Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-15-Speech-1-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081215.14.1-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Cercas, ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered here this evening to debate a subject that has kept us occupied for several years now, a subject that is important to all European workers, namely the review of the Working Time Directive.
The Council’s intention is not to have people’s rights watered down or reduced. On the contrary, it is seeking to preserve the existing balances within the Member States, balances that involve calculating on-call time in a specific way, to account for the inactive periods of such time.
With regard to the opt-out review clause, we must reach a conclusion without being either winners or losers because, objectively speaking, the balance of power will not allow it. The Slovenian compromise provides for a review of the directive following an assessment report, in six years’ time. All avenues remain open, therefore, and that is why I am calling for a truce on this issue of the opt-out.
This evening the European Parliament is in a position of responsibility. Your vote will determine the outcome of this issue, which has been on the table since 2004. I hope that the debate that is now beginning will abandon any idea of confrontation and will take account of the Council’s strong ambitions as they are reflected in the common position.
I am convinced that, in this spirit, you can pave the way for the emergence of a balanced solution, soon.
The text being submitted to the European Parliament today is the result of a compromise that was reached at the Council of 9 June during the Slovenian Presidency. This compromise concerned both the Working Time Directive and the Temporary Work Directive. The Council adopted it in the firm belief that it represents a step forward with regard to the situation of workers in Europe, and this applies to both of its dimensions.
With the Temporary Work Directive, on the one hand, the principle of equal treatment from day one is becoming the rule in Europe. This is a step forward for the millions of people who work in this sector. The European Parliament, moreover, definitively adopted this directive on 22 October, and I commend this decision, as it will improve the situation of temporary workers in the 17 Member States in which the principle of equal treatment from day one is not provided for under their national legislation.
With the compromise on working time, on the other hand, we are introducing guarantees to serve as a framework for the 1993 opt-out, which was implemented without restrictions and without a time limit. The text now stipulates a limit of 60 or 65 hours, depending on the circumstances, compared with a limit of 78 hours per week, before.
It also makes it impossible for an individual opt-out agreement to be signed in the four weeks after a worker has been taken on, and it introduces enhanced monitoring of labour inspection. I would add that the Council’s common position introduces an explicit opt-out review clause. Lastly, I would point out that the Slovenian compromise enables the specific circumstances of on-call time to be taken into account. This will help many countries, particularly where the health sector is concerned.
Of course, the review of the Working Time Directive is a compromise and, as with all compromises, we have had to leave out some of our initial objectives. I am thinking, in particular, of the abolition of the opt-out that France and other countries were defending, but this was a minority opinion, and we did not have enough power to impose it at the Council.
At this, the moment when you vote at second reading, it is important that you remember what ought to be our common objective: arriving at a text that is acceptable to everyone, by avoiding, where possible, a conciliation procedure. Of course, there is a considerable gap between Parliament’s opinion at first reading and the Council’s common position, but Parliament must recognise that there is an urgent need for some Member States to resolve the problem of on-call time, that the Slovenian compromise includes advances for workers, and that, within the Council, there is not the majority required to abolish the opt-out as it has existed without restrictions since 1993.
With your forthcoming debates in view, I should like, in particular, to draw your attention to two points.
When it comes to the definition of on-call time, the Council’s objective is often misunderstood. The aim is not to call into question workers’ acquired rights, but to make it possible to protect the existing balances within certain Member States. The debates at the European Parliament could provide a useful insight into the issues relating to this new definition."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples