The European Union's austerity measures and the dismantling of collective bargaining in a number of countries is unlawful, according to a professor at the University of Bremen.
The European Union’s austerity measures and the dismantling of collective bargaining in a number of countries is unlawful, according to a report by professor Andreas Fischer-Lescano of the University of Bremen in Germany.
The report, drawn up for the Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB), the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), claims that the European Commission and the European Central Bank (because of their involvement in the troika) are breaching the primary law of the EU because the Treaty Of Lisbon (which provides the constitutional basis of the European Union) also includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
EU countries which approve of the Memoranda Of Understanding in the Governing Council of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) are bound to Fundamental and Human Rights, argues Professor Fischer-Lescano, who also says the crisis does not render EU law inoperative.
On a national level this approach was objected to by constitutional courts, Fischer-Lescano says, citing Portugal as an example. The European Parliament has to take action.
“Across Europe, trade unions have fought long and hard against austerity, and demand a fundamental political change of course,” says Bernhard Achitz, general secretary of the Austrian Trade Union Federation:
“From drastic cuts in social spending, restrictions on basic trade union rights, such as the actual abolishment of collective agreements, intervention in minimum wages and much more than that, we have enough.”
In order to substantiate the trade union’s argument, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), ÖGB, and the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (AK) commissioned the legal opinion:
“The results are very clear. The socially unjust and economic unreasonably austerity of the EU must come to an immediate termination. It is bad for the people, bad for Europe and it is also unlawful,” said Achitz.
The report strengthens the claim of European trade unions for a fundamental change of course and a European investment plan, such as the one recently proposed by the ETUC, says Achitz:
“Investment in the welfare state and social services must take the place of short-sighted austerity policies, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights must no longer remain a paper tiger, it has to eventually be observed by the EU policy.
“Since the financial crisis started in 2008, member states have taken a number of measures to cut public spending and reduce budget deficits. These austerity measures have also targeted social rights and have led to a deregulation of national labour laws as well as the dismantling of collective bargaining systems”, says Veronica Nilson, Confederal Secretary of the ETUC.
“The situation is the worst in the programme countries where the troika has imposed far-reaching measures. They have imposed cuts in minimum wage, interfered with collective bargaining forcing collective bargaining to take place at company level.
“Professor Fischer-Lescano’s study strengthens our argument that we have to legally challenge the austerity measures. Trade unions have already had some success through the collective complaints procedure at the Council of Europe.”
45 Responses to “EU austerity and dismantling of collective bargaining ‘unlawful’”
blarg1987
Hmm a tricky one, maybe it should work that if employees ignore collective barganing then they should not recieve any benefit from collective barganing i.e. wages keep up with inflation etc.
Trouble is some employers imply that a specific employee is the best and can rise above everyone else, when multiplied by the whole workforce and only 1 in 10 places available itis a divide and rule tactic which is something I do not agree with.
blarg1987
Well trouble with your “evidence” is that it just suddenly happened under new labour in the early 00’s whenactually national insurence started in 1949.
PFI again was somethingbthat started in the mid 90’s but was greatly increased under New Labur which I admit.
You keep saying the “debt” suddenly happened in the early 21st centuary when some of the policies have happened over decades under consecutive goverments both left and right wing.
So I find it hard to make a comment or recommendation when the criticism has several holes in it.
LB
Come on, you asked for a yes no answer for collective bargaining.
Why are you providing a one number answer to my question?
What’s PFI got to do with pensions? You’re just trying to get out of answering a question on pensions.
I know what the answer is for PFI. I know what it is for borrowing.
It’s the pensions that are the major issue. Currently they are about 7,000 bn on top of the other debts.
How can you pay that?
What’s the consequences?
For the poor its simple, they are f***cked.
LB
So you want the majority to screw the minority. How socialist.
So why are you complaining about the current government? They have a majority. Under your logic it’s their time to screw you as you screwed others before you.
LB
I never said it was under Labour. The only numbers I have however are for Labour. 734 bn a year (each year) for 2005-2010
GIven total taxes are far lower, its going to f*ck the poor. Really do them in.
You have to explain how people are going to survive with no welfare state.
That’s the hard numbers. It shows that the debt is increasing far faster than total taxes.
So look at the agenda. Balls is on the box going on about saying the rich shall get nothing. Starting with child benefit, Now moving on to winter fuel. We’ve the same angle on bus passes. OK, I guess they won’t. However, if you expect them to willingly pay as part of a social contract, they may well decide that paying and getting nothing isn’t a social contract, its extortion. So much for universal coverage.
Likewise there’s the other agenda. Pensions are welfare. So do you go down that route? Civil servants on welfare? After all its from the state.
State pension? Denied the rich even though they paid millions in value. [26K a year workers paid 630K in value]
It’s going to get very rough and its people like you who’ve taken the money and can’t pay out.