EU abandons temporary agency workers

EMPLOYMENT ministers from around Europe meeting in Brussels on 5/6 December have driven another nail in the coffin of the ‘social Europe’ which we are told is promoted by the European Union.
The Council of Ministers’ decisions to deny protection for temporary agency workers allow member states to continue flouting existing legislation to enforce limits on working time and put in place a series of principles on the latest scam being perpetrated by the EU in the field of employment – “flexicurity”.
The British and Irish governments were active in opposing the Temporary Agency Workers’ Directive, which attempts to end the well-documented abuse of temporary agency workers by providing them with a clear route to equal pay and conditions.
The Working Time Directive, as it stands, provides for a maximum working week of 48 hours, something which was first called for by the International Labour Organisation in 1919. This directive also regulates rest periods, breaks and annual leave. The proposal to water down workers’ rights did not get the necessary majority in the Council of Ministers because, for some countries, it doesn’t go far enough, but the Commission still refuses to act to ensure that member states respect the provisions of the existing directive.
What the Council of Ministers did manage to agree was a series of principles for “flexicurity”. Despite the honey-coated words from employment ministers, the real intention of flexicurity is clear from the Meeting of the Council of Economic and Financial Affairs Ministers on 4 December. That called for reforms to “extend working lives and contain pension cost increases” as well as “increasing incentives on benefit systems” (i.e. cuts in benefits).
As David Begg of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions said about the recent budget in Ireland: “Flexibility in this place means hiring and firing. It never means flexibility of people to work in a way that is beneficial for society at large.”
The shape of things to come on employment issues was clearly signalled by the European Commission’s Green Paper on the Modernisation of Labour Law (Commission-speak for attacking workers’ rights). Trade unionists from all over Europe had a conference in Strasbourg in January 2007 at which Mary Lou McDonald MEP called the Green Paper “the latest attempt by the ideologically-driven European Commission to undermine workers’ rights and to remove social protection from those workers who most need it”. “Flexicurity” figured prominently in the Commission proposal.
As government heads gathered in Brussels in March, McDonald reminded them:
“EU policies need to completely change if we are to really address the issues of sustainable economic growth and good quality jobs, and to tackle income inequality.”
On the plus side, McDonald’s report on the Maritime Labour Convention of the International Labour Organisations was adopted almost unanimously by the Parliament. The Convention provides for improved working and living conditions for seafarers and a strong enforcement regime. As McDonald said at the time:
“The Irish Ferries dispute shows that the maritime sector is in dire need of regulation and that workers in the sector need to be protected.”
This Convention shows the value of dealing with employment protection issues on the global level. When the EU deals with employment issues the imperative is to reduce labour costs and protections in order to compete with low-wage economies – a race to the bottom.
ILO conventions, which are negotiated with governments and social partners world -wide, tend to be far more progressive than anything the EU has come up with in a long time. The problem is that not all ILO conventions are ratified, and the enforcement measures are not as strong as in the EU (although, looking at the EU’s reluctance to enforce the implementation of the Working Time Directive, one wonders whether the European Commission only uses its extensive powers in favour of big business).
Rather than trying to undermine pay and conditions in Europe, would the EU not be better served by strengthening global institutions such as the ILO?
The big issue in the EU throughout the year has been the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. As heads of government met in Brussels in June, Mary Lou McDonald returned to employment and social affairs themes, calling on leaders to ensure that the new Treaty would allow “member states to make their own economic choices in the best interests of their people and in order to tackle poverty and social exclusion” and “enhance the ability of member states to provide public services rather than commercialising and liberalising them”.
Given the failure of the Council of Ministers in any way to advance the position of people in employment, and their abject failure to protect the rights of agency workers, supporters of the Lisbon Treaty have a lot of explaining to do if they want to convince workers to vote yes.
The reality is that the Treaty signed in Lisbon on 13 December copper-fastens the right-wing policy agenda of the EU. A vote against the Treaty would be the beginning of a fight-back against the ideologically-driven attacks on workers’ rights.

De Brún in Friends of the Earth panel debate on Waste Directive

SINN FÉIN’S MEP on the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, Bairbre de Brún, has taken part in a major Friends of the Earth panel debate in Brussels. The hearing, entitled ‘Don’t Waste Your Climate’, brought together MEPs and experts from across Europe to look at the new Waste Framework Directive.
The seminar marked the launch of new research by Friends of the Earth on waste and recycling. The research relates to the Waste Framework Directive, a major piece of environmental legislation which will lay down the rules for states on how they deal with their waste.
The event in Brussels was designed to spark debate among MEPs and other actors about the upcoming Council and Parliament deliberations on the directive, for which Bairbre de Brún is the GUE/NGL shadow rapporteur.
Bairbre de Brún participated in a panel discussion with other MEPs and experts. She said:
“I have a long record as an MEP working on environmental issues, including this very important topic of future waste legislation for Europe. Indeed, only last week, when I met with Irish Government officials in Dublin as part of a European Parliament delegation, I took the opportunity to raise some of my concerns with Environment Minister John Gormley. Waste legislation will be crucial for the environment in Ireland, North and South, and our ability to deal with climate change.”
She added:
“This hearing has come at an important point as the directive on waste is due to return for decision to the European Parliament soon. EU recycling targets can have a positive benefit in reducing climate emissions and we need to move urgently in this direction. Once again, I and Sinn Féin will defend the rights of communities not to have incinerators foisted upon them and we will demand that future policy is based on more environmentally-friendly options.”
As she noted, also in November, Bairbre de Brún MEP travelled to Dublin as part of a delegation from the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee.
At a meeting between the European Parliament delegation and Environment Minister John Gormley, Bairbre raised the issue of waste management and the importance of a binding waste hierarchy and of EU level targets for waste prevention and for recycling.
Other topics discussed at the meeting included broader waste and water issues (including the recent problems in Galway) and the Irish Government’s contribution to combating climate change. Bairbre de Brún said:
“We need to emphasise the prevention of waste, and reuse and recycling. Incineration is one of the least environmentally friendly options. Ireland needs to put major resources and policy emphasis on the more positive levels of the waste hierarchy.”

