News
BackFollowing 2 years of hard negotiations in the European Parliament and in the Council the path is now clear to impose for the first time sanctions against employers, who provide work for illegal immigrants says Claudio Fava, the parliamentary rapporteur in charge. The final legislative resolution of the MEPs, however, was postponed to March. Reason: Claudio Fava demanded an additional declaration, which does not exclude further legal action, in particular against sub-contractors. Also still outstanding is an agreement with the Council, which, however, is as good as settled.
The intention to introduce a general ban on employing third country nