Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-09-Speech-1-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040209.5.1-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I must thank Mr Cercas for his excellent report in connection with the revision of a directive which is one of the foundation stones of Community labour law.
The third point is the correlation between working time and equal opportunities. This is an innate link which exists in the directive which, essentially, helps encourage the Member States to take measures which improve compatibility between working and family life.
The fourth point concerns 'opting out'. There are various types of approach. I would say there are two extremes, the first being that we have no facility to opt out of the maximum working time, in other words we completely abolish 'opting out', and the second being that we generalise 'opting out'. This generalisation would, essentially, leave employers and employees the facility to decide on working times and the entire employment framework.
Both extreme views create significant problems: the first takes no account of the special characteristics of branches, of a large number of branches and, more importantly, of the special characteristics which might arise from rulings such as that by the Court, with very serious consequences in the specific case of health systems. If there are also rulings of this type in other branches in the future, then other branches will have similar problems. The second extreme position, which concerns overall acceptance of 'opting out' as a way of operating the job market, essentially abolishes all the fundamental frameworks of the European Union based on workers' rights which essentially take account of health and safety and which link productivity with the worker as a person.
I would say from the outset that I am opposed to both these extreme approaches. Of course, we must accept that the institutional framework which the directive in question had for 'opting out' allowed for it to be abused. That is also why there are countries in which we have systematic abuse of 'opting out' in all branches, in all categories of enterprise, with very serious problems for the workers.
I therefore think that we should see and resolve these basic outstanding issues, taking account, on the one hand, of the need to use 'opting out' and, on the other hand, of the existence of new criteria and binding positions on the Member States, so that there is control of their use and not their abuse.
Because this directive is clearly of very great importance and affects the job market and the economy and has a direct impact on the lives of millions of workers in Europe and, at the same time, on enterprises and the economy of Europe, we need real, substantial consultation with all the agencies involved and, of course, as we said, with the social partners.
Our objective is for this procedure to bring us to a better legislative framework which takes account of the real impact on the job market and best serves the basic objective of the directive, which is to protect the health and safety of workers. I think that Parliament has the first word in this consultation process.
Your report is extremely topical and material. I would like to assure you that it is the basis for preparations and, of course, is only the Commission's first debate and approach with Parliament. Over all the coming months we shall have the opportunity for constant debate and exchanges of opinion, so that we take account of your particular positions.
As we have heard, the main objective of this directive, which is also both its political framework and its legal basis, is to protect workers from the harmful effects on their health and safety from working excessively long hours, inadequate rest or irregular working hours.
The directive is in fact a framework of minimum health and safety requirements as regards daily and weekly rest, the maximum working week, annual paid leave and the length of night shifts. Of course, we must not overlook the fact that, although the legal framework is the health and safety of workers, it also relates directly to the productivity of enterprises. Enterprises which have workers without these minimum acceptable limits clearly cannot achieve the required productivity.
The Commission, as required due to the expiry of the ten-year period from publication of the directive, presented its report on 30 December and announced the revision of the working time directive. The Commission, taking account of the manner in which this directive was implemented in the 15 Member States, is obliged to evaluate two provisions in this directive. First, the derogations regarding reference periods and how the maximum working week is calculated. Mr Cercas questioned if we need to debate this matter, which has not created any particular problems. However, we have numerous branches which have problems and which would be interested in a different reference period and this has translated into proposals and discussions by both employers and employees. Secondly, the possibility of individual exceptions from the maximum working time, the famous 'opting out'.
Of course, these two issues cannot be addressed without taking account of recent developments in the case law of the European Court of Justice, which qualifies the time which a doctor is at home on call as working time, insofar as he is called to the health centre during the period he is at home. Consequently, the Commission communication expressly concerns itself with the results of these judicial cases. We cannot look at the two provisions which need to be revised without taking account of the ruling of the courts. This is an extremely complicated issue which, as you too emphasise in your report, requires detailed evaluation of any repercussions of this change of legislation. That is why the Commission has started a broad consultation procedure.
At the same time, we are asking for the opinion of the social partners within a special framework of procedures, as laid down in the Treaty, and we are already in the first stage of consultations in accordance with Article 138 of the Treaty. I must stress here that, according to the Treaty, the role of the social partners is very different, it is independent, and the framework within which the Commission is starting the debate cannot but be broad and the first approach cannot result in directions set by the Commission, because the social partners themselves must consult in the first and second stages, so that we have their positions. That is why I would say, as you will have observed, that this first communication has a fairly general framework.
Nonetheless, there are various points on which I think we are fairly clear and which I support.
The first is that we cannot but have a careful analysis and evaluation of the repercussions and consequences of any change, first, on workers, because on questions of health and safety there can be no compromises, and secondly, on the functioning of enterprises.
Secondly, we need to address the matter in all its aspects. It is, as we said, a fundamental directive for labour law and we must categorically avoid any exclusively sectoral approach. Of course, this does not mean that we must not take account of various important problems, such as in the field of health which, following the rulings by the Court, could be extended to other branches with similar problems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples