Joe Higgins answers Boards.ie members questions about the Lisbon Treaty

BOZG

prinz wrote: »

Edit:- I like how he completely avoided the figure of €1.84, he wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Joe has consistantly and publically attacked Cóir for introducing the myth that the minimum wage will be lowered to €1.84 as a wild, unrealistic claim and one that detracts from the real content of the Treaty.

Joe and the SP's arguments have largely concentrated on the minimum wage (regardless of what it is) soon becoming the maximum wage as the ECJ rulings mean that employers posting workers abroad only have to abide by the minimum legal labour standards in a country, ie that these employers are only required to pay the minimum wage and employ workers on the minimal conditions. This directly undermines workers who are on decent or even slightly better pay scales than those on the minimum wage. Why would an employer pay someone €12 an hour, if they can use cheaper labour at €8.65 an hour? It's a case of either accept a pay cut or face redundancy. In the current economic climate, it's a case of having a gun held to your head.

Now some have tried to argue that the Laval case is completely irrelevant to Ireland because we have legally registered employment agreements and so the ruling couldn't apply here but as dmfod said, it can apply where there are sectoral agreements. Legal basis or not, that is a direct threat against workers and the trade unions.

More significantly though, the Luxembourg ruling is a direct contradiction of the claims of the Yes side. The ECJ's ruling there challenged the national laws of Luxembourg. Luxembourg's employment laws were actually quite basic - a written contract, equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers, the obligation to abide by existing collective agreements. All of these were struck down by the ECJ. It's not just gentleman agreements that are under threat, but national labour laws also.

Long Onion

BOZG wrote: »

Joe and the SP's arguments have largely concentrated on the minimum wage (regardless of what it is) soon becoming the maximum wage as the ECJ rulings mean that employers posting workers abroad only have to abide by the minimum legal labour standards in a country, ie that these employers are only required to pay the minimum wage and employ workers on the minimal conditions. This directly undermines workers who are on decent or even slightly better pay scales than those on the minimum wage. Why would an employer pay someone €12 an hour, if they can use cheaper labour at €8.65 an hour? It's a case of either accept a pay cut or face redundancy. In the current economic climate, it's a case of having a gun held to your head.

This is the problem with the argument:

We have minimum wage legislation and registered employment agreements in place in Ireland yet many employers pay above this despite not being obliged to. The reason for this is simple, not all employers live to screw their employees. If they did, they would become self defeating as the workers would not have any money to buy the goods being produced nor would they have the time to shop as they would be too busy being enslaved for free.

Higgins and the SP also are opposed to Ireland low corporate tax rate, this is paradoxical as our low rate is one of the reasons that firms can set up here despite our higher wage base. If the tax rate was cranked, there would be an outflow of FDI to lower cost countries. The world cannot be reduced to black and white issues.

These issues will be there regardless of Lisbon.

prinz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That is my absolute #1 issue with Lisbon and an issue which yes campaigners have actually managed to make much worse, by telling us that this is something to be welcomed / that direct democracy is bad / by their attitudes towards how much power representatives should have / etc

I find it hard to believe that you'd watch that video and come to the conclusion that Joe has a good grasp of what democracy means... after questioning the legitimacy of the directly elected parliament because it's mostly centre to right. Can you imagine a TD refusing to respect the Dáil simply because they didn't get a majority :rolleyes:

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I find Joe to be an incredibly honest politician, and a downright decent human being, that's why I voted for him to become an MEP.

+1ish. I like Joe myself.

dmfod

BOZG wrote: »

More significantly though, the Luxembourg ruling is a direct contradiction of the claims of the Yes side. The ECJ's ruling there challenged the national laws of Luxembourg. Luxembourg's employment laws were actually quite basic - a written contract, equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers, the obligation to abide by existing collective agreements. All of these were struck down by the ECJ. It's not just gentleman agreements that are under threat, but national labour laws also.

a very good point - the legal status of agreed wage levels was the basis of the Laval judgment which allowed the ECJ to strike down the Swedish minimum wage because it was a gentlemans agreement and not a law. However the posted workers directive which sets out (very) minimum standards for posted workers in foreign countries only requires they be paid the legal minimum national/sectoral wage and not that contractors comply by all other labour laws and agreements - that's why the ECJ was able to over-rule Luxembourg laws re written contracts, equal treatment of part-time and full-time etc. as these are not guaranteed in the PWD.

so basically where national protections are better than the crappy minimum standards of the PWD, they can be struck down by the ECJ with regard to posted workers, thus opening the door to the undermining of all workers' conditions and to discriminatory treatment of migrant workers who the EU has given its approval to being treated worse than native workers.

the Charter is a load of windbaggery and window-dressing that does not nothing to resolve these issues but just reinforces the pro-business status quo.

dmfod

Long Onion wrote: »

This is the problem with the argument:

We have minimum wage legislation and registered employment agreements in place in Ireland yet many employers pay above this despite not being obliged to. The reason for this is simple, not all employers live to screw their employees. If they did, they would become self defeating as the workers would not have any money to buy the goods being produced nor would they have the time to shop as they would be too busy being enslaved for free.
.

this is incredibly naive. Employers pay workers more than the minimum because they have to - due to supply and demand and trade union strength in demanding higher wages - they don't do it out the goodness of their own hearts or out of some holistic Keynesian view of the wider economic system. If they could get away with paying doctors and IT consultants 8.65 an hour they would, but they can't because they wouldn't work for that money.

This is why the point about bringing in loads of contract workers is important because it allows employers to source cheaper labour than they can at home, thus driving down wages.

Long Onion

dmfod wrote: »

a very good point - the legal status of agreed wage levels was the basis of the Laval judgment which allowed the ECJ to strike down the Swedish minimum wage because it was a gentlemans agreement and not a law. However the posted workers directive which sets out (very) minimum standards for posted workers in foreign countries only requires they be paid the legal minimum national/sectoral wage and not that contractors comply by all other labour laws and agreements - that's why the ECJ was able to over-rule Luxembourg laws re written contracts, equal treatment of part-time and full-time etc. as these are not guaranteed in the PWD.

so basically where national protections are better than the crappy minimum standards of the PWD, they can be struck down by the ECJ with regard to posted workers, thus opening the door to the undermining of all workers' conditions and to discriminatory treatment of migrant workers who the EU has given its approval to being treated worse than native workers.

the Charter is a load of windbaggery and window-dressing that does not nothing to resolve these issues but just reinforces the pro-business status quo.

Does it not cross the mind that by deciding Laval, the ECJ may have been encouraging member states to do away with rafts of 'gentlemen's agreements' (which often end up being far from clear) and enacting clear and precise legislation. You cannot blame the inaction of individual member states on Lisbon. If I were Joe, I would be petitioning Luxembourg to enshrine decent minimum standards.

Long Onion

dmfod wrote: »

this is incredibly naive. Employers pay workers more than the minimum because they have to - due to supply and demand and trade union strength in demanding higher wages - they don't do it out the goodness of their own hearts or out of some holistic Keynesian view of the wider economic system. If they could get away with paying doctors and IT consultants 8.65 an hour they would, but they can't because they wouldn't work for that money.

This is why the point about bringing in loads of contract workers is important because it allows employers to source cheaper labour than they can at home, thus driving down wages.

Marxist drivel.

Keano

After watching all these videos I can safely say that my vote will be a Yes. Joe Higgins is not in Europe for Ireland - he is in there to try take the EU down

dmfod

Long Onion wrote: »

Does it not cross the mind that by deciding Laval, the ECJ may have been encouraging member states to do away with rafts of 'gentlemen's agreements' (which often end up being far from clear) and enacting clear and precise legislation. You cannot blame the inaction of individual member states on Lisbon. If I were Joe, I would be petitioning Luxembourg to enshrine decent minimum standards.

you've completely misunderstood my post re Luxembourg - all those standards that the ECJ struck down in Luxembourg are enshrined in Luxembourg law. That's why Luxembourg is such a bad judgement for workers.

dmfod

Long Onion wrote: »

Marxist drivel.

it's just simple economics - a neoliberal economist would tell you the same. one of the basic rules of economics is that it's supply and demand that sets prices, in this case wages. if the supply of labour increases through an influx of foreign contract workers, wages fall it's not rocket science.

the trade union element is the political dimension which interacts with the economics dimension. It is not just Marxists who recognise its importance, it is obvious that employers do too as they routinely oppose union organisation as it leads to higher wages - e.g. Michael O'Leary opposes unions in RyanAir for exactly this reason and he is hardly a Marxist.

