Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-19-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080519.21.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"How much longer is at least one in ten of the MEPs’ assistants going to be working here without any social security protection, in a maze of different kinds of contracts that is totally unclear and gives rise to a suspicion of fraud?
Whenever the Socialist Group in the European Parliament attempts to give the Members’ assistants a proper contract, with all the usual social security guarantees, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats tries to stand in the way of such a statute for assistants. The word 'statute' really is taboo for the PPE-DE. This time the word 'statute' is to be replaced by 'regime'. That is not just a play on words. This Parliament should set an example with working conditions, but it is hopelessly behind what have long been perfectly normal standards. Without a uniform statute, our colleagues will never be given the protection to which they are normally entitled.
This one point, a statute for assistants, is therefore important, and the amendment aimed at scrapping it would be a blot on the otherwise excellent report by Mr Lewandowski. I agree with his comments and those by Mr Böge. The budget is still within the limits, despite the wider responsibilities Parliament is given under the new Treaty. Certainly more clarity is needed, firstly on the allocation of staff and secondly on the removal of asbestos from the European Parliament buildings. Clarity on those points must be an express requirement if the amounts we wish to place in reserve for that purpose are to be released."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples