Sunday, May 9, 2010

How To Makeautomatic Rabbit Feeder

The Direttiva Bolkestein: Dumping sociale e internazionali

Dumping sociale e sfida
internazionali che La legislazione propeller L'Agenda di lisbon nel suo Tentative imporre di un modello economico more liberal Europe has already met with opposition, but there is still a long way to go if you want to propose strategies for creating an equitable society and libertarian.

The Bolkestein Directive: Social dumping and international challenges

seems that the world of work has found a topic on which to mobilize the international level: it is the Directive on Services in the International Market, otherwise known as the Bolkestein Directive. The directive, which would remove barriers to the provision of services between Member States is often criticized for his "principle of country of origin." Thanks to this principle, companies which are registered in a State of the Union European Union (EU) can not only provide services in any EU state, but may also use foreign workers operating in these services by applying the law of the country in which they are registered. There are fears that the world of business will use this rule to take advantage of lower levels of environmental protection and trade union applied to workers who find themselves operating in countries with higher levels of protection. It seems inevitable that there is a sort of race to the bottom.

The Lisbon Strategy and the erosion of the social model

interests of capital and the employees are destined to clash until the pursuit of profit following the way of business. But while investors producers and entrepreneurs are given to lower costs, other workers, especially in developing countries 'development' and other areas with low pay, are given to increase their wages. The workers who actually live in the richest on the other hand, are hoping to maintain their standards of living and oppose any erosion of their living conditions. The more you weaken the option of destruction of capitalism, now proposed by fewer people, especially poor choices we see the scenario before us, and each choice and then predicts many inevitable problems. There are people who gives us national protectionism and a high level of state control in the economy, but this solution often does not consider the fact that certain levels of the capitalist structures have been achieved over the decades - even centuries-of systematic use of capital, economic imperialism, economic exploitation and environmental. Others embrace globalization in its inevitability and urge us to respond to its challenges to become "competitive." And then there are those who do not give a tack, who want to find an intermediate solution taking steps towards global competition while maintaining a high level of protectionism that protects the state (and even more companies) from any social revolution .
E 'in this context that the EU is dominated by some of the richest countries in the world, compare not only the economic and political realities of the globalized world, but also with a growing population within its own borders (after enlargement, ndt).
These governments related to the "social model" are in fact involved in a sort of comedy of ambiguity, so-despite the widespread pluralism in the EU-have been engaged in erosion of this model in the name of greater competition for higher profits .
The Lisbon Agenda was a plan designed to change the future of the European workforce and it was discussed for some time, but the labor movement and the left have not figured out what was happening, in some cases, the viewed with favor. (1) And what is attractive due to the ambiguity of the language used by capitalism, so we see periods of unemployment turned into attractive "career breaks", removals to achieve a new job masquerading as "freedom." Language for which the capitalist labor flexibility is needed to "create jobs" and "social partnership" means that will be negotiated with union leaders and the slow erosion of working conditions is the production of legislation for the "protection of workers "that will protect them from certain dangers, except of course to inevitably slip in the global struggle for competitive survival. If

Bolkestein

the language used in the Lisbon agenda was too confusing to arouse alarm, a different fate befell the Bolkestein Directive, which instead has raised people's attention. There have been mass protests and a mass campaign continues in many European countries. Unfortunately, the debate took a turn at times xenophobic or protectionist tones, like the famous story of the 'Polish plumber', linking the EU enlargement with the Directive itself. Which brings us to a series of problems, namely what can be proposed as an alternative and how the EU Directive could not solve the inequality in the world at work.
The first aspect of the Bolkestein directive on freedom of business registration. In truth it is a goal that the economic world has already reached 30 years, but has become a reality with the adoption of the limited form of registration of European companies (SE) in 2004. With the SE, a company registered and operating in another country (which has an actual physical location), can change the place of business without accounting for the original company and re-register elsewhere. This usually involves many limits, including limits of capital, so it does not apply to most companies on their own (like our plumber), on which restrictions are imposed also on the recognition of professional qualifications, etc..
However, it is the principle of country of origin which has potential benefits, since it allows entrepreneurs to avoid those pesky snares eat-profits, such as minimum wage. Applicants
Directive obviously rushed to point out that a country can use exemptions. Articles 17 and 19 (after giving governments the right to exemptions in areas such as postal and other services) allows governments to use exceptions for compelling reasons of public welfare, public security, political, social or environmental concerns. In other words, these "free" economy may be (and will) be selectively regulated by individual Member States.
This does not mean that governments will use the power of derogation, although this is very likely especially in areas with strong protectionist tendencies or with strong and militant unions.
These measures, however, offer no solution to the underlying problem of wage inequality, both globally and in Europe.
Those who propose the Bolkestein also emphasize that one of the assumptions of the directive is that there will be some harmonization in strategic areas of the EU. In other words, it is argued that if you harmonize standards in certain areas, the principle of country of origin can then be used as a tool to take advantage of lower standards. The fact is that no one has been recorded path for a true harmonization of many critical issues, he speaks rather more frequently than the collection of debt, consumer protection, monitoring of standards and service. And although in the latter case, one can see a sort of protection, the EU experience has shown that harmonization may actually lead to lower standards in some countries (2).
The only area where there could be a revolutionary change is the area of \u200b\u200bharmonization pay-for example, a reasonable minimum wage and minimum European industry. (The reason that a European minimum wage is not in itself a solution and because the industry minimum would not be applied is that, for example, already today there are nurses and dental assistants Poles working in New England for a minimum wage, which does not affect the industry minimum, but is indicative of high use and is already causing a depletion of wages ). However, the minimum wage will never be a proposal made by the Eurocrats, nor can you expect to be embraced by some trade union sectors that have instead put their hands on to say that they will be forced to negotiate lower standards or, in some groups of workers unless pay, to remove just those incentives that would see them being fired.
We then ask ourselves what are the solutions proposals? A labor market controlled immigration would be the penalty, but it is not only a partial solution but also a fundamental violation of the principle of freedom of movement. I think it is a partial solution because we feel constantly say how "the country X need of skilled labor" or "no need" of something else, the other aspect of this issue reflects the power relations that enable countries to more rich to afford skilled workers like doctors and engineers while in the poorest countries there is a brain drain. Finally, emigration of excellence and the lack of progress on pay and living conditions could exacerbate the problem in some countries. Many anti-Bolkestein
activists are silent on this issue. As was the case for the anti-globalization movement at the beginning, they hope to build a coalition with large segments of opponents and in truth they did it. While calls for "protection" of the work can seem rather noble, I would like to know who or what should assume to be the protective power (although I can already imagine that the state is expected). But I'd also like to know what the social model that you would want to protect? Raising the standards work and leveling the real wages across the EU, or by closing the market for labor and services to foreigners? O is expected that governments implement measures which would oblige the EU capital to hold high the cost of labor? A radical perspective

When we realize that an initiative represents a threat to the conditions of the average worker, we should attack it was just for the fact that any concession to capitalism is a further consolidation of his power. So it is perfectly natural rally around slogans like "Stop Bolkestein, but-as with most single-issue campaigns-even if you win, a victory would be limited since we are only able to prevent a worsening of the problem, but without able to remove it. Moreover, it is obvious that if the Directive falls, something else will come out that will try to serve the same purposes of the Bolkestein. My argument may seem rather cynical, but far be it from me intent defeatist, I intend only to make an appeal because we approach to a broader view of the matter. Among the ranks of the context of the directive, you can often find even radical activists who call for "protection" and "rights", which refers to the assumption that there must be an entity, whether the nation-state or an institution supra, which plays a regulatory role for the good of society above the interests of capital. This illusion shows more and more it looks frighteningly naive; the interests of finance capital are strongly defended and within governments. The moments in which the state plays the role of protector is only moments of social propaganda financed with public funds financed through our work and our earnings, and the opposition to lower levels can only arise in relation to the strength and well being of society in this, some nation-states are at a distinct disadvantage in the show known as "the protection of their subjects."
Many on the left point to a transition state by force of mediation and supporter of a person who provides capital protection and the social. And if this can be seen (arguably) some sort of improvement of the role State is still the prospect of settling the state and replace it with self-government workers and federalism on an international basis. The guiding principle, the creation of a libertarian society, requires several steps for the elimination of material deprivation and inequality, and, above all, to eliminate the causes of inequality. It is not possible in the limited space of this article explore the structure necessary for the creation of a libertarian society, but we are convinced of this: that the key to creating a socially egalitarian society of the future is in the liquidation of state power and capital.
The challenge for the international workers' movement (or European this particular case) should not run is to exert pressure to have empty promises by politicians and even lying to get rid of the Directive, but is to experiment with new forms of mobilization.
Rather than pull in like a preordained events orchestrated mass, we would like the work experience a sense of self-activity and connection. We do not believe that the challenge is to launch from sending union leaders to deal with the state and EU officials, or even among themselves, we believe that the real challenge is that the organized workers to decide on a strategy based activities and horizontal organization, which is exactly opposite to the simple bottom-up participation in a top-down movement as the person being protected. It 'necessary to begin a discussion on the possibilities of large-scale coordination of international databases and the possibilities of direct action with a look toward the libertarian organization and the revolutionary possibilities.
With this, we invite people and organizations that share the above oppose the Bolkestein by a more radical to promote a revolutionary vision of self-organization and self-management in this campaign. Not enough to stop the Bolkestein. And not even enough to stop capitalism.
Laure Akai

Translation by FdCA Relations Office International

NOTES 1. Labour Ministers claim that flexible working can co-exist with high levels of social protection. Some union leaders seem to have tragically misunderstood the text of the Agenda, believing that this is really a strategy for preserving the social model. Just last year the Guardian published an article on the Lisbon Agenda in which union leaders such as John Monks, ETUC said it "had done well to resurrect the agenda just a week after everyone had thought that Europe was dead" . For them, the implementation of the strategy seems to be still in question. "The Lisbon Strategy must be implemented in a way that is economically, bilanciata environmentally socially ed. 2. Ci sono numerosi Esempi to riguardo, ma ci vengono in mente gli sul cibo standards. E 'possibile vedere come in Certe aree della Poland in care if it produces cibo, gli standards were A volte dell'UE adottati the di sotto di quelli locali, specialmente in termini di quantit di additivi Possibili to cibo.

0 comments:

Post a Comment