EU NeoLiberalism: Bolkestein, Viking, Laval, Ruffert and the Posted Workers Directive

[durruti02]

did a search and this has suprisingly not appearred on u75 yet .. so ..

The Bolkestein ( a right wing dutch neo liberal) Directive has been adopted by the EU in March and recently changed but essentially ratified by committee.

It seeks to liberalise services

The worse part is the ' Country of Origin ' bit ... which essentially says that companies can set up anywhere in the EU BUT USE THE RULES AND REGS OF THE HOME COUNTRY e.g. Poland NOT THOSE OF WHERE WILL OPERATE!!!

in reality this will mean that e.g. a Polish company winning a contract in the UK can employ people from Poland ON POLISH RATES OF PAY AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS!!!!

have i got this right!!!!?????!!!!

 

[Idris2002]

not just polish workers but UK workers as well, AFAIK.

it's intended to grease the race to the bottom.

 

[Brainaddict]

in reality this will mean that e.g. a Polish company winning a contract in the UK can employ people from Poland ON POLISH RATES OF PAY AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS!!!!

are you sure about that? sounds very unlikely.

 

[durruti02]

sorry for cut and paste .. maybe someone could cut and paste something more readable?? this was from a google


The Parliament's Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has adopted the report on the Directive on Services in the Internal Market, maintaining the disputed country-of-origin principle.

RELATED

Services in the Internal Market
Background:

The Directive on Services in the Internal Market was presented by the Prodi Commission in January 2004 as one of the key elements of the Lisbon reform agenda. Then known as the 'Bolkestein Directive', it aimed at breaking down legal and administrative barriers to trade in services across the EU.

The Commission says the proposed directive would guarantee service providers more legal certainty if they want to exercise two fundamental freedoms (freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services) enshrined in the EC Treaty. It argues that this will boost European competitiveness as the services sector accounts for over 70% of jobs in the EU.

Critics, however, have attacked the directive for leading to 'social dumping', and they have argued that services of general interest like healthcare should be excluded from the scope of the directive. These fears in respect to the Directive were partly blamed for the defeat of the European Constitution in particular in the French referendum on 29 May 2005.

In the European Parliament, MEP Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE, Germany) is the rapporteur for the Internal Market Committee,the lead committee among the ten that participated in the legislative process. During the vote on 22 November 2003, MEPs had an almost 1,000-page stack of drafts, reports, amendments and voting lists in front of them.

Issues:

MEPs have watered down the Commission's draft less than the rapporteur had wanted. They supported the Commission's objective of establishing an internal market for services and voted for only a few of the safeguards Evelyne Gebhardt wanted to have introduced.

'Country of origin' principle: Service providers could, temporarily, be subject to the laws of their country of origin rather than of the country where the service is provided. They could thus test a new market without having to register with the authorities. MEPs voted to keep the country of origin principle, which is one of the most controversial parts of the directive, but to water it down to protect welfare and environmental standards.

Scope: The most disputed issue was whether services of general interest - meaning those considered as essential, such as healthcare, childcare, garbage disposal, traffic systems etc. - should be included in the scope of the directive. MEPs voted not to remove services of general interest from the directive's scope as such, but introduced limitations to exclude certain services like health care, social security, public services such as transport and water, broadcasting, banking and gambling from the law.

Positions:

Following the vote, the European Trade Union Confederation declared: "The ETUC considers the outcome of the IMCO Committee’s vote totally unacceptable and will maintain its mobilisation aimed at obtaining drastic changes on behalf of all European workers. If the neo-liberal position is confirmed in the EP’s plenary session vote next January or February, the ETUC will abandon its conciliatory approach and will demand the withdrawal of the directive in its entirety."

UNICE President Ernest-Antoine Seillière said: "It is vital that, in the upcoming vote in plenary, Members of the Parliament support the thrust of the report just adopted by this Committee and make sure that the services directive remains neutral with respect to the posting of workers directive. The European Parliament has taken an important step towards completing the internal market for services."

