Brussels, 17/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - A press release has indicated that by adopting the recommendation during the plenary of German trade unionist Ursula Engelen-Kefer on the draft amendment to certain aspects of changes in the working time directive, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has described the proposal as a “considerable step backwards”. The committee underlines the need to protect the health and safety of workers and to better reconcile their professional and private lives and is asking for a balance between workers' rights and working time flexibility. In its recommendation, the EESC doubts that the Commission proposal will enable objectives to be attained, such as the high level of health and safety protection for workers. It considers that it is up to social partners to agree between themselves, at a national level, on flexible working hours. The EESC recommendation focuses on four essential points: 1) the role of social partners; 2) compliance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EC; 3) measures for organising working time that allow for better reconciliation of family and professional life; 4) re-examination of the individual opt-out.
Counter-opinion of the Employers Group in support of the Commission
This opinion led to the presentation of a counter-opinion from the EESC Employers Group supporting the overall position of the Commission. Although rejected in the plenary (by 109 votes for, 156 against, with 7 abstentions), this counter-opinion obtained enough votes to be annexed to the opinion adopted and published in the Official Journal of the EU. In this text, the Employers Group of the EESC is said the share the point of view of the Commission for the “inactive period of stand-by should not be considered as working time”. This distinction is essential for the effective functioning of all companies, notably SMEs, stated the Employers Group, explaining that, “the period of inactivity could, if necessary, be determined as a number of hours, to take into account the different needs of the various sectors and companies”. The counter-opinion believes it necessary to “maintain the opt-out, the collective opt-out having the same stranding as the individual opt-out. The Employers explained that this is an “essential aspect that will allow the different practices to be taken into account in work relations in the while of the enlarged EU, as well as the needs of companies, needs and wishers of workers who want to work longer in certain periods of their lives, explains the group, while adding that it is necessary “to guarantee that this opportunity remains an option but is not used in an abusive way and that the worker want change his decision of working longer in case of changes in their personal situations”.