The IDC rejects European Directive and calls for social dialogue
The International Dockworkers Council concludes that the proposal for the new Directive has the same basic flaws as the previous proposal that was rejected by the European Parliament in November 2003. The current proposal was, once again, put forward by the same Transport Commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, remarkably, only a few days before she left her post!
Ms. de Palacio no doubt realised the impact that this procedure was bound to create among dockworkers’ trade unions and indeed, amongst all major stakeholders in the port industry. It presented an almost impossible task for the newly appointed Commissioner, Jacques Barrot, who faces a lack of business trust and trade-union opposition.
IDC believes that the new proposal has been botched and produced far too hastily. Recent discussions between stakeholders indicate that the likelihood of it receiving common consensus by all those involved in the sector, something that the IDC from the outset thought to be a prerequisite, is very slim.
The need for dialogue
The IDC, with the responsibility of representing thousands of dockworkers in ten European countries, suggested on many occasions the necessity of sincere and frank dialogue with the European Commission and others involved at both financial (shipping and port companies) and institutional/political levels.
European Port workers have, from the outset, sensed an underlying anti-union dogma in both of Loyola de Palacio’s directive proposals; believing the real objective of the Directive being to dismiss professional dockworkers from their jobs and to introduce lower standards of pay and working conditions on the European Waterfront.
The IDC is therefore forced to completely reject the new Directive because it fails to address the needs of the European ports, and will further aggravate social tension.
To overcome this situation, the IDC proposes the immediate creation of a Port Meeting and Debate Forum, formed by representatives of trade unions, businesses and government. This Forum would include representatives of the various groups in the European Parliament, and the European Transport Commission. The common objective would be to reach an “Agreement for economic and social competitiveness in European ports,” guaranteeing stability and growth in ports. This objective would seek to benefit not only the business perspective but also Community trade and commerce and, not least, working conditions and the quality of life for port employees.
A document with a covert agenda
The IDC is of the opinion that the current project for a Directive seeks to regulate many areas in an absolutely unnecessary fashion. Among these is the “right to employ personnel of own choice”, which, obviously, is one of the basic freedoms under the EU Treaty and which can only be limited by employment regulations and collective agreements. The explicit presence in the text of the Directive suggests however hidden objectives - justifying of the replacement of professional workers by others who are paid less, trained less, and of course, have no trade union representation.
The IDC condemns the omission within the Directive proposals of obliging Member States to comply with relevant national legislation and/or local collective bargaining agreements regulating conditions of employment and safety and health.
In reality, the text proposed by the Commission would even allow “Service Providers” with newly acquired authorisations to dispense with the relevant, obligatory employment requirements for previous companies providing these services. This opens the door for new contractors to establish their own regulations. For Dockworkers, this is without doubt the quickest way of dismantling of the current port system.
Social dumping in the European Union
“Self-handling” is a term minted by the previous Commission, in order to define and introduce a practice whereby shipping companies might replace Dockworkers with own sea-faring or land-based personnel. The dockworkers’ trade unions’ position regarding self-handling is well-known: i. e. complete rejection.
The recent amendments as proposed by Parliament’s Reporter, Dr. Jarzembowski, present however a significant variation from the previous proposals in so much as “self-handling” is no longer mentioned in the Directive. Member States will however be allowed to regulate it at national or local level. Obviously, this could lead to a series of modifications in each EU state, whereby self-handling is used as a means for inter-port competition. Or in other words, the de facto imposition of social dumping in ports, where the victim of which would be EU-Dockworkers.
The IDC believes that the Directive should instead guarantee the application of international agreements, in particular ILO no. 137, and should respect the rights of trade union freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Directive should also make sure that port service providers comply with the same requirements in terms of staff recruitment and employment legislation. In reality, this would not only protect employment rights, but would also ensure business competition under equal conditions - something which would be difficult to achieve with the current text.
Professionalism in Dock-work
Another flaw in the wording of the Directive lies in the lack of regulation on access to the profession and on professional qualifications. No paragraph in the text establishes mechanisms for Port-workers’ qualifications or professional recognition. In the IDC’s opinion, this omission is not unintentional, but is part of the objective of deregulating the dockworkers’ profession. In no part of the text are sufficient guarantees given for workers’ social protection. For example, no mention is made of measures which a “Competent Authority” might take against a company which fails to comply with previously negotiated collective agreements.
For all these reasons, the IDC feels that the time has come to take a fresh approach. We need a new process of preparing the Directive by means of a strategy that should have been intrinsic since the beginning: dialogue with all those involved in the sector. Sadly, the proposals which have hitherto been forced upon the industry have only generated confusion and unrest.
