Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 1:37:54 GMT -5
This is the fourth occasion on which I refer directly to the debate on the EUROPEAN MINIMUM WAGES opened in European unionism, when it still lacks the capacity or will to openly discuss the EUROPEAN MINIMUM WAGE. On this occasion I intervene following two works of Nordic unionist and union advisor meanings that have been expressed in recent works, in July and September of this year, with eloquent titles and contents: “ Minimum Wage Directive: The Case for a 'Social Partners Choice' ” , by Johan Danielsson, currently a Social Democrat MEP, former leader of the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) and the Executive Committee of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) , and “ A minimum wage directive could undermine the Nordic model , ” by German Bender and Andres Kjelberg, academic advisors to Nordic unionism. In Spain, more than about salaries in the workplaces, we are talking about the “Interprofessional Minimum Wage” and, of this, more about the government's management of its legal amount than about the necessary union action to confront business resistance. not only to its increase but to its full application when many thousands of workers receive salaries below the legislated minimum.
On wages in the world (in this case we are talking about “vital” subsistence minimums in most emerging countries) the European Directive on Due Diligence in the Global Supply Chains of multinationals could have an impact, of which by the end of The publication of its draft is scheduled for October and there is still no clear impact from European unionism. (Formal start of the Resolution). I now return to what prompted these notes, the aforementioned documents from Nordic unionists and academics. I believe that they express Australia Phone Number once again a serious, and old, error of the vanguard sectors of social movements, that of ignoring the risks of their isolation if the whole does not advance, and therefore that of forgetting the interest of social solidarity is only for those who receive it, but also for those who practice it or should practice it. A union problem that we have and are experiencing in all areas, from workplaces to companies in the same country or in the countries of the Social North in our world. But let us return to the eloquent works of the Nordic trade unionists and academics in the aforementioned works. They point out two extraordinarily eloquent figures.
Danielsson says that the Swedish and Danish labor relations models “ are characterized by a high coverage of collective bargaining (over 70%)… ”. And Bender and Kjellberg, after indicating that not all collective agreements in the area address the salary issue (which is still surprising), add in conclusion that: “ …just over half (53%) of all employees in Sweden they are covered by minimum wage provisions. adding that. “ …collectively agreed wages have acted as benchmarks for wages in companies that do not have collective agreements… ”. Without further considerations about the “high coverage” qualification, which marginalizes 30% of the working class in your country, it seems clear that two groups of workers are targeted. The 53% whose salaries result from collective bargaining, with active intervention of the powerful Nordic unions. And the 47% who, without union action, seem to benefit from the pull of the former, assumed, more or less benevolently, unilaterally in any case, by the Nordic employers. The aforementioned commentators, union members and advisors add that the establishment of a legal minimum wage, probably lower than the minimum agreed for that 53%, would represent a comparative risk for them and a worse reference for the remaining 47%. Everyone, union members in particular, can draw conclusions.
On wages in the world (in this case we are talking about “vital” subsistence minimums in most emerging countries) the European Directive on Due Diligence in the Global Supply Chains of multinationals could have an impact, of which by the end of The publication of its draft is scheduled for October and there is still no clear impact from European unionism. (Formal start of the Resolution). I now return to what prompted these notes, the aforementioned documents from Nordic unionists and academics. I believe that they express Australia Phone Number once again a serious, and old, error of the vanguard sectors of social movements, that of ignoring the risks of their isolation if the whole does not advance, and therefore that of forgetting the interest of social solidarity is only for those who receive it, but also for those who practice it or should practice it. A union problem that we have and are experiencing in all areas, from workplaces to companies in the same country or in the countries of the Social North in our world. But let us return to the eloquent works of the Nordic trade unionists and academics in the aforementioned works. They point out two extraordinarily eloquent figures.
Danielsson says that the Swedish and Danish labor relations models “ are characterized by a high coverage of collective bargaining (over 70%)… ”. And Bender and Kjellberg, after indicating that not all collective agreements in the area address the salary issue (which is still surprising), add in conclusion that: “ …just over half (53%) of all employees in Sweden they are covered by minimum wage provisions. adding that. “ …collectively agreed wages have acted as benchmarks for wages in companies that do not have collective agreements… ”. Without further considerations about the “high coverage” qualification, which marginalizes 30% of the working class in your country, it seems clear that two groups of workers are targeted. The 53% whose salaries result from collective bargaining, with active intervention of the powerful Nordic unions. And the 47% who, without union action, seem to benefit from the pull of the former, assumed, more or less benevolently, unilaterally in any case, by the Nordic employers. The aforementioned commentators, union members and advisors add that the establishment of a legal minimum wage, probably lower than the minimum agreed for that 53%, would represent a comparative risk for them and a worse reference for the remaining 47%. Everyone, union members in particular, can draw conclusions.