Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-14-Speech-1-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080114.13.1-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in December the European Court of Justice handed down a long-awaited judgment that has very worrying implications for the protection of posted workers in Europe.
It sends a negative signal to our citizens, who are concerned about the risks of social dumping. What does the Court say in this so-called ‘Laval’ ruling? It says that the Swedish trade unions were wrong to try to force a Latvian undertaking to sign their collective agreement, in particular with regard to the minimum wage. Under the 1996 Directive, however, posted workers have to observe a nucleus of mandatory rules for minimum protection in the host Member State.
The Court rules that the Swedish system of collective bargaining was not applicable and that such rules could only be imposed by the law. The European message is thus no longer clear: on the one hand, the Commission prioritises flexicurity and the system of collective bargaining as a model; on the other hand, the Court of Justice discredits this model.
Parliament and the Council must therefore clarify this issue. Otherwise, it would be like throwing the Bolkestein Directive out the front door only to allow it to sneak in the back, which would be entirely unacceptable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples