| Author (Person) | Bushill-Matthews, Philip, van den Burg, Ieke |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.9, No.40, 27.11.03, p29 |
| Publication Date | 27/11/2003 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 27/11/03 Continuing our series of MEPs' comments on topical issues focused on special reports in European Voice, two deputies, from the UK and the Netherlands, offer their differing views on employment legislation The directive aimed at "atypical" workers is fundamentally flawed, says Philip Bushill-Matthews THE good news is that the atypical workers' directive is currently blocked in the Council of Ministers. The bad news is that it was ever proposed in the first place. It is but the latest example of the determination of the employment and social affairs directorate-general to pursue outdated dogma, rather than promote new jobs. The very name of this directive says it all. Temporary work is atypical. It varies within companies, between companies, between trade sectors and between member states. To dictate a one-size-fits-all directive embracing such variety is not only absurd: it is likely to reduce the opportunities for temporary work significantly. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has established that in the UK alone as many as 160,000 jobs could be at risk. This would not just damage the prospects for businesses, which need to stay flexible to compete. Above all, it would limit the openings for students trying to pay their way through university, for young mums trying to find work to fit around their available hours, and for other unemployed people trying to enter or re-enter the job market. Flexibility suits them too. Back in my home region of the UK, the reaction of one large employer is revealing. Birmingham City Council has historically employed thousands of temps. They may fill in for people on maternity/paternity leave, or be required on a short-term basis to cope with seasonal peaks in demand for services. The council's fear was that the proposal that temps should have the same terms and conditions as a "comparable worker" in the client organization would open the floodgates for constant industrial tribunals ruling on comparabilities. The cost and the hassle just wasn't worth it. Such jobs would have to go. I can understand the fear of some trade unions that companies may seek to employ temps in place of permanent workers in order to sidestep the increasingly burdensome legislation the EU seeks to impose upon them. As trade union members tend to be permanent workers, rather than temps, then overall union membership numbers might be at risk. Nonetheless, promoting such legislation is not the answer. If companies cannot flex with temporary workers they will either stop growing or they will flex their permanent workforce instead. Neither course is good news for trade unions. In December last year the European Parliament's rapporteur Ieke van den Burg made the point that member states could provide for derogations from the directive by collective agreements. Given trade unions are scarcely involved in temporary work in the UK, we have little scope for such agreements or derogations. The implicit conclusion is that if the unions were to be given greater power all would be well. This conclusion becomes explicit in the final sentence of a letter she sent to the Financial Times: "The CBI and the agency lobby would be better advised to prepare for dialogue with unions than fight a useless battle against this directive." This should not be a battle for trade union power. It should be a battle for the disadvantaged, for people, for jobs. I trust that the new European Commission to be appointed in 2004 will take the Lisbon conclusions seriously. Job creation is already its mandate. This must become its mission. This means dumping this old directive, and focusing on the future instead.
Temps must be offered protection from day one, insists Ieke van den Burg BACK in November 2002, the European Parliament adopted my report on the Temporary Agency Work Directive. It was approved with a big majority. The directive will provide temporary agency workers with better protection from day one. Until now, however, the EU's governments have not been able to reach a common position. It really is about time that the Council of Ministers takes responsibility and breaks the deadlock. The Temporary Agency Work Directive on "atypical" labour has been on the legislative drawing board since the start of the Nineties. The European Social Dialogue failed to reach an agreement on it in 2001 - a big setback for social dialogue and social legislation in the EU. The European Parliament had to press the Commission to table its own proposal which, in simple terms, states that a temporary agency worker should be treated no less favourably than a "comparable" worker in the user company. Only when there is a collective agreement negotiated with the temps' agency, or in cases where temps have a proper employment contract with the agency and are paid between assignments, can member states' derogations be permitted. The Commission, however, introduced a third derogation that has caused much controversy in the European Parliament and in the majority of member states - namely, that the equal treatment provision should be applied only after six weeks. The Parliament voted to rule out this possibility but offered to introduce this as a transitional measure for a maximum period of five years for member states where the equal-treatment principle or the other two derogations are not customary. But this did not seem to be enough for the UK and Ireland. They were supported by Germany (despite German legislation which conforms with the directive minus this provision) and Denmark in opposing any European regulation on this issue. The Parliaments' position is still crystal clear: we must maintain the right balance between flexibility and security, while providing basic protection from day one to vulnerable temp workers. It's not just the unions affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation who are very disappointed about the deadlock. The temporary agency business organization CIETT has said it regrets the failure to reach a compromise. Big operators are eager to establish, with the help of the directive, a more profoundly decent image. In many member states, agency work is still considered to be a rather irregular, illicit and indecent type of work. Yet across the EU, illegal forms of agency work seem to be on the increase, despite the heavy restrictions that member states sometimes apply. No wonder decent agencies are clamouring for the legalization of their business. One other element of the directive, Article 4, obliges member states to review their policies together with social partners. This is far from being tackled at present. Meanwhile, we are on the cusp of enlargement: agency work is a phenomenon in new member states. Already there is evidence of malpractices which lead to mistrust and opposition to the enlarged EU. It's high time the ministers of employment and social affairs, and their bosses in Downing Street, the Bundeskanzleramt and elsewhere, get their heads together to conclude a common position on the directive. The EU must get itself prepared for enlargement and for a regulated labour market that combines flexibility with security for workers every day and everywhere.
Two MEPs offer their differing views on the proposed Temporary Agency Work Directive. |
|
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Employment and Social Affairs |
