Brexit could end 48 hour working week

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:
Their reason for wanting to relocate was to reduce their wage cost by getting rid of their Finnish workers and replacing them with cheaper Estonian workers.

But I’m struggling to understand how they could replace the Finnish, if the Estonians were solid and weren’t willing to sell themselves any cheaper?

There is a long standing agreement between ITF affiliated Unions that if a ship is run under a flag of convenience, then only unions in the country where the genuine ownership and control of that vessel is should negotiate the collective agreements covering that ship. Basically it’s a policy to try and stop reflagging being used to undercut pay and conditions for workers and one that the Estonian Seaman’s Union had signed up to as a member of the ITF.

When the FSU found out about the Flagging out plan, they asked the ITF to send a request to the Estonian Seaman’s Union not to negotiate, as per the long standing agreement between ITF members
(I did read somewhere that the FSU was initially informed of plan to reflag the vessel by the Estonian Seaman’s Union, when they were approached by the Viking Line, but I can’t confirm this.)

Rjan:
No jobs (it seems) were under threat by Viking Line’s reflagging - they apparently weren’t shutting the workplace (the ship) down, nor were they making any redundancies.

The whole point of flagging the ship out to Estonia was to replace the Finnish crew with a cheaper Estonian one.

From the summary of the judgment.

Viking Line gave notice to the FSU of its intention to reflag the Rosella by registering it in Estonia in order to be able to enter into a new collective agreement with a trade union established in that State and to employ an Estonian crew, whose wages are lower than those paid in Finland.

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
The reason for Viking Line wanting to reflag the vessel to Estonia was to reduce wage costs, so why would they negotiate a deal where they had to pay the same rate as on a Finnish registered vessel?

That’s the question I asked you, but you assured me that the Estonian workers were on board (ha!) with the policy of maintaining Finnish levels of wages?

I said that the Estonian Union had agreed not to talk to the Viking Line, after a request from the ITF on behalf of the FSU.

I’m not following you at all. You say Viking Line wanted to move in order to undercut wages - although the court reports suggests no existing jobs would be lost.

A history of the FSU, Viking Lines dispute.

The dispute started because the ship was losing money on the Estonian Finland route and the existing agreement between the Viking Line and FSU was coming to an end.

In initial negotiations to settle the dispute, long before the ECJ or British Courts got involved, when the FSU were told of the plan to flag out the ship, they demanded that the numbers of crew on board ship was increased, there were no layoffs and that if the vessel was reflagged, it continued to abide by Finnish law and collective agreements, as per the ITF’s policy on FOC, The Viking Line refused to accept these demands, except for increasing the size of the crew.

(So the Viking Line could have flagged the vessel in Estonia, but would have to continue with the same collective agreements that they had in Finland, as per the ITF policy)

It was at this point it went to court, initially in Finland, the court determined the FSU knew that insisting the Viking Line maintained the existing collective agreements on the vessel would make the reflagging pointless as its purpose was to reduce wage costs.

It was in another attempt to settle the dispute the Viking Line agreed there would not be redundancies, but wouldn’t budge on refusing the demand to the maintain Finnish pay and conditions.

(However how many times have we heard these promises about no redundancies, only for the workers to lose their jobs after accepting a settlement?)

The FSU refused to accept those terms and the Viking line back down accepted a new agreement and stopped the reflagging process.

That was until Estonia joined the EU in 2004, the Viking Line decided to take action against the ITF, stating the actions of the ITF and FSU were against its freedom of establishment.
As the ITF’s request to the Estonian Seaman’s Union not to negotiate with Viking Line had not been withdrawn and as the ITF still had an agreement between its affiliated Unions about not negotiating with companies over flagging out to reduce wages.

As it was the Viking Line settled with the FSU before the ECJ ruling and didn’t flag the ship out, the route did start to make money, enough from them to commission a new ship which was larger to take over the route in 2008, proving that reflagging the ship wasn’t the only option for survival.

In 2014 this ship was flagged out to Estonia, I don’t know what employment deal it runs on, but I assume it’s on a collective agreement that satisfies the FSU, ITF and Estonian Seaman’s Union.

Rjan:
Of course are the expert on the case - I don’t recall that I’ve ever come across it before this discussion.

I don’t consider myself an expert on this, but I have done a lot of reading on it, especially as I feel it has many parallels with what happening in the European haulage industry.
Although I can understand and even agree with some of the principles of the ECJ ruling, I believe in this case it was detrimental to workers trying to stop a general race to the bottom in pay and conditions.
If the FSU was trying to stop flagging out for other reason and not because the company wanted to reduce wages, I wouldn’t have been so tenacious in my support of them.

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:
The problem is that what you call “economically restrictive” means “working for the same rate that other workers are actually working for”.

So are you advocating that the Finnish sailors should have taken a reduction in pay, to Estonian levels?

I’m not advocating it. I’m saying that the Estonian workers’ view on the matter ought to be represented. I see the same theme in your argument as when the rich say they’d struggle to live on £10k a week, but it’s alright in their view if everyone else is forced to manage.

It’s not about forcing others to manage on a lower wage while the rich, (well comparatively) remain rich, it’s about stopping a race to the bottom for all workers, and working towards improving pay and conditions across the board.

This is why I speak up on here against drivers laying the blame for the problems of European haulage industry in undercutting drivers wages on East European drivers, it means they don’t look for the real culprits, a great example of divide and conquer.

As it is, due to the ITF and collective industrial action, Estonian sailors have seen their wages go up and the ITF’s policy on flagging out, would also benefit Estonian sailors, if they found their pay and conditions or even jobs threatened by an Estonian shipping line trying to reflag a vessel.

Obviously due to not all sailors being in a union affiliated to the ITF or even in a union, there are still plenty of vessels under flags of convenience, so the owners can benefit from the reduced costs.

muckles:

Rjan:
The point is the EU has no plans to introduce an EU wide minimum wage.

Because none of its centre-right governments, and centre-right-voting workers, have plans for those things. Christ, under the Tories, Britain is has levelled down it’s own minimum wages, by abolishing the agricultural minimum wage, and has tried to pretend the latest increase in NMW is a “living wage”.

I totally agree, EU policy is a reflection of the national governments that make up the EU, but then all the more reason for workers across the EU to work together.

Rjan:

muckles:
Hasn’t most of my argument on here been about free market policies being bad for workers, regardless of which country they from or working in.

Yes. I mostly think I’m indulging the narcissism of minor differences between us.

I wouldn’t dare comment on whether its narcissism, but I don’t think we’re far apart on this.
As I said I not claiming that the EU is fundamentally anti worker and definitely not as much as our own government, just workers rights aren’t given to us, they are fought for and will need to continue to be fought for.

[rjan]

muckles:
[re the Viking Line case]

Thanks for the additional context. This is what the British court found to be the case at the point the matter came before the courts:

47.Viking’s stated position in evidence before me is that it is its intention to commence reflagging procedures as soon as possible. Viking has made it clear that it will not make any workers redundant as a result of the proposed reflagging, and has indicated that, if required, it will give an undertaking to the court to that effect as a term of any injunction.

[…]

101.Moreover, the evidence made it clear that the ITF is not maintaining its stance merely because, at the time when the FSU called on the ITF for assistance, there was a possible threat to the jobs of the crew of the Rosella. That is clear from the fact that, as Mr Cockroft accepted, the application of the ITF’s FOC policy is not dependent on a threat of redundancies. It is triggered wherever a ship is beneficially owned in one country and flagged in another. Whenever this condition is fulfilled, the ITF has no discretion on this issue. It is also self-evident that the ITF has maintained, and intends to maintain, its circular in force despite the fact that Viking has indicated that it is prepared to give an undertaking that there will be no involuntary redundancies as a result of the re-flagging of the Rosella.

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2005/1222.html

Now, I know employer’s lie, but the court didn’t find that they were lying - they took it that Viking Line were telling the truth, and were willing to be bound by a court order not to make redundancies, and the judgment is within those terms.

I don’t have the Finnish case you refer to, but by time it came to court here, Viking Line had clearly dropped any suggestion of making redundancies for existing staff - and there never seems to have been any suggestion of changing pay and conditions for existing employees.

The case rumbled on basically over the very principle of whether the FSU could enforce a policy of where a ship was flagged, which is different from what the law at that time permitted. The answer was apparently not.

I believe (although I’m not clear) that there have been some changes in the law at the EU level since, in a way that is more favourable to the policy that the FSU was seeking to enforce. So to any extent that EU lawmakers felt that the outcome of the case was wrong (but for all the right legal reasons), they’ve changed the law as a result, as democratically as any individual member state would change its own law.

I also gather that, in the end, the FSU and the Estonian counterpart have succeeded in protecting their members notwithstanding how this case went - probably I’m guessing because the FSU extracted so many concessions before the case came before the British courts (which is exactly what undercut their success in that case), and the Estonians have shown themselves to be solid with the Finnish, and have prevented Viking Line doing anything that wasn’t acceptable to the common policy of the two unions. And EU law protects the rights of unions to bargain collectively, so there was no question of the Estonian unions being swept aside.

Can we agree on a summary of this case that the EU judiciary is not, in fact, anti-worker, and EU law itself is no more anti-worker than the law of the average national member?

That’s all I have at stake here, is to bust any myth that the EU is hostile to organised workers or is resistant to the overall democratic will of its member nations.

Rjan:
Of course are the expert on the case - I don’t recall that I’ve ever come across it before this discussion.

I don’t consider myself an expert on this, but I have done a lot of reading on it, especially as I feel it has many parallels with what happening in the European haulage industry.
Although I can understand and even agree with some of the principles of the ECJ ruling, I believe in this case it was detrimental to workers trying to stop a general race to the bottom in pay and conditions.
If the FSU was trying to stop flagging out for other reason and not because the company wanted to reduce wages, I wouldn’t have been so tenacious in my support of them.

I’m not against the FSU in general. I’m not even saying they shouldn’t have brought the case, since it can be good for workers simply that they make a fuss and cause hassle for the bosses - and bits that I’ve read seem to say that the way the case went led to lawmakers making a favourable change to EU law.

I’m just saying that they lost this particular case for legal reasons that do not embarrass the EU, nor would they cause a reasonable worker to view the EU as an anti-worker state - the ECJ could hardly have been more emphatic in its references to the EU laws that enshrine the right to bargain collectively.

Like I’ve also said, the only real risk of undercutting arose if the Estonians were not willing to be solid with the Finnish - and it seems that at all times they were solid. If they had not been solid and the Estonians had undercut, then that is worker democracy for you, because the Estonians are workers too.

It’s not about forcing others to manage on a lower wage while the rich, (well comparatively) remain rich, it’s about stopping a race to the bottom for all workers, and working towards improving pay and conditions across the board.

This is why I speak up on here against drivers laying the blame for the problems of European haulage industry in undercutting drivers wages on East European drivers, it means they don’t look for the real culprits, a great example of divide and conquer.

Indeed. The only time workers get undercut is when they are not solid. Most of the drivers on here are not socialists - they’re not even union members, and they’re not willing to be solid and defend others’ pay and conditions in the marketplace. And thus, they have seen their pay and conditions fall through the floor.

The problem is that these kinds of workers remain exploitable by the ruling class, as the democratic support for right-wing Brexit amongst the working class is showing. It’s important that left-wingers recognise that the EU is not inherently some anti-worker bogeyman, and that whilst the bosses may support freedom of movement because it can be used to magnify the pain of a lack of solidarity amongst workers (which bosses know is not currently present), ultimately freedom of movement will reinforce the potential for solidarity amongst workers (by breaking down the institutional impediment to it, which national borders are), whereas nationalism (in its steady-state form, as exemplified by Carryfast’s position, rather than in its historical global-expansionary and unifying form) erodes solidarity by institutionalising division and conflict between national working classes (the multiple divisions of which can then be played off against each other).

As it is, due to the ITF and collective industrial action, Estonian sailors have seen their wages go up and the ITF’s policy on flagging out, would also benefit Estonian sailors, if they found their pay and conditions or even jobs threatened by an Estonian shipping line trying to reflag a vessel.

Obviously due to not all sailors being in a union affiliated to the ITF or even in a union, there are still plenty of vessels under flags of convenience, so the owners can benefit from the reduced costs.

Indeed. But those non-unionised workers have nobody but themselves to blame for their reduced pay and conditions. And moreover, by virtue of being atomised, they have no political power, whereas workers who are willing to be organised do have political power, including the power (once they are in the democratic majority) to set pay and conditions even for those who would undercut (for example, by determining state policy, and restricting the ability of non-unionised companies to undercut by setting binding minimum regulations on the market).

Rjan:

muckles:
Hasn’t most of my argument on here been about free market policies being bad for workers, regardless of which country they from or working in.

Yes. I mostly think I’m indulging the narcissism of minor differences between us.

I wouldn’t dare comment on whether its narcissism, but I don’t think we’re far apart on this.
As I said I not claiming that the EU is fundamentally anti worker and definitely not as much as our own government, just workers rights aren’t given to us, they are fought for and will need to continue to be fought for.

Agreed, except at the moment many rights are being given to us, because EU law is backstopping the slide that British workers are allowing to occur through their long-time support for centre-right governments at the British national level.

[muckles]

Rjan:
Thanks for the additional context. This is what the British court found to be the case at the point the matter came before the courts:

If the information about the case in the ECJ Judgment is correct, it’s not quite right to say that the Viking Line always said it wasn’t going to make redundancies, that was offered as part of the initial negotiations to settle the dispute.

The information about the build up to this dispute is available in the ECJ judgement to give a background to the case.

When the FSU started to negotiate with the Viking Line they demanded 3 things.
1, Extra crew members
2, No Redundancies
3, if the ship is reflagged to Estonia, the ship will still operate under Finnish law and workforce agreements.

Before it went to the UK courts, the Viking line agreed to demands 1 & 2, but the FSU wouldn’t accept a deal without the agreement on reflagging the vessel.

However the FSU didn’t oppose flagging out as such, just would only accept it if the ship continued to sail under Finnish workforce agreements, as per the ITF policy on FOC’s.

The Viking Line refused to accept this as it made flagging out pointless, because their objective was to reduce wage costs.

However the FSU’s stand in this wouldn’t have come to anything if the Estonian Union hadn’t backed the FSU and the ITF request not to negotiate.

And the UK Court report you have quoted states

Viking has indicated that it is prepared to give an undertaking that there will be no involuntary redundancies as a result of the re-flagging of the Rosella.

I’m afraid after many years of working I’ve seen the levels companies will go to, to get voluntary redundancies and it was clear by the fact that the FSU or the ITF didn’t oppose flagging out, but only if it was under the terms of the ITF policy on FOC’s, that the objective of the Viking Line was to reduce wage costs and this could only be done by removing the existing workforce or them accepting lower wages.

Rjan:
I believe (although I’m not clear) that there have been some changes in the law at the EU level since, in a way that is more favourable to the policy that the FSU was seeking to enforce. So to any extent that EU lawmakers felt that the outcome of the case was wrong (but for all the right legal reasons), they’ve changed the law as a result, as democratically as any individual member state would change its own law.

Yes there have, as I said in a post several days ago, because as well as Unions and Businesses agreeing this could restrict union power and the European Parliament report into the ruling said the same.

The restriction in the right to collective action put up by the Viking and Laval cases have substantially limited the possibility for trade unions to protect the interests of their members in cross border situations. The combination of making the lawfulness of collective actions dependent on a vague proportionality test combined with a threat of action for damages does have manifest preventive effect on the possibility of exercising this fundamental right. The stance taken by the EU-Court seems problematic for, if not directly clashing with, the position taken by the European Court of Human Rights and the ILO Committee of Experts.

The European Parliament report says they were changes made in the Lisbon treaty which might change the foundation for this ruling.

As has already been mentioned above, the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty provides a new legal context in which the balance between the right collective actions and economic freedoms could be reconsidered.

But the report went on to say it has yet to be tested in court.

Rjan:
I also gather that, in the end, the FSU and the Estonian counterpart have succeeded in protecting their members notwithstanding how this case went - and the Estonians have shown themselves to be solid with the Finnish, and have prevented Viking Line doing anything that wasn’t acceptable to the common policy of the two unions. And EU law protects the rights of unions to bargain collectively, so there was no question of the Estonian unions being swept aside.

As I said in my last post, the dispute was settled before the ECJ judgment, the vessel wasn’t flagged out, the route did make money after this dispute, with sailors working under Finnish collective agreements, enough for a new and larger ship to take over the route in 2008, this vessel was registered to Estonia in 2014.
That’s the power of collective action, instead of a load of workers trying to stitch each other up for a short term benefit for themselves.

The Estonian Seaman’s Union were never swept aside; they are member of the ITF and as such have a say on the ITF policy over FOC vessels, a policy when called upon they carried in a great act of solidarity, and because of which I have nothing but admiration for them.

Rjan:
Can we agree on a summary of this case that the EU judiciary is not, in fact, anti-worker, and EU law itself is no more anti-worker than the law of the average national member?

That’s all I have at stake here, is to bust any myth that the EU is hostile to organised workers or is resistant to the overall democratic will of its member nations.

As I said several times many workers rights organisations were not happy with this judgement, and I would agree with them, considering that Viking Line could have re-flagged the vessel provided they followed the ITF policy on FOC’s, which is accepted by both the FSU and Estonians Seaman’s Union, but that was not acceptable to the Viking Line as knew they couldn’t reduce wage costs, if they had to abide by Finnish workforce agreements.

However, as I have also said in many other posts, I accept that the EU isn’t fundamentally anti Union and it’s position on workers rights isn’t any worse than many of it’s member states and far better than the UK.

Rjan:
I’m not against the FSU in general. - and bits that I’ve read seem to say that the way the case went led to lawmakers making a favourable change to EU law.

I’m just saying that they lost this particular case for legal reasons that do not embarrass the EU, nor would they cause a reasonable worker to view the EU as an anti-worker state - the ECJ could hardly have been more emphatic in its references to the EU laws that enshrine the right to bargain collectively.

Like I’ve also said, the only real risk of undercutting arose if the Estonians were not willing to be solid with the Finnish - and it seems that at all times they were solid. If they had not been solid and the Estonians had undercut, then that is worker democracy for you, because the Estonians are workers too.

I think some in the EU were caught on the back foot with this judgement and the use of the fundamental freedoms to outlaw industrial action through legal action.

This is why there has been new legislation included in the Lisbon Treaty to try and put right what some in the EU felt was wrong with it.

The EU fundamental rights aren’t in themselves an issue, I’m sure those that put into EU law had nothing but good intentions, but it shows what can happen and why those fighting for workers rights can never sit back assuming everything is ok.

My point of this and bringing up this case is we as workers cannot rely on those in power regardless of who they are to give us workers rights.
We have to campaign for them and constantly have to fight to maintain them.

Rjan:

muckles:
As I said I not claiming that the EU is fundamentally anti worker and definitely not as much as our own government, just workers rights aren’t given to us, they are fought for and will need to continue to be fought for.

Agreed, except at the moment many rights are being given to us, because EU law is backstopping the slide that British workers are allowing to occur through their long-time support for centre-right governments at the British national level.

And again they are not given to us, they put into EU law due to campaigns from those fighting for workers rights, including British Trade Unions, and they are opposed by those supporting businesses groups, who are lobbying and campaigning to reduce workers rights.
When many on here say Unions don’t do anything because they don’t see them on strike everyday, although they then complain when they do take strike action, they don’t realise the lobbying and legal action they are taking to try and improve and maintain the rights we have.

As this case shows even when you think you have worker solidarity and the legal right to take industrial actions, companies with a clever legal team can find ways round them.

[rjan]

muckles:
[re further on the Viking line case]

I pretty much accept your analysis. I haven’t lost sight of the fact that Viking Line’s agenda was to undermine pay and conditions - that’s always the bosses’ agenda.

The point is, by time it came to court they’d pretty much conceded the Finnish union’s demands for in respect of their existing members material interests.

In terms of the interests of the would-be Estonian workers, and defending their future pay and conditions, or the laws that would govern their employment, that is a question that the Estonians have to have a democratic say in - and they won’t have a say in it while the union contains predominantly Finnish members, operating under national laws determined only by the Finnish people. In other words, it’s either for the FSU to set up shop and organise workers in Estonia (and implement a common wage policy), or to leave it to the Estonian unions themselves (if there are any), or to strike some sort of mutual bargain between two unions (which is presumably what the ITF is for).

I’m not sure whether I’m making this subtlety clear about all workers having a say, including the would-be undercutting workers. And I’m not sure whether I’m making it clear that the gap for undercutting doesn’t exist if there is solidarity amongst the entire workforce. The fact that Viking Line originally thought a gap existed, might be because they misjudged the organisation and solidarity of the Estonians, and perhaps naturally assumed that they would be available to replace the Finnish workers.

Moreover, it is precisely the absence of any semblance of nationalist favour in the behaviour of unions, that will in the end reinforce the solidarity on which they depend.

I think some in the EU were caught on the back foot with this judgement and the use of the fundamental freedoms to outlaw industrial action through legal action.

This is why there has been new legislation included in the Lisbon Treaty to try and put right what some in the EU felt was wrong with it.

So then really it is a happy-go-lucky story about a functioning EU democracy that is sympathetic to worker’s rights and where no unionised workers actually lost their jobs in the end (or the pay and conditions attributable to them).

When many on here say Unions don’t do anything because they don’t see them on strike everyday, although they then complain when they do take strike action, they don’t realise the lobbying and legal action they are taking to try and improve and maintain the rights we have.

Agreed.

As this case shows even when you think you have worker solidarity and the legal right to take industrial actions, companies with a clever legal team can find ways round them.

But I’d say that they didn’t get around them! And even the minor point on which the company won the case (having conceded all the things that would have caused them to lose it), seems to have been overridden by subsequent developments in EU democracy.

This case is almost a poster-child for a business that was beaten into submission by internationally-organised labour, and in which the ECJ demonstrates brilliantly in their written judgment the commitment to workers rights that is baked into EU law (and which has had an extra dose of pro-worker sugar added since).

It gives you some insights into why many bosses, those who are of the class-war mentality and who have made successful businesses or management careers out of union-busting and finding ways to undercut workers and force their pay and conditions down, are so against the EU.

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:
[re further on the Viking line case]

I pretty much accept your analysis. I haven’t lost sight of the fact that Viking Line’s agenda was to undermine pay and conditions - that’s always the bosses’ agenda.

The point is, by time it came to court they’d pretty much conceded the Finnish union’s demands for in respect of their existing members material interests.

The Viking Line hadn’t accepted the FSU’s main demand over reflagging the vessel and therefore the Viking Lines proposal to relfag was not in the interests of the members of the FSU.

Rjan:
In terms of the interests of the would-be Estonian workers, and defending their future pay and conditions, or the laws that would govern their employment, that is a question that the Estonians have to have a democratic say in - and they won’t have a say in it while the union contains predominantly Finnish members, operating under national laws determined only by the Finnish people. In other words, it’s either for the FSU to set up shop and organise workers in Estonia (and implement a common wage policy), or to leave it to the Estonian unions themselves (if there are any), or to strike some sort of mutual bargain between two unions (which is presumably what the ITF is for).

I’m not sure whether I’m making this subtlety clear about all workers having a say, including the would-be undercutting workers. And I’m not sure whether I’m making it clear that the gap for undercutting doesn’t exist if there is solidarity amongst the entire workforce. The fact that Viking Line originally thought a gap existed, might be because they misjudged the organisation and solidarity of the Estonians, and perhaps naturally assumed that they would be available to replace the Finnish workers.

Moreover, it is precisely the absence of any semblance of nationalist favour in the behaviour of unions, that will in the end reinforce the solidarity on which they depend.

The ITF’s policy on dealing with FOC’s is agreed by its affiliated unions, so that is not undemocratic and it’s a policy with the sole purpose of trying to stop shipping companies force down pay and conditions. The Estonian Seaman’s Union obviously understood this and how it benefited their members in the long term, even if it did cut them out of the loop.

If it’s the absence of a nationalist flavour that reinforced solidarity why shouldn’t it be a good thing for Estonians to join a Finnish union, instead of remaining in unions purely on reasons of nationality?

And if this is an example of cross border cooperation then why shouldn’t the Estonians get fair representation from being in a Finnish Union.

What you seem to be asking for is union representation on board the ship along the lines of the nationality of the sailors. This surely has the potential to divide the ships crew, especially if the FSU members get more money for doing the same job as the Estonian sailors. This leads to a potential divide and conquer situation for the management, made worse by being done on the bases of the nationality of the workers.

Rjan:

muckles:
I think some in the EU were caught on the back foot with this judgement and the use of the fundamental freedoms to outlaw industrial action through legal action.

This is why there has been new legislation included in the Lisbon Treaty to try and put right what some in the EU felt was wrong with it.

So then really it is a happy-go-lucky story about a functioning EU democracy that is sympathetic to worker’s rights and where no unionised workers actually lost their jobs in the end (or the pay and conditions attributable to them).

Not so happy for the workers in subsequent disputes where the ruling was used against them.
And again I have written anything here to say the EU is undemocratic, but it was Workers rights groups among others who demanded that there new laws in the Lisbon Treaty to reflect the discontent over the ruling and as there are those in the EU who want to protect workers rights, there are others who’d like to see more deregulation of workers rights.

Rjan:

muckles:
When many on here say Unions don’t do anything because they don’t see them on strike everyday, although they then complain when they do take strike action, they don’t realise the lobbying and legal action they are taking to try and improve and maintain the rights we have.

Agreed. .

Rjan:

muckles:
As this case shows even when you think you have worker solidarity and the legal right to take industrial actions, companies with a clever legal team can find ways round them.

But I’d say that they didn’t get around them! And even the minor point on which the company won the case (having conceded all the things that would have caused them to lose it), seems to have been overridden by subsequent developments in EU democracy.

This case is almost a poster-child for a business that was beaten into submission by internationally-organised labour, and in which the ECJ demonstrates brilliantly in their written judgment the commitment to workers rights that is baked into EU law (and which has had an extra dose of pro-worker sugar added since).

The Viking Line was “beaten into submission” by the workers sticking together and abiding by the inter union agreements they had.

The EU ruling, which only backed the commitment to workers right up to a point, went against the Union and backed the companies position, who, if this hadn’t been settled before the ruling, could of taken action against the FSU and ITF.

That ruling has then been used against workers in other disputes.

The Extra dose of pro-worker “sugar” as you call it was only reinstating the rights many believed they had in the first place and felt were taken by this ruling. Rights that were reinstated, in no small part due to the protests by workers organisations.

Rjan:
It gives you some insights into why many bosses, those who are of the class-war mentality and who have made successful businesses or management careers out of union-busting and finding ways to undercut workers and force their pay and conditions down, are so against the EU.

And there were plenty of businesses that believe in a laissez-faire approach to the free market economy who supported the Remain campaign, including some with a dubious history when it comes to workers rights.

[rjan]

muckles:
If it’s the absence of a nationalist flavour that reinforced solidarity why shouldn’t it be a good thing for Estonians to join a Finnish union, instead of remaining in unions purely on reasons of nationality?

It is a good thing. I even recommended it in my previous post when I talked of the FSU moving into Estonia and organising any would-be undercutters, if indeed there was any lack of organisation.

And if this is an example of cross border cooperation then why shouldn’t the Estonians get fair representation from being in a Finnish Union.

Because that’s not what I said. I said the Estonian national parliament has to have a say on the laws that govern workers.

Whilst I’m secretly in favour of workers being protected under the most generous laws available, until such time as the EU has a fully common policy on employment law, I’m not sure whether there isn’t a certain amount of democratic deficit in the formulation and enforcement of workers’ unions’ policies once those policies are so grand in scope as to be determining which national laws will govern their members.

What you seem to be asking for is union representation on board the ship along the lines of the nationality of the sailors. This surely has the potential to divide the ships crew, especially if the FSU members get more money for doing the same job as the Estonian sailors. This leads to a potential divide and conquer situation for the management, made worse by being done on the bases of the nationality of the workers.

No, I personally think the straightforward answer is unification or merger of the relevant unions.

The EU ruling, which only backed the commitment to workers right up to a point, went against the Union and backed the companies position, who, if this hadn’t been settled before the ruling, could of taken action against the FSU and ITF.

The ECJ ruling was really very equivocal. It said nothing more than that it was legitimately within the discretion of the British court to have decided the case in the manner that it did.

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:
If it’s the absence of a nationalist flavour that reinforced solidarity why shouldn’t it be a good thing for Estonians to join a Finnish union, instead of remaining in unions purely on reasons of nationality?

It is a good thing. I even recommended it in my previous post when I talked of the FSU moving into Estonia and organising any would-be undercutters, if indeed there was any lack of organisation.

In this case their doesn’t seem to be a risk of any undercutters or lack of organisation.

Rjan:

muckles:
And if this is an example of cross border cooperation then why shouldn’t the Estonians get fair representation from being in a Finnish Union.

Because that’s not what I said. I said the Estonian national parliament has to have a say on the laws that govern workers.

Whilst I’m secretly in favour of workers being protected under the most generous laws available, until such time as the EU has a fully common policy on employment law, I’m not sure whether there isn’t a certain amount of democratic deficit in the formulation and enforcement of workers’ unions’ policies once those policies are so grand in scope as to be determining which national laws will govern their members.

So what do you think should be the ITF’s policy on FOC’s, considering they have affiliated unions in 140 Countries?

What about the recent changes to German and French employment law, which states foreign drivers are paid German or French minimum wage when delivering or undertaking cabotage work in those countries, should the East European governments be allowed to have a say on those regulations, as it predominately affects their nationals?

Rjan:

muckles:
What you seem to be asking for is union representation on board the ship along the lines of the nationality of the sailors.

No, I personally think the straightforward answer is unification or merger of the relevant unions.

The 2 Unions seem to be doing a very decent job for their members without merging and it seems that affiliation with the ITF allows them to cooperate when required.

Rjan:

muckles:
The EU ruling, which only backed the commitment to workers right up to a point, went against the Union and backed the companies position, who, if this hadn’t been settled before the ruling, could of taken action against the FSU and ITF.

The ECJ ruling was really very equivocal. It said nothing more than that it was legitimately within the discretion of the British court to have decided the case in the manner that it did.

The case was referred to the ECJ by the UK court of appeal, as they felt they couldn’t make a judgement on this case without the ECJ interpretation on the relevant points of EU law.