UEAPME Secretary General Hans-Werner Müller said: "MEPs have gone some way towards transforming the Services Directive from a complicated and potentially damaging behemoth into a sound foundation for completing the internal market for the remaining 70% of the EU economy. With one legislative act, the services sector will be ripped open, so it is vital that no mistakes are made and, particularly, that the high standards of European services are not undermined."

Christoph Leitl, President of the SME Union welcomed the vote: "Notwithstanding the unfounded fears that have been stoked by various groups and politicians during the past months, MEPs have allowed reason and a sense of proportion to prevail. This is a major success for the European business community as well as consumers who will be able to profit from better quality at lower prices."

Xavier R. Durieu, Secretary General of Eurocommerce, said: "By supporting the need for administrative simplification and the necessity to get rid of outdated barriers to the freedom of establishment of services providers, the European Parliament has made a choice in favour of job creation, economic growth and enhanced competitiveness

 

[durruti02]

are you sure about that? sounds very unlikely.

i know but i think it is right

 

[Groucho]

i know but i think it is right

Yes that is right. It is an appalling piece of neo-liberalism. There is a European wide demonstration in Jan I believe.

 

[durruti02]

anyidea who organising this and when please??

 

[greenman]

Apparently the Swedes have already fallen foul of EU legislation in this area - they challenged the right of a company based in one of the Baltic new entrants to the EU to ignore Swedish employment conditions and rules in a plant they set up in Sweden - the EU has taken them to task.

 

[durruti02]

esf groups appear to be dong a bit of mobilising ... but there is no set date it appears .. there is an EU meet over a period of days in mid jan that is the target for a demo in strasbourg ... there is a stopbolkestein.org website but it too is vague ... the carpet is slowing being pulled out from underneath us!!

 

[shagnasty]

in ireland the irish trade union have been succesful in getting the same conditions for east european employees on the their ships but could not stop the company reflagging the ships

 

[laptop]

Last thing I know about this for sure was that in the autumn the Parliament had sent it back with amendments that filleted it.

Some of them were to do with the "country of origin" principle.

It's supposed to be about "services" and people who are not employees, like architects and barristers.

Sure that employers will try to find ways to use it to undermine the employment rights Directives

 

[durruti02]

Last thing I know about this for sure was that in the autumn the Parliament had sent it back with amendments that filleted it.

Some of them were to do with the "country of origin" principle.

It's supposed to be about "services" and people who are not employees, like architects and barristers.

Sure that employers will try to find ways to use it to undermine the employment rights Directives

there was a eu committee meet at the end of nov or beginning of dec that ratified it with only small changes ..

 

[laptop]

there was a eu committee meet at the end of nov or beginning of dec that ratified it with only small changes ..

Which committee? The Council (that's the relevant Minister from each member state)?

Or a Parliamentary committee?

Or one of the multifarious joint committees set up to "resolve" conflicts between the Council (which is where member states exercise vetos), the Parliament and the Commission?

Must find out when/whether it goes back to the Parliament.

 

[durruti02]

Which committee? The Council (that's the relevant Minister from each member state)?

Or a Parliamentary committee?

Or one of the multifarious joint committees set up to "resolve" conflicts between the Council (which is where member states exercise vetos), the Parliament and the Commission?

Must find out when/whether it goes back to the Parliament.

see my CnP post above .. 14/12 .. so no i don't think it goes back to parliament .. although maybe that is the meeting in january?? that would ratify the committee??

 

[Cadmus]

Which committee? The Council (that's the relevant Minister from each member state)?
Or a Parliamentary committee?
Or one of the multifarious joint committees set up to "resolve" conflicts between the Council (which is where member states exercise vetos), the Parliament and the Commission?
Must find out when/whether it goes back to the Parliament.

I dont think this matter goes under the co-decision procedure.

 

[durruti02]

I dont think this matter goes under the co-decision procedure.

sorry what does that mean?

 

[Cadmus]

sorry. means that both the council and the parliament take part in the legislative procedure and that the parliament has a veto i.e. can stop bad legislation when it comes back to it for the final read.

the EU legislative procedures are very very complex (and there are several types of procedures depending on the subject matter) so i didnt want to go into it and kinda thought that laptop might understand.

 

[durruti02]

sorry. means that both the council and the parliament take part in the legislative procedure and that the parliament has a veto i.e. can stop bad legislation when it comes back to it for the final read.

the EU legislative procedures are very very complex so i didnt want to go into it and kinda though that laptop might understand.

ok no prob .. capisce .. so as you understand is this cut and dried then?

 

[laptop]

the EU legislative procedures are very very complex so i didnt want to go into it and kinda though that laptop might understand.

Nah, it's been years I've been going to Brussels and I still haven't got the names of all the routes to Directives and other decisions sorted out...

* Resolves to spend half of one of the Dark Days reading up... thingy... *

 

[Cadmus]

so as you understand is this cut and dried then?

no. nothing is cut and dried in EU law - there's always recourse to the European Court of Justice and most directives can be challenged. Generally speaking not by individuals tho (i.e. you and me).

 

[laptop]

Generally speaking not by individuals tho (i.e. you and me).

We definitely need a bigger friend to go with us to the ECJ.

Take the camerapeople who looked at EU law and realised they were getting under-paid - they are "workers" despite being freelance, and therefore due paid time off.

So they went to their union, BECTU. Which went through the UK legal system and on to the ECJ.

Where they won paid time off for all freelances who are paid by the day.

 

[treelover]

This is one of the most worryingly bits of neo-liberal leglisation/policy for many yerars, yet in the uk there is largely silence, the Green Party for instance should take a lead on this or the T.U's and maybe Groups like World Development Movement.

 

[Matt S]

The Green Party *has* been taking a lead on it. Both Caroline and Jean have spoken out against it extremely strongly - of course, no-one wants to cover something this 'boring'.

This might be of interest:

********************************

Future of Services Directive unclear *

Opposition to the EU Directive on Services is growing, following its
approval by an EU Parliamentary Committee.

The controversial Services Directive was passed by the European
Parliament's Internal Market Committee at the end of November. The
Socialists and Greens were outvoted and many fear that this has brought
the Directive one step closer to becoming reality. The text, as it
currently stands, still includes the 'country of origin' principle which
Trade Unions and those on the Left predict will lead to a fall in wages
and working conditions across Europe, as companies will be bound by the
laws of their base country, rather than the laws of the country they
operate in.

Since the Directive was passed, however, many of those who were expected
to support the Directive have come out against it. The Austrian
government has declared that a priority of its EU Presidency, when it
takes over in January, will be the 'wholesale rewriting' of the Services
Directive. Martin Bartenstein, Austria's economic and labour minister
has warned that the Commission will have to put forward new proposals
which will "have to exclude wage dumping and social dumping".

Trade Unions from Western Europe have been fighting fiercely against the
Services Directive and have been accused of protectionism and of
discriminating against workers from Eastern Europe by those who support
the free market, neo-liberal agenda pushing the Services Directive. Yet
in a show of solidarity, Trade Unions from Eastern Europe have added
their voice to those who oppose the Services Directive. Janusz Sniadek,
the president of Polish trade union NSZZ Solidarnosc, has been quoted:
"We would not want to introduce unfair competition and social dumping in
their host countries". He has also called for the EU member states to
raise social and labour standards everywhere, rather than back a
directive that would lead to "social dumping" and the lowering of
standards.

What will happen to the Services Directive now is unclear. It was due to
go before the European Parliament early next year and if passed by MEPs
would go on for ratification by member states. However, with Austria's
stated opposition and with the support of Eastern European countries no
longer so certain, this is likely to be put back. Bartenstein has said
that Austria does not expect the Services Directive to be passed by
member states until the second half of 2006, when Finland assumes the
presidency, and then only in a vastly amended form.

