During a videoconference discussion on Thursday 29 October, Nicolas Schmit, the European Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, tried to allay fears expressed by several MEPs on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) that the directive on legal minimum wages in the EU might encroach on domestic jurisdictions and the autonomy of social partners.
The coordinators of the main political groups, Dennis Radtke (EPP, Germany), Agnes Jongerius (S&D, Netherlands) and Sylvie Brunet (Renew Europe, France), welcomed the directive. However, despite repeated attempts by the Commissioner (see EUROPE 12387/17), since the very beginning, and by the President of the European Commission herself (see EUROPE 12561/2) to reassure them, a number of MEPs again expressed serious concern about breaches of the principle of subsidiarity.
Unsurprisingly, the criticism mainly came from MEPs from Scandinavian countries, who are very protective of their labour relations, but also came from MEPs from Eastern European countries, who, by contrast, prefer to set the minimum wage by legislation. Elżbieta Rafalska (ECR coordinator, Poland), for example, wondered whether article 4§2 of the directive, which asks Member States to promote collective agreements, conflicted with the practices in Member States which, like Poland, set a legal minimum wage. Rafalska also wondered whether the criteria laid down in article 5§2 for determining whether the minimum wage was set at a suitable level were voluntary or compulsory.
Similarly, but for diametrically opposite reasons, Nikolaj Villumsen (GUE/NGL coordinator, Denmark) expressed concern about respect for the autonomy of social partners. He wondered whether a worker from one of the six Member States that do not have a statutory minimum wage (see EUROPE 12591/8) could take their right to the minimum wage to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In addition, the threshold for collective agreement coverage set at 70% of workers might undermine the Nordic model, he said.
Schmit gave an assurance that the criteria were voluntary. “We are not intervening in national systems in a way that now national systems have to be completely changed”, he said. “But I think it is useful to use a certain number of criteria for better objective wage-setting”.
“With regard to the Nordic model, no citizen will have the right, on the basis of this directive, to go to the European Court to ask for a minimum wage or anything else. It is simply a basic legal principle!”, he told Villumsen. The Commissioner insisted that article 1§3 of the directive not only provides protection but also recognises collective agreements. “Which didn’t used to be the case. The court cannot disregard what the legislators have established!”, he said.
As evidence that the political groups will be clearly divided along delegation lines, the most direct attack came from the Swedish centrist MEP, Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew Europe): “Well, with Halloween fast approaching, reading this proposal is a bit terrifying for me as a Swede, especially for those of us who value legally sound policies”. He went on to state that the Commission had chosen to present a directive against the advice of 15 of the Member States. “Believe me, I have had a lot of discussions with ministers and I cannot find the 15 Member States”, said the Commissioner, before going on to ask again where in the directive it stated that there was a project to “demolish” labour relations.
Schmit acknowledged in his responses that it was not possible to estimate the impact of the directive on workers. He also said that the directive only applied to workers with a contract, as platform workers are covered by other instruments. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)