Taxi Drivers for No - Workers turn against Lisbon

PopeBuckfastXVI

free to prosper wrote: »

Hence, judgements like Ruffert etc are like the first birds of spring - flowing from art 52 of Charter.

If you're going to keep mentioning this Ruffert judgement, it's really only fair if you explain it.

free to prosper

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What about actually explaining the Ruffert judgement.

I'll let you do that Buckfast,

You've obviously got plenty of time and need a bit of diversion.

Bon chance.

everyone roll up for Ruffert.

Anti-Union Michael O'Leary wants a big fast Yes vote - any takers?

marco_polo

free to prosper wrote: »

Personally I' m more interested in the Ruffert judgement and the attack on the minimun wage.

Be a good boy Buckfast, run along and look it up yourself. You've got google and access to the internet like everyone else.

The Ruffert judgment was an attack on the shoddy transposition of the PWD into German law.

http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf_Rueffert-judgement-summary.pdf

The ECJ looks essentially at the provisions of the Posted Workers Directive (PWD). With this regard, the Court finds that the rate of pay laid down by the law of Niedersachsen was not fixed in accordance with one of the procedures of the Directive1.

First, the ECJ states that the law of Niedersachsen cannot be considered as a law implementing the PWD since it does not itself fix any minimum rates of pay. Secondly, the Court notes that whilst the German transposition of the PWD contains a reference to collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable, the collective agreement at stake in the proceedings has not been taken this way.

Thirdly, the ECJ considers that the implementation methods contained in Art 3.1 (universally applicable collective agreements) and 3.8 subparagraph 2 (generally applicable collective agreements) are mutually exclusive. In any case, the Court considers that the collective agreement in question is not generally applicable since only a part of the construction sector is covered. Indeed, the law (public procurement law) which gives binding effect to the collective agreement applies only to public contract (and not to private contracts).

The ECJ concludes that the rate of pay imposed by the law of Niedersachsen does not constitute a minimum rate of pay within the meaning of the PWD. The Court further states that the PWD cannot be interpreted as allowing the host Member State to oblige foreign service providers to observe terms and conditions of employment which go beyond the mandatory rules for minimum protection (the PWD is therefore a maximum Directive – this is following the line of reasoning in the Laval judgement).

The major problems are that the German agreements did not set a minimum rate and were not universally applicable to all sectors. All of which are fixable by the German Legislature.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thanks Marco, but I was hoping to get FTP's take on it, seeing as he keeps mentioning it.

FTP you might want to have a read of that. And in future when you parrot other people's arguments, you could at least consider researching the background for them, and be prepared to engage in a discussion on them.

Rb

Yikes, how cringeworthy.

Actually, interesting trait amongst the No side on here - happy to make hideous statements or claims without ever backing them up, and when pulled up they either come out with some more absolute nonsense or attempt to sidetrack the issue, as we see free_to_prosper doing here, and that other guy refusing to explain how we're being bullied by the EU in another thread after being asked three times.

It's pretty tragic that this will be going to the polls on Friday.

thebman

free to prosper wrote: »

Anti-Union Michael O'Leary wants a big fast Yes vote - any takers?

And the unions want a yes vote too as do many workers some of which probably even work for O'Leary.

Whats your point?

No offense intended but your posts sound like a bunch of catch phrases with no logic attached.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rb wrote: »

Yikes, how cringeworthy.

Actually, interesting trait amongst the No side on here - happy to make hideous statements or claims without ever backing them up, and when pulled up they either come out with some more absolute nonsense or attempt to sidetrack the issue, as we see free_to_prosper doing here, and that other guy refusing to explain how we're being bullied by the EU in another thread after being asked three times.

It's pretty tragic that this will be going to the polls on Friday.

Lesson 1 in the ignorant campaigners manual.

Step 1:
Intersperse the words Laval, Ruffert, Luxembourg and Viking among phrases like 'minimum wage', 'Irish Ferries' and 'race to the bottom'.
Step 2:
Repeat Step 1.

free to prosper

From the Peoples' Movement website:

T

he EU Court of Justice (ECJ) Rulings in Brief

There are four decisions of the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) since December 2007 which have a bearing on Irish domestic law. The cases are concerned in different ways with the free movement of businesses throughout the EU, and the impact on established terms and conditions of employment.

The Viking Case (December 2007)

The Court held that although protected by domestic labour law (in that case the Finnish Constitution), industrial action may be unlawful under EU law if it breaches the terms of the EC Treaty, Article 43. The case concerned industrial action by Finnish unions and the ITF against a Finnish company proposing to re-flag its ships in Estonia, where terms and conditions of employment were inferior to those in Finland.

The Laval Case (December 2007)

The Court held that, although protected by Swedish national law, (i) industrial action by Swedish unions, (ii) designed to compel a Latvian contractor to pay Swedish rates determined by a Swedish collective agreement to his Latvian workers employed on Swedish building sites, (iii) may be unlawful under EU law if it breaches the terms of the EC Treaty, article 49.

