Brussels, 10/03/2016 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the 1996 directive on posted workers received little enthusiasm at the European Parliament or among social partners. Some believed the proposal was too timid, whilst others were of the opinion that it went too far.
The EPP group is testimony enough to the division provoked by the Commission's proposal. It should be pointed out that this proposal seeks to bring the net pay received by posted and local workers closer together (see EUROPE 11507). This division had already arisen from inside this political group (see EUROPE 11504) and reflects the East-West schism that is currently taking shape at the Council of Ministers (see EUROPE 11506).
During the first debate on this subject at the plenary session on Tuesday evening 8 March in Strasbourg, the Maltese MEP, David Casa, made a contribution on behalf of the EPP but did not wish to give his group an official position on this proposal and with good reason. Whilst his Dutch colleague, Jeroen Lenaers, congratulated the Commission on an “important and very good” proposal, his Polish colleague, Danuta Jazlowiecka, described it, on the contrary, as premature and a dangerous threat to the competitiveness of workers from Central and Eastern Europe. Sven Schulze from Germany had certain misgivings and said that the principle of “equal work, equal pay in the same place” was commendable but difficult to implement.
The Social Democrats have already positioned themselves as Commission allies. Although many of them who saw this proposal for targeted revision as a welcome step in the fight against “social dumping”, almost all of them emphasised that it was just a first albeit too timid step. Jutta Steinruck from Germany spoke on behalf of the group and subsequently asserted that they needed to go further in the time limit imposed on postings (24 months) by setting a six-month limit for the building sector. In areas where the Commission allows a choice to be made on the application of the new provisions on pay conditions throughout the subcontracting chain, Steinruck suggested making this into an obligation, as did the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC).
The GUE/NGL expressed a similar position. This group considers that targeted revision does not go far enough. Equal pay conditions have not been entirely ensured with this revision, as emphasised by Thomas Handel (Germany). His colleague from the same group, Patrick Le Hyaric (France) would have preferred the Commission to start from scratch by proposing a completely new directive.
Much of the criticism formulated by Steinruck, ETUC, UEAPME (European Union of Craft Industries and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises) and the EFBWW (European Federation of Building and Woodworkers), focused on the same issue in the proposal. This involves the exclusion of non-universal sectoral collective agreements in force in some member states as a point of reference for pay conditions for posted workers. The same approach was made by the Greens, which preferred, however, to wait before giving its position on the entire proposal.
On this specific question, the Commission proposal refers, in effect, exclusively to the pay conditions set out in a member state by the law or the collective agreements in general application. According to the Commission it is impossible to do the same for conventions with restricted scope (sectoral, regional or those established at a company level), which is sometimes practised, particularly in Germany. This is legally impossible because such an approach set out in a European directive would introduce discriminatory treatment between workers from the same member state and would contravene the principles of the single market, explained a senior Commission official.
The ECR and ALDE groups are both opposed to this proposal for targeted revision. Anthea McIntyre (ECR, United Kingdom) said that the principle of “equal work, equal pay in the same place” went too far and could damage SMEs. Her Polish colleague, Kosma Zlotowski, also said that he was against this revision, which he believed benefited Western Europe but was damaging for countries such as Poland and which in his eyes, would increase unemployment. Martina Dlabajova (ALDE, Czech Republic) said that this targeted revision was a “great surprise”, which would simply damage cross-border business.
It should also be pointed out that the only practically unconditional praise addressed to the Commission came from representatives from the European Builders Confederation. The latter did not qualify the praise they gave the approach chosen in this proposal, which they believed got to the root problems relating to postings, namely the length and cost of them. (Original version in French by Jan Kordys)