The ECJ made the judgement between freedom of establishment (and freedom of movement in other cases it heard), against the rights of collective action, these judgements were to form the bases for the national court judgments of the individual cases and would become case law for future judgements.

It was those ECJ judgements that the workers rights organisations were so critical of.

[rjan]

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
And if this is an example of cross border cooperation then why shouldn’t the Estonians get fair representation from being in a Finnish Union.

Because that’s not what I said. I said the Estonian national parliament has to have a say on the laws that govern workers.

Whilst I’m secretly in favour of workers being protected under the most generous laws available, until such time as the EU has a fully common policy on employment law, I’m not sure whether there isn’t a certain amount of democratic deficit in the formulation and enforcement of workers’ unions’ policies once those policies are so grand in scope as to be determining which national laws will govern their members.

So what do you think should be the ITF’s policy on FOC’s, considering they have affiliated unions in 140 Countries?

I’m not saying anything about it’s policy on FOC. I’m saying there has to be a policy on democracy, including the representation and balloting of those affected.

I don’t want to push this argument too far in this particular case, because it looks like the FSU had broad support, but i’ll say more below.

What about the recent changes to German and French employment law, which states foreign drivers are paid German or French minimum wage when delivering or undertaking cabotage work in those countries, should the East European governments be allowed to have a say on those regulations, as it predominately affects their nationals?

Yes, if the Eastern Europeans were singled out. But I suspect the German and French policy is not to single any particular nationality out - what they’re doing is not to favour their own drivers (if anything it is to redress the inbuilt disfavour of foreign nations determining the wages that are paid to workers operating inside Germany’s borders).

Germany is not trying to say that all drivers on international routes (including those based elsewhere) must be paid at German minimum wages at all times on the entire journey (or otherwise subject exclusively to German law). Yet that is effectively the policy of the FSU.

Germany is saying that work done inside it’s borders must be paid at it’s minimum rate, and I would say that the German government has enough democratic accountability to make that kind of decision in a way that is democratically legitimate.

The FSU does not, merely in terms of its own members, have democratic legitimacy to impose the kind of policy it sought to. Perhaps, with the support of ITF and the enthusiastic support of other unions, it gains the legitimacy for it that way, but that is because other unions have lent support to the FSU, not because the FSU had the inherent right on its own to formulate and enforce that kind of policy.

It might seem like nitpicking in this case, but it wouldn’t be nitpicking in another case where a purely national union does not have international support.

Rjan:

muckles:
What you seem to be asking for is union representation on board the ship along the lines of the nationality of the sailors.

No, I personally think the straightforward answer is unification or merger of the relevant unions.

The 2 Unions seem to be doing a very decent job for their members without merging and it seems that affiliation with the ITF allows them to cooperate when required.

That’s not the question, whether they’re doing a decent job so far. The question is why are they maintaining a division amongst themselves along national lines, if the authority for any industrial action they take arises from their claim to be representing workers in general (rather than a national subset of workers)? Of course, unification might be on their agenda in the future (and the ITF might ultimately be used as the vehicle for that), so I don’t want to criticise them if that is the case - but it better be on the agenda, because otherwise I will criticise them.

Just because they’re a union doesn’t mean it can be taken for granted that they are democratic or socialist. There are plenty of right-wing unions, that exist to protect their individual members interests (who may be a tiny minority of workers who see themselves as a cut above), not to protect the interests of workers or to maintain the general conditions of solidarity.

The NUM was like that - the miners had already broken ranks amongst themselves by accepting productivity pay (which meant guys putting in equal effort in difficult coalfields were getting a fraction of the pay of those in easy coalfields), and when they finally went (fatally) on strike, it was without a ballot (not even a ballot after the fact, if we concede that there are some cases where it is legitimate for the union bureaucracy to have to make sudden decisions which it only ratifies later). The key point to take away is that the NUM leadership were not democrats - they were Stalinists, and many of their members were only committed to worker solidarity when it happened to suit them, and not when it meant (even for those in the same occupation and the same union) defending other’s pay and conditions or defending the general principles on which their collective strength depended.

Rjan:

muckles:
The EU ruling, which only backed the commitment to workers right up to a point, went against the Union and backed the companies position, who, if this hadn’t been settled before the ruling, could of taken action against the FSU and ITF.

The ECJ ruling was really very equivocal. It said nothing more than that it was legitimately within the discretion of the British court to have decided the case in the manner that it did.

The case was referred to the ECJ by the UK court of appeal, as they felt they couldn’t make a judgement on this case without the ECJ interpretation on the relevant points of EU law.

The ECJ made the judgement between freedom of establishment (and freedom of movement in other cases it heard), against the rights of collective action, these judgements were to form the bases for the national court judgments of the individual cases and would become case law for future judgements.

It was those ECJ judgements that the workers rights organisations were so critical of.

That’s not what the judgment said. It said freedom of establishment was capable of being infringed, and it was up to the national court to decide (which they already had) whether it had been infringed in this particular case and the balance to be struck between competing freedoms. True, they could have gone further and overrode the national court (Britain’s in this case), but on what legal basis in EU law? It’s not normal for an appeal court to override the court of first instance unless their reasoning is fundamentally faulty, or the lower court has gone outside any reasonable bounds of discretion.

The judges are not expected to actually override the EU laws that have been laid down democratically by the member states. The fact that the member states agreed to change the law afterwards is not a sign that the judges made the wrong decision - it’s a sign that the laws were formulated badly in the first place by the members (for example, by failing to specify that collective bargaining rights always trump freedom of establishment, or by failing to further specify an appropriate balance between them which would have prevented the British judges from finding in favour of the company as they did).

British judges in the past have been notorious for being right-wing and hostile to workers and collective bargaining, but many of the old fossils in the judiciary from the Thatcher and early Blair eras have retired now, and anyway that is not the sense I get at the EU level today - most other countries, and both their politicians and judiciary, are far more reconciled to collective bargaining that British politicians and judges have been in past decades.

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:
What about the recent changes to German and French employment law, which states foreign drivers are paid German or French minimum wage when delivering or undertaking cabotage work in those countries, should the East European governments be allowed to have a say on those regulations, as it predominately affects their nationals?

Yes, if the Eastern Europeans were singled out. But I suspect the German and French policy is not to single any particular nationality out - what they’re doing is not to favour their own drivers (if anything it is to redress the inbuilt disfavour of foreign nations determining the wages that are paid to workers operating inside Germany’s borders).

In the same way that the ITF FOC policy is there to redress the balance for sailors who have seen their jobs undercut by employers flagging ship out.
As there is not restrictions to what nationalities make up the crew, it does not just favour the Finnish sailors.

Rjan:
Germany is not trying to say that all drivers on international routes (including those based elsewhere) must be paid at German minimum wages at all times on the entire journey (or otherwise subject exclusively to German law). Yet that is effectively the policy of the FSU.

Germany is saying that work done inside it’s borders must be paid at it’s minimum rate, and I would say that the German government has enough democratic accountability to make that kind of decision in a way that is democratically legitimate.

And the ITF isn’t saying all ships must sail under the same T&C’s just under the T&C’s of the country where the owners are based.

And considering there have been complaints to the EU from the Governments of various East European countries over the policy, I assume those governments don’t think it’s democratically legitimate.

The Estonian workers on the other hand have a vote in Estonia where their ship is registered and representation in Finland through the FSU where their employer is based.

Rjan:
The FSU does not, merely in terms of its own members, have democratic legitimacy to impose the kind of policy it sought to. Perhaps, with the support of ITF and the
enthusiastic support of other unions, it gains the legitimacy for it that way, but that is because other unions have lent support to the FSU, not because the FSU had the inherent right on its own to formulate and enforce that kind of policy.

It might seem like nitpicking in this case, but it wouldn’t be nitpicking in another case where a purely national union does not have international support.

In term of Estonians being in the FSU they have the same voting rights as the Finnish workers, so are part of the unions democratic process.

Rjan:

muckles:
The 2 Unions seem to be doing a very decent job for their members without merging and it seems that affiliation with the ITF allows them to cooperate when required.

That’s not the question, whether they’re doing a decent job so far. The question is why are they maintaining a division amongst themselves along national lines, if the authority for any industrial action they take arises from their claim to be representing workers in general

I think it is and whether they merge or not will be for the union members to decide, by ballot as per democratic principles.

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
The EU ruling, which only backed the commitment to workers right up to a point, went against the Union and backed the companies position, who, if this hadn’t been settled before the ruling, could of taken action against the FSU and ITF.

The ECJ ruling was really very equivocal. It said nothing more than that it was legitimately within the discretion of the British court to have decided the case in the manner that it did.

The ECJ made the judgement between freedom of establishment (and freedom of movement in other cases it heard), against the rights of collective action, these judgements were to form the bases for the national court judgments of the individual cases and would become case law for future judgements.

That’s not what the judgment said. It said freedom of establishment was capable of being infringed, and it was up to the national court to decide (which they already had) whether it had been infringed in this particular case and the balance to be struck between competing freedoms. True, they could have gone further and overrode the national court (Britain’s in this case), but on what legal basis in EU law? It’s not normal for an appeal court to override the court of first instance unless their reasoning is fundamentally faulty, or the lower court has gone outside any reasonable bounds of discretion.

The Viking Line got an injunction through the UK High Court, the FSU and ITF then lodged an appeal with the UK Court of Appeal.

The UK Court of Appeal felt, the High Court should have referred it to the ECJ before making a decision, although they understood the original judge’s reason for not doing so before making a judgement was because of the timescales involved being about 2 years.

They also believed because of the questions of EU law that the case raised, they were not able to answer and they were of such fundamental importance that they had to be referred to the ECJ for clarification.

The Court of Appeal also overturned the High Court injunction and refused an interim injunction against the ITF and FSU, while the case was being considered by the ECJ, as it felt that would give the Viking Line the remedy to break the strike they wanted and this shouldn’t happen until they had clarification from the ECJ.

As the Viking Line and FSU settled the dispute before the ECJ ruling, the case never went back to the UK Courts for a decision.

The ECJ ruling was far more than let the national courts decide, if that’s all it said it wouldn’t have been so criticised by many workers groups across Europe and the European Parliament, which stated in a report into the effects of the ECJ judgment.
It was a restriction to the right of collective action which has limited the possibility for Trade Unions to protect their members interests in cross border situations.
It introduced a vague proportionality test and threat of damages, which could have preventive effect on the possibility of exercising this fundamental right.
The stance taken by the ECJ seems problematic and could clash with the position taken by the ECHR and ILO.

Rjan:
The judges are not expected to actually override the EU laws that have been laid down democratically by the member states. The fact that the member states agreed to change the law afterwards is not a sign that the judges made the wrong decision - it’s a sign that the laws were formulated badly in the first place by the members (for example, by failing to specify that collective bargaining rights always trump freedom of establishment, or by failing to further specify an appropriate balance between them which would have prevented the British judges from finding in favour of the company as they did).

Denmark and Sweden had to change their laws to take into account the ECJ rulings because in their laws they had a fundamental right to collective action, this would have been counter to the ECJ ruling.
As already mentioned the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling, but wouldn’t make its own judgement until the ECJ had ruled on the fundamental points of EU law in the case.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
The NUM was like that - the miners had already broken ranks amongst themselves by accepting productivity pay (which meant guys putting in equal effort in difficult coalfields were getting a fraction of the pay of those in easy coalfields), and when they finally went (fatally) on strike, it was without a ballot (not even a ballot after the fact, if we concede that there are some cases where it is legitimate for the union bureaucracy to have to make sudden decisions which it only ratifies later). The key point to take away is that the NUM leadership were not democrats - they were Stalinists, and many of their members were only committed to worker solidarity when it happened to suit them, and not when it meant (even for those in the same occupation and the same union) defending other’s pay and conditions or defending the general principles on which their collective strength depended.

How could the NUM have been the Stalinists when the Yorkshire miners’ case was that any Ballot would be rigged by the divide and rule tactics of the Government and therefore not valid or reliable.Then the Notts miners predictably broke ranks as part of that and went with the government who it should be remembered were and still are a majority pro EU Party including Thatcher.That together with European and East Euro coal imports helping to defeat the strike.How does any of that make the case for the EU.

IE are you saying that we’d have been better off by subjecting the Yorkshire/Welsh/Kent miners to an even wider ballot among European miners for European wide strike action ?.Which obviously would have just added to the establishment’s chances of sabotaging the ballot.

Or would it have been better to call on the TUC to organise a National general strike in support of the Yorkshire/Welsh/Kent miners based purely on the grounds of what unions are there for that being solidarity above all else.Under a Labour government which wouldn’t have allowed the coal imports which helped to break the strike and which would have supported the said National General Strike ?.In all cases it’s democratic control over our own National government and National destiny that we need.On the basis of when we vote for a Labour government we get a Labour government.

Not the idea that foreign workers give a zb about their Brit counterparts or that people like Merkel or Juncker are working for our interests under our democratic approval and control.Nor Chinese Marxism mixed with Dengist free market principles.

On that note why is it supposedly only dictatorial one world Socialism which can be considered as ‘left’ and why do we need centralised world government to provide working class solidarity when that solidarity can be just as solid within and across nation state boundaries.The difference being that national boundaries can also be used to isolate and insulate national worker groups from outside foreign scab labour activeties.Unlike the situation if they aren’t there as in the case of global free markets.Let alone global government with carte blanche to impose the Chinese model and over which we have no direct democratic control.

[rjan]

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
What about the recent changes to German and French employment law, which states foreign drivers are paid German or French minimum wage when delivering or undertaking cabotage work in those countries, should the East European governments be allowed to have a say on those regulations, as it predominately affects their nationals?

Yes, if the Eastern Europeans were singled out. But I suspect the German and French policy is not to single any particular nationality out - what they’re doing is not to favour their own drivers (if anything it is to redress the inbuilt disfavour of foreign nations determining the wages that are paid to workers operating inside Germany’s borders).

In the same way that the ITF FOC policy is there to redress the balance for sailors who have seen their jobs undercut by employers flagging ship out.
As there is not restrictions to what nationalities make up the crew, it does not just favour the Finnish sailors.

It does favour the Finnish sailors, because the Finnish sailors have a vote on Finnish employment laws - the Estonians don’t. It’s like I say, I’m not trying to impugn the motives of the FSU in this case - I’m just pointing out the existence of a potential democratic deficit in that arrangement.

And considering there have been complaints to the EU from the Governments of various East European countries over the policy [of the German interior minimum wage], I assume those governments don’t think it’s democratically legitimate.

I assume because they’re saying it’s somehow against the law of a treaty which the Germans previously chose to enter into.

Rjan:
The FSU does not, merely in terms of its own members, have democratic legitimacy to impose the kind of policy it sought to. Perhaps, with the support of ITF and the
enthusiastic support of other unions, it gains the legitimacy for it that way, but that is because other unions have lent support to the FSU, not because the FSU had the inherent right on its own to formulate and enforce that kind of policy.

It might seem like nitpicking in this case, but it wouldn’t be nitpicking in another case where a purely national union does not have international support.

In term of Estonians being in the FSU they have the same voting rights as the Finnish workers, so are part of the unions democratic process.

But what about the representation of Estonian (or even other Finnish) workers who are not currently employed on that ship, but say they are willing to be employed on it? National democracies represent these workers. A single union does not necessarily have that degree of scope, though I have no doubt that the FSU always had full support from its own members.

Rjan:

muckles:
The 2 Unions seem to be doing a very decent job for their members without merging and it seems that affiliation with the ITF allows them to cooperate when required.

That’s not the question, whether they’re doing a decent job so far. The question is why are they maintaining a division amongst themselves along national lines, if the authority for any industrial action they take arises from their claim to be representing workers in general

I think it is and whether they merge or not will be for the union members to decide, by ballot as per democratic principles.

Indeed, but if they don’t merge, then they lose the ability to claim that they democratically represent the working class at once. Instead they represent a subset of workers, and it follows that if a second subset of workers come to a different democratic decision on the same issue (which they are more likely to if each subset doesn’t claim to represent the interests of the other), then a problem arises.

The ECJ ruling was far more than let the national courts decide, if that’s all it said it wouldn’t have been so criticised by many workers groups across Europe and the European Parliament, which stated in a report into the effects of the ECJ judgment.
It was a restriction to the right of collective action which has limited the possibility for Trade Unions to protect their members interests in cross border situations.
It introduced a vague proportionality test and threat of damages, which could have preventive effect on the possibility of exercising this fundamental right.
The stance taken by the ECJ seems problematic and could clash with the position taken by the ECHR and ILO.

I’m afraid you have this all wrong. The ECJ did not introduce a vague proportionality test which did not previously exist. It confirmed the existence, for the first time, of two contradictory laws that had been present since the law was drafted and agreed by the member states themselves. Without further law that specified which one was to take priority over the other, the only thing they could do to reconcile them was to confirm the right of the national court to strike a balancing act between them.

I’d be very interested to hear how you think the ECJ ought to have reasoned the case out - it’s all very well saying the judgment is wrong, but it can be wrong because the underlying law is wrong, not because the judges have been unreasonable in interpreting or applying it.

Rjan:
The judges are not expected to actually override the EU laws that have been laid down democratically by the member states. The fact that the member states agreed to change the law afterwards is not a sign that the judges made the wrong decision - it’s a sign that the laws were formulated badly in the first place by the members (for example, by failing to specify that collective bargaining rights always trump freedom of establishment, or by failing to further specify an appropriate balance between them which would have prevented the British judges from finding in favour of the company as they did).

Denmark and Sweden had to change their laws to take into account the ECJ rulings because in their laws they had a fundamental right to collective action, this would have been counter to the ECJ ruling.

Maybe so. But if Denmark and Sweden wanted the right of collective action to be supreme over any of the rights of bosses, why didn’t they vote for EU law to say that in the first place?

As already mentioned the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling, but wouldn’t make its own judgement until the ECJ had ruled on the fundamental points of EU law in the case.

The Court of Appeal didn’t overturn anything of importance - if they put a stay of execution on the injunction while it went to the ECJ for an opinion, that doesn’t mean they overturned it. If they had overturned it, it would have meant the FSU had won the case.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
How could the NUM have been the Stalinists when the Yorkshire miners’ case was that any Ballot would be rigged by the divide and rule tactics of the Government and therefore not valid or reliable.

You mean, the divide and rule tactics of a right-wing government elected democratically by workers 4 times over?

Then the Notts miners predictably broke ranks as part of that

You mean, some miners actually insisted on their own sovereignty over their local pits, to the disregard of the interests of any other miners elsewhere (like they’d actually been doing for years anyway)?

IE are you saying that we’d have been better off by subjecting the Yorkshire/Welsh/Kent miners to an even wider ballot among European miners for European wide strike action ?.Which obviously would have just added to the establishment’s chances of sabotaging the ballot.

Why did the establishment need to sabotage the ballot? The miners were already falling apart amongst themselves.

Or would it have been better to call on the TUC to organise a National general strike

A national strike without a ballot of a single worker? And what if the TUC refused, or a ballot went the wrong way? Would the miners have accepted that other workers had spoken?

in support of the Yorkshire/Welsh/Kent miners based purely on the grounds of what unions are there for that being solidarity above all else.Under a Labour government which wouldn’t have allowed the coal imports which helped to break the strike and which would have supported the said National General Strike ?.In all cases it’s democratic control over our own National government and National destiny that we need.On the basis of when we vote for a Labour government we get a Labour government.

The absurdity of your argument knows no bounds. The people voted for the Tory government 4 times over. Where was the lack of national democracy in 1979, when people voted for a government to smash the unions, and endorsed that decision at the polls thrice more?

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:
I suspect the German and French policy is not to single any particular nationality out - what they’re doing is not to favour their own drivers (if anything it is to redress the inbuilt disfavour of foreign nations determining the wages that are paid to workers operating inside Germany’s borders).

In the same way that the ITF FOC policy is there to redress the balance for sailors who have seen their jobs undercut by employers flagging ship out.
As there are not restrictions to what nationalities make up the crew, it does not just favour the Finnish sailors.

It does favour the Finnish sailors, because the Finnish sailors have a vote on Finnish employment laws - the Estonians don’t. It’s like I say, I’m not trying to impugn the motives of the FSU in this case - I’m just pointing out the existence of a potential democratic deficit in that arrangement.

It no more so favours the Finnish sailors than in countries where migrant workers cannot vote in those elections which could affect their employment, favours the indiginous workers.

Rjan:

muckles:
And considering there have been complaints to the EU from the Governments of various East European countries over the policy [of the German interior minimum wage], I assume those governments don’t think it’s democratically legitimate.

I assume because they’re saying it’s somehow against the law of a treaty which the Germans previously chose to enter into.

But their citizens had no democratic say into the implementation of the laws.

Rjan:

muckles:
In term of Estonians being in the FSU they have the same voting rights as the Finnish workers, so are part of the unions democratic process.

But what about the representation of Estonian (or even other Finnish) workers who are not currently employed on that ship, but say they are willing to be employed on it? National democracies represent these workers. A single union does not necessarily have that degree of scope, though I have no doubt that the FSU always had full support from its own members.

So everybody in the World or at least Finland and Estonia, must be represented. What about countries who one day might want to join the EU, should thier citizens and representatives be given voting rights now, just in case?

As it is the Estonian and Finnish sailors have joint representation within the umbrella of the ITF, the same as UK Union members have joint representation with the TUC or the ETUC or in some case the ITF.

Rjan:

muckles:
The ECJ ruling was far more than let the national courts decide, if that’s all it said it wouldn’t have been so criticised by many workers groups across Europe and the European Parliament, which stated in a report into the effects of the ECJ judgment.
It was a restriction to the right of collective action which has limited the possibility for Trade Unions to protect their members interests in cross border situations.
It introduced a vague proportionality test and threat of damages, which could have preventive effect on the possibility of exercising this fundamental right.
The stance taken by the ECJ seems problematic and could clash with the position taken by the ECHR and ILO.

I’m afraid you have this all wrong. The ECJ did not introduce a vague proportionality test which did not previously exist

Then it’s the European Parliament that’s wrong, as it was their report that described the judgement “as introducing a vague proportionality” test, not me.
It was also their report that it could clash with the position taken by the ECHR and ILO.

Rjan:

muckles:
Denmark and Sweden had to change their laws to take into account the ECJ rulings because in their laws they had a fundamental right to collective action, this would have been counter to the ECJ ruling.

Maybe so. But if Denmark and Sweden wanted the right of collective action to be supreme over any of the rights of bosses, why didn’t they vote for EU law to say that in the first place?

They, as had other EU Countries and Workers Groups, interpreted the EU laws to mean that collective action was protected as a fundamental right outside the scope of EU freedoms.

From the ECJ judgment.

Next, according to the observations of the Danish and Swedish Governments, the
right to take collective action, including the right to strike, constitutes a fundamental
right which, as such, falls outside the scope of Article 43 EC.

In that regard, it must be recalled that the right to take collective action, including
the right to strike, is recognised both by various international instruments which the
Member States have signed or cooperated in, such as the European Social Charter,
signed at Turin on 18 October 1961 — to which, moreover, express reference is
made in Article 136 EC — and Convention No 87 concerning Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, adopted on 9 July 1948 by the
International Labour Organisation — and by instruments developed by those
Member States at Community level or in the context of the European Union, such as
the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers adopted at
the meeting of the European Council held in Strasbourg on 9 December 1989, which
is also referred to in Article 136 EC, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1).

ITF, supported, in particular, by the German Government, Ireland and the Finnish
Government, maintains that the restrictions at issue in the main proceedings are
justified since they are necessary to ensure the protection of a fundamental right
recognised under Community law and their objective is to protect the rights of
workers, which constitutes an overriding reason of public interest.

Rjan:

muckles:
As already mentioned the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling, but wouldn’t make its own judgement until the ECJ had ruled on the fundamental points of EU law in the case.

The Court of Appeal didn’t overturn anything of importance - if they put a stay of execution on the injunction while it went to the ECJ for an opinion, that doesn’t mean they overturned it. If they had overturned it, it would have meant the FSU had won the case.

Ok in legal terms they set-aside the injunction, but that meant that the injunction was no longer in force, they also refused the Viking Line an interim injunction to cover the period while the case was at the ECJ.
It’s hardly a “stay of execution”, the Appeal Courts decision would have been subject to the ECJ’s ruling on the questions of EU law that were referred to them.
So the Court of Appeal judgement could have gone either way, if it was a forgone conclusion, it would be unlikely that the Viking Line would have settled with the FSU.

[muckles]

Carryfast:
in support of the Yorkshire/Welsh/Kent miners based purely on the grounds of what unions are there for that being solidarity above all else.Under a Labour government which wouldn’t have allowed the coal imports which helped to break the strike and which would have supported the said National General Strike ?.In all cases it’s democratic control over our own National government and National destiny that we need.On the basis of when we vote for a Labour government we get a Labour government.

All the coal imports in the World wouldn’t have broken the strike, if British workers hadn’t moved it, not least those who were in the road transport industry.

[rjan]

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:
I suspect the German and French policy is not to single any particular nationality out - what they’re doing is not to favour their own drivers (if anything it is to redress the inbuilt disfavour of foreign nations determining the wages that are paid to workers operating inside Germany’s borders).

In the same way that the ITF FOC policy is there to redress the balance for sailors who have seen their jobs undercut by employers flagging ship out.
As there are not restrictions to what nationalities make up the crew, it does not just favour the Finnish sailors.

It does favour the Finnish sailors, because the Finnish sailors have a vote on Finnish employment laws - the Estonians don’t. It’s like I say, I’m not trying to impugn the motives of the FSU in this case - I’m just pointing out the existence of a potential democratic deficit in that arrangement.

It no more so favours the Finnish sailors than in countries where migrant workers cannot vote in those elections which could affect their employment, favours the indiginous workers.

Precisely, and therein lies the democratic deficit of national politics in the context of international trade (including, as the case may be, the trade in workers).

Rjan:

muckles:
And considering there have been complaints to the EU from the Governments of various East European countries over the policy [of the German interior minimum wage], I assume those governments don’t think it’s democratically legitimate.

I assume because they’re saying it’s somehow against the law of a treaty which the Germans previously chose to enter into.

But their citizens had no democratic say into the implementation of the laws.

I’m not quite sure whose citizens you mean when you argue there has been no democratic say, but it’s a bizarre argument whichever way you meant, because both Germany and the Eastern European nations all have a say into the implementation and interpretation of those laws. The ECJ itself, like all the EU judiciary as far as I’m aware, is composed of judges nominated equally by all the members.

If you’re arguing that it’s not yet democratic enough and in the long term we need direct EU elections and an EU president, rather than indirect representation through our national politicians, I agree.

Rjan:

muckles:
In term of Estonians being in the FSU they have the same voting rights as the Finnish workers, so are part of the unions democratic process.

But what about the representation of Estonian (or even other Finnish) workers who are not currently employed on that ship, but say they are willing to be employed on it? National democracies represent these workers. A single union does not necessarily have that degree of scope, though I have no doubt that the FSU always had full support from its own members.

So everybody in the World or at least Finland and Estonia, must be represented. What about countries who one day might want to join the EU, should thier citizens and representatives be given voting rights now, just in case?

Anyone with an appreciable stake in the question is entitled to democratic representation.

As it is the Estonian and Finnish sailors have joint representation within the umbrella of the ITF, the same as UK Union members have joint representation with the TUC or the ETUC or in some case the ITF.

Indeed, but I already dealt with that when I acknowledged that there seems to have been wider democratic clout behind the FSU in this particular case. But having said that, I’ve also pointed out that if such clout is present, the bosses do not really have much opportunity to undercut, because the workers when they are united cannot be undercut. And therefore, if the crux of your argument on this is that the FSU had solid support in Estonia, then it follows from that that there was never any risk of undercutting either.

This you seem to want it both ways - you want me to accept that the case was a blow for workers and a victory for undercutting, but at the same time you want me to accept that in fact all the workers were solid and none were willing to be undercut.

Rjan:

muckles:
The ECJ ruling was far more than let the national courts decide, if that’s all it said it wouldn’t have been so criticised by many workers groups across Europe and the European Parliament, which stated in a report into the effects of the ECJ judgment.
It was a restriction to the right of collective action which has limited the possibility for Trade Unions to protect their members interests in cross border situations.
It introduced a vague proportionality test and threat of damages, which could have preventive effect on the possibility of exercising this fundamental right.
The stance taken by the ECJ seems problematic and could clash with the position taken by the ECHR and ILO.

I’m afraid you have this all wrong. The ECJ did not introduce a vague proportionality test which did not previously exist

Then it’s the European Parliament that’s wrong, as it was their report that described the judgement “as introducing a vague proportionality” test, not me.
It was also their report that it could clash with the position taken by the ECHR and ILO.

Maybe they did say that, but it still doesn’t seem to be correct, and it’s a bit rich for the lawmakers themselves to be bemoaning their own judiciary. The fact that they’ve observed that there is a clash with the overlapping case law of other EU courts, is precisely what you’d expect to result from law that is hard to reconcile.

Rjan:

muckles:
Denmark and Sweden had to change their laws to take into account the ECJ rulings because in their laws they had a fundamental right to collective action, this would have been counter to the ECJ ruling.

Maybe so. But if Denmark and Sweden wanted the right of collective action to be supreme over any of the rights of bosses, why didn’t they vote for EU law to say that in the first place?

They, as had other EU Countries and Workers Groups, interpreted the EU laws to mean that collective action was protected as a fundamental right outside the scope of EU freedoms.

And yet that’s not what the law actually said, as it turns out. But I’m not faulting anyone here - I can see how the situation has come about. Yet you are determined to maintain some sort of critical position against the very institutions of the ECJ or EU law.

Rjan:

muckles:
As already mentioned the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling, but wouldn’t make its own judgement until the ECJ had ruled on the fundamental points of EU law in the case.

The Court of Appeal didn’t overturn anything of importance - if they put a stay of execution on the injunction while it went to the ECJ for an opinion, that doesn’t mean they overturned it. If they had overturned it, it would have meant the FSU had won the case.

Ok in legal terms they set-aside the injunction, but that meant that the injunction was no longer in force, they also refused the Viking Line an interim injunction to cover the period while the case was at the ECJ.
It’s hardly a “stay of execution”, the Appeal Courts decision would have been subject to the ECJ’s ruling on the questions of EU law that were referred to them.
So the Court of Appeal judgement could have gone either way, if it was a forgone conclusion, it would be unlikely that the Viking Line would have settled with the FSU.

The point I’m making is, the Court of Appeal didn’t reverse the High Court - it simply lifted the injunction whilst the case was sorted out, which is common enough practice in all cases that experience an appeal, and is not limited to cases where the Appeal court thinks the lower court is wrong. Consider that Uber has had various stays of execution in it’s wrestling with the unions lately.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
How could the NUM have been the Stalinists when the Yorkshire miners’ case was that any Ballot would be rigged by the divide and rule tactics of the Government and therefore not valid or reliable.

You mean, the divide and rule tactics of a right-wing government elected democratically by workers 4 times over?

Then the Notts miners predictably broke ranks as part of that

You mean, some miners actually insisted on their own sovereignty over their local pits, to the disregard of the interests of any other miners elsewhere (like they’d actually been doing for years anyway)?

IE are you saying that we’d have been better off by subjecting the Yorkshire/Welsh/Kent miners to an even wider ballot among European miners for European wide strike action ?.Which obviously would have just added to the establishment’s chances of sabotaging the ballot.

Why did the establishment need to sabotage the ballot? The miners were already falling apart amongst themselves.

Or would it have been better to call on the TUC to organise a National general strike

A national strike without a ballot of a single worker? And what if the TUC refused, or a ballot went the wrong way? Would the miners have accepted that other workers had spoken?

in support of the Yorkshire/Welsh/Kent miners based purely on the grounds of what unions are there for that being solidarity above all else.Under a Labour government which wouldn’t have allowed the coal imports which helped to break the strike and which would have supported the said National General Strike ?.In all cases it’s democratic control over our own National government and National destiny that we need.On the basis of when we vote for a Labour government we get a Labour government.

The absurdity of your argument knows no bounds. The people voted for the Tory government 4 times over. Where was the lack of national democracy in 1979, when people voted for a government to smash the unions, and endorsed that decision at the polls thrice more?

Firstly if you check the figures for the 1979 general election you’ll find that the Cons actually benefitted mostly from a swing from their typical Liberal allies not Labour. Any gains from Labour were mostly those who rightly refused to vote for a bunch of zb’s like Callaghan,who were more closely allied with the LibDems and Thatcher than they were with people like Benn,Shore and Heffer.So actually stayed at home and didn’t vote unlike the sheep who voted again for the same muppet in the form of Callaghan and expected a different outcome.

So there we have it the 1979 election was the choice between three Europhile Parties all standing on the same platform of selling out the Brit working class to German bankers and the EU with the help of their treacherous puppets like Callaghan,Jenkins,Williams and Thatcher.I also didn’t vote in the following elections for the same reason.IE the Labour Party I and many others supported had been exiled with Benn,Heffer and Shore and therefore no longer existed.On that note which Party did you vote for in the relevant elections ?.Bearing in mind your obvious preference for the same old Blairite Europhile line than Hoey’s now.

It seems ironic that you’re all for so called ‘democracy’ in the form of a vote for scab strike breaking and Europeans voting on local issues when it suits you.While also supporting the dictatorial powers of European Commissioners as part of big centralised Stalinist Federal government when it doesn’t.IE my comments regarding the TUC calling a general strike was along the lines of the question how can we have a ballot on a matter of solidarity.In which case the call wasn’t up for discussion it was either a case of support the NUM or you’re a scab no ifs no buts,no ballot,one out all out.Especially by your own admission when any such ballot has lost all credibility in the form of government divide and rule tractics such as the ‘productivety agreement’ benefitting some at the expense of others and other tactics like the government ‘guaranteeing’ the job security of some not others especially in the knowledge that the ‘guarantees’ were false.

Does any of that mean that we need the EU and its undemocratic foreign rule,as opposed to a democratically elected government over which we have democratic control and hopefully a PM like Benn,Shore or Hoey as part of that, not Callaghan,Brown or Corbyn,no.On that note it’s difficult to tie down exactly where you stand.But obviously closer to Chinese Marxist Dengist free market principles,predictably more interested in defending the right to scab than strike as part of that,than the idea of strong unions and democratically accountable government,under the protections available within the Nation State.As for the TUC,like Unite’s support of European rule over us,it doesn’t come out of any of this smelling of roses.More like the treacherous Blairite Europhile rabble that stood by while Thatcher smashed the Union movement if not helped her do it.

On that note remind us what was the Leave vote in Yorkshire.Probably because any real trade unionist would be at best ‘underwhelmed’ by your bs Europhile line. Which just like Thatcher,Bliar and Corbyn takes advantage of a foreign delusional,misled vote in whatever form when it suits you,while imposing dictatorial rule when it doesn’t.In Corbyn’s case all based on the lie that European workers and the EU Federation are all about looking after the interests of Brit workers.While at least even Blair didn’t even try using that bs line.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
It seems ironic that you’re all for so called ‘democracy’ in the form of a vote for scab strike breaking and Europeans voting on local issues when it suits you.
…
IE my comments regarding the TUC calling a general strike was along the lines of the question how can we have a ballot on a matter of solidarity.In which case the call wasn’t up for discussion it was either a case of support the NUM or you’re a scab no ifs no buts,no ballot,one out all out.
…
Especially by your own admission when any such ballot has lost all credibility in the form of government divide and rule tractics such as the ‘productivety agreement’ benefitting some at the expense of others and other tactics like the government ‘guaranteeing’ the job security of some not others especially in the knowledge that the ‘guarantees’ were false.

I’m not all for so-called democracy when it suits me. I’m simply all for democracy. I’m in favour of the policy of one-out-all-out - the policy of solidarity - when there is an underlying democratically-determined industrial policy (determined by the “all” who are expected to come out in support) that has been infringed. But in the extreme, that doesn’t mean letting one or a small group of workers determine industrial policy for everyone, or doing whatever they like but still expecting the unwavering backing of the majority.

And at the other extreme, if workers are so internally divided or narrow-minded that they can’t agree amongst themselves on a common industrial policy which they are willing to collectively enforce (including forgoing divisive offers and special favour from the bosses), then they’re definitely all going to suffer and there’s nothing anyone can do to help them.

What tends to happen under these latter conditions of division is that all workers are eventually squeezed until all their pips are squeaking, and at that point because their material conditions and lifestyles have been sufficiently equalised, and all previous advantages and special interests have been eroded, they are then willing to unify.

Does any of that mean that we need the EU and its undemocratic foreign rule,as opposed to a democratically elected government over which we have democratic control and hopefully a PM like Benn,Shore or Hoey as part of that, not Callaghan,Brown or Corbyn,no.

The EU is not “undemocratic foreign rule” - if you’re willing to accept that national governments are democratic, then it follows that the EU is democratic to much the same degree, precisely because it is fully controlled by its national members. I struggle to think of any organisation controlled entirely by democratic members, that could be accused of being fundamentally and totally undemocratic.

I also note that you’re fully in favour of national democracy, except when you don’t like the leaders it produces, like Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron, and May. We have these leaders precisely because workers do not have their own ideological house in order.

On that note it’s difficult to tie down exactly where you stand.

I stand for democracy.

…predictably more interested in defending the right to scab than strike as part of that,

I’m not interested in defending the right to scab. I’m pointing out that scab labour is often perceived to exist precisely because unionised workers sometimes start from a mentality that is fundamentally divided and undemocratic.

To scab means to defy a democratic decision taken by workers together - for example, there is a vote in a workplace for strike action, and yet some workers from that workplace go to work anyway (and even if such scabs are not union members, or refused to vote, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have participated in the ballot, by joining and voting).

It does not mean people whose views could never have been represented are scabs, nor those who have voted democratically against supporting the dispute.

The risk of the latter when factions and separate democratic organisations exist, is precisely why there has to be a unified democracy that integrates policy and adjudicates on disputes amongst subsets of those it represents. It will often be the case that the higher level organisation has a policy of eroding special interests amongst members and blocking or winding down inequalities, because these are cancers which create and promote division and eventually become fatal.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
It seems ironic that you’re all for so called ‘democracy’ in the form of a vote for scab strike breaking and Europeans voting on local issues when it suits you.
…
IE my comments regarding the TUC calling a general strike was along the lines of the question how can we have a ballot on a matter of solidarity.In which case the call wasn’t up for discussion it was either a case of support the NUM or you’re a scab no ifs no buts,no ballot,one out all out.
…
Especially by your own admission when any such ballot has lost all credibility in the form of government divide and rule tractics such as the ‘productivety agreement’ benefitting some at the expense of others and other tactics like the government ‘guaranteeing’ the job security of some not others especially in the knowledge that the ‘guarantees’ were false.

I’m not all for so-called democracy when it suits me. I’m simply all for democracy. I’m in favour of the policy of one-out-all-out - the policy of solidarity - when there is an underlying democratically-determined industrial policy (determined by the “all” who are expected to come out in support) that has been infringed. But in the extreme, that doesn’t mean letting one or a small group of workers determine industrial policy for everyone, or doing whatever they like but still expecting the unwavering backing of the majority.

And at the other extreme, if workers are so internally divided or narrow-minded that they can’t agree amongst themselves on a common industrial policy which they are willing to collectively enforce (including forgoing divisive offers and special favour from the bosses), then they’re definitely all going to suffer and there’s nothing anyone can do to help them.

What tends to happen under these latter conditions of division is that all workers are eventually squeezed until all their pips are squeaking, and at that point because their material conditions and lifestyles have been sufficiently equalised, and all previous advantages and special interests have been eroded, they are then willing to unify.

Does any of that mean that we need the EU and its undemocratic foreign rule,as opposed to a democratically elected government over which we have democratic control and hopefully a PM like Benn,Shore or Hoey as part of that, not Callaghan,Brown or Corbyn,no.

The EU is not “undemocratic foreign rule” - if you’re willing to accept that national governments are democratic, then it follows that the EU is democratic to much the same degree, precisely because it is fully controlled by its national members. I struggle to think of any organisation controlled entirely by democratic members, that could be accused of being fundamentally and totally undemocratic.

I also note that you’re fully in favour of national democracy, except when you don’t like the leaders it produces, like Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron, and May. We have these leaders precisely because workers do not have their own ideological house in order.

On that note it’s difficult to tie down exactly where you stand.

I stand for democracy.

…predictably more interested in defending the right to scab than strike as part of that,

I’m not interested in defending the right to scab. I’m pointing out that scab labour is often perceived to exist precisely because unionised workers sometimes start from a mentality that is fundamentally divided and undemocratic.

To scab means to defy a democratic decision taken by workers together - for example, there is a vote in a workplace for strike action, and yet some workers from that workplace go to work anyway (and even if such scabs are not union members, or refused to vote, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have participated in the ballot, by joining and voting).

It does not mean people whose views could never have been represented are scabs, nor those who have voted democratically against supporting the dispute.

The risk of the latter when factions and separate democratic organisations exist, is precisely why there has to be a unified democracy that integrates policy and adjudicates on disputes amongst subsets of those it represents. It will often be the case that the higher level organisation has a policy of eroding special interests amongst members and blocking or winding down inequalities, because these are cancers which create and promote division and eventually become fatal.

You say you’re all for democracy.So how can it be democratic for mainland European voters to decide policy over us or vice versa.Or unelected EU commissioners to dictate policy that’s then rubber stamped by that foreign vote.While you’re saying the way to fix the local democratic accountability deficit in National government,caused in large part by the UK Federal system and MP’s in other parts of the country voting on local matters like Heathrow Airport expansion or local development policy,where they have no local democratic mandate,is to hand it all over to the even bigger dictatorial undemocratic mess of the EU Federal government.Where at best we have no democratic control over foreign MEP’s who can impose laws on us with no national right of opt out.Let alone when it’s more a case of unelected commissioners making those laws not MEP’s.As for integrated democracy no you’re calling for delegated democracy ( more like EU commission dictat ) that removes our democratic control over our own government.

As for the miners how can it be democratic to to undertake scab activeties when the strike vote has been corrupted by the employers using divide and rule tactics.IE you can’t possibly vote to be scab in that situation.Although that’s what you seem to be advocating.As I said you’re ( much ) closer to champagne Socialist Blair and his EU politburo cronies than democratic real Labour MP’s like Heffer or possibly Hoey.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
You say you’re all for democracy.So how can it be democratic for mainland European voters to decide policy over us or vice versa.

Because that’s democracy, in the same way that me and you both get a say in British national elections - which could be twisted as saying that you get to decide the policy over me and vice versa.

Or unelected EU commissioners to dictate policy that’s then rubber stamped by that foreign vote.While you’re saying the way to fix the local democratic accountability deficit in National government,caused in large part by the UK Federal system and MP’s in other parts of the country voting on local matters like Heathrow Airport expansion or local development policy,where they have no local democratic mandate

But Heathrow Airport is not a local matter. The airports of a country are a national matter (of essential economic infrastructure), same as seaports, power stations, motorways, coal pits, prisons, industrial estates, water reservoirs, and so on.

Of course I’m not specifically endorsing the expansion of Heathrow, but public infrastructure has to go somewhere, and you can’t have local interests simply vetoing the democratic will of the masses - because it is obvious that amongst a gaggle of such local interests, none of them are going to agree amongst themselves to back down.

That’s not to endorse steamrollering over minorities either, but it is still for a majority themselves to decide (whilst being considerate and respectful of individual citizen’s reasonable interests) a policy on what amounts to steamrollering, and what are simply the necessary sacrifices that have to be made by some, from time to time, as part of putting public infrastructure somewhere.

It’s like Churchill said, democracy is the worst system, except for all the others.

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
And considering there have been complaints to the EU from the Governments of various East European countries over the policy [of the German interior minimum wage], I assume those governments don’t think it’s democratically legitimate.

I assume because they’re saying it’s somehow against the law of a treaty which the Germans previously chose to enter into.

But their citizens had no democratic say into the implementation of the laws.

I’m not quite sure whose citizens you mean when you argue there has been no democratic say, but it’s a bizarre argument whichever way you meant, because both Germany and the Eastern European nations all have a say into the implementation and interpretation of those laws. The ECJ itself, like all the EU judiciary as far as I’m aware, is composed of judges nominated equally by all the members.

The Germans bought in their own national minimum wage laws, but it affects workers from many others Countries.
As you say EU citizens and Governments have recourse to various EU bodies to protest about policies by other EU countries that might adversely affect them. This includes Polish truck drivers (although apparently Polish drivers Unions are in favour of the German policy) and Estonian sailors.

Rjan:

muckles:
As it is the Estonian and Finnish sailors have joint representation within the umbrella of the ITF, the same as UK Union members have joint representation with the TUC or the ETUC or in some case the ITF.

This you seem to want it both ways - you want me to accept that the case was a blow for workers and a victory for undercutting, but at the same time you want me to accept that in fact all the workers were solid and none were willing to be undercut.

Many observers have said the case was a blow for the right to take collective action and the judgment has subsequently been used against Unions to stop them taking industrial action.

However although the case was brought against the FSU and ITF, they reached a settlement with the Viking Line before the ECJ Judgment, so it didn’t affect them, but the solidarity between the Finnish and Estonian Unions over the ITF’s policy on FOC’s meant that the Viking Line weren’t able to split the workers.

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
The ECJ ruling was far more than let the national courts decide, if that’s all it said it wouldn’t have been so criticised by many workers groups across Europe and the European Parliament, which stated in a report into the effects of the ECJ judgment.
It was a restriction to the right of collective action which has limited the possibility for Trade Unions to protect their members interests in cross border situations.
It introduced a vague proportionality test and threat of damages, which could have preventive effect on the possibility of exercising this fundamental right.
The stance taken by the ECJ seems problematic and could clash with the position taken by the ECHR and ILO.

I’m afraid you have this all wrong. The ECJ did not introduce a vague proportionality test which did not previously exist

Then it’s the European Parliament that’s wrong, as it was their report that described the judgement “as introducing a vague proportionality” test, not me.
It was also their report that it could clash with the position taken by the ECHR and ILO.

Maybe they did say that, but it still doesn’t seem to be correct, and it’s a bit rich for the lawmakers themselves to be bemoaning their own judiciary. The fact that they’ve observed that there is a clash with the overlapping case law of other EU courts, is precisely what you’d expect to result from law that is hard to reconcile.

The European Parliament like many other organisations believed this judgment clashed with fundamental rights within the ECHR, which pretty much are the principles that EU law is based on, it was not how they envisioned how those laws would be interpreted, which is not so unusual, events often overtake the lawmakers.
This is why changes were made in the Lisbon treaty, but until a case goes before the ECJ to test them, we will not know how they are legally interpreted.

Which goes back to my original point, we need to fight for workers rights regardless of the political system.

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
Denmark and Sweden had to change their laws to take into account the ECJ rulings because in their laws they had a fundamental right to collective action, this would have been counter to the ECJ ruling.

Maybe so. But if Denmark and Sweden wanted the right of collective action to be supreme over any of the rights of bosses, why didn’t they vote for EU law to say that in the first place?

They, as had other EU Countries and Workers Groups, interpreted the EU laws to mean that collective action was protected as a fundamental right outside the scope of EU freedoms.

And yet that’s not what the law actually said, as it turns out. But I’m not faulting anyone here - I can see how the situation has come about. Yet you are determined to maintain some sort of critical position against the very institutions of the ECJ or EU law.

This wasn’t simple case of a law, but the clash of fundamental EU principles and it’s not a simple case of what the law said, but of how it’s interpreted and not even the Court of Appeal judges felt qualified to decide that, which is why it sent the case to the ECJ, as did other national courts where similar cases were being heard. Once the ECJ reached their judgement it was then how these situations should be resolved in future.
But it was now a law many thought was too restrictive to the power of Unions, which is why actions were taken to change it, so it was more reflective of the social policy of the EU.

You seem to believe my reason for discussing this case is to have a go at the Institutions of the EU, but although I’ve have been critical of the judgement in this case, I have not been critical of the ECJ as a whole or EU law, in fact I used the recent ECJ ruling on Uber example of success of unions using the EU legal system to improve workers rights.

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
As already mentioned the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling, but wouldn’t make its own judgement until the ECJ had ruled on the fundamental points of EU law in the case.

The Court of Appeal didn’t overturn anything of importance - if they put a stay of execution on the injunction while it went to the ECJ for an opinion, that doesn’t mean they overturned it. If they had overturned it, it would have meant the FSU had won the case.

Ok in legal terms they set-aside the injunction, but that meant that the injunction was no longer in force, they also refused the Viking Line an interim injunction to cover the period while the case was at the ECJ.
It’s hardly a “stay of execution”, the Appeal Courts decision would have been subject to the ECJ’s ruling on the questions of EU law that were referred to them.
So the Court of Appeal judgement could have gone either way, if it was a forgone conclusion, it would be unlikely that the Viking Line would have settled with the FSU.

The point I’m making is, the Court of Appeal didn’t reverse the High Court - it simply lifted the injunction whilst the case was sorted out, which is common enough practice in all cases that experience an appeal, and is not limited to cases where the Appeal court thinks the lower court is wrong. Consider that Uber has had various stays of execution in it’s wrestling with the unions lately.

They are not stays of execution, that suggest an inevitability of outcome, unless the Court of appeal is going pass the same judgement, if that is the case it is pointless to bring a case to appeal.
Injunctions aren’t lifted as a matter of course while appeal hearing are being held, it would make the appeal pointless in some cases as once the injunction is lifted the person the injunction is against would be able to carry out whatever they’ve been forbidden to do, such as a newspaper publishing a story.

In this case the Judges said the Injunction was to be “set aside”, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Law that means “An order of a court cancelling or making void some other order or judgment”, not merely postponed awaiting the judgement.
My understanding of the case is this was done because the Court of Appeal didn’t feel the High Court judgment took fair consideration of all the arguments made by the FSU and ITF and there were fundamental points of EU law that needed clarifying before a judgement could be passed.
The Court of Appeal also spent a lot of time deliberating on whether to grant an interim injunction to the Viking Line, while the case went to the ECJ, which could and was about 2 years,
However they refused it because they felt that it would give the Viking Line pretty much what they wanted, before the Court of Appeal was able to hand down its judgement with the clarification of the questions from the ECJ, there by disadvantaging the FSU and ITF and they also thought not having an injunction in force might bring both parties to a negotiated settlement, which is in fact what happened.