Hundreds of workers protest against Italians/Foreigners 'taking jobs'...

[CyberRose]

"The Viking and Laval ECJ judgements in December 2007 the rights of European firms to 'freedom of establishment' under Article 43 of the EC Treaty (the freedom of businesses to relocate their activities to another EU Member State) and Article 49 (‘freedom to provide services)

These allow firms to bring in their own labour when they are awarded contracts in another EU country which goes against the tradition that which ever nationalisty the firmm is that it recruits mainly from the host country that regulates labour and conditions. Short answer is the jobs don't have to be advertised full stop, the company just recruits and delivers with no questions asked.

Are these strikers really protesting against the Viking and Laval cases tho? Fair enough if they are because that would be perfectly justified and the laws need changing to fix the loopholes those cases opened up.

But that would suggest these Italian workers are being brought in as "cheap labour" and undermining British labour standards - is that the case here? As far as I can tell, these workers haven't been brought in by the company to save money, but just because they won the contract (as many British companies employing 1000s of British workers all across the EU have). If they aren't undercutting our labour standards, then unfortunately you have a Catch 22 situation, because what's benefiting these Italians at the expense of local British workers is also what's benefiting British workers in the EU (at the expense of local workers in that country).

If this is really just about "British jobs for British people" as the placards say, then it does bring up a number of contradictions. Like I said, 1000s of British people work in the EU. If you change the law so only British people can have British jobs, then all those Brits abroad would also have to loose their jobs.

Also, what would happen if a company in London won a contract in Newcastle and took a load of cockneys up? Viewing it as an "internationalist" you'd have to say there was no difference between that and what 's happening with these Italian workers.

I appreciate that at over 1000 posts somebody has asked and answered my questions before (probably many times!)

 

[belboid]

arse... pcc is just for newspapers and magazines it would seem...

as i said before...only the 'victim' can complain anyway. not third parties

 

[Fedayn]

Beats me why Poles would support a strike that explicitly aims to win favour for British workers over foreigners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm

Because they're racist xenophobes in favour of British jobs for British workers. Obvious really.... surely?!

 

[Spion]

Because they're racist xenophobes in favour of British jobs for British workers. Obvious really.... surely?!

Do you support a strike where the stated aim, as expressed by one of its leaders is: "The last resort should be to employ European labour."?

Why?

 

[ymu]

Do you support a strike where the stated aim, as expressed by one of its leaders is: "The last resort should be to employ European labour."?

Why?

Because I'm not focusing on the more cack-handed sloganeering or the spin put on it by the media.

Thanks to EU rulings it is now the case that EU workers can be bussed anywhere in the EU and employed under the terms and conditions in place in their home countries, not those prevailing in the country where they are actually working. Wages are much much lower in Italy and Spain, and lower still in Eastern Europe.

This makes a mockery of any local collective bargaining. Any agreements reached by unions are immediately irrelevant unless they undercut the cheapest workers available anywhere in the EU. We export jobs to low wage economies, and now the EU is insisting that we also import low wages.

It's a race to the bottom engineered by the bosses in Europe and spun as pure xenophobia by the media.

You don't support the nationalism of Hamas, but you stand by the Palestinian struggle despite the flaws in its leadership. But you can't support a strike because some of those involved in it are expressing nationalist sentiments. I don't get you at all.

 

[free spirit]

as i said before...only the 'victim' can complain anyway. not third parties

where does this information come from?

I can see nothing about it on the ofcom site, and it there's nothing about having to complain to the programme makers first either once a programme has been broadcast

We do not watch or listen to programmes before they are broadcast. If you would like to complain about a programme that has yet to be broadcast, you should contact the broadcaster directly.
If the programme has been broadcast and you have concerns about it then you may make a complaint.

and the relevant bits of the ofcom code

Due impartiality and due accuracy in news

5.1 News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
5.2 Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected on air quickly. Corrections should be appropriately scheduled.
5.3 No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.
Special impartiality requirements: news and other programmesc

Matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy

5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service (listed above) in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
Meaning of “matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy”:
These will vary according to events but are generally matters of political or industrial controversy or matters of current public policy which are of national, and often international, importance, or are of similar significance within a smaller broadcast area.
5.11 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.

I think I'm going to be making a complaint


btw, I'm not disputing that it would have more effect if the person who'd been misrepresented was to make a complaint, just saying that as far as I can see anyone is entitled to make a complaint if they see something that they believe breaks the code.

 

[TwoTimer]

Are these strikers really protesting against the Viking and Laval cases tho? Fair enough if they are because that would be perfectly justified and the laws need changing to fix the loopholes those cases opened up.

But that would suggest these Italian workers are being brought in as "cheap labour" and undermining British labour standards - is that the case here? As far as I can tell, these workers haven't been brought in by the company to save money, but just because they won the contract (as many British companies employing 1000s of British workers all across the EU have). If they aren't undercutting our labour standards, then unfortunately you have a Catch 22 situation, because what's benefiting these Italians at the expense of local British workers is also what's benefiting British workers in the EU (at the expense of local workers in that country).

If this is really just about "British jobs for British people" as the placards say, then it does bring up a number of contradictions. Like I said, 1000s of British people work in the EU. If you change the law so only British people can have British jobs, then all those Brits abroad would also have to loose their jobs.

No one, including even the BNP is asking for a change in the law that would mean that jobs can only be done by British workers.

Also, what would happen if a company in London won a contract in Newcastle and took a load of cockneys up? Viewing it as an "internationalist" you'd have to say there was no difference between that and what 's happening with these Italian workers.

Most workers aren't internationalists or even nationalists. They want a decent living and as long as they have the perception of fairness, they couldn't give a fuck about the age old nationalist v internationalist debate.

 

[nightbreed]

What are the Polish workers ACTUALLY supporting?

Er....their workmates on strike?

Shit that was hard to work out.

 

[CyberRose]

Thanks to EU rulings it is now the case that EU workers can be bussed anywhere in the EU and employed under the terms and conditions in place in their home countries, not those prevailing in the country where they are actually working.

Well that's the point of having EU wide legislation to prevent that from happening. There's minimum standards that all EU countries have to implement, but unfortunately minimum wage is not part of EU responsibility. However, you can only import labour to the minimum standards of the host country, so workers cannot be hired on lower than the British minimum wage (which obviously doesn't help in this case). The two court cases just highlight that there is a problem that needs fixing. National collective bargaining agreements need to be enshrined in EU laws. At the moment they aren't - but not because the EU wants companies to be able to undercut any workforce, just because it didn't occur to them at the time. The whole point of EU employment law is to prevent a race to the bottom and I'm sure this is something they'll be looking to fix

Wages are much much lower in Italy and Spain, and lower still in Eastern Europe.

But aren't the Italian workers at Lindsey being hired on the same terms as the existing workforce? If they are, then unfortunately there isn't really an argument to be made against them being hired, other than "British jobs for British workers"...

 

[CyberRose]

No one, including even the BNP is asking for a change in the law that would mean that jobs can only be done by British workers.

That's fair enough, but if the Italians are not undercutting British labour standards, then it would be odd for the workforce to all of a sudden come out on strike against the Laval rulings now and not at the time

Most workers aren't internationalists or even nationalists. They want a decent living and as long as they have the perception of fairness, they couldn't give a fuck about the age old nationalist v internationalist debate.

I completely agree and support any pressure to close the loopholes in the posted workers directive, but as far as I can see, unless the Italian company is undercutting existing standards (I'm only going on what Total have said, so feel free to correct me anyone), then the issue is not related to the posted workers directive but to the right to work anywhere in the EU

 

[Fedayn]

Do you support a strike where the stated aim, as expressed by one of its leaders is: "The last resort should be to employ European labour."?

Why?

So because of one comment by one of the strike leaders we should oppose the strike, tell the Poles they're either stupid or racist and then sit on the sidelines wagging our fingers whilst giving the far-right free reign?! Brilliant plan..... So you never support strikes unless you support every single demand that ALL the leaders/spokespersons of the strike support/argue for?

 

[ymu]

Well that's the point of having EU wide legislation to prevent that from happening. There's minimum standards that all EU countries have to implement, but unfortunately minimum wage is not part of EU responsibility. However, you can only import labour to the minimum standards of the host country, so workers cannot be hired on lower than the British minimum wage (which obviously doesn't help in this case). The two court cases just highlight that there is a problem that needs fixing. National collective bargaining agreements need to be enshrined in EU laws. At the moment they aren't - but not because the EU wants companies to be able to undercut any workforce, just because it didn't occur to them at the time. The whole point of EU employment law is to prevent a race to the bottom and I'm sure this is something they'll be looking to fix

I think you're a bit naive about what the EU "wants" (there are lots of competing interests and power struggles), but it doesn't change the outcome of the Laval case, and that is what is being fought against. Or perhaps we should all just sit back and trust in the benign magnanimity of the EU to sort it all out fairly in the end?

Did you read this link? http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/swed-j27.shtml

But aren't the Italian workers at Lindsey being hired on the same terms as the existing workforce? If they are, then unfortunately there isn't really an argument to be made against them being hired, other than "British jobs for British workers"...

That's what they claim, but AFAIK we haven't been given any figures. They're being put up on an ex-prison ship, and the workers will be paying for their bed and board out of their wages. It's pretty easy to make the headline hourly rate comparable to those agreed by the British unions but then deduct a disproportionate amount for bed and board.

 

[CyberRose]

I think you're a bit naive about what the EU "wants"

Well I'm just going on the trend of current EU employment legislation. That shows they don't want a "race to the bottom"

but it doesn't change the outcome of the Laval case, and that is what is being fought against.

It doesn't change the outcome of that case, and that needs to be changed. However, I'm not convinced that this IS what is being fought against here. If the Italians are on the same terms and conditions, then the Laval ruling is not relevant to these strikes (which doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed)

That's what they claim, but AFAIK we haven't been given any figures. They're being put up on an ex-prison ship, and the workers will be paying for their bed and board out of their wages. It's pretty easy to make the headline hourly rate comparable to those agreed by the British unions but then deduct a disproportionate amount for bed and board.

So the strike is because the Italians might be getting paid less!!!

Let me ask you a question...if the Italians were on the same terms and conditions, then is there any justification to the strike?

 

[ymu]

So the strike is because the Italians might be getting paid less!!!

Let me ask you a question...if the Italians were on the same terms and conditions, then is there any justification to the strike?

Well, there's the thing. Why would they go to the expense of bringing workers in, and the trouble of providing them with accommodation, if it was costing them the same as employing local workers?

I'm not going to argue what-ifs unless there's actual evidence that the workers are being paid the same in real terms, and that IREM aren't profiting out of being landlords and caterers to their workforce.

 

[Zeppo]

GMB are stating this dispute is about class not racism. Seeing thousands of workers breaking UK employment law in unofficial action is to be supported. Trade union demands are being added and let us hope - we see more action as the recession bites.

Yes the British jobs for British workers is the wrong stance. Lots of people in a dispute may have very dubious ideas about society and some contradictory views on race etc.. The point in a dispute to my mind is to win.

How many disputes have we lost or been sold out on?

 

[Fuchs66]

Well, there's the thing. Why would they go to the expense of bringing workers in, and the trouble of providing them with accommodation, if it was costing them the same as employing local workers?

Just a thought, maybe, just maybe the IREM employees are skilled and experienced in constructing the particular desulphuristation plant that is being built. Not saying this is definately the case but it might not be just a matter of saving money on wages.

I'm not going to argue what-ifs unless there's actual evidence that the workers are being paid the same in real terms, and that IREM aren't profiting out of being landlords and caterers to their workforce.

but theres no evidence that they are being paid less either (or have I missed something) and you're quite happy supporting the strikes despite the lack of evidence (more "what ifs") that may justify the action.

 

[CyberRose]

Well, there's the thing. Why would they go to the expense of bringing workers in, and the trouble of providing them with accommodation, if it was costing them the same as employing local workers?

Either IREM offered the contract cheaper, or the workers are more skilled.

I'm not going to argue what-ifs unless there's actual evidence that the workers are being paid the same in real terms, and that IREM aren't profiting out of being landlords and caterers to their workforce.

But you ARE arguing what-ifs! You admit there is no evidence to say whether or not the Italians are undercutting the Brits, yet you support the strike anyway! (Well, Total say the workers are on the same terms and conditions, so that's at least some evidence, if not conclusive).

So, if the Italians are on the same terms and conditions as the Brits, you would oppose the strike?

 

[audiotech]

This company is breaking agreements and blacklisting union activists. So it's clear now that they are hoping to use the Italian workers as scabs, in an attempt to weaken union organisation and attack wages and conditions.

 

[durruti02]

Of course not. But they had a choice - fight for jobs for all or fight for jobs for Brits. They've chosen the latter, as the video interview makes plain

your position is idiotic .. if there are 300 jobs on a contract and hundreds of unemployed in the locality and who can and want the jobs and the scum bosses have brought in their own workforce .. then to demand that ALL those on the outside contract keep their employment is simple nonsense ..

so you want the 300 italians/portugese to keep their jobs as part of an anti union scam AND employ another 300 locals??

your position is dogmatic nonsense .

the only w/c position is to support the workers here demanding labour at union rates for people living here and to demand the current contract is scrapped

 

[Fedayn]

This company is breaking agreements and blacklisting union activists. So it's clear now that they are hoping to use the Italian workers as scabs, in an attempt to weaken union organisation and attack wages and conditions.

 

[durruti02]

Whoever hasn't been on a picket line.

Priority to work within the community, workplace struggle downgraded, pointless working in the trade unions and similar. They know who they are.

you talking about me sunshine? hope not .. i've been on strike and picket lines more than most on here and in the last few years too! my section are famous for it around here! but i can multi task .. i can recognise the joint neccessity of union and community work

 

[durruti02]

Beats me why Poles would support a strike that explicitly aims to win favour for British workers over foreigners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm

cos a lot of poles who live here now recognise that trade unions can only work if you take action like this and like pretty well every but you recognise that these strkes are not as you dogmatically believe them to be

 

[durruti02]

This company is breaking agreements and blacklisting union activists. So it's clear now that they are hoping to use the Italian workers as scabs, in an attempt to weaken union organisation and attack wages and conditions.

good man

( and people doubted you would come thru here! have a word with that spion )

 

[CyberRose]

attack wages and conditions.

Where did you get this from?

 

[audiotech]

you talking about me sunshine? hope not .. i've been on strike and picket lines more than most on here and in the last few years too! my section are famous for it around here! but i can multi task .. i can recognise the joint neccessity of union and community work

I've been threatened with a disciplinary only last week - i kid you not.

 

[audiotech]

Where did you get this from?

My class instincts tell me.

 

[Spion]

Because I'm not focusing on the more cack-handed sloganeering or the spin put on it by the media.

The thing is, it's not just the nationalist sentiments of 'some of those involved' or 'cack-handed sloganeering'.

The strike has a list of demands as agreed by a mass meeting, and the only strike demand that has anything to say about who should be employed in future at the site - THE main issue here, no? - explicitly limits that to 'locally skilled' labour. Then there's the statement of the local union leader on the BBC video who was asked 'What will it take to get you back to work?', to which he replied, "I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour."

How else am I supposed to take that other than BJ4BW?

Thanks to EU rulings it is now the case that EU workers can be bussed anywhere in the EU and employed under the terms and conditions in place in their home countries, not those prevailing in the country where they are actually working. Wages are much much lower in Italy and Spain, and lower still in Eastern Europe.

This makes a mockery of any local collective bargaining. Any agreements reached by unions are immediately irrelevant unless they undercut the cheapest workers available anywhere in the EU. We export jobs to low wage economies, and now the EU is insisting that we also import low wages.

It's a race to the bottom engineered by the bosses in Europe and spun as pure xenophobia by the media.

You don't support the nationalism of Hamas, but you stand by the Palestinian struggle despite the flaws in its leadership. But you can't support a strike because some of those involved in it are expressing nationalist sentiments. I don't get you at all. .

I am totally against undercutting of labour rates and attacks on conditions. I think there should be strikes against redundancies and strikes and demonstrations for massive injections of funds by the bosses to pay for jobs and training - without discrimination on grounds of nationality . But that is not what this strike is about - it is explicitly for preferential treatment of British workers. If it can be transformed by ditching the local stipulation on employment preferences then fine, but that hasn't happened yet.

I stand by these workers in the sense that I think their anger is justified at redundancy and attacks on working conditions, but I do not support a strike aimed at favouring British over other workers.

Re Hamas, I do not support them politically. I am for actions against them by democratic and progressive organisations in Gaza and want to see them defeated in Gaza by something better. The only parallel with the strikes is that despite disagreeing with the aim of this action, I would defend those unions from attempts to break them up by the state as I would Hamas against the IDF.

 

[durruti02]

I've been threatened with a disciplinary only last week - i kid you not.

MC5 is back

 

[nightbreed]

. But that is not what this strike is about - it is explicitly for preferential treatment of British workers. .

Im giving a very tired, no it isnt. The reasons have been posted on u75 and on the SP website.

My conclusion is
a/ you dont understand industrial workers
and
b/.you havent a clue how as a socialist you are meant to work amongst industrial workers

For b/ read how the SP are doing it , and Im not a SP member!!

 

[Spion]

So because of one comment by one of the strike leaders we should oppose the strike, tell the Poles they're either stupid or racist and then sit on the sidelines wagging our fingers whilst giving the far-right free reign?! Brilliant plan..... So you never support strikes unless you support every single demand that ALL the leaders/spokespersons of the strike support/argue for?

The strike is about employment and sets a demand for jobs for British workers in preference to foreigners. You can pretend it was 'one comment by one of the strike leaders' as if it's some maverick but the demand accepted by the mass meeting is clear that 'locally skilled' labour should be preferred over non-local labour.

I never said anyone should sit on the sidelines. Socialists should be there, arguing that the strikers drop the demand for jobs to go to British workers rather than foreigners and trying to get the strikers to appeal to the Italians to come out on strike against redundancies and for jobs for all regardless of nationality.