In t appears that the international labor movement was the issue around which can be united - the Directive on Services in the Internal Market, also known as the Bolkestein Directive. This directive, which aims to remove barriers to the provision of services between EU member states, mostly criticized for the so-called. "Country of origin principle." According to this principle has registered in one EU country can not only provide services in other member countries, but also to recruit employees to render services in any other country, however, subject to the law of the country in which a company is incorporated. There are fears that business will use this law to benefit the poorer standards of labor and environmental standards are less restrictive force in less developed countries. This means inevitably fall into the abyss.
Along with the progressive degeneration of capitalism, considered by more and more people for the wrong solution, offers a us a bad set of business scenarios, each of them full of problems are not inevitable. Some proponents of protectionism and a high degree of state intervention, but the solution is often to send the fact that the achievements of capitalism is the fruit of decades and even centuries of imperialism and economic exploitation of the environment. Others consider globalization as an inevitable process and convince us that we can meet the challenges, if only we will become more "competitive." Another group is people trying to combine both approaches and find some middle ground, which was favorable to solutions which assume the existence of global competition, provided that the appropriate degree of protectionism, so that only the state (especially corporations) do not have to deal with any kind of social revolution.
In this context, the European Union, dominated by countries which are among the richest in the world, is confronted with economic and political expectations of not only the globalized world, but also a growing part of the citizens living within its borders.
Those governments, clinging to "social model", are actually drawn a kind of theater games, and despite no small degree of political pluralism in the EU, has long been involved in the erosion of the current model for the desire for profit-driven economy.
Lisbon Agenda related to the future of the EU labor force for some time yet to be implemented, but the labor movement and the left zbagatelizowały warning signals, and there are even some who would gladly welcomed it. 1 This is due to the "calming" discourse of capitalism - periods without work are turned into attractive "career breaks" and the compulsion to change their place of residence związeny job-seeking is called "freedom." Labour market flexibility is needed to "create jobs" and "social partnership" means negotiating with trade union leaders and, consequently, a slow degradation of working conditions and the creation of several laws on "Protection of workers', which will allow you to bypass some inconvenience - except for the inevitable Rollback in the direction of the universal struggle for survival in an increasingly competitive world.
debate, however, took an unfortunate form obrastając the xenophobic and protectionist overtones, such as the buzz around the "Polish plumber", which has not been associated with EU enlargement, but with the same directive. Such attitudes raise many questions, especially about what the leaders of the protests suggest in place of the Bolkestein Directive, and how the Union without the directive will cope with the problem of occupational inequality.
first aspect of the Bolkestein Directive - the freedom of establishment, is already the subject of economic debates around 30 years and became a limited extent, a reality with the adoption of the European Registration of Companies (hereinafter abbreviated SE), which entered into force in 2004, According to the SE, the company registered and operating outside the country (provided that its current headquarters is in this country), may change their place of business without liquidation and re-flagging. So conceived, entrepreneurship has many limitations, such as restrictions on capital because it does not apply to most self-employed the entrepreneurs (like our friend, plumber), who in turn are tying the regulations concerning the recognition of their qualifications, etc..
However, it is the principle of country of origin is a potential gold mine for entrepreneurs because they can avoid such annoying "odsysaczy 'income as the local minimum wage. Proponents of the directive
will immediately indicate to the fact that each state will be able to introduce a whole range of remedies. Articles from 17 to 19 (Apart from the exceptions allowing states in areas such as mail and other services) allow you to restrict the so-convincing reasons as public health, public safety, public policies state that the conditions related to environmental protection. In other words, this economic "freedom" can (and will) selectively regulated by each Member State individually.
does not mean that individual governments will be resorted to these measures, although it is likely that they will be taken into account particularly in sectors with strong protectionist tendencies or with a rapidly acting compounds unions.
These solutions do not compensate for the problem, however, significant differences in pay, both at global and European levels. Proponents of the directive
also point out that one of its objectives is a kind of harmonization in strategic areas of the EU. In other words, they claim that if standards in certain areas will be harmonized, then the country of origin principle will not be able to be an instrument of transition to lower standards. Except that you can not see, unfortunately, no talks on specific points of harmonization, especially in critical areas, most often mentioned about it in talks about debt collection, consumer protection, accounting standards and health protection. And even if this last point may seem like a good security, the EU experience has shown that uniform standards in some countries may lead to a greater of the reduction. 2
One of the areas, where there is a revolutionary change, is the harmonization of wages - for example in the form of pan-European minimum wage, and industrial standards. (The reason why a European minimum wage alone is no solution and industrial minimums must be implemented in parallel example is the presence in the North of England experienced many Polish dental nurses and assistants working for minimum wage, which is inconsistent with any industry standard, it is exploitative, and still lower wages). But such a solution will never be proposed either by the Eurocrats, or for a certain segment of the organized trade unions, they are convinced that they will be forced to renegotiate the low standards or, as in the case of some workers from the sphere of the minimum wage, it would discourage employers from hiring them.
is called for to ask what solutions have been therefore proposed? Controlled movement in the labor market is currently forsowanym political solution, but this is only a unilateral solution, in addition violates the fundamental right to freedom of movement. I write "one-sided" because they always hear about the country X "seeking qualified" representatives of such and such a competition or "not needing" other, another party to the situation demonstrates the strong relationship, in which rich countries can afford to maintain a skilled doctors and engineers, while poor countries suffer from the outflow of workers mental. Consequently, the outflow of knowledge workers, no further steps in raising the minimum wage and living standards in the country will only intensify the problem.
Many opponents of the Bolkestein directive has nothing to say on this matter. As early anti-globalization movement, hoping to unite a wide range of opponents in a coalition. But while the cries of "protective" labor market may seem noble enough, I want to ask who and what they believe to be a force protection (although I know it is meant that it was the state). I'm also interested in how exactly is to be protected by the social model? By improving the standard of work and raising real wages in the EU or by closing their labor markets and market services from strangers? Or maybe they expect the State to implement arrangements, forcing EU companies to maintain high labor costs?
spins a vision of transformation of state from allowing the development of a strong agent of capital insurer in the social and protector. Even if such a solution would be to significantly improving the role of government, there is a different perspective - the elimination of state and local government employees and the introduction of international federalism. The guiding principle - the creation of a libertarian society, could assume the introduction of various mechanisms to eliminate material poverty, especially elimination of the causes of unequal opportunities. Due to the limitations of this article, I can not provide the context of the creation of such a libertarian society, but I am convinced that the key to create any future socially just society is to deprive the government and the state capital.
The challenge facing the international labor movement (or, as in this particular case, the labor movement in Europe) lies not in increasing wydzieraniu insincere promises from politicians or protestowaniu against the Directive, but the experience of the mobilization in a different way. Rather than marching in parades like a well-coordinated crowd, we would prefer people to become involved in the project allowing them to experience the samoaktywności and deeper relationships. The challenge is to start by the leaders union negotiations with state officials and the EU, or even talk amongst themselves, but the involvement of rank and file employees in making decisions about strategy and organization of the horizontal as opposed to the involvement of only the top of the hierarchy built movement. Discussion on the possibility of international coordination of measures taken by the rank and activists and direct actions towards libertarian organization and the possibility of protest, it must be on a much wider scale.
Accordingly, we urge like-minded people and organizations to take protest against the Bolkestein Directive in a more radical form and promote the revolutionary vision of self-organization and self-management in this campaign. Retention Directive is not enough. Retention of capitalism as well.
Lisbon and the erosion of the social model
interests of entrepreneurs and workers will interfere with each other so long as the ruthless pursuit of the highest profit will drive business activities. While investors, manufacturers and employers seeking to lower labor costs, workers, particularly in "developing" and those where wages are at a low level, trying to raise wages. On the other hand, workers from more affluent countries are hoping to maintain its level of maintenance and dismiss the prospects for the deterioration of living standards.Along with the progressive degeneration of capitalism, considered by more and more people for the wrong solution, offers a us a bad set of business scenarios, each of them full of problems are not inevitable. Some proponents of protectionism and a high degree of state intervention, but the solution is often to send the fact that the achievements of capitalism is the fruit of decades and even centuries of imperialism and economic exploitation of the environment. Others consider globalization as an inevitable process and convince us that we can meet the challenges, if only we will become more "competitive." Another group is people trying to combine both approaches and find some middle ground, which was favorable to solutions which assume the existence of global competition, provided that the appropriate degree of protectionism, so that only the state (especially corporations) do not have to deal with any kind of social revolution.
In this context, the European Union, dominated by countries which are among the richest in the world, is confronted with economic and political expectations of not only the globalized world, but also a growing part of the citizens living within its borders.
Those governments, clinging to "social model", are actually drawn a kind of theater games, and despite no small degree of political pluralism in the EU, has long been involved in the erosion of the current model for the desire for profit-driven economy.
Lisbon Agenda related to the future of the EU labor force for some time yet to be implemented, but the labor movement and the left zbagatelizowały warning signals, and there are even some who would gladly welcomed it. 1 This is due to the "calming" discourse of capitalism - periods without work are turned into attractive "career breaks" and the compulsion to change their place of residence związeny job-seeking is called "freedom." Labour market flexibility is needed to "create jobs" and "social partnership" means negotiating with trade union leaders and, consequently, a slow degradation of working conditions and the creation of several laws on "Protection of workers', which will allow you to bypass some inconvenience - except for the inevitable Rollback in the direction of the universal struggle for survival in an increasingly competitive world.
Bolkestein
While the language of the Lisbon strategy was so complicated to not arouse alarm, it has Bolkestein aroused anxiety. Consequently, there have been mass demonstrations in many European countries began a real campaign of protest.debate, however, took an unfortunate form obrastając the xenophobic and protectionist overtones, such as the buzz around the "Polish plumber", which has not been associated with EU enlargement, but with the same directive. Such attitudes raise many questions, especially about what the leaders of the protests suggest in place of the Bolkestein Directive, and how the Union without the directive will cope with the problem of occupational inequality.
first aspect of the Bolkestein Directive - the freedom of establishment, is already the subject of economic debates around 30 years and became a limited extent, a reality with the adoption of the European Registration of Companies (hereinafter abbreviated SE), which entered into force in 2004, According to the SE, the company registered and operating outside the country (provided that its current headquarters is in this country), may change their place of business without liquidation and re-flagging. So conceived, entrepreneurship has many limitations, such as restrictions on capital because it does not apply to most self-employed the entrepreneurs (like our friend, plumber), who in turn are tying the regulations concerning the recognition of their qualifications, etc..
However, it is the principle of country of origin is a potential gold mine for entrepreneurs because they can avoid such annoying "odsysaczy 'income as the local minimum wage. Proponents of the directive
will immediately indicate to the fact that each state will be able to introduce a whole range of remedies. Articles from 17 to 19 (Apart from the exceptions allowing states in areas such as mail and other services) allow you to restrict the so-convincing reasons as public health, public safety, public policies state that the conditions related to environmental protection. In other words, this economic "freedom" can (and will) selectively regulated by each Member State individually.
does not mean that individual governments will be resorted to these measures, although it is likely that they will be taken into account particularly in sectors with strong protectionist tendencies or with a rapidly acting compounds unions.
These solutions do not compensate for the problem, however, significant differences in pay, both at global and European levels. Proponents of the directive
also point out that one of its objectives is a kind of harmonization in strategic areas of the EU. In other words, they claim that if standards in certain areas will be harmonized, then the country of origin principle will not be able to be an instrument of transition to lower standards. Except that you can not see, unfortunately, no talks on specific points of harmonization, especially in critical areas, most often mentioned about it in talks about debt collection, consumer protection, accounting standards and health protection. And even if this last point may seem like a good security, the EU experience has shown that uniform standards in some countries may lead to a greater of the reduction. 2
One of the areas, where there is a revolutionary change, is the harmonization of wages - for example in the form of pan-European minimum wage, and industrial standards. (The reason why a European minimum wage alone is no solution and industrial minimums must be implemented in parallel example is the presence in the North of England experienced many Polish dental nurses and assistants working for minimum wage, which is inconsistent with any industry standard, it is exploitative, and still lower wages). But such a solution will never be proposed either by the Eurocrats, or for a certain segment of the organized trade unions, they are convinced that they will be forced to renegotiate the low standards or, as in the case of some workers from the sphere of the minimum wage, it would discourage employers from hiring them.
