The EESC adopts its position on the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive at its December Plenary Session

There are around 2 million workers in the European Union who are employed in one Member State and sent by their employer to work in another one. The conditions under which those "posted workers" operate were defined in an EU Directive adopted in 1996 'The Posting of Workers Directive'. After twenty years, the European Commission has decided to revise this Directive to review the core set of conditions of employment for these workers. The EESC opinion was adopted after an extensive debate, in which diverging views were expressed.  A counter opinion, showing some of these views, was also submitted.

The EESC Opinion was adopted by a majority of 180 in favour, 84 against and 30 abstentions thanks to the huge efforts of the members of the Workers' Group and the strong cooperation with members of the Various' Interests Group. Some members of the Employers' Group also played a key role in supporting the opinion during the debates and the subsequent vote.

The opinion recognises that the principle of equal pay for equal work in the same place is a fundamental social right and a cornerstone of the European legal framework which must be defended and implemented.  

The EESC also broadly welcomes the fact that the Commission proposes to expressly set a maximum period for the duration of posting. However, it recommends that posting should be limited to 6 months - instead of 24 months as proposed by the Commission - which is closer to real business conditions.

The EESC considers collective agreements to be the benchmark for the level of remuneration. It underlines that the role of the exclusivity of the social partners was not respected and wonders why the European Commission did not launch a proper consultation with them in accordance with Article 154 (2) TFEU.

Further, so that the Directive can be a proper instrument to protect posted workers, the EESC opinion calls for it to be revised by extending the legal basis to include social policy law, and to make it clear that it establishes a minimum standard, not a maximum.

The adopted opinion was not supported by some members of the Employers’ Group who tabled a counter opinion. This text was rejected by a significant majority (175 against, 94 for and 23 abstentions).