P. Breathnach

Keano A Legend wrote: »

... Joe Higgins is not in Europe for Ireland - he is in there to try take the EU down

Do you think he'll succeed?

BOZG

Long Onion wrote: »

Does it not cross the mind that by deciding Laval, the ECJ may have been encouraging member states to do away with rafts of 'gentlemen's agreements' (which often end up being far from clear) and enacting clear and precise legislation. You cannot blame the inaction of individual member states on Lisbon. If I were Joe, I would be petitioning Luxembourg to enshrine decent minimum standards.

No, it doesn't because the rulings of the ECJ clearly show that its judgements are based on the fact that workers' rights are subordinate to the functioning of the labour market. The ruling in Laval made the point that unions have the right to strike but not when it interferes with the right of a company to establish a base abroad. A similar verdict was issued in Luxembourg on the basis that Luxembourg's employment laws made it difficult for foreign companies to establish a base there. The British High Court also ruled along the same lines with the British Pilots union, BALPA, attempt to take industrial action against British Airways for setting up a new airline, with hubs in mainland Europe in order to make use of cheaper labour. All of these rulings worked on the basic premise that the market comes first, workers' rights second.

In fact, the official explanation of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights quotes an ECJ ruling stating that "...it is well established in the case law of the Court that restrictions may be imposed on the
exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the
Community and do not constitute, with regard to the aim pursued, disproportionate and unreasonable interference undermining the very substance of those rights". That ruling comes from a case in 2000, prior to the Laval, Ruffert, Viking and Luxembourg judgements. So the ECJ obviously doesn't regard such vicious attacks on workers' rights as undermining the general interest of the European Union.

And to add to dfmod's point on the fact that those standards were enshrined in law in Luxembourg, the state of Luxembourg actually attempted to base those standards not just on their own national law (which could be in breach of European laws) but actually based them on the "public policy provisions" allowed for under the Posting of Workers Directive. These theoretically allow for countries to overrule forced privatisation, restrictions on state subsidies etc. in the interests of defending the living standards and conditions of citizens of Member States. They're somewhat akin to the supposed veto we will have after Lisbon in healthcare, public services and education where the veto will still exist if public ownership of those areas of the economy is in the interests of the population. The ECJ ruled that Luxembourg couldn't prove that it was in the public interest and struck them down, effectively stating that Luxembourg should not be able to regulate its own labour market in the interests of its population. They'll make the exact same ruling here if we tried to use what's left of the veto.

Long Onion

BOZG wrote: »

The ruling in Laval made the point that unions have the right to strike but not when it interferes with the right of a company to establish a base abroad.

Nothing to do with the establishment of a company base, it was to do with the posting of workers, these are two different issues and would have differing principle attached.

BOZG wrote: »

And to add to dfmod's point on the fact that those standards were enshrined in law in Luxembourg, the state of Luxembourg actually attempted to base those standards not just on their own national law (which could be in breach of European laws) but actually based them on the "public policy provisions" allowed for under the Posting of Workers Directive. These theoretically allow for countries to overrule forced privatisation, restrictions on state subsidies etc. in the interests of defending the living standards and conditions of citizens of Member States. They're somewhat akin to the supposed veto we will have after Lisbon in healthcare, public services and education where the veto will still exist if public ownership of those areas of the economy is in the interests of the population. The ECJ ruled that Luxembourg couldn't prove that it was in the public interest and struck them down, effectively stating that Luxembourg should not be able to regulate its own labour market in the interests of its population. They'll make the exact same ruling here if we tried to use what's left of the veto.

The problem in Luxembourg was that the agreements in question were not universally applicable. It is quite easy for a member state to prevent erosion of workers rights and avoid social dumping by simply making such agreements universally applicable. If member states do not see such rights as being important enough to deserve this protection, then your issue should be with individual governments.