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
I do not know how uch or whether there is a debt or not o vil service pensions as all the figures released by all the sources 9yours included) admit that there are many factors that are involved in working costs out so it is impossible to give an exact figure.
I did not say that the fullfacts figure was wrong, i just asked have you written to them and told them their figures are rng as you believe they are and have they amended it accordingly?
Take your answer is no, in which case why not?
LB
So if an employer rips up your contract and imposes new terms and conditions on you are they in breach of contract?
=======
Yep. However, if your contract says there is 1 months notice, then they can give you a months notice of the change. You are then free to say that you don’t want the new contract they are offering, and you can walk away.
It’s a contract. Both sides have to agree. That’s a long established part of contract law.
So for example, if you have a 3 month notice period, and they change the contract with immediate effect, they are in breech of contract, and you sue.
Similarly, in my books, if your contract says you have to give notice of time off, and you don’t, for example for a strike, then you are in breech of contract there.
Which bit of contract law are you struggling with?
blarg1987
Well Unions do gibve notice of a strike generally so they are in the law and not Skiving work so you can;t legally sack them.
As you said both sides have to agree so if there is no agreement, then an employer still imposes changes is this not a breah as you have just said both sides have to agree.
LB
I have done. They ignored it.
I raised the questions that are in the document you linked to
This one
http://www.if.org.uk/archives/2031/ons-reveals-full-uk-pension-liabilities
as well as this one
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf
Both point to the extent of the true debt and more frightenly the increase each year. Compare that to total taxes and even you can work out what’s going to happen.
That’s apocalyptic for the poor.
LB
Well, they can. See Falkirk for a good example. They struck. Company said, ok, you’re fired. We’re closing the place down. All legal.
It’s back to the whole point about contracts. Both sides have to agree.
The best way of controlling the relationship is to make it much more attractive to set up business in the UK, and to control migration at the low end.
End result, more business is done here. More people are employed and unemployment goes down. That creates alternative jobs so you can walk when a company doesn’t treat it staff right.
So far, Labour didn’t do a thing. The Condems aren’t either. And most of that boils down to a state debt that totals over 8,000 bn.