Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-15-Speech-1-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081215.14.1-076"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work he has accomplished. I would like to say to the French Presidency, whom I thank nonetheless for their commitment, that sufficient effort was not made to talk effectively with Parliament.
Ours is a very delicate debate this evening, our words must be determined by the greatest responsibility, as must the policies that will follow. We must be fully aware that every watered-down compromise is made at the expense of the lives of workers and therefore a compromise at all costs can have a price to pay in terms of health, safety and reconciliation of work and family life.
We all know full well that the world of work has changed and is changing further still, in the last few weeks, in the last few days, beneath the shock wave of the economic crisis. We are all convinced that there is a need for greater flexibility, but this must be achieved in a balanced way, above all without exerting undue pressure on workers’ rights in the name of urgency. The Council’s proposals pose some very serious questions, as all the other rapporteurs have said before me.
The first being the opt-out. On the one hand there is an appreciation of the fact that this formula is highly problematic and therefore a revision clause is provided, but this is done in a generic way, without fixing a definite date, and on the other hand there is a kind of veiled blackmail, since if the text of the Council’s common position were to fail then the current directive would stay in place, with an entirely unrestricted opt-out.
Secondly there is the whole issue of the concept of on-call time, which in practice tends to be considered equal to a rest period. On this subject – as all the other Members have said before me – there can be no room for ambiguity, because any ambiguity is absolutely unacceptable.
Finally, reconciliation: reconciliation cannot be an abstract term given to generic formulas or so-called ‘reasonable terms’ that in reality then become sleight of hand – collective bargaining is abandoned, thus forcing workers, above all female workers, to accept the conditions imposed simply to avoid losing their jobs.
It is therefore clear to me that a review of the directive is necessary and would undoubtedly be useful, but whatever happens, we must not replace a legislative vacuum with worrying ambiguities."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples