Unite say NO to Lisbon

TheZohanS

Source

ONE OF the country’s largest trade unions, Unite, is to call on its 60,000 members to vote No in the forthcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
The union, which also opposed the Lisbon Treaty in the last referendum, said that its opposition on this occasion was based “on the lack of any progress in the critical area of workers’ rights”.
Unite Irish regional secretary Jimmy Kelly said yesterday: “We were told that workers’ rights would be protected under Lisbon and that we were scaremongering. When the Irish Government went seeking legal guarantees they got them in areas of taxation, of morality, and in numbers of commissioners but not in relation to workers’ rights.”
“Instead we got a ‘solemn declaration’ that is worthless given the way in which the European Courts have interpreted workers’ rights as being subservient to those of business.”
Mr Kelly said that in the area of workers’ rights. however, there was a singular failure to secure the clause that would prevent social dumping and second class treatment of workers.
He said that Unite and other unions across Europe had sought the inclusion of a social progress clause in the Lisbon Treaty which would make it clear that the fundamental right to organise and the right to strike were in no way subordinate to the economic freedoms pursued by the EU member states.
“This was rejected and instead we are told to have faith in national governments willingness to treat workers fairly and with respect, and for Europe to act in the common good for all its citizens,” he said.
Trade union leaders are divided on their attitude to Lisbon. Last week a group of trade unionists supporting the treaty said that it represented a major advance for workers.
The Charter Group, which is to launch its campaign tomorrow, said in a report that the evidence was that the EU had been a champion of workers’ rights for the past 35 years. Secretary of the group, Blair Horan of the CPSU said the report showed conclusively that it was the EU that protected workers’ rights in Ireland.

Discuss.

CutzEr

Guess who has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap

Kalashnikov_Kid

I thought the rights of Irish workers would be guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (which will be become a legally-binding document if Lisbon is passed).

Worker's rights are explicitly referred to in Chapter IV: Solidarity, which states, in summation, that workers must be guaranteed information and consultation and have the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements and to take strike action where conflict of interest exists, all subject to national laws governing such issues and that every worker has the right to fair and just working conditions and is protected from unfair dismissal.

Worker's rights are also implicitly guaranteed within other chapters.

In fact, it could be argued that this Charter could offer more protection WRT equality than Bunreacht na hEireann.

So I really dont know what UNITE are getting at?

Scofflaw

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

I thought the rights of Irish workers would be guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (which will be become a legally-binding document if Lisbon is passed).

Worker's rights are explicitly referred to in Chapter IV: Solidarity, which states, in summation, that workers must be guaranteed information and consultation and have the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements and to take strike action where conflict of interest exists, all subject to national laws governing such issues and that every worker has the right to fair and just working conditions and is protected from unfair dismissal.

Worker's rights are also implicitly guaranteed within other chapters.

In fact, it could be argued that this Charter could offer more protection WRT equality than Bunreacht na hEireann.

Does Bunreacht offer any protections on equality?

So I really dont know what UNITE are getting at?

I really can't say - I had a read of this article, but I can't really get a clear
picture from it. I know that UNITE are out of step with ETUC, who are urging a Yes vote:

ETUC wrote:

“(…) the ETUC supports ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and I hope the Irish people approve it. (….) it is a step forward compared to existing provisions, for example in relation to the legal enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, commitments to full employment, the social market economy, and public services.”

“Europe is not an a la carte menu where you pick and choose what you want. It is a package that has done great things for Ireland and many others, and it will need to do more great things before we can exit from this crisis”.

“Now, as a Briton, I wouldn’t presume to try telling the Irish what to do. I think only Saint Patrick and, perhaps, Jack Charlton got away with that”.

“European solidarity is essential in the face of the crisis and in support of the hardest hit economies. The adoption of the Lisbon Treaty helps, not hampers that process of solidarity, one reason, incidentally, why the British Conservatives detest it so much. (…) to those of you who are minded to vote No, no doubt for good trade union reasons, before you vote, just have a look at some of those in the rest of Europe who are praying for the same result.”

Perhaps someone (the OP, perhaps) can clarify the exact issue? I'm sure it will turn out to mention Laval and Viking, and probably reference the National Platforms's dodgy claims on that issue, but still a little clarity wouldn't hurt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Since the Irish Regional Secretary Jimmy Kelly is already a member of Campaign Against the EU Constitution (CAEUC) I guess it is not entirely surprising, that the union might lean that way.

I find it disappointing that they are recommending rejection of the treaty on the basis of an issue that has nothing to do with Lisbon, all because the Government did not receive guarantees that would have been impossible to achieve such a format (I presume they are referring to Posting of Workers, Service Directive issues etc.).

