“There has been no delivery yet on whistleblowing legislation. Indeed the Labour Party presented such legislation when in opposition in 1999. The non renewal of Ms Bayliss’s contract is a loss to the psychiatric care sector and cannot but be seen as a vindictive response by the HSE, who part fund her post, to her role in exposing the mistreatment of patients.

“Similarly a member of staff in Blanchardstown Hospital has been the subject of a disciplinary hearing for allegedly sharing information related to cuts with the Defend Blanchardstown Hospital campaign.

“Whistleblowers don’t just require protection but active encouragement. More timely whistleblowing by decent people in the financial sector, the Catholic church, the nursing homes, in the Garda Siochana and many other places would have well served us in recent years.”

The workers are victims of the private equity vulture company, Lion Capital, which in the most callous way planned to walk away from its workforce to maximise its profit, handing it over to another company which will be equally ruthless, and treating these workers in the most disgusting fashion. This is capitalism red in tooth and claw and must be challenged.

Fine Gael and Labour Party Deputies come here and champion workers. They are the people who make and stand over the laws. For a change, let us have emergency laws to allow workers to receive their rights and to stop these gangsters behaving in this gangster-like fashion.

I call on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and its leaders to come out of hiding and meet fire with fire. They should mobilise the power of working people in the country to stand together with the Vita Cortex and La Senza workers. Workers standing together will show the power they have, forcing the Government to act and these companies to pay what they should.

“I and my party colleagues support the action taken by the EBS workers 100%. A clear distinction must be made between the obscene rewards still given to the senior management in Ireland’s banks and the hard won pay and conditions of the ordinary employees.

“The strike by the EBS workers clearly falls into the latter category. The 13th month payment was a modest but important concession won by EBS workers 45 years ago to supplement a basic salary range which today amounts to €18,000 to €34,000, in other words below the average industrial wage.

“When I called upon Minister Noonan in the Dáil last week to intervene and give his consent to the 13th month payment he scandalously attempted to put the EBS workers in the same category as the top bankers who, incidentally, in the case of EBS received bonuses this year thanks to an exemption stood over by this government.

“The strike is a warning to senior management and the government that these workers have had enough. If there is no movement from the employer further action will likely be needed to place the necessary pressure on the employers.

“This dispute has to be understood in a wider context of an assault on the jobs and conditions of ordinary workers across the entire financial sector since the crisis began. The employers and government are opportunistically using the crisis and the justifiable anger that exists among the wider public towards the banks and financial institutions to implement sackings and cuts.

“A fighting response is needed and the lead from UNITE and the IBOA is vital in that regard. The EBS workers have set a good example to others.

“The Socialist Party will continue to give the EBS workers every practical support we can until the workers win back the payment they are rightfully due.”

For 45 years workers in the company were paid their annual wages in 13 equal instalments. Therefore, after nine years of service, a worker on a gross income of €30,000 would receive 13 instalments of €2,308, before tax deduction. The 13th instalment was paid in December, before Christmas. For decades this was accepted by everybody to be part of the basic wage and not as a Christmas bonus. It was consolidated into the wage de facto.

On 6 December, possibly as the Minister was on his feet in this Chamber announcing the budget, the workers were informed that their 13th instalment was not going to be paid. They had expected this payment the very next day in a pay packet. Obviously, they had planned for Christmas and had already spent the money on their families’ Christmas preparations, etc. They were totally reliant on the payment, given they are very low-paid or middle-paid workers. This is a devastating blow.

A loan facility at 12.5% interest offered to the workers by the management of EBS as an alleged compensation adds insult to the injury. It is because of this great outrage and the injustice the workers feel that they have called a strike on December 20. If it goes ahead, another day’s pay will be lost by those workers.

Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us but I understand the Department of Finance made that decision by virtue of powers invested either in the Department or in the Minister himself, in conjunction with AIB. In addition, senior managers on €90,000 a year who had the same arrangement are not having their 13th instalment withdrawn – not that the measure would be justified if they were.

On behalf of those workers I ask the Minister to go into immediate conclave with officials and management of AIB and EBS to ensure this decision is reversed.

It comes on the back of a campaign of harassment and disciplinary action against a number of union activists in the garage by the company. This action has been followed up by the stripping from three democratically elected shop stewards in the garage, their facility for carrying out their union duties.

The legalistic excuses of the NBRU leadership to justify their collaboration with the employers do not wash. Facing a further round of cost cutting, it appears the company and the union leadership want to remove potential active oppostion from among the workforce.

Evidently the leadership of NBRU like Dublin Bus management would like a quiet life regardless of the future impact on jobs, pay and conditions in Dublin Bus. I call for the immediate re-reinstatement of Eugene McDonagh to his job and to the NBRU executive and the reinstatement of shop steward facilities in Harristown that have been taken away from Rory Colman, Owen McCormack and Colm Brady.

I support the campaign by ordinary NBRU members to support their victimised colleagues and by rank and file members of the NBRU to democratically take ownership over the direction the union.

However, it wasn’t just the government – whose survival depended on the outcome of the vote – that was involved. Fine Gael and the Labour Party were in on the act of course, as was IBEC, the organisation for Irish big business.

No sooner were the referendum results in however, than a general rowing back began. The posters about jobs weren’t referring to any specific policy or initiative to create actual jobs, it was all about a ‘context’ we are now being told. Voting ‘Yes’ would create a context ‘favourable’ to job creation.

Unfortunately the European context in which this ‘favourable context’ is promised, is anything but favourable. Twenty one million people are unemployed in the European Union – up five million in one year. Smaller countries with a similarity to Ireland, like the Baltic States for example, are imploding economically.

Nor are the activities of the EU Commission giving any great cause for hope. It’s most recent foray into the job creation area was to approve a bribe of 43 million by the Polish government to the Dell corporation to further its profit lust by abandoning workers in Limerick and going for cheaper labour elsewhere.

Rather than expect anything positive from the Lisbon Treaty results in the way of job creation, apparently we should instead be grateful that the ‘Yes’ vote prevented a stock market collapse. That is according to unidentified traders in the business pages of one pro Lisbon newspaper.

And it appears that this hypothetical prevention of a hypothetical collapse is about as good as it will get.

However, it appears that the ‘Yes’ vote did not bring about the prevention of an increase in the cost of borrowing. Readers will remember dire warnings by Bloxham Stockbrokers that a ‘No’ vote would cost the State, first 200 million, and then a massive 3 billion, in increased interest payments to bondholders as they would be worried about our ‘commitment to remain at the heart of Europe.’

Unfortunately, a few days after the result of the Referendum, apparently our telling Europe how much we wanted to cling to its bosom wasn’t good enough for the parasites in the financial markets. The cost of our borrowing rose anyway as the National Treasury Management Agency prepared to raise more to meet the increasing State deficit. ‘This is not what we were expecting’, said one financial commentator. Indeed!

It is a sign of the establishment’s servility to the markets that the dire threats made to the Irish people were not challenged by any arm including the media. The warnings were left hanging there. Nor was there any stern or widespread questioning of the promises.

However as the smoke of the Lisbon battle fades away, survivors can be expected to seek fulfilment of the promises of jobs. That will challenge a government hell bent on slashing living standards and services because such a policy cuts jobs rather than create them. The Fine Gael and Labour parties which also signed their names to the promissory notes in the course of the campaign should also be challenged.

Others need to be questioned about the claims they made for the Lisbon Treaty also. Those trade union leaders and the Labour Party who promised a major improvement in workers’ rights if Lisbon is ratified with the Charter of Fundamental Rights attached, must be held to account

There are four groups of workers who are currently on strike in Ireland who have a particular interest in this. They are workers at Manor Park Nursing Homes in County Longford, Mr Binman workers in Tipperary, as well as Coca Cola workers and MTL dockers. All are out – some for many months – resisting attacks on their wages and working conditions.

These workers might rightly ask whether any change will come in a situation where their lives are being turned upside down as a result of employers demanding severe wage cuts and worse working conditions. Surely, putting workers under these grave pressures, including by massively profitable companies like Coca Cola, should be outlawed. Because if workers’ rights mean anything, then it is to be entitled to maintain a reasonable job with decent conditions.

The promised transformational effect on workers rights contingent on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty certainly seems not to have rung many bells in Brussels as of yet. At a meeting the day before yesterday Aof coordinators of the Employment and Social affairs Committee of the European Parliament, there was no mention of factoring in a major, or even a minor, discussion on the implications of the revolutionary advances in workers’ rights following ratification of Lisbon. Surely an oversight?

Chairman, I opposed the Lisbon referendum from a left and socialist perspective and reject the intervention of xenophobes and right wing forces. But it wasn’t a victory for democracy, what happened in Ireland in the referendum.

The Irish people were threatened by a major coalition of the political establishment, big business, most of the capitalist press and the EU Commission, that if they voted no, they would be economically isolated, they would be punished by the European Union, there would be flight of capital and investment.

And they were told that if they voted Yes, there would be jobs, investments and recovery – all falsehoods. The Irish government’s duplicity was shown by the fact that it asked the management of Aer Lingus to postpone until today, after the referendum, the announcement of 700 savage job cuts in Aer Lingus.

Now the EU commission intervened continually, interfered in the process. The three Presidents are not here, but I want their representatives to ask them for a reaction to the following scandal for me. EU Commissioner Tajani for Transport spent a full day travelling around Ireland on a Ryanair jet with the chief executive of that multinational campaigning for a Yes. He is the regulator of transport supposed to protect consumers and workers. He is hopelessly compromised by going around with the Chief Executive of one of the biggest corporations supplying transport. What is your answer to that?

Also, the last point, Mr. Chairman, there is speculation that Mr. Tony Blair will be a new President of the EU Council. Let us be clear, Mr. Tony Blair is a war criminal…. Mr. Blair must not be appointed as the President of the EU.

Last week CEO Christoph Mueller cynically circulated an e-mail to all staff promoting the Lisbon treaty. In it he made reference to a Yes vote securing the future of the company and employment in Ireland. He made these claims knowing that within a few days he was going to announce massive job losses and further cuts in pay

This is the race to bottom plain and simple. Mr Mueller’s reference to and end to ‘legacy’ work practices is a code word for breaking up what remains of the decent conditions won through decades on the back of trade union organisation. An active and serious response is needed by SIPTU and especially IMPACT whose members will feel the brunt of these attacks. It should be clear to the both union leaderships that nothing we give up will ever be enough for the employers in Aer Lingus who keep coming back for more. It’s time to make a stand

Yesterday, Joe Higgins raised this issue at the European Parliament, making it clear that the Irish government asked Aer Lingus to delay the announcement of these savage attacks until after the Lisbon referendum. This underlines the extreme cynicism of the establishment’s campaign for Lisbon. They promised jobs and economic recovery if the Treaty was passed. Yet, they knew that plans were prepared for almost 700 job cuts and up to 30% of wage cuts at Aer Lingus.

These attacks demonstrate the emptiness of their referendum promises. It is clear that the neo-liberal policies common to the European Union and the Irish government will not result in economic recovery, instead they result in further attacks on working conditions.

The sight of Antonio Tanjani on a whistle-stop tour of the country with Michael O’Leary campaigning for a Yes vote has removed any remaining shred of impartiality. That the European Commission would interfere in the debate in Ireland in this manner is a disgrace. It is a ploy aimed at increasing the pressure on the Irish people to vote Yes.

This tour seriously compromises Tanjani’s position as European Commissioner for Transport. Ryanair is one of the biggest airlines in Europe. It has already and may come into further conflict with the European Commission. It puts the Commissioner for Transport in an utterly compromised position to have travelled around Ireland in a Ryanair plane, campaigning alongside Michael O’Leary.

I have written a letter to the President of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso, demanding that Tanjani be dismissed from his position on the grounds of his position being so compromised.

Those in the leadership of the trade union movement who are calling for a Yes vote should ask themselves why Mr. O’Leary is pumping hundreds of thousands of euro into campaigning for a Yes vote. It is certainly not because he believes that Lisbon will improve workers’ rights. It is because the anti-worker agenda which Mr. O’Leary typifies lies at the heart of the Treaty.

It is incredible that RTE can present a well known Fine Gael supporter as an unbiased legal opinion on the Lisbon Treaty. Is it beyond the national broadcaster’s capabilities to find a contrary legal opinion to facilitate an honest and fair debate?

Mr Hogan’s opinion is at odds with the reality of the high profile rulings of the European Court of Justice which he himself admitted will, in the final analysis, be the interpretor of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty itself.

Similalry the Dáil Committee on the Lisbon treaty made up of ‘Yes’ side politicians cannot be creditted as an unbiased opinion on the issue of workers’ rights’.

Even leaving aside Article 52 of the Charter which limits the rights of workers, the drive towards privitisation of public services which is also enshrined in the treaty also poses a real threat to workers in those sectors.

Yesterday, Mr Blair Horan, General Secretary of the Civil and Public Services Union elevated a minor textual error in a quote from the Charter of Fundamental Rights into a slanderous allegation that I ‘falsified’ and ‘forged’ the Charter of Fundamental Rights in order ‘to suit his purpose.’

Mr Horan and his colleagues in the ‘Yes’ campaign rather than engaging in a serious debate on the true implications of the Lisbon Treaty with regard to workers’ rights are instead intent on muddying the waters.

I ask Blair Horan, are we lying when we saying that Article 52 of the Charter – all seven paragraphs of it – places limits on workers’ rights?

Is he saying that we are lying when we highlight the recent record of the European Court of Justice, the final arbiter in interpreting treaties, in handing down decisions justifying the exploitation of workers posted from areas of low pay?

Speaking on RTE Mr Horan said that “It doesn’t mean that the Charter is constrained by competition policy in the Treaty and Joe Higgins has falsified Article 52 in his press releases to suggest that” Mr Horan is absolutely wrong here.

Article 52, which has 7 paragraphs absolutely does provide for the constraining of rights for competition purposes when it says:

‘Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’ ( From Art 52, Par 1)

This is added to by Paragraph 7 which says that

‘The Explanations drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of this Charter shall be given due regard by the courts of the Union of the Member States.’

These Explanations make clear that limitations may be made on rights based on the case law of the European Court of Justice.

I call on Blair Horan and the Charter Group debate these issues with us at a major Public Meeting and let working people themselves decide on the truth of these issues.

Questions to RTE and Sean Whelan, Europe Correspondent

Why did RTE TV News at 1.00pm, 6.00pm and 9.00pm News on Wednesday September 9th, give such massive prominence to Mr Blair Horan using a minor textual error in a press statement of the week before , to launch a slanderous accusations of falsification and ‘forgery’ against Joe Higgins MEP?

(By contrast the Press conference on workers’ rights hosted by Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party on Monday, September 7, was only shown on Six One News and dropped in the Nine O’Clock News)

Why did Sean Whelan repeat without qualification Mr Horan’s allegation that Joe Higgins had changed to wording of the Charter in his website and press releases in view of the following:

• On Monday September 7th, Sean Whelan attended a press conference in the Davenport Hotel hosted by Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party where the press statement he was given along with other journalists had the text from Article 52 (2000 version) without the textual error.
• In his own report on Wednesday September 9th while he is reporting Mr Horan’s allegations the RTE report actually shows a display from the Socialist Party press conference of Article 52 (2000 version) without the textual error
• Why did Sean Whelan not report that in Blair Horan’s own press statement which quotes Article 52 paragraph 2 from the 2000 version as the ‘correct version’ ,which was a mistake? The correct version was that promulgated December 14th, 2007 and was actually shown in Sean Whelan’s broadcast.

In view of the seriousness of the slanders of Mr Horan why had RTE not asked Joe Higgins to appear on camera to respond to the allegation? Instead Sean Whelan quoted from a short telephone conversation.

I demand that RTE give equal prominence to my rejection.

UPDATE:

As originally written, there was a minor error in this article in the wording of a paragraph of Article 52. The correct wording of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as written in 2000 (which I was quoting from) is below:

“Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on the Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.”

This was mistakenly quoted in one press release as “Rights recognised by this Charter are based on the Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union and shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.” This wording has now been changed in the text.

In actual fact, the Charter as written in 2000 has now been superseded by the Charter published in 2007 (available here with the explanation)

The current wording of that paragraph is now:

“Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.”

This minor textual error in no way affects the argument being made below.  As highlighted in my response to Blair Horan’s hysterial press release (http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/09/joe-higgins-responds-to-hysterical-accusation-of-blair-horan/), in actual fact the Charter of 2007 emphasises the argument that I am making. A new addition to the 2007 Charter is Paragraph 7 of Article 52, which gives legal basis to the Official Explanation. As detailed below, this explanation explains that these rights are restricted by the “common organisation of the market”.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

After months of shadow fighting, the Lisbon campaign has now well and truly begun. Many issues will be raised in the next weeks about what the Treaty does and doesn’t do. The key questions for the left should be about what the Treaty means for workers rights and for public services. Elsewhere I have looked at the issue of public services and militarisation. Here, however, I would like to go into the issue of workers rights.

The Charter Group, made up of some trade union leaders, claim that if the Lisbon Treaty is passed it will significantly add to workers’ rights because Lisbon ratification would give workers’ rights “equivalence” with ‘market rules’. The implication is that judgements of the European Court of Justice, which supported contractors’ rights to refuse to observe protection afforded to migrant workers by trade union negotiated agreements, and by rules imposed by regional and national public authorities, could not be repeated if Lisbon is ratified. This is demonstrably false and these trade union leaders do a grave disservice to their own membership and workers generally.

European Court of Justice Rulings

The European Court of Justice judgements in cases known as Laval, Viking, Ruffert and Luxembourg amount to a fundamental attack on workers’ rights. These judgements do not just relate to the transposition of the Posting of Workers’ Directive into domestic law.
They amount to a political interpretation by the European Court of Justice of that Directive. That interpretation is that only very limited rights of workers posted to another member state can be protected by legislation and that laws that attempt to protect more than that minimum standard can be struck down.

In the Laval case, the Court stated that the Directive “cannot be interpreted as allowing the host Member State to make the provision of services in its territory conditional on the observance of terms and conditions of employment which go beyond the mandatory rules for minimum protection.” This is quite explicit in basically ruling that states cannot make higher levels of protection that go beyond the limited rights in the Posting of Workers Directive.

It is very clear that the Court has, in successive court judgements put the right of business to trade across EU borders, and profit there from, before the interests of working people. This view is shared by the leadership of the European Trade Union Confederation. John Monks, the ETUC General Secretary said after the Luxembourg case:

This is another hugely problematic judgement by the ECJ, asserting the primacy of the economic freedoms over fundamental rights and respect for national labour law and collective agreements. It turns the Posting Directive from an instrument that was intended to protect workers, companies and labour markets against unfair competition on wages and working conditions into an aggressive market tool.

Would Lisbon change this?

Clearly these decisions were based on EU law prior to the ratification of Lisbon. However, the question is, would the passing of the Lisbon Treaty assist in the enforcement of workers’ rights, as the Charter Group implies, or would it copper-fasten these anti-worker rulings?

The Charter Group heralds the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and claims that this proves that Lisbon would assist with workers’ rights and that such judgements could not be given if Lisbon is ratifies. This is false.

Article 52 of the Charter is explicit in limiting the rights contained therein when it says:

Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the condition and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

The Lisbon Treaty inserts the following in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union:

The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the source of those provisions.

Title VII includes Art 52 quoted above.

The explanations referred to in Article 6 are those from the Bureau of the Convention which clearly show that the pro business interpretation of the ECJ in the cases mentioned is decisive:

The purpose of Article 52 is to set the scope of the rights guaranteed. Paragraph 1 deals with the arrangements for the limitation of rights. The wording is based on the case law of the Court of Justice: “…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….
- Explanations of the Bureau of the Convention (the official interpretation of Article 52)

Lisbon: Enshrining the ‘rights’ of big business will come before workers rights

That is quite clear again, as the Socialist Party has repeatedly argued – the rights in the Charter will be limited by the “common organisation of the market” which is Eurospeak for the right to trade and make profits, thus allowing business to give posted workers significantly lesser wages and conditions than indigenous workers. The mortal danger here for the welfare of all workers is that if such practices became widespread, they would give rise to a massive ‘race to the bottom’ in all workers’ wages and conditions.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights plays a similar role in the Lisbon Treaty to the role of the so-called guarantees in the referendum campaign. Both are fig leaves designed to dress up an anti-worker Treaty. The reality is that Lisbon grants no new rights for workers.

Not only that, in giving the European Court of Justice the power to weigh the rights contained in the Charter against the rights of business, it also copper-fastens the ECJ judgements which allow migrant workers to be exploited.

Finally, the idea which Blair Horan raises in his letter to the Irish Times that the “Declaration on Workers’ Rights secured by the Irish Government… will assist the ongoing process to address these concerns” is laughable. This declaration has as much standing as a Fianna Fail election promise. Aspirations and a paraphrasing of the Treaty do not alter the fundamental point – European Court judgements have been an important instrument in driving down workers’ rights and Lisbon copper-fastens these.

Workers in Ireland and across Europe are struggling to defend wages and conditions. The Lisbon Treaty is a weapon of this “race to the bottom”. The left must be clear on this. It should be defeated to clearly reject the putting of big business’ profits before the interests of working people.

Originally published in IrishLeftReview.org where you can leave your comments and join in the debate.