The Ruffert case (April 2008)

The Court held that a Polish sub-contractor, (i) could not be required by the law of Lower Saxony, (ii) to pay his workers posted from Poland, (iii) the terms of a collective agreement in force at a site where the work was being carried out. Such a requirement (even though imposed by state law) was held to breach the provisions of the Posted Workers’ Directive.

The Luxembourg Case (June 2008)

The Court held that the government of Luxembourg had acted in breach of EC Treaty, Article 49, and the Posted Workers’ Directive, on a number of grounds. The Court effectively held that the Directive was both a floor and a ceiling, and that it was not possible in that case to require by legislation adherence to collective agreements other than those covered by Article 3(8) of the Directive.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to copy-and-paste instead of participating in the discussion, at least have the courtesy to attribute the sources.

This wasn't a request. Attribute the sources that you copied and pasted from, or remove them.

P. Breathnach

I am intrigued by FTP's concern about the applicability of the Laval and Ruffert judgements to the position of taxi-drivers who are, for the most part, one-person self-employment operators.

Whether he interprets the judgements correctly or not is irrelevant: they simply don't apply.

K-9

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What do you have to say about the fact that the article he claims that voting yes will insert into the constitution is already in the constitution and has been there for 36 years and that he edited it to deliberately hide this fact?

No side editing stuff they copy and paste?

Sounds familiar.

marco_polo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am intrigued by FTP's concern about the applicability of the Laval and Ruffert judgements to the position of taxi-drivers who are, for the most part, one-person self-employment operators.

Whether he interprets the judgements correctly or not is irrelevant: they simply don't apply.

Perhaps they will start re-flagging taxis under the Estonian national flag? :pac:

PopeBuckfastXVI

free to prosper wrote: »

From the Peoples' Movement website:

T

Ah those bastions of impartiallity the peoples movement.

My google is back and working again.

Laval: Fixed by Swedish law, ECJ rules that posted workers are only subject to legally binding agreements, Sweden didn't have them.

Ruffert: Potentially fixed by German Federal law, ECJ ruled that subsector collective wage agreements, fixed only for public contracts, were not enforceable as they didn't apply to the entire sector, and local (Note: not national) legislature hadn't the power to enforce these agreements.

Viking: ECJ Confirmed the posted workers right to collective action. Welcomed by the ETUC here: http://www.etuc.org/r/848

Luxembuorg: ECJ ruled that Luxembourg was not implementing the Directive correctly as it had allowed itself too loose an interpretation of 'public policy' when designating areas outside the directive. This case also ruled that Luxembuorg was not allowing for sufficient rest periods for workers, as they only legislated for weekly rest, and not daily rest periods. Joe Higgins doesn't mention that aspect much. It ruled that Luxembourgs demand for immediate production of 'information which is indispensable for a labour inspection' on demand was too vague, and could be used to prohibit foreign service providers from fairly competing.

Luxembourg is the only case that I would take an issue with, but then I don't want to see other countries abusing legislation with loose interpretations of clauses for their own ends, even if those ends are benign.

None of these, of course, are affected by Lisbon. Though Lisbon provides the tools to reverse them more easily.

mizhell

Rb wrote: »

If we want to attract investment here and create jobs we're going to need to lower wages anyway so I don't see why people are so worried. Taximen in particular, biggest crooks in the country, did anyone see them dropping their rates when the price of petrol dropped? I don't think so.

If they hadn't been so greedy in the first place, perhaps their industry wouldn't be so overly saturated. If people are willing to work for less, which they damn well should, then tough tits to the moany f*cks behind this campaign.

Btw, I don't think you can start a post with "Cutting out the waffle" and then fill it with uninformed crap.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong and it upsets me that you have this outlook this has become a podium to assume that all taxi drivers are greedy opinionated idiots most drivers that work off radios have been giving out 20% reductions on all fares for the last year I dont agree with these posters and I have had bad experience after bad experience since I joined this industry with peoples judgement within and outside the industry, the thing is that the majority have joined after deregulation and now are locked in as there are no alternative jobs

@free to prosper... seriously give it up your talking out of your behind at least back up your points with information that is correct and again are you just speaking on behalf of taxi men or taxi drivers? I think you will be interested in this mail I received from Clem

"Shelly,

Will you please remove the posters from the ranks and anywhere else you see them. I know nothing about these posters, I have never seen them and how dare anybody use my name and my address. If you have any problems please phone me at

<phone number snipped>

I have attached my leaflet which I faxed to several taxi companies nationwide.


Regards,
Clem Hackett."

he sent this to me before Herman Kelly responded to his request to take the posters down himself, this is why the no campaigns have such credibility it is shocking that this has turned out this way and the people involved could think that this is acceptable! the shame!

prinz

Clem Hackett is also awaiting delivery of 10,000 tinfoil hats to set up a new business venture with Jim Corr.He doesn't like being discussed on boards which he says is a portal for otherworldly consciousnesses*. So please stop.


*absolute nonsense but about as useful as the hearsay going on already.

Also mods respectfully suggest his mobile number be removed.

oscarBravo

I've closed this thread as I don't like where it's going. I'm seeing some very contradictory posts from mizhell and free to prosper, concerning a named third party.

I would like the two of you to PM me, explaining your involvement in this story, and explaining how you each claim to know the position of the named third party.