Cyprus unity on Brussels agenda

THE President of the Cypriot Parliament, the House of Representatives, Mr Dimitris Christofias, visited Brussels between 4-5 of December and had meetings in the European Commission and Parliament at the highest level on the current political situation in the Cyprus and the need to break the impasse.
Mr Christofias, who is also General Secretary of the Central Committee of AKEL (Progressive Party of Working People) stressed the political will to work hard for a solution and for the implementation of the 8 July agreement, which Turkey does not want and is seeking to put obstacles to. Noting that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots themselves should find an agreement on their common future, Mr Christofias underlined that for this to be achieved “we should tell Turkey that it has to leave Cyprus and this is the agreement we have reached between us”. He added:
“We should tell the guarantor powers – the ‘mother countries’, that is Turkey and Greece, and the ‘stepmother’, Britain – that Cyprus belongs to the Cypriots and that this is the deal we have agreed to: a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation which will safeguard the human rights and fundamental rights of all Cypriots and that Turkey must accept it.”
He stated that the Cyprus issue is a problem of invasion and occupation and not a problem of lifting the ‘isolation’ of the Turkish Cypriots.
In reference to the concerns about the non-solution of the Cyprus problem and to a kind of emotional stand regarding the so-called ‘isolation’ of the Turkish Cypriots, Mr Christofias pointed out that this disguises the very essence of the Cyprus problem which is, above all, a problem of the occupation by the Turkish troops. Demilitarisation will safeguard the future of all Cypriots.
Mr Christofias stood on the combination of two fundamental elements: the assertion until the very end of the basic principles of the solution of the Cyprus problem and the political will and readiness for an honourable compromise with the Turkish Cypriots.
The goal is to struggle until the very end for the termination of the occupation, the withdrawal of the occupation troops and the liberation of Cyprus from colonisation and for the demilitarisation of the Cyprus Republic.
“We want to free ourselves from any foreign dependency whatsoever so that no foreign country can intervene in the internal affairs of a reunified Cyprus,” he stressed.
“We will struggle for the reunification of the state, the people, the institutions and the economy. Our concept for reunification has nothing to do with approaches which refer to the assimilation of one community by the other.
“Our concept regarding reunification has to do with the necessity of social interaction prevailing over national differences, which life itself generates by making people of different origins struggle for the same social goals.   
“We will struggle for the restoration and safeguarding of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots, including the right of the refugees to return and the right of property.
“We must constantly work for the construction of a common front with the Turkish Cypriots against the occupation and for the formulation of common positions on the solution of the Cyprus problem.”

EU public hearing on PEACE Programme

THE Regional Development Committee of the European Parliament held a public hearing last month in conjunction with Bairbre de Brún’s report on the PEACE programme.
The academic and expert on the Peace Programme, Brandon Hamber, presented his work on reconciliation including the need for change as part of a process of reconciliation. Caroline Newell, of the Ballynafeigh Arts and Cultural Society, spoke of the role of grassroots activists in implementing the programme.
Also speaking was Pat Colgan, Chief Executive of the Special EU Programmes Body, who explained the unique legal position of the SEUPB. Duncan Morrow, CEO of the Community Relations Council, also outlined what the CRC does in relation to the PEACE Programme.
Speaking in Brussels at the meeting, Bairbre de Brún said:
“I am delighted to be part of this event which will allow MEPs and Commission officials to discuss what the PEACE programme has done in Ireland and which will impress upon them that their continued support is needed.
“As the European Parliament’s appointed rapporteur, I am especially pleased by the positive feedback with which MEPs from across Europe have greeted my work to date.
“Today is another important part of my work to ensure that the PEACE Programme and those involved with it receive as high as possible a profile at European level in order to ensure the EU’s continued goodwill towards the programme.”
Representing the SEUPB, Pat Colgan addressed the MEPs on its role in PEACE I and II as well as its planned role in PEACE III. He explained the financial background to PEACE, saying that the programme had benefited from funding worth €333 million, with €225 million of investment from the EU.
Caroline Newell, of the East Belfast Education Centre and a member of the management board of Ballynafeigh Arts and Cultural Society, told of a PEACE “success story” which operates on a cross-community and cross-border basis, bringing together young people from East Belfast and County Donegal.
Brandon Hamber (Research co-ordinator of INCORE – UN Research Centre for the Study of Conflict at the University of Ulster) presented his widely-acclaimed research on the PEACE programmes. His model of reconciliation was explained and he emphasised the need to include all aspects of the model.
Duncan Morrow, CEO of the Community Relations Council, emphasised that long-term and continuous support by the EU had been shown to be of great value.
MEPs then took their opportunity to thank the contributors and ask follow-up questions. The hearing allowed MEPs to learn more about Ireland’s PEACE programme, which will be the subject of a parliamentary report by Bairbre de Brún expected to be voted on by all MEPs early next year.