The social partners, led by BusinessEurope and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), remained concerned about the European Commission’s proposal for a new Single Market Emergency Instrument (SMEI) on Monday 19 September.
Contacted by EUROPE, Martynas Barysas, director at BusinessEurope, said two main concerns remain: the scope and the level of intervention by the European Commission, although some provisions have been improved compared to previous versions.
As for the scope, Barysas noted that in addition to tackling single market disruptions, the European Commission intends to address broader supply chain challenges.
In this context, the level of intervention goes a long way, he says. For example, he explained, the instrument obliges Member States to draw up an inventory of the “most relevant” economic operators in a given supply chain of strategic importance, even before an emergency is declared. This selection could distort competition between economic operators and send the wrong signals to the market at a sensitive time, he said.
Another example: when the crisis is at its worst, the European Commission can ask companies to produce certain products as a priority. The company receiving the request may refuse it, provided that it is duly justified. This would place a very heavy burden on businesses, especially SMEs, especially as they are likely to be in crisis management mode, he said. “One can assume that the European Commission will not just wait for an emailed apology”, the expert remarked ironically.
On the SMEunited side, expert Sophia Zakari appreciated the attention given to SMEs. However, “[they] would like to have more details on how SME envoys will be involved in the advisory group”.
As for the European trade unions, the fear has been the same since the beginning. “The European Commission’s proposal for a Single Market Emergency Instrument (SMEI) is still silent on the protection of the right to strike”, they said in a press release.
In the draft regulation published today, the Commission has included a reference to the right to collective bargaining and action, they note, “but only in the non-binding recitals rather than in the regulation itself”.
“We were pleased to hear the Commission make clear (...) that it had no intention of weakening the right to strike through this regulation” they continue, referring to an answer given to EUROPE by Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton (see EUROPE 13024/1).
“However, if this is the case, the Commission should not hesitate to include a clause guaranteeing the right to strike”, they suggested. And they concluded: “Trade unions work on the basis of the law, not on the basis of promises. The right to strike must be included in the regulations.” (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)