All the more so in light of the recent moves by the European Parliament to pressure the commission into producing a new Social Directive to address the issues raised by the recent ECJ rulings on collective bargining etc. A campaign that will surely resume with renewed vigour when the new commission is appointed in November. It is not as if NOTHING is being done at a European level.

TheReverend

CutzEr wrote: »

Guess who has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap

Bob Kelso?

Kalashnikov_Kid

Scofflaw wrote: »

Does Bunreacht offer any protections on equality?



I really can't say - I had a read of this article, but I can't really get a clear
picture from it. I know that UNITE are out of step with ETUC, who are urging a Yes vote:

Well that's a very good question isn't it. Bunreacht certainly doesn't give any special emphasis to equality between men and women, the rights of the child, the elderly and the disabled in the same way as the Charter does...

That SWP article was sore reading - but my understanding is that they are arguing for effectively a standalone 'right to strike' that pre-empts collective bargaining - but I thought that strike action was always considered a last resort...

Similar to legally-defined Irish neutrality, I don't think such a thing ever existed?

BlitzKrieg

Hmm interesting that they take the position of workers rights when the PES are pushing for Lisbon (hence Labour's and a number of trade unions position) because its their believe that it is the best route to address the outdated posting of workers directive of the EU (which is from 1996).

Of course they drop their not so subtle hint to laval etc ("given the way in which the European Courts have interpreted workers’ rights as being subservient to those of business.”) which is ironic because its due to the weakness of the posting of worker's diective that has led to those results...

marco_polo

Interesting read here by John Monks General Secratery of the EUTU at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Biennial Congress in July. I take it the ICTU will be on the Yes side like last time?

http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf_Irish_Congress_of_Trade_Unions_9-10_July_2009.pdf

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Hmm interesting that they take the position of workers rights when the PES are pushing for Lisbon (hence Labour's and a number of trade unions position) because its their believe that it is the best route to address the outdated posting of workers directive of the EU (which is from 1996).

Ah well - "remember the men of 1996" is an 80-year improvement on COIR's position, even if it suffers from the same essential flaw.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

But as General Secretary of the ETUC, that counts your Congress as a
most valued member, and as a European, I think I also owe you to be
clear and frank about where we stand on the EU institutional issue. That
is particularly the case as I have been quoted in pitiless detail by some,
when it suited.

Seriously that is a brilliant term.

And why is he the first person I have seen use it?

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

Interesting read here by John Monks General Secratery of the EUTU at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Biennial Congress in July. I take it the ICTU will be on the Yes side like last time?

http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf_Irish_Congress_of_Trade_Unions_9-10_July_2009.pdf

That's a very interesting speech, and deserves rather wider coverage. This bit is particularly intereating:

And more is what we did not get. That is why we are – I am – disappointed, but not really surprised. The British government – mine - was at the forefront of those who opposed the initial Irish proposals throughout the night during the European Council meeting last December and in the subsequent negotiations that gave us the so-called Solemn Declaration adopted by the Council last month.

The paradox is that the UK, in defending its red lines ostensibly aimed at protecting British industrial relations from foreign interference, in fact is tolerating the Court impinging on British and other European workers’ rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. But then, maybe it’s not a paradox but just the rule that, given options on the strengthening collective rights at work, the British Government too often chooses the least favourable. I say that with some bitterness.

And that's the Labour government - the Tories, who are worse yet, are the great white hope of No proponents who also cite Laval and Viking. Truly, politics makes strange bedfellows.

cordially,
Scofflaw

efb

Arnt these the guys that wanted loss making bankers to get a payrise?

TheZohanS

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps someone (the OP, perhaps) can clarify the exact issue? I'm sure it will turn out to mention Laval and Viking, and probably reference the National Platforms's dodgy claims on that issue, but still a little clarity wouldn't hurt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It does appear that the Laval judgement is a sticking point with them but I wonder will they change their stance before polling day if they get the chance to bend the ear of the government.

Didn't the IFA do something similiar mast time round?

Spiritoftheseventies

TheZohan wrote: »

Source



Discuss.

Sorry again to bring this up. But wasn't a similar thread closed because someone posted a clip with the words discuss attached to the clip at the end.

marco_polo

A number of Unions including the CSPU, Impact and the INO have critized the Unite decision.

A group of trade union leaders have launched a campaign for a “yes” vote in the forthcoming Lisbon referendum, arguing that it will improve rights for workers.

The Charter Group said that there was compelling evidence that Europe had been of enormous benefit to workers in Ireland.

Blair Horan of the CPSU union, who is secretary of the Charter Group, said that in terms of workers rights, the public would be voting on different issues than had been present in the previous referendum.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0901/breaking34.htm