights. We must all bear in mind the increasing volatility of the financial markets. Applying the private profit approach to the financial resources of national pension systems and, to some extent, the salaries and savings of employees, which is what the financial participation of employees entails, means increasing the risk of financial crises and the socio-economic consequences of these, as the rapporteur in fact states: it means putting employees at a dual risk because in the event of the company’s bankruptcy they will lose both their job and the value of their shares.
There are obviously various types of financial participation that could generate management schemes. The discussion is not, however, about the ‘how’ but more about the basic ‘aim’ of the proposal. We cannot allow it to be used to interfere in the process of setting salaries and to exert pressure for making the labour market more flexible. Our fellow Member Mr Menrad has sought to establish some rules, specifically on collective bargaining, arguing that pay increases should not be conducted at the same time as negotiations on financial participation or even that employee participation must be an additional element and must not replace the normal salary or other pay components such as pension schemes.
The option of signing up to participation schemes must clearly always be voluntary and never lead to discrimination between employees or call into question other forms of participation in company life, particularly in the field of union activity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples