>
Action & Défense - Luxembourg
A&D-L : Action & Défense - Luxembourg
Syndicat Autonome de la Fonction Publique de l'Union Européenne
Section de Luxembourg
Bâtiment JMO - Kirchberg Bureau B2/46
tél. ( +352 ) 4301-33365/33764
fax ( +352 ) 4301-33779
e-mail: Syndicat-ad-l@cec.eu.int

16/06/2005


No to Economic Cannibalism

Yes to Social Democracy and Co-decision

No one voted against “Europe”, after all without our continent we would all be dogpaddling in the cold saltwater of the Atlantic. What people have rejected is the economic cannibalism which is euphemistically called the free market”. The Treaty of Rome had the goal of freeing the circulation of goods, services, capital and workers among the six founding member states. It is excellent that Europeans can now cross most of the borders of twenty-five member states as they search hard for a job, but that “freedom” is not enough to make them stakeholders in the EU.

Throughout the past half century, most governments of member states have been more attached to business interests than to those of labour. Whenever the need to harmonize two pieces of European social legislation arose, it was not the law offering the best protection that served as the model, nor was it a fair compromise between the two that became the EU norm. No, when the playing field was levelled, it was consistently levelled “down” for labour and “up” for business. The biggest recent change, the introduction of the EURO, was craftily pushed through against a democratic majority’s will, in casual disregard for a Danish referendum, as you will remember. It may soon become apparent that the EU citizens were, as often, right when their “leaders” went wrong. The EURO forces relatively weaker economies to compete “freely” with the world champion in exports; Germany. Even cabinet ministers in some of the Mediterranean member states have suggested that our monetary may be unsustainable. If the process of EU integration is to proceed at all, past injustices to labour and other undemocratic decisions must be corrected and fair compromises will be needed in future decisions.

When norms protecting workers’ interests are being established, the lowest common denominator should be rejected. It is better to work and wait for a compromise than to let the least socially minded states to impose their will throughout Europe. Indeed, the procedure of closer cooperation was built into the Treaty of Nice for such cases. The common excuse for depriving workers of their protection is to say that what Germany can afford is too expensive for the others. Now all member states belong to the same EU customs union; their economies are so closely linked that they come close to being one. It can be noted that governments of countries[1] with relatively weak economies made great efforts to join the monetary union, which leads to even closer links and even more convergence with Germany. The spokesmen and lobbyists for business have no fear of high standards that suit their clients’ purpose; what they dread are high employment and the high wages that go along with it.

It is easy to formulate a “Regulation for the Protection and Development of the European Social Standards” that would ban the lowering of social standards under the pretext of harmonizing legislation. Putting such a Regulation to an EU wide referendum would help to reconnect the governments and the peoples of Europe.

The reader may have noted that up to here, member state governments have been criticized for their role. This is right because it is they who control both the openly “intergovernmental” and the so-called “supranational” parts of our institutions; in political reality they appoint the major players on the supranational field.

There is something that the EU institutions can do of their own accord, provided they dare act without governmental permission. The “Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965” has been used to protect EU institutions from social protection long enough. Scandalously, it has served to “legalize” salaries that violate Luxembourg’s minimum wage law. The EU institutions enjoy little credibility in social matters as long as they use legal loopholes to impose cuts of up to 40% on their canteen staff.

Regaining lost confidence begins at home, with industrial relations between the institutions and their staff. In theory, at least, no one can stop the twenty five EU Commissioners from taking a formal Decision (which carries the force of law) to the effect that “their” institution will at a minimum respect the social protection standards of the countries in which it works when they exceed it’s own. The Commission goes through an exercise of stakeholder consultation before taking decisions. It would be well worth the trouble to organize a staff-wide referendum, not because there are doubts about staff views on salary-cuts, but as demonstration of respect towards those of us who do the work, and as an approach to the ideals of industrial democracy.




[1] You will remember that it remains controversial whether Greece fulfilled the requirements for joining on its paper or in reality.