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.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
45 Responses to “EU austerity and dismantling of collective bargaining ‘unlawful’”
LB
So how about the flip side. You go on strike and win higher wages. You decide equal pay is trumped by your financial interests, and others don’t get paid.
Hmmm, however if you lose the strike, the employee decides they don’t want you, or decide to pay you less, or those who worked a bonus.
Sauce for the goose is good for the gander eh?
blarg1987
“Hmmm, however if you lose the strike, the employee decides they don’t want you”
I do not get that statement please can you clarify?
Well another system we could have is one in Canada where evryone is part of a trade Union whthere they like it or not as everyone benefits from negotions Union do, however I am sure you would complain about that.
blarg1987
Please clarify how would the majority “screw” the minority?
And have I “screwed others before”?
No I do not agree with this goverment a some of its policies, also they won under first past the post, howver under an alternative system like PR and if more people actually exercised their democratic right things may be different.
LB
It’s a contract. That’s what employment is.
There are terms and conditions to the contract. Nothing wrong with the employer saying that if you don’t turn up for work because you are on strike that they can decide not to employ you. Seems perfectly right to me.
Now I can guess the reply. But if its health and safety … Well, that’s simple. The state deals with health and safety. So it enforces. [1]
[1] However in my experience it doesn’t. Building site next to me has had two crane collapses. Just waiting for the 3rd. HSE won’t act. The wind is too high and blew them down, so that’s OK. [All on tape. Bit awkward that one]
blarg1987
“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”
So based on your arithmatic it would take a decade for the number you have flagged up.
You have said it on here on previous posts.
Also you are forgetting to subtract funded pension schemes including goverment funded pensions as well as private sector pensions so the number is less then the one you just quoted.
http://www.if.org.uk/archives/2031/ons-reveals-full-uk-pension-liabilities