Financial Times editorial on Eu's common rules on worker consultation, can this prove to be excessively
cumber-some and reduce the competitiveness of the European economies? This type of structural adoption is
helping to keep the Euro under pressure.
The Global Capital Markets vote with their feet and with the manner in which they allocate and shift there funds.
John
---------------
Editorial comment: A rule too far
Published: June 12 2001 18:36GMT | Last Updated: June 12 2001 18:38GMT
Common rules on worker consultation throughout the European Union have at last been agreed by all 15 member states, after the UK and Ireland were left isolated in splendid but futile opposition. Their battle against such a deal in the Council of Ministers has been lost after years of trench warfare, going back to the mid-1980s.
The desire to ensure that employers keep their workforces fully and properly informed about their jobs, market conditions and company plans is understandable. Companies that fail to do so are unlikely to grow and prosper for long. They are already required to inform their employees on large redundancy programmes of more than 20 workers, company mergers and liquidations. But this measure goes further.
The British and Irish fought on the grounds that continental European systems of formalised consultation were not appropriate to their more voluntarist systems. It was not so much the detail they objected to as the principle.
They were right to fight, because it is hard to see how such legislation can be justified against the yardstick of subsidiarity. Nor does it seem to be in keeping with the ideals of the EU summit in Lisbon, which called for less regulation and more benchmarking and peer pressure. Industrial relations is not a field for Europe-wide harmonisation. That said, it is important now to ensure that any legislation is as unintrusive and unbureaucratic as possible.
In itself, the directive is probably not as bad as many feared. Concessions have been won allowing greater flexibility in how it is implemented, for example in allowing companies to inform not simply "workers' representatives" but also the whole workforce, if necessary. Smaller companies - the regulation will affect all employing more than 50 workers - will have up to seven years to prepare for it.
There are two potential pitfalls. One is that the regulation has become so complicated in the process of negotiation that it will now be subject to endless legal argument, all the way to the European Court of Justice.
The other concern is that the European parliament will seek to toughen up the measure, not least by prescribing more precise sanctions. At present, the member states have simply agreed that sanctions must be decided at national level and be "effective" and "dissuasive".
The parliament has the right of co-decision. It should use it to ensure that the legislation is clear, simple and capable of being adapted to national conditions. This is not the moment for a return to a 1980s social agenda.
----------------
09:25 ET
30-year: -10/32..5.673%....GNMAs: -7/32....$-¥: 122.07....Euro-$: 0.8564
The euro may be cruising on the back of another round of short covering today, but the structural rigidities to investment in Europe continue to dampen hopes of a more credible recovery. After some last-minute political maneuvering, France's left-wing government is expected to pass into law today legislation that will deter corporate restructuring efforts. The bill shifts a considerable amount of power away from employers and towards employees amid concerns that global contagion will force more companies to get lean and mean.
This was the case earlier this year with layoffs at French outlets of the British retailer Marks & Spencer, as well as the French food group Danone. About the only good thing that came out of the bill was the decision by the ruling coalition not to cave in to the wishes of the Communists, who were actually seeking a ban of layoffs at any profitable companies. Of course, the Communists did win other concessions for their support, such as higher pay for laid-off workers and more stringent rules on consulting with employees before any lay-offs. |
