Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-178"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060118.17.3-178"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Port Services Directive constitutes an example of superfluous EU legislation. We voted against the report and recommend that the Commission’s proposal be rejected. We chose to support those amendments aimed at limiting the scope of the directive. We thus voted in favour of proposals whereby pilotage services and self-handling are to be excluded from the scope of the directive. We are critical of the Port Services Directive for a number of reasons.
The Port Services Directive takes no account of the principles either of subsidiarity or of proportionality. Political decisions on pilotage, unloading and self-handling must be taken at national level.
Under the proposal for a directive, employees doing the same jobs can belong to different union organisations. This paves the way for stoppages and militates against peaceful and orderly relations within the industry.
The Port Services Directive will scarcely promote competition. Ports are companies that compete with one another. The Port Services Directive is an attempt to force them to accept a situation in which other companies are able to take over parts of their business against their will. That is absurd. No one would come up with the idea of forcing Volvo to accept subcontractors they do not want.
Competition between port companies is a good thing and leads to more efficient solutions. If a large-scale enterprise in another industry is not efficient and customer-friendly, it is driven out of business. That is also the way things work in the companies constituted by European ports."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples