EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Social single market triggers fighting talk

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 21 March 2012, updated 22 March 2012

Trade unions, companies and member states are digging trenches in preparation for a fight over proposals to increase the social dimension of the EU's Single Market, which the European Commission is expected to launch today.

A proposal for a new directive has been designed to reframe the Posted Workers' Directive to prevent perceived abuses, which have been the subject of controversial European Court of Justice rulings (see background).

The proposal to be presented by the Commissioner for employment , László Andor, puts emphasis on the construction sector, where subcontractors hiring workers from other member states would be made jointly liable for workers’ rights enshrined in their home states.

Maxime Cerutti, a director with the employers’ group BusinessEurope, said the proposal lacked impact assessment and would discriminate against the construction sector by miring companies in bureaucracy. He said it would also stifle growth.

But a spokeswoman for the European trades union group, ETUC, told EurActiv the proposal does not go far enough.

“There are other sectors where the same rights should apply to tourism and leisure, why only construction?” the spokeswoman said.

Monti – a clause of his own

More controversially, a new regulation to be published simultaneously will apply fundamental social rights horizontally across the Single Market Act, allowing social protection in cross-border services.

This clause is dubbed 'Monti II', since it reflects a similar clause introduced in 1997 by Mario Monti during his tenure as internal market commissioner, to remove obstacles to the free movement of goods. Monti is now the Italian prime minister.

Cerutti said that the Monti II clause is unsatisfactory because it includes an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, which would have the effect of “Europeanising” strike negotiations.

Under the clause, European social partners may negotiate terms in strikes with a cross-border element.

“The fact that the Treaty [of Rome] exempts the right to strike from EU competencies should be respected,” said Cerutti.

But the ETUC spokeswoman said that the Monti clause fails to address fundamental issues balancing the rights of unions with the judiciary in determining when collective strike action is required.

Deal with Socialists

French MEP Pervenche Berès (Socialists & Democrats), the chair of Parliament's committee on employment and social affairs, has said that Commission President José Manuel Barroso agreed to support the issue when the party endorsed his re-appointment as Commission president in 2009.

The ETUC spokeswoman said that unions will remind Barroso of his pledge, as there was much disappointment over his failure to live up to his word.

Meanwhile both proposals face an uphill battle in the European Parliament.

The directive – which will be subject to co-decision procedure – will face “a fairly strong blocking minority” even though there has been so far no outright disagreement from member states, an EU diplomat told EurActiv. 

The Monti II clause will require the unanimous vote of the Council since it is a regulation, but Britain opposes it.

EurActiv understands that the UK agrees with the need for economic dynamism and social justice, but that it believes the regulation is a distraction from Europe’s priority to ensure growth and competitiveness.

Next steps: 
  • 2nd half 2012: Regulation to be debated by Council, directive to go through co-decision procedure in Parliament, Council
Jeremy Fleming

COMMENTS

  • As far as I can understand, a regulation does not in itself require Council unanimity (i.e. British approval). However, according to art. 153 paragraphs 1 and 5, the EU must indeed either act unanimously in the field of social protection of workers or not act at all in the field of strikes.
    I remember very well that it was M. Anthony Blair and his Labour Government who watered down the social component of the draft EU Constitution shortly after it was proposed to the heads of State. What was later finally adopted as the Lisbon Treaty enshrined this social renouncement in marble. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that Britain continues to obstruct social progress in Europe, with exactly the same arguments it has been using for the last fifteen years.
    Therefore, whatever directive, or better, regulation, in the field of social policy, if it is to be truely progressive (which means being federal and compulsory), should be formally based on the parts of article 153-1 which do not require unanimity, but only qualified majority.
    The greatest lawyers of the EU were able to disactivate the no bail-out clause in order to pour billions to save the banks; I do not see why there should be any technical problem in bypassing Britain's notorious obstructionism, provided this was ever the intention of Europe's current conservative majority.

    By :
    Charles
    - Posted on :
    22/03/2012
Construction sector highlighted
Background: 

In the Laval case (also known as the Vaxholm case), Latvian company Laval un Partneri posted several dozen workers from Latvia to building sites in Sweden. Their work included refurbishing a school in Vaxholm. 

Swedish unions took action against Laval over the company's refusal to agree to respect Swedish laws on working conditions and minimum wages. The Swedish labour court referred the case to the European Court of Justice. 

Presenting his opinion on the Laval case on 23 May 2007, Advocate-General Paolo Mengozzi  argued that "where a member state has no system for declaring collective agreements to be of universal application," the Posting of Workers Directive "must be interpreted as not preventing trade unions from attempting, by means of collective action to compel a service provider of another member state to subscribe to the rate of pay determined in accordance with a collective agreement which is applicable in practice to domestic undertakings in the same sector". 

In the related Viking case, the Court held that trade unions' right to take collective action may be limited by employers' right to freedom of establishment (see EurActiv 12/12/07).

Employment ministers from France, Luxembourg and Sweden called in October 2008 for a political solution to EJC rulings that inflamed debate on the balance between workers' rights and economic freedom in the EU.

The ministers convened at the Forum on Workers' Rights and Economic Freedoms in Brussels to discuss the implications of the Laval court ruling.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Social Europe News videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Social Europe Promoted videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising