Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leave your country, come to ireland but get paid the same as you were at home??

Options
  • 22-09-2009 10:23pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6


    Hows it going, Im not into politics much but seing as the lisbon treaty has been thrown upon us again I thought this time I would try to have a little more interest in it.
    I was watching a political program on rte the other night about the eu and the presenter had a yes campaigner and a no campaigner answer questions regarding the upcoming decision we all have to make AGAIN.
    One point that was made by the no side that actually wasnt defended by the yes campaigner was that if the treaty is passed, Employers will have the right to pay foreign workers the same rate they would get back at home and in turn could put alot of irish people out of work?? is there any truth in this? The fact that the yes campaigner didnt comment on this issue raises some concern.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    vtek wrote: »
    Hows it going, Im not into politics much but seing as the lisbon treaty has been thrown upon us again I thought this time I would try to have a little more interest in it.
    I was watching a political program on rte the other night about the eu and the presenter had a yes campaigner and a no campaigner answer questions regarding the upcoming decision we all have to make AGAIN.
    One point that was made by the no side that actually wasnt defended by the yes campaigner was that if the treaty is passed, Employers will have the right to pay foreign workers the same rate they would get back at home and in turn could put alot of irish people out of work?? is there any truth in this? The fact that the yes campaigner didnt comment on this issue raises some concern.

    Utterly untrue, we have a legal minimum wage and it's the same for all workers in this country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    meglome wrote: »
    Utterly untrue, we have a legal minimum wage and it's the same for all workers in this country.
    Yep, Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 vtek


    meglome wrote: »
    Utterly untrue, we have a legal minimum wage and it's the same for all workers in this country.
    But couldnt that change with the passing of the treaty? As I believe our vote in europe if the treaty is passed would be significantly reduced, And I would imagine we could be bullied into changing certain aspects of our laws thanks to the new 55% majority vote. What I would like to know is that if this treaty is passed how many of our current laws are untouchable and how many could be torn apart and built again with an eu watermark?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yep, Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage.

    People may find this useful - it's a Swedish analysis of the Laval judgement, and shows why that judgement was possible in Sweden, but would not be in Ireland:
    Hence, collective agreements never gain force automatically in a company, nor consequently in companies from other countries that operate in Sweden.

    ...

    The other items contained in the summons application were examined by the (Swedish) Labour Court at the main hearing on March 11, 2005. One of these items concerns the Posting of Workers Directive in which the company makes reference to Article 3.1.c. This article implies, according to the company, that the Member States shall ensure that a minimum rate of pay is laid down in national legislation or in a generally applicable collective agreement, As Sweden has not introduced such rules on a minimum wage, there is no obligation for Laval or any other employer to pay a certain miimum wage.

    Sweden had no minimum legal wage, only collective agreements that applied to those employers that signed them. While such agreements are estimated to cover 90% of employees, they did not cover or apply to the Laval workers.

    Ireland, by contrast, has a legally binding minimum wage that applies to all employment in Ireland. A company like Laval here could not pay less than the minimum wage, because here, unlike Sweden, the minimum wage automatically applies.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 vtek


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    People may find this useful - it's a Swedish analysis of the Laval judgement, and shows why that judgement was possible in Sweden, but would not be in Ireland:



    Sweden had no minimum legal wage, only collective agreements that applied to those employers that signed them. While such agreements are estimated to cover 90% of employees, they did not cover or apply to the Laval workers.

    Ireland, by contrast, has a legally binding minimum wage that applies to all employment in Ireland. A company like Laval here could not pay less than the minimum wage, because here, unlike Sweden, the minimum wage automatically applies.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Good man yourself, That completely answers the wages question thanks.:) Now I wonder if you know which (if any) of our laws are subject to change if the treaty is passed. What im trying to figure out is at some point could the eu by majority vote make into law tax harmonization in all of its member states. And of course any changes to any of our other laws that would be more benificial for europe.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    vtek wrote: »
    But couldnt that change with the passing of the treaty? As I believe our vote in europe if the treaty is passed would be significantly reduced, And I would imagine we could be bullied into changing certain aspects of our laws thanks to the new 55% majority vote. What I would like to know is that if this treaty is passed how many of our current laws are untouchable and how many could be torn apart and built again with an eu watermark?

    The EU cannot issue any legislation on anything it does not have competence on, and setting minimum wages is not something the EU has the competence to do - and the EU cannot grant itself competences, it can only granted them by the member states (to the extent that this is fuzzy at all, it is clarified by Lisbon). Therefore such Irish legislation is untouchable.

    People think the Laval judgement involves the EU having some competence over minimum wages. It doesn't. The EU has competence to ensure that workers from other EU states are subject to the same terms and conditions as native workers. If there is a legal minimum wage or general collectively agreed wage, workers from other member states must be paid it. If there is a minimum amount of paid holidays, workers from other member states must be given them.

    What happened at Laval is that Sweden had failed to implement any national collective agreement or legal minimum wage, so the ECJ found that the Latvian workers were being treated as Swedish workers could also be treated, because a Swedish worker not covered by a collective agreement has no minimum wage.

    Once the ECJ had determined, in the Laval case, that Swedish law had no applicable minimum wage, its responsibility ended, and it ruled that the Posting of Workers Directive was fully satisfied, because the uncovered Latvians were getting equivalent treatment to uncovered Swedish workers.

    The only involvement of the ECJ (and the EU) there is to determine that the foreign workers were not being treated as native workers could not be. thanks to Sweden's laws, they weren't being. At no point did the EU have or demonstrate competence over minimum wages, and no such competence can be taken up by the EU except by virtue of a further treaty (since the Article 48 simplified revision mechanism cannot grant competences) - and an Irish referendum.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    vtek wrote: »
    Good man yourself, That completely answers the wages question thanks.:) Now I wonder if you know which (if any) of our laws are subject to change if the treaty is passed. What im trying to figure out is at some point could the eu by majority vote make into law tax harmonization in all of its member states. And of course any changes to any of our other laws that would be more benificial for europe.

    No, tax harmonisation isn't changed by Lisbon. The EU has no competence over 'direct' taxes (income tax, corporate tax, etc), only over 'indirect' taxes (such as VAT, stamp duty, etc). Only the latter are subject to EU harmonisation, in this Article:
    The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

    That replaces this article:
    The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 14.

    The Lisbon article creates no new tax harmonisation powers, grants no powers over direct taxation, and requires in any case unanimity. Therefore, there's an Irish veto on the harmonisation of indirect taxes, and no EU competence to harmonise any others.

    Just to copper-fasten that, tax is one of the Guarantees:
    SECTION B: TAXATION
    Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 vtek


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, tax harmonisation isn't changed by Lisbon. The EU has no competence over 'direct' taxes (income tax, corporate tax, etc), only over 'indirect' taxes (such as VAT, stamp duty, etc). Only the latter are subject to EU harmonisation, in this Article:



    That replaces this article:



    The Lisbon article creates no new tax harmonisation powers, grants no powers over direct taxation, and requires in any case unanimity. Therefore, there's an Irish veto on the harmonisation of indirect taxes, and no EU competence to harmonise any others.

    Just to copper-fasten that, tax is one of the Guarantees:



    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Thanks again for the information, Appreciate it, Also, Is there anything in the treaty that really is cause for concern? I know that the no campaigners say there is But an unbiased opinion is what im looking for.
    Do you think that there are articles in the treaty that might be ok now but may rear its head after some hibernation? Im not too keen with the turnover taxes being controlled by eu. mainly vat and stampduty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    vtek wrote: »
    Im not too keen with the turnover taxes being controlled by eu. mainly vat and stampduty.
    Why? because we might actually end up paying less? I think Irish governements have shown themselves to be incompetent. We need the EU because we are too useless to set our own proper rules half the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    vtek wrote: »
    Thanks again for the information, Appreciate it, Also, Is there anything in the treaty that really is cause for concern? I know that the no campaigners say there is But an unbiased opinion is what im looking for.
    Do you think that there are articles in the treaty that might be ok now but may rear its head after some hibernation? Im not too keen with the turnover taxes being controlled by eu. mainly vat and stampduty.

    They're not really "controlled by the EU". All the member states have a veto on any such issue, so it would fairer to say that the member states of the EU could, by agreeing such a thing unanimously, change VAT rates....but, when you think about it, that's true whether the EU exists or not.

    As to 'gotchas' in the Treaty, no, I haven't really seen any, and I've read the thing cover to cover. You may find my summary and searchable version of the Treaty useful - http://www.lisbonexposed.org/ - if there's anything in particular you're looking for.

    There's things in the Treaty I think could have been done better, perhaps, but not very many (possibly because I didn't start off with a perfect 'alternative' treaty in my head). There are certainly things in there that will make a difference to Ireland over the next few years, such as the new energy policy competence, but I don't think any of them contain anything outrageous like, say, imposing nuclear energy on us. The voting changes, when you really look at them, are minor, and will have an equally slight impact. Things like better EU support for sport and tourism will probably have a beneficial effect, and it's hard to hide anything nasty in there.

    None of that is to say that the EU may not spring some unwelcome things on me in the next few years - I don't like things like data retention, for example, or the recurrent attempts to bring in software patents - but those things are examples of policy, and possible now (obviously, since they've already happened). Lisbon provides somewhat better tools to fight such things.

    Mind you, I'm not a neutral source, although I like to think I'm unbiased, in that I think what I think because it's what I see in the Treaty, rather than because it's my party line (I belong to no party) or campaign group message (I'm not involved with any campaign group).

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 vtek


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    They're not really "controlled by the EU". All the member states have a veto on any such issue, so it would fairer to say that the member states of the EU could, by agreeing such a thing unanimously, change VAT rates....but, when you think about it, that's true whether the EU exists or not.

    As to 'gotchas' in the Treaty, no, I haven't really seen any, and I've read the thing cover to cover. You may find my summary and searchable version of the Treaty useful - http://www.lisbonexposed.org/ - if there's anything in particular you're looking for.

    There's things in the Treaty I think could have been done better, perhaps, but not very many (possibly because I didn't start off with a perfect 'alternative' treaty in my head). There are certainly things in there that will make a difference to Ireland over the next few years, such as the new energy policy competence, but I don't think any of them contain anything outrageous like, say, imposing nuclear energy on us. The voting changes, when you really look at them, are minor, and will have an equally slight impact. Things like better EU support for sport and tourism will probably have a beneficial effect, and it's hard to hide anything nasty in there.

    None of that is to say that the EU may not spring some unwelcome things on me in the next few years - I don't like things like data retention, for example, or the recurrent attempts to bring in software patents - but those things are examples of policy, and possible now (obviously, since they've already happened). Lisbon provides somewhat better tools to fight such things.

    Mind you, I'm not a neutral source, although I like to think I'm unbiased, in that I think what I think because it's what I see in the Treaty, rather than because it's my party line (I belong to no party) or campaign group message (I'm not involved with any campaign group).

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    Cheers for the link, Ill have a good read of that. Your points had a faint whiff of a yes vote but overall, it was pretty unbiased and you seemed to answer everything honestly enough. thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    vtek wrote: »
    Cheers for the link, Ill have a good read of that. Your points had a faint whiff of a yes vote but overall, it was pretty unbiased and you seemed to answer everything honestly enough. thanks.

    Bias is a word that gets used in here quite a bit. There may be an apparent Yes bias but I'd suggest that is to do with the fact the treaty is a good thing and therefore why would people who've read it find much fault.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    meglome wrote: »
    Bias is a word that gets used in here quite a bit. There may be an apparent Yes bias but I'd suggest that is to do with the fact the treaty is a good thing and therefore why would people who've read it find much fault.

    I'd be inclined to agree. About 99% of my posts on this forum are not going on about how good the treaty is, they're correcting things that are simply not true. In those posts it's not a matter of opinion or bias, those things would not be true regardless of whether I supported the treaty or not and if I let those things go because the lies might achieve the result I want I would be just as bad as them. People on both sides have a responsibility to call a lie a lie when they see it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    vtek wrote: »
    I know that the no campaigners say there is But an unbiased opinion is what im looking for.
    I'm afraid you've come to the wrong forum for an unbiased opinion!
    Here, even the moderators of this board advocate a YES vote.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    I'm afraid you've come to the wrong forum for an unbiased opinion!
    Here, even the moderators of this board advocate a YES vote.

    Bias \Bi"as\, a. (noun)

    1. Unwillingness to repeat lies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 691 ✭✭✭chalkitdown


    meglome wrote: »
    Utterly untrue, we have a legal minimum wage and it's the same for all workers in this country.

    The minimum wage may be safe under Lisbon, but what about wage agreements that are above the minimum wage? Can't these be undercut by workers from other states?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    The minimum wage may be safe under Lisbon, but what about wage agreements that are above the minimum wage? Can't these be undercut by workers from other states?
    Can they not be undercut by workers from other states at the moment anyway? I would assume current legal wage agreements are legally binding anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The minimum wage may be safe under Lisbon, but what about wage agreements that are above the minimum wage? Can't these be undercut by workers from other states?

    No. There have been a few threads and posts on the Lavel case that brought this issue up.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Collective minimum wage agreements above the national minimum wage are applicable to anyone working in Ireland, even if employed under contract from a 3rd party, in the relevant industry and have the force of law.
    The Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act, 2001 provides that all workers who have a contract of employment in the State, including workers posted from abroad, are entitled to the same protection under employment rights generally as Irish workers. This includes the national minimum wage and extends to all other legally binding minimum wages such as Registered Employment Agreements and Employment Regulation Orders.

    Registered Employment Agreements exist in areas such as construction and electrical contracting and other sectors. An Employment Agreement is made either between a trade union and an employer or employers’ organisation or at a meeting of a registered Joint Industrial Council.

    Agreements are registered by the Labour Court. The effect of this is to make the provisions of the agreement legally enforceable in respect of every worker of the class, type or group to which it is expressed to apply and to his or her employer. It applies even if such worker or employer is not a party to the agreement. Employment Regulation Orders are used in areas such as hotels, catering and other services.

    The bottom line? In these sectors, the wages and other conditions of a Polish, Portuguese, Irish or indeed Brazilian worker in Ireland – even if they are supplied through an agency – cannot be any less than the minimum set down in these agreements.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0911/1224254272232.html

    Now ask yourself, if there was anything that was actually that bad in the treaty, why would Coir et al have to make stuff up?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Now ask yourself, if there was anything that was actually that bad in the treaty, why would Coir et al have to make stuff up?

    They have to make stuff up because saying "We're terrified that euthanasia and abortion will be forced on us even though we've been told over and over again that it won't" isn't terribly convincing to the rest of the population


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭Twin-go


    vtek wrote: »
    Hows it going, Im not into politics much but seing as the lisbon treaty has been thrown upon us again I thought this time I would try to have a little more interest in it.
    I was watching a political program on rte the other night about the eu and the presenter had a yes campaigner and a no campaigner answer questions regarding the upcoming decision we all have to make AGAIN.
    One point that was made by the no side that actually wasnt defended by the yes campaigner was that if the treaty is passed, Employers will have the right to pay foreign workers the same rate they would get back at home and in turn could put alot of irish people out of work?? is there any truth in this? The fact that the yes campaigner didnt comment on this issue raises some concern.

    I don't know if its true on not but, why would a forgien worker come here with our higher cost of living, be away from their family only to get paid what they get paid back home? Doesn't make sence to me


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Twin-go wrote: »
    I don't know if its true on not but, why would a forgien worker come here with our higher cost of living, be away from their family only to get paid what they get paid back home? Doesn't make sence to me

    And if there are cases where the minimum wage or Labour Court agreements are not being adhered to, it is illegal and cases should be reported to the relevant Irish authorities. Again, nothing to do with the EU.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 97 ✭✭finbar10


    vtek wrote: »
    Hows it going, Im not into politics much but seing as the lisbon treaty has been thrown upon us again I thought this time I would try to have a little more interest in it.
    I was watching a political program on rte the other night about the eu and the presenter had a yes campaigner and a no campaigner answer questions regarding the upcoming decision we all have to make AGAIN.
    One point that was made by the no side that actually wasnt defended by the yes campaigner was that if the treaty is passed, Employers will have the right to pay foreign workers the same rate they would get back at home and in turn could put alot of irish people out of work?? is there any truth in this? The fact that the yes campaigner didnt comment on this issue raises some concern.

    Hi vtek,
    I'd be a no voter! :) Regarding workers' rights and Lisbon a lot has been said. I think it's fairly clear that the minimum wage and registered employment agreements in various sectors can't be overridden by the EU. However, beyond this things are far from clear. Since 1996 the "posting directive" has laid out required employment conditions for workers from one EU state posted in another. This was originally supposed to lay out a minimal set of conditions for these workers. It was thought member states could require even higher worker standards if they wished. In recent years the European court in a series of judgements: Laval, Viking, Ruffert has interpreted this "posting directive" in a rather restrictive way. Trade unions have said that the European Court has interpreted the posting directive as setting out a maximal set of conditions rather than an originally intended minimal set of conditions for posted workers. In Sweden and Germany local collective agreements have been set aside. The court found they overly restricted free movement of services. It has to be said that there was no legally enforceable minimum wage or registered employment agreement in these cases. But it seems the case that as long as working conditions are universally and equally legally applicable both to domestic and foreign workers they shouldn't be overturned by the European Court. So I don't think an employer could bus in foreign workers and pay them below any legally required minimum. I guess that if it was in a sector with no registered employment agreement an employer could bus in contractors from elsewhere and pay them the minimum wage.

    It's also arguable what effect the Lisbon treaty would have on the European Court's approach to worker's rights. It's quite possible that the status quo will simply be maintained. There's also a possibility that the court might use the Charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the treaty to improve worker's rights to some degree. The court has already cited the Charter in some of above-mentioned judgments so it might not make any difference. Or it might be able to use their new stronger legal status to make things better. Gerard Hogan (a respected Irish constitutional lawyer) in a recent radio interview and newspaper article basically implied that while he felt Lisbon wouldn't lead to worse workers' rights that the direction the court would go on this was uncertain to him. Some of the unions who advocate a no vote would argue one way, some yes campaigners would argue the other. I'd suspect the status quo will be maintained. But I think no one really knows. It will be ultimately up to the European Court to decide.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Some of the unions who advocate a no vote would argue one way, some yes campaigners would argue the other.

    That might be put a little more evenly, in that some of the unions who advocate a No would argue one way, while those unions that advocate a Yes argue the other. After all, ETUC and SIPTU are advocating a yes, while as far as I know only UNITE is advocating a No.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 97 ✭✭finbar10


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That might be put a little more evenly, in that some of the unions who advocate a No would argue one way, while those unions that advocate a Yes argue the other. After all, ETUC and SIPTU are advocating a yes, while as far as I know only UNITE is advocating a No.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    No particular objection to that wording. As far as I know the engineering TEEU union was also against.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Hydrosylator


    meglome wrote: »
    Utterly untrue, we have a legal minimum wage and it's the same for all workers in this country.
    It's not utterly untrue at all. Now where did the OP suggest that anyone could be payed less than the minimum wage in Ireland, which they can't (obvious exceptions like intern-ships notwithstanding)?

    The issue is this , the Directive on services in the internal market. It means companies can bring a workforce form any EU state and pay them minimum wage to do skilled work, and the only other local standard they have to meet is health and safety. All other workers rights are those of the country the worker was hired in.

    In a nutshell, the EU has set in place a system which allows workforces to undercut each other on an international basis.

    It means that if you work in a private industry, you must now be prepared to compete with people willing to work for minimum wage rather than meet any minimum industry standard.

    It effectively lowers the value of labour in the richer country.
    Would you rather hire 100 people at €1,000 a week or at €360 a week?
    Also it's how our motorways get built these days.

    It exists independently of the Lisbon Treaty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Hydrosylator


    K-9 wrote: »
    No. There have been a few threads and posts on the Lavel case that brought this issue up.
    Wrong in this case.
    International corporations can indeed use foreign about to undercut labour.
    our minimum wage still applies, but under the Directive on services in the internal market they need not pay more than that minimum wage. They can, but they don't have to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Hydrosylator


    Twin-go wrote: »
    I don't know if its true on not but, why would a forgien worker come here with our higher cost of living, be away from their family only to get paid what they get paid back home? Doesn't make sence to me
    They get paid more than they get paid at home. A weeks minimum wage here is what a hard worker gets several times over in some member states.
    In some jobs you get set up with a place to stay too, and can even get food provided, so you don't have to disengage with the cost of living here unless you're feeling a bit fancypants. It's a good way to get money together.

    At the other end of the spectrum, you have Gama, who had their workers living in prefabs and left them without wages for a few months. They were working on the M4. Joe Higgins fought their corner and got it taken care of when FF wouldn't touch it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    The issue is this , the Directive on services in the internal market. It means companies can bring a workforce form any EU state and pay them minimum wage to do skilled work, and the only other local standard they have to meet is health and safety. All other workers rights are those of the country the worker was hired in.

    In a nutshell, the EU has set in place a system which allows workforces to undercut each other on an international basis.


    Uhmm your information is outdated (as was mine when I first researched the services directive)

    http://www.etuc.org/a/3058

    The services directive was pretty much gutted by the PES in the European Parliament and rebuilt.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Hydrosylator


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    Uhmm your information is outdated (as was mine when I first researched the services directive)

    http://www.etuc.org/a/3058

    The services directive was pretty much gutted by the PES in the European Parliament and rebuilt.
    Ah, so they have to meet more than Health and Safety now. That's good.

    Is it still up to them what they want to pay, as long as it's no less than minimum wage?


Advertisement