EU Courts rule employers right to "freedom of establishment" overrides workers right to strike.
The European Court of Justice has ruled in two test cases that strike action against low pay and 'social dumping' offends European Union rules. According to Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at RMT solicitors Thompsons, the two rulings - known as Viking and Vaxholm respectively - could have a profound affect on trade union rights across the EU.
Describing the ruling as 'ahsurd', he warned that they are far more restrictive than even the anti-union laws brought in by successive Tory governments in the 1980's.
The first case involved Finnish ferry company Viking Line, which attempted to reflag one of its ships to Estonia and replace Finnish seafarers with cheaper Estonian labour. Protesting against this clear 'social dumping', Finnish workers attempted to launch strike action. Viking then began legal proceedings and the European Court of Justice has sat on the case for over three years.
The Vaxholm case similarly began after Swedish trade unionists attempted to prevent a Latvian firm Laval paying poverty wages to Latvian builders working in the Swedish town of Vaxholm.
The ECJ has now declared in both cases that EU rules on the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour gives private firms protection against strike action by trade unions. In other words an employers' right to "freedom of establishment" trumps the right to strike.
TAFF VALE
Such rulings are reminiscent of the infamous judgment in 1901 in favour of the Taff Vale Railway against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants for taking strike action. The 'crime' then was known as being "in restraint of trade". Richard Arthur said that the ECJ rulings ran roughshod over trade union rights which have been almost universally recognised in international treaties for decades. "Tory anti-union legislation only restricted the right to strike by introducing stringent procedures in order to carry out industrial action. "However, the European Court of Justice has now given itself the opportunity to scrutinize the legitimacy and the proportionality of any given dispute and the effect it would have on the employer," he said. Furthermore, in the Vaxholm case, the right to strike is superseded where an employer complains that the union is seeking terms in excess of the minimum provided by the Posted Workers Directive. This highlights the fact that the Posted Workers Directive is
designed to remove obstacles to the freedom of firms to provide services abroad - not to protect workers. In fact, it is a mechanism for exporting low pay to other member states. (see sister blog : Ttansportation images)
CHARTER OF RIGHTS?
You may say, well at least the right to strike is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, right? Wrong. Article 28 of the Charter, appended to the renamed EU constitution, says workers may 'take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action'.
But an "Explanation" in Declaration 12 qualifies this by stating: 'The limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices'. Moreover, the entire Charter can be suspended at any time to protect the 'general interests' of the EU or, of course, if it interferes with 'the smooth operation of the market'.
This means that draconian labour legislation already existing in a member state can be preserved while, on the other hand, Brussels can limit trade union rights in order to satisfy 'objectives of general interest' of the EU. The renamed EU Constitution provides that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be made binding in EU law and become superior to national law.
On December 13 2007 EU leaders rubberstamped the renamed EU constitution to
great fanfare while over a quarter of a million Portuguese workers protested outside to almost no media interest. One of the reasons for the protest was the fact that for the first time, the term 'flexicurity' and its basic principles were also adopted by EU leaders in Lisbon.
So what is 'flexicurity' and why has it upset so many trade unionists?
The word has been made up by the European commission to suggest that if a worker accepts flexibility, job security at work will follow. However, Unite general secretary Derek Simpson told The Times last year, flexicurity "hides behind the language of equality to propose measures to force exploitation and insecurity on to every worker in Europe". In essence it is a policy designed to remove collective bargaining rights from workers in order to facilitate further EU integration and deepen the so-called internal market.
The oldest and biggest trade union in Cyprus, PEO, has said that 'flexicurity' represents "a very dangerous attempt to completely smash existing labour laws and gains" increasing the trend towards "casual uninsured jobs". "The changes being sought are aimed in reality at easing labour protection rules, the abolition of full and steady employment as well as the marginalisation of collective agreements," it said.
