International

The negotiations in the European Parliament over the proposal for improved enforcement of the posted workers’ directive, which governs the rights of workers employed by their firms to work outside their usual country of residence, is hotting up. For the SP and other left parties the battle has in the end come down to the question of enforcement of the rule of equal pay for equal work, which implies also no more lodging of Eastern Europeans in sheds and neither underpayment nor extortion via abusive employment agencies. For many right-wing parties the emphasis is certainly not on these aspects. On the contrary, they want employers saddled with as little surveillance as possible, because otherwise the free movement of services would be endangered. This division is symbolic of the enduring furious struggle for Europe’s soul. Do we want a Europe given over to the ‘free’ market, or a Europe in which human dignity occupies centre stage? The SP, of course, would choose the latter.

It’s a tough fight. The European Commission thought that it would be a good thing to limit the state’s ability to monitor enterprises which employ workers from other member states. Yes, you have understood that correctly: in the proposal on enforcement surveillance isn’t strengthened, but weakened. The principle is that you should trust the employers. This stands in stark contrast to the cries for help emanating from many small firms which complain of being forced into illegal practices by the fact that all of their competitors are involved in them.

If we want to achieve equal pay for equal work then intensified surveillance is precisely what’s needed. For that reason I have presented proposals designed to encourage member states to ensure that they have sufficient staff within their labour inspectorates and other supervisory bodies. I also want to see the demands regarding the administrative practices which firms must adopt tightened up. Too often companies employ double bookkeeping in order to disguise illegal practices. I want to put a stop to the business of making employees from other member states pay a large slice of their wages back for alleged ‘costs and accommodation’, by specifying that these matters must be treated separately and the workers must be able to decide for themselves where they stay and where they eat. This ought toput an end to the appalling housing which is the lot of many of them. Surveillance must of course not be reined in. Cases cited by the Commission under which surveillance can be exercised must be taken merely as examples, and the member states should be free to inspect firms which do not fall under any of these cases. Cooperation between national inspectorates must be greatly strengthened and exchange of data become automatic. Finally, we should be working towards mutual recognition of administrative sanctions designed to tackle subcontractors, wherever they may be.

The right has a majority in the EP, including in the Internal Market Committee where the negotiations are currently taking place. The fight to enforce equal pay for equal work will therefore not be easy. Yet we have already made considerable progress, with a number of my proposals finding their way into the compromise resolutions which will be voted on shortly. So I’m still optimistic. It surely can’t be the case that a majority of MEPs think it a fine thing to allow people to be exploited, can it?