EU NeoLiberalism: Bolkestein, Viking, Laval, Ruffert and the Posted Workers Directive
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Nice job, taking an important issue and turning it into the usual Urban factional yawnfest. Well done. Why not give it a rest now?
again bit of archeology re the construction dispute .. very relevent i think .. the latest is in the wikipedia link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_services_in_the_internal_market
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_services_in_the_internal_market
i need to check the detail again .. it was adopted but much amended so both neo libs and socs claimed victory .. but it sounds very much like that this use of a whole italian co by Total is part of this .. i'll investigate!post up that michael meacher supporting the strikes has just referred to bolkestein .. i'll get a cnp "Lindsey: EU law must not be used to deprive people of jobs
There was always going to be trouble over the Bolkestein EU Posted Workers Directive passed in 1999, but it has taken an ugly recession and fast rising unemployment to bring it to the fore explosively at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire. The directive was designed to ensure that the EU was treated as a single labour marketplace where employers had a legal right to hire workers from anywhere in the (now 27) EU countries. The only conditions for the employer are that the employment contract is for a limited time and that local working regulations must be met, e.g. that in the UK at least the minimum wage (now £5.83 per hour) must be paid. But this raises the question as to whether this directive can be used by European companies to deprive local workers of potential jobs and to undercut pay and terms and conditions of work. In this harsh economic downturn this issue will not go away because the directive in its original crude form is not tenable in current political and economic conditions.
Continue reading "Lindsey: EU law must not be used to deprive people of jobs" » http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/
There was always going to be trouble over the Bolkestein EU Posted Workers Directive passed in 1999, but it has taken an ugly recession and fast rising unemployment to bring it to the fore explosively at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire. The directive was designed to ensure that the EU was treated as a single labour marketplace where employers had a legal right to hire workers from anywhere in the (now 27) EU countries. The only conditions for the employer are that the employment contract is for a limited time and that local working regulations must be met, e.g. that in the UK at least the minimum wage (now £5.83 per hour) must be paid. But this raises the question as to whether this directive can be used by European companies to deprive local workers of potential jobs and to undercut pay and terms and conditions of work. In this harsh economic downturn this issue will not go away because the directive in its original crude form is not tenable in current political and economic conditions.
Continue reading "Lindsey: EU law must not be used to deprive people of jobs" » http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/
Europe TUC statement on Viking Laval
http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf_ETUC_EXEC_Viking_Laval_-_expl_memorandum_7-3-081.pdf
http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf_ETUC_EXEC_Viking_Laval_-_expl_memorandum_7-3-081.pdf
http://www.etuc.org/a/5801
iinteresting article re subbies employing cheap labour "Said ETUC Confederal Secretary Catelene Passchier: ’I am very disappointed that the big political groups in Parliament chose to rush into an unsatisfactory first reading deal with the Council instead of taking the time to assess the global merits and shortcomings of the proposal. The European institutions are sending yet another signal that the EU prioritises a repressive migration policy over clear policies against labour exploitation. Irregular workers are mostly employed by intermediaries and subcontractors; big employers don’t burn their fingers by directly employing them. We are very concerned that the text will only make already nice employers nicer, and reluctant to employ migrant workers, and nasty employers even nastier. It will drive vulnerable migrant workers further underground and not provide them with legal bridges out of illegality. This ill-advised compromise must not prevent further debate at the European level on how to properly deal with the increasing use of undeclared work and irregular migrants in subcontracting chains’. "
iinteresting article re subbies employing cheap labour "Said ETUC Confederal Secretary Catelene Passchier: ’I am very disappointed that the big political groups in Parliament chose to rush into an unsatisfactory first reading deal with the Council instead of taking the time to assess the global merits and shortcomings of the proposal. The European institutions are sending yet another signal that the EU prioritises a repressive migration policy over clear policies against labour exploitation. Irregular workers are mostly employed by intermediaries and subcontractors; big employers don’t burn their fingers by directly employing them. We are very concerned that the text will only make already nice employers nicer, and reluctant to employ migrant workers, and nasty employers even nastier. It will drive vulnerable migrant workers further underground and not provide them with legal bridges out of illegality. This ill-advised compromise must not prevent further debate at the European level on how to properly deal with the increasing use of undeclared work and irregular migrants in subcontracting chains’. "
ETA .. thread title changed 17/02/09 from "bolkestein .. isnane eu neo liberalism"
http://www.personneltoday.com/artic...ish-jobs-for-british-workers-is-not-easy.html
".. There is no question that European workers have the right to work in the UK in accordance with the principle of free movement of labour enshrined in the EC Treaty. However, the issue raised by this dispute is to what extent they can be employed on different terms and conditions from those that would apply in this country, thereby undercutting local workers...
The EU Posted Workers Directive provides that workers sent from one EU member state to work in another are entitled to the rates of pay, holiday pay and working hours laid down by national law in the country where they are working. This means they would have to be paid at least the national minimum wage in the UK. However, the 'level playing field' created by the directive does not normally extend to the terms of local collective agreements over rates of pay, which would not apply to the incoming workers.
A couple of recent judgments at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have effectively confirmed this position.
In the case of Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Bygnaddsarbetareforbundet (the Swedish construction workers' union), the ECJ held it was unlawful for trade unions to take collective action to secure terms and conditions for posted workers over and above those required by the directive. It said this would be an unjustified interference with the posting company's freedom to provide services under Article 49 of the EC Treaty.
In the case of Dirk Rüffert v Land Niedersachsen (the German state of Lower Saxony), a German law requiring public sector contractors and sub-contractors to pay workers the minimum wage laid down by a local collective agreement was seen as an unjustified barrier to the ability of foreign contractors to provide services in Germany. The ECJ has therefore clearly gone down a line that places market forces in relation to pay rates above protectionism for local workers.."
".. There is no question that European workers have the right to work in the UK in accordance with the principle of free movement of labour enshrined in the EC Treaty. However, the issue raised by this dispute is to what extent they can be employed on different terms and conditions from those that would apply in this country, thereby undercutting local workers...
The EU Posted Workers Directive provides that workers sent from one EU member state to work in another are entitled to the rates of pay, holiday pay and working hours laid down by national law in the country where they are working. This means they would have to be paid at least the national minimum wage in the UK. However, the 'level playing field' created by the directive does not normally extend to the terms of local collective agreements over rates of pay, which would not apply to the incoming workers.
A couple of recent judgments at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have effectively confirmed this position.
In the case of Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Bygnaddsarbetareforbundet (the Swedish construction workers' union), the ECJ held it was unlawful for trade unions to take collective action to secure terms and conditions for posted workers over and above those required by the directive. It said this would be an unjustified interference with the posting company's freedom to provide services under Article 49 of the EC Treaty.
In the case of Dirk Rüffert v Land Niedersachsen (the German state of Lower Saxony), a German law requiring public sector contractors and sub-contractors to pay workers the minimum wage laid down by a local collective agreement was seen as an unjustified barrier to the ability of foreign contractors to provide services in Germany. The ECJ has therefore clearly gone down a line that places market forces in relation to pay rates above protectionism for local workers.."
Similar threads
