Brussels, 16/04/2014 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 16 April, the European Parliament approved, with no amendments, the compromise text reached with the Greek Presidency of the Council on the directive implementing the 1996 directive on worker secondment. 474 MEPs voted in favour, 158 against and 39 abstained. However, this comfortable majority hides differences of opinion within the institution, which came to light during the debate the day before the vote.
As is often the case following inter-institutional negotiations which lead to a compromise, all of the central players involved subsequently agree to praise the “spirit of flexibility”, “sense of compromise” and a “well-balanced end result”. The worker secondment directive was no exception to this rule, as demonstrated by the first contributions at the plenary session of the Parliament in Strasbourg on the eve of the vote. Parliament's rapporteur, the MEP Danuta Jazlowiecka (EPP, Poland), the Greek Deputy Foreign Minister, Dimitris Kourkoulas, and Commissioner Laszlo Andor (Employment and Social Affairs) all welcomed the results of the negotiations. This result (see EUROPE 11029) was admittedly not perfect, they said, but it nonetheless had the merit of striking a fair balance between the protection of posted workers and the economic freedoms related to the single market.
The new elements brought in by this implementing directive can be summed up in a handful of points: - introduction of new elements making it possible to identify a situation of secondment and new means to carry out controls by the administration of the state hosting posted workers (non-exhaustive lists); - greater cooperation between the member states on setting precise time limits for the information to be transferred; - revision of the functioning of the cross-border implementation of fines and administrative sanctions; - improved access to information, both for the member states and the service providers; - the obligation for the company seconding workers to appoint a contact person; - the obligation to bring in a joint and several liability system for the direct sub-contractor in the construction sector or an equivalent system (however, the text did not stipulate the outlines of such a system).
Once the first contributions were concluded, the debate between the MEPs quickly turned into a Left-Right clash. Some, such as the MEPs Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR, Poland) and Olle Schmidt (ADLE, Sweden), did not hesitate to describe this clash as a pitched battle between, on the one hand, “xenophobes and nationalists” who, with their rejection of the text, reject the single market and, on the other, the defenders of a free and open Europe. The members of the ECR proved to be the most ardent defenders of the text, just after the members of the EPP and the ALDE. The Greens/EFA Group gave the impression of supporting the text unwillingly, as it was far from “being a panacea”, as the German MEP Elisabeth Schroedter put it.
However, nor did criticism of the compromise shrink from provocative vocabulary, such as the lyrical waxings of the French Front National MEP Marine Le Pen (independent), who lambasted the proposal, describing it as a “social cluster bomb” or a “criminal text for the dignity and well-being of workers”. Less virulent but equally critical was UK Socialist Stephen Hughes, who described it as a “bad piece of legislation”, Article 9 of which (on national control measures and administrative requirements) is “quite shameful”, as it is “as ambiguous as possible”.
Overall, however, the debate took place in less passionate terms, although considerable differences of opinion remained between Left and Right. The EPP and ALDE Groups frequently referred to it as a “good compromise” - “not perfect, but it will significantly improve the current landscape”, as UK member Phil Bennion (ALDE) summed it up. Others, such as Regina Bastos (EPP, Portugal) and Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (EPP, Poland), highlighted posting as an important tool in fighting unemployment and said that this compromise will offer appropriate tools to fight fraud and abuse, with the added bonus of giving the business sector greater legal clarity.
Within the S&D Group, the MEPs were more divided between those who saw the text as including sufficient improvement to warrant their support and those which felt that it was a wasted opportunity, as the progress in question was too “cosmetic” to let them get behind the text. Among the Social Democrats who gave the text their backing were Sweden's Olle Ludvigsson, Ole Christensen of Denmark and the Belgian member Frédéric Daerden. However, their colleagues, such as Stephen Hughes, Italy's Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Alejandro Cercas of Spain and the German Jutta Steinruck rejected this compromise with the Council. They all lent towards the position summed up by Cercas: at the reading of the results of the trialogue, it would be better to go to a second reading, or immediately consider a new directive. The latter idea particularly appealed to the GUE/NGL Group, which would prefer a clean slate on the framework for worker posting within Community law.
Closing the debate, Andor told the MEPs who are still not satisfied that “it is important to remember that when compromise is struck, there is a give and take on both sides. So please don't say that you gain nothing if you have not gained everything you originally wanted”. He added that “the time has come to close the deal” and to “adopt the text on first reading”, which is what the Parliament did the next day. Today, all that remains to be done is for the Council to launch the implementation process for these new rules and once that is done, the member states will have two years to transpose them into national law. (JK)