Erosion of our rights

However it is highly questionable whether the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as incorporated in the Treaty of Lisbon, would make up for the continuous attacks on workers’ rights which have taken place in Britain since 1979.

The appropriate clause in this charter (Title 4, Article 28), which Donaghey refers to, states: “Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action.”

The following should be noted.

First, on the basis of “national laws and practices,” the battery of anti-union laws we have witnessed in Britain since 1979 has not been questioned. If anything, this charter gives them legitimacy.

Second, how does one interpret rights of employers “in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action?” Does this mean that an employer’s “right” of lockout is anchored in this charter and hence in the Treaty of Lisbon?

Third, rulings of the European Court of Justice, as clearly demonstrated in the cases of Viking and Laval in December 2007, have shown that in the event of conflicts between long-established workers’ rights and the rules governing the single European market, the supreme court of the EU would come down in favour of the latter. The principle governing the single European market, it should be noted, is that of an “open market economy with free competition.”

Any reader of the Morning Star would know what that means!

There, this charter, whether its provisions are binding on Britain or not, is of little help.

One thing is clear — there is no alternative to the campaign for the repeal of the anti-union laws.

Keith Barlow Leipzig, Germany