The TUC has published a new report, "'Besides the point? - the
economics of the Services Directive', which highlights the myths behind
the arguments of the Directive's proponents. The report can be download
here: <http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/besidethepoint.pdf>

 

[TAE]

This is seriously worrying.

Mind you, I'd really like to see improved polish employment laws, so that polish workers have the same rights as german/french/english workers.

 

[laptop]

I'd really like to see improved polish employment laws, so that polish workers have the same rights as german/french/english workers.

Well, in theory the Polish government had to have implemented the whole body of EU law (the acquis communitaire) as a condition of joining. That's how social-democrats in the EU - and they're the majority in many parts of the Commission - live with themselves: they see the carrot of bigger markets enabling capitalists to live with the stick of the Working Time Directive and so forth.

If you're a Polish worker, though, the question facing you is what EU country Poland turns into: Greece or Italy, with some bloody brilliant laws* that are barely enforced at all; Germany, with some fairly marvellous laws that are, natürlich, properly enforced; the UK, with substandard laws that are only gradually being brought up to the actual EU standard as unions take the government to the ECJ, but are actually enforced as they get there...

In the long run I'm fairly sanguine about the bits of the Services Directive that I've understood. In the short run, employers will try to casualise and put their workers under the Services Directive; some of those workers will go to the ECJ and it will, I predict, further expand the definition of "worker" to cover everyone except genuine solo entrepreneurs and company directors.

Until 2002 UK law saw me as a Poujadist mini-capitalist Since BECTU's win, I'm "a worker" and entitled to some workers' rights, despite my refusal to be an employee.

Unfortunately, I may spend my atheist 2005-12-25 reading the rest of the Directive

* May not apply to the whole of these laws - I've only dealt with the bits relevant to freelances

 

[durruti02]

any updates on this??

 

[durruti02]

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) is calling for a major demonstration on the Services Directive on 14 February 2006 in Strasbourg.
The European Parliament, meeting in plenary session, will be debating and voting on the draft directive at that time. The European trade union movement believes it is important to make its voice heard on a series of crucial issues:
excluding labour law, together with all collective agreements, from the directive;
excluding services of general interest and
attacking the country of origin principle in the draft directive.

We want as a top priority a strong, representative demonstration in Strasbourg on February 14 but in order to prepare for this, it would be useful if affiliates could organise local activities in their countries with the aim of informing people about the consequences of the directive, by means, for example of meetings, conferences, demonstrations and press conferences.

The ETUC wants a stronger Social Europe, a better European Social Model and certainly not the Bolkestein Directive!




Print this page
Your feedback is valuable to us
Was this article interesting and relevant for you? Do you have any comments?
You can post a reply to this article here.
Be the first person to write a comment on this article!



You are here:Home / Our Activities / Services Directive Last Modification :January 26 2006.
Press Conferences
Services Directive Demonstration. 14/02/2006
Press Room
Press releases
Fact sheets
Frequently Asked Questions
Speeches
Press Conferences
Photo Gallery
Contact
Newsletter
Register on the ETUC newsletter and mailing list
FLASH NEWS

9 February
ETUC Steering Committee meets in Brussels, with the Services Directive and reaction to the Lisbon Strategy National Reform Programmes on the agenda.


8 February
European Commission issues its first report on the transitional arrangements governing the free movement of labour from new Member States.


European Trade Union Confederation
International Trade Union House (ITUH)

Boulevard du Roi Albert II, 5

B-1210 Brussels

Belgium

Phone: +32 (0)2 224 04 11

Fax: +32 (0)2 224 04 54

E-mail: etuc@etuc.org

 

[tbaldwin]

Good thread shows the need to oppose free market migration views on the liberal left.
And also shows the need to take Internationalism seriously something most of the left are shit at.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Just read this article here...

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article344504.ece

 

[durruti02]

Just read this article here...

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article344504.ece

thats sounds good .. but not sure if it's cut and dried .. sounds like a wait and see what actually goes thru !! hopefully they are shitting themselves after the dockers .. more likely it could have meant the end of the EU as others follow the french in rejecting it's neo liberlaism ..