ATTACK ON UNIONS
Ultimately, flexicurity, EU court judgments and EU rules on 'free movement' - all enshrined in the renamed EU constitution -represent the most fundamental attack on trade union rights since of World War Two. The renamed EU constitution, which would massively extend the powers of EU institutions, must now be ratified by all 27 member states. However, PM Gordon Brown is refusing to honour an election manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the issue. RMT members should write to their MPs and ask them to honour that pledge.
Early Day Motion 597
ECJ RULING ON VIKING LINE
That this House expresses its concern about the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment made on Uth December against the Finnish seafarers' right to take action on the grounds of employers' freedom of establishment; notes specifically that this ruling would allow Viking Line to ignore collective agreements made with Finnish unions, re-flag its vessels to Estonia and recruit local crews on lower rates of pay; notes that at the same time the ECJ recognised that the right to take industrial action is a 'fundamental right of overriding public importance'; is further concerned that this contradictory judgment has profound longer term implications as courts and legislators may in future take the judgment as a licence to undermine industrial action and decide the legality of industrial action under EC law; considers that this judgment provides further evidence that the European Union is increasingly promoting a neo-liberal economic agenda which will further restrict and weaken trade union and worker rights; believes that this process will be strengthened with further integration of the European Union under the Lisbon Treaty; and therefore calls for a referendum on the Treaty as a matter of urgency. Kelvin Hopkins MP
2 comments:
The ruling of the EU Courts bodes dire conseaquences for the humble worker.
The right to withdraw one's labour is I beleive a fundamental human right, and as such should transend national and international law.
The notion that national or international law can trample basic human rights into the ground is both disturbing in its implications and repugnant.
The EU ruling which effectively is an international one as it applies to all member countries of the European Union, can overule the national laws of any member state. The national laws of a member state can grant their citizens rights in line with the European Humans Rights Charter, and in line with wider declarations on the subject of humans rights from other international organisations such as the Internation Labour Organisation, all that can be denied by this European Court ruling.
The claim "Freedom of Establishment" can be used by any business to wantonly exploit their workers and get away with it to an extent that hasn't been seen in Europe for decades. It allows big business to bring in labour from other member states on substantially inferior terms and conditions to those already in force, and that are inferior to the laws of that member state claiming its "Freedom of establishment". Unions can try and take action such as strike action, but the EU will rule such action as illegal as it denies the business "Freedom of establishment". Collective agreements can be overturned, and the ability to negotiate further collective agreements rendered impossible. The net result is that the worker across Europe will find their terms and conditions eroded and wittled away to nothing by this ruling, that the clock is effectively being turned back a hundred years or more by it. The only ones to gain are big business, they will see it becoming ever easier to exploit their workers in whatever fashion they chose, and that their profits will increase accordingly in direct proportion to how they exploit their workforce, the more ruthless they are the bigger the profit will be. The EU ruling effectively removes the ability of organisation such as tradeunions to put a brake on the excesses of big business.
Two companies have gone down that road, they are the first, others will follow. What is a mere tricle now will turn into a gushing torrent and then into a flood. It will effectively turn a large proportion of the European population into something little better than slaves to big business.
The poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer, social injustice will spiral out of controll and unrest will inevitably result.
A referendum is needed on the EU constitution so that workers can stop this trend from progressing further before it does serious harm.
Another opportunity for big business the Tories and their ilk to turn the clock back a hundred years or more, it just increase's their ability to exploit worker ever further and get ever richer off of it.
The EU may have some misguided notion that it will be good for the ecconomy, but whats good for the ecconomy isn't necessarily good for the people. Just because a boss makes an extra few billion, what in hell makes you think that any of that will end up in the pockets of honest hard working worker across europe.
The truth is the workers has always had to content himself with the crumbs from the table at best, all this will mean is that those crumbs will become smaller.
It needs stopping dead in its tracks now before its too late, otherwise you will have a major fight on your hands which will inevitably mean blood on the streets.
Post a Comment