is called for to ask what solutions have been therefore proposed? Controlled movement in the labor market is currently forsowanym political solution, but this is only a unilateral solution, in addition violates the fundamental right to freedom of movement. I write "one-sided" because they always hear about the country X "seeking qualified" representatives of such and such a competition or "not needing" other, another party to the situation demonstrates the strong relationship, in which rich countries can afford to maintain a skilled doctors and engineers, while poor countries suffer from the outflow of workers mental. Consequently, the outflow of knowledge workers, no further steps in raising the minimum wage and living standards in the country will only intensify the problem.
Many opponents of the Bolkestein directive has nothing to say on this matter. As early anti-globalization movement, hoping to unite a wide range of opponents in a coalition. But while the cries of "protective" labor market may seem noble enough, I want to ask who and what they believe to be a force protection (although I know it is meant that it was the state). I'm also interested in how exactly is to be protected by the social model? By improving the standard of work and raising real wages in the EU or by closing their labor markets and market services from strangers? Or maybe they expect the State to implement arrangements, forcing EU companies to maintain high labor costs?
Radical Perspective
When we see an initiative that seeks to undermine the position of the average worker, we should fight it because each new concession to capitalism is its reinforcement. So it is entirely natural to unite around slogans such as "Stop Belkestein" - but, as with most monothematic campaign, even a victory will be limited as to bring only to prevent the escalation of the problem, not its removal. What's more, it is more than likely that even if the directive is lost, immediately created another document which meet the same assumptions. I do not want to discourage anyone cynicism, my goal is only to call for a more accurate approach and a broader vision of reality. Many leftistsspins a vision of transformation of state from allowing the development of a strong agent of capital insurer in the social and protector. Even if such a solution would be to significantly improving the role of government, there is a different perspective - the elimination of state and local government employees and the introduction of international federalism. The guiding principle - the creation of a libertarian society, could assume the introduction of various mechanisms to eliminate material poverty, especially elimination of the causes of unequal opportunities. Due to the limitations of this article, I can not provide the context of the creation of such a libertarian society, but I am convinced that the key to create any future socially just society is to deprive the government and the state capital.
The challenge facing the international labor movement (or, as in this particular case, the labor movement in Europe) lies not in increasing wydzieraniu insincere promises from politicians or protestowaniu against the Directive, but the experience of the mobilization in a different way. Rather than marching in parades like a well-coordinated crowd, we would prefer people to become involved in the project allowing them to experience the samoaktywności and deeper relationships. The challenge is to start by the leaders union negotiations with state officials and the EU, or even talk amongst themselves, but the involvement of rank and file employees in making decisions about strategy and organization of the horizontal as opposed to the involvement of only the top of the hierarchy built movement. Discussion on the possibility of international coordination of measures taken by the rank and activists and direct actions towards libertarian organization and the possibility of protest, it must be on a much wider scale.
Accordingly, we urge like-minded people and organizations to take protest against the Bolkestein Directive in a more radical form and promote the revolutionary vision of self-organization and self-management in this campaign. Retention Directive is not enough. Retention of capitalism as well.
Footnotes:
a . Employment Ministers argue that the flexibility of the market can coexist with high levels of social protection. It seems that some union leaders is dramatically wrong in reading strategies, recognizing that it is related to maintaining social model. Not later than one year ago, the Guardian published an article on the Lisbon Strategy, in which leaders such as John Monks of the European Trade Union Confederation (European Trade Union Confederation) said that "well we have a strategy for reviving a week after I saw many dead social Europe." For them, the introduction of the strategy is still possible. "The Lisbon Strategy must be accepted so that it is economically, socially and ecologically balanced."
2. There is much evidence supporting the thesis That up and one of them are standards for food products. We have seen in some areas of food production, that at the time of Poland's adoption of EU standards, they sometimes turned out to be much lower than the local standards, particularly in the section concerning the admissibility of the addition of artificial food additives.
0 comments:
Post a Comment