News
BackLoading and unloading, refuelling, cleaning and technical control are some of the services provided by employees within the scope of the so-called aircraft handling. Over the past years, the working conditions in the EU area have deteriorated significantly; wages are coming crushing down. And the groundhandling sector, which had been liberalised some years ago, is suffering from a low level of efficiency. A new draft proposal on groundhandling services is now offering the chance to remedy the existing problems.
The new Commission proposal on groundhandling has been disappointing as it plans further liberalisation without addressing the efficiency problems and the less than good working conditions employees have to cope with. However, there was some hope due to cross-party statements of MEPs who voiced their scepticism whether additional groundhandling service providers would really be able to solve the existing problems and who made very negative comments concerning the current situation for staff employed by groundhandling services.
This week now, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European Parliament voted in a statement on groundhandling. In contrast to expectations, the vote unfortunately produced a very meagre result: concrete measures against dumping wages – in the EU, some employees working for groundhandling service providers depend on additional state benefits to make ends meet – are still missing. The change of an employer does not necessarily mean that all employees keep their jobs. At least it has now been planned that there will be common Europe-wide minimum standards with regard to vocational training and further training. Voting on the issue, MEPs were able to enforce a right to say and the control by Member States.
A meagre result in the Committee on Employment. Apparently, both Social Democrats and the Left have only agreed to the negotiated compromise text to ensure that the text contains at least some improvements for employees. In contrast, the Greens chose the strategy to reject the draft proposal in its entirety. The other factions supported the proposal and the amended text.
Now it is the turn of the Transport Committee in charge of this dossier to comment on the groundhandling services. In spite of the fact that the Conservative rapporteur MEP Zasada supported the idea of doubling the number of providers of groundhandling services, even his fraction colleagues rejected this wish. There was also scepticism concerning the option of subcontracting groundhandling services. Which position the Transport Committee will adopt in the end will only be certain after the vote in the Committee planned for November.
This week now, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European Parliament voted in a statement on groundhandling. In contrast to expectations, the vote unfortunately produced a very meagre result: concrete measures against dumping wages – in the EU, some employees working for groundhandling service providers depend on additional state benefits to make ends meet – are still missing. The change of an employer does not necessarily mean that all employees keep their jobs. At least it has now been planned that there will be common Europe-wide minimum standards with regard to vocational training and further training. Voting on the issue, MEPs were able to enforce a right to say and the control by Member States.
A meagre result in the Committee on Employment. Apparently, both Social Democrats and the Left have only agreed to the negotiated compromise text to ensure that the text contains at least some improvements for employees. In contrast, the Greens chose the strategy to reject the draft proposal in its entirety. The other factions supported the proposal and the amended text.
Now it is the turn of the Transport Committee in charge of this dossier to comment on the groundhandling services. In spite of the fact that the Conservative rapporteur MEP Zasada supported the idea of doubling the number of providers of groundhandling services, even his fraction colleagues rejected this wish. There was also scepticism concerning the option of subcontracting groundhandling services. Which position the Transport Committee will adopt in the end will only be certain after the vote in the Committee planned for November.