European Trade Unions call for changes in Lisbon Treaty

[spartacus]

This doesn't seem to have been picked up by the Irish media (from a speech by John Monks, General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation):

Unions across Europe are now deeply concerned with defending their national systems – and we risk a protectionist reaction. Bolkestein (Services Directive) derailed the EU Constitutional Treaty. The Laval case, in particular, could damage the ratification of the EU Reform Treaty as awareness of its implications spreads.

...we need a “Social Progress Clause” issued in anticipation of the EU Reform Treaty (article 5(a)), which firmly establishes that the Treaty and especially its fundamental freedoms shall be interpreted as respecting the observance of fundamental rights and especially collective action. It should also establish the rights of workers and their representatives to take collective action to improve their working and living conditions above minimum standards.

Further information at:
http://www.etuc.org/a/4627
and
http://www.etuc.org/a/4625

[ibis]

Relevance to Lisbon - minimal. Relevance to general EU-bashing - high.

The Laval case has already taken place. That means it predates any entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The outcome of the Laval case might have been different had the reforms in Lisbon already taken place, but rerunning it without Lisbon would definitely yield the same result (and rerunning it without the EU would mean there wasn't even a case).

So I'm not sure what your point is, other than that the ETU speaker mentions Lisbon, and appears to be trying to put pressure on the EU in advance of Lisbon?

[Trampas]

Neither will this have any impact in ICTU whose leaders are already in the pockets of IBEC while keeping their noses clean in advance of some cosy post-retirement directorships.

[spartacus]

So I'm not sure what your point is, other than that the ETU speaker mentions Lisbon, and appears to be trying to put pressure on the EU in advance of Lisbon?

It means that the European Trade Union movement is looking for a rewrite of the Lisbon Treaty.
Would you support their proposal for a new clause in the Treaty?

[ibis]

So I'm not sure what your point is, other than that the ETU speaker mentions Lisbon, and appears to be trying to put pressure on the EU in advance of Lisbon?

It means that the European Trade Union movement is looking for a rewrite of the Lisbon Treaty.
Would you support their proposal for a new clause in the Treaty?

I assume that's this bit:

Firstly, quickly, we need a “Social Progress Clause” issued in anticipation of the EU Reform Treaty (article 5(a)), which firmly establishes that the Treaty and especially its fundamental freedoms shall be interpreted as respecting the observance of fundamental rights and especially collective action. It should also establish the rights of workers and their representatives to take collective action to improve their working and living conditions above minimum standards. (There is a precedent for this procedure with the Amsterdam Treaty to which the Employment Chapter was added at a late stage. There are also precedents with the Monti clause and the Services Directive).

Essentially, the Laval judgment shows the priority of the "free movement" clause over "collective action" - and the ETU would prefer them the other way round. Their claim that the right to collective action itself is in danger is complete bunkum, so we'd essentially be talking about giving the right of collective action precedence over freedom of movement simply to rectify what happened in the Laval case. Since that will lead in turn to unexpected results of its own, I wouldn't support such a major change for so little a cause.

[mmclo]

There is nothing here or in the links about changing Lisbon

They have asked for a declaration in anticipation of it being passed

Everything else is about directives pending or already issued

Please stop misleading titles in threads just becasue you want to beleive somehing is being said which is not

In fact the ETUC said they wanted the treaty to go further...do you support them on this

http://www.etuc.org/a/4176?var_recherch ... m%20Treaty

EU Reform Treaty: Statement by the ETUC
1. The ETUC regrets the unambitious nature of much of the EU Reform Treaty. There was a real opportunity to revive social Europe by extending qualified majority voting and by extending the competences of the Union to control the dark side of globalisation and rampant financial capitalism.

4. On services of general interest, the ETUC welcomes the proposed new protocol, but underlines the need for a regulatory framework at EU level.

[spartacus]

ibis, maybe you should actually read the thing?

Collective action by unions to push for equal pay with host country workers could be regarded as an obstacle to free movement

So we are being told that the right to strike is a fundamental right but not so fundamental as the EU’s free movement provisions. This is a licence for social dumping and for unions being prevented from taking action to improve matters. Any company in a transnational dispute has the opportunity to use this judgement against union actions, alleging “disproportionality”.

The idea of social Europe has taken a blow. Put simply, the action of employers using free movement as a pretext for social dumping practices is resulting in unions having to justify, ultimately to the courts, the actions they take against those employers’ tactics. That is both wrong and dangerous. Wrong because workers’ rights to equal treatment in the host country should be the guiding principle. Wrong because unions must be autonomous. And dangerous because it reinforces those critics of Europe who have long said that liberal Europe would always threaten the generally excellent social, collective bargaining and welfare systems built up since the Second World War.

[mmclo]

ibis, maybe you should actually read the thing?

Collective action by unions to push for equal pay with host country workers could be regarded as an obstacle to free movement

[quote:2flqp1rj]So we are being told that the right to strike is a fundamental right but not so fundamental as the EU’s free movement provisions. This is a licence for social dumping and for unions being prevented from taking action to improve matters. Any company in a transnational dispute has the opportunity to use this judgement against union actions, alleging “disproportionality”.

The idea of social Europe has taken a blow. Put simply, the action of employers using free movement as a pretext for social dumping practices is resulting in unions having to justify, ultimately to the courts, the actions they take against those employers’ tactics. That is both wrong and dangerous. Wrong because workers’ rights to equal treatment in the host country should be the guiding principle. Wrong because unions must be autonomous. And dangerous because it reinforces those critics of Europe who have long said that liberal Europe would always threaten the generally excellent social, collective bargaining and welfare systems built up since the Second World War.

[/quote:2flqp1rj]

So Spartacus you support the ETUC position on the treaty?

[spartacus]

OK mmclo
bowing to your superior knowledge on these things, could you please explain where the ETUC want the social progress clause to go if not in the Treaty?

[mmclo]

OK mmclo
bowing to your superior knowledge on these things, could you please explain where the ETUC want the social progress clause to go if not in the Treaty?

They don't and if they did they can't, read the rest of the site

Again do you support their position...for example do you favour the further extension of QMV and areas of competences