Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.7.2-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, a few weeks ago, we, in this House, voted on the services directive, with a majority endorsing a compromise intended to help maintain high social standards, under the slogan of ‘no social dumping’.
It would appear, though, that protection from social dumping is intended to benefit only the select few in Europe, for how else is one to understand the restrictions on the free movement of workers? Those who bar certain people from the market must know that they can expect, as a quite natural response to their action, the coming into being of illegal markets. People who live near to a border between states will not be prevented from offering their labour on either side of it, and so, over recent years, whole new categories of workers are putting themselves on the streets, with artisans and building workers offering their services, and this is proving to be a successful game for them; they are much in demand. People are working under the pretence of being self-employed or, quite simply, illegally, without social security and for less than the minimum wages laid down by law.
How mendacious, then, of people such as the representatives of the German building trade, to demand – or so we read – that the transitional periods be extended! Why is it that some employers’ representatives want these discriminatory restrictions imposed on the citizens of other Member States? Is it not, perhaps, that they are thereby enabled to make money from cheap seasonal labour, from the putative self-employed, and from those working in the black market? Why, too, I wonder, do the national employers’ representatives not campaign with more energy against this sort of exploitation? Why do they make social security dependent on nationality? Might it not be that they do so out of the simple desire for mass appeal, since it is only the citizens of their own country who cast votes, so that what matters to them is not the principle itself but their own success on election day?
Three countries so far have opened up their labour markets to the EU’s new Member States, and their experiences of it have been positive. I call, in this Year of Mobility, on all the others to do likewise by 2007 at the latest. Shame on all those who do not do so, particularly on my own country, Austria, if it turns out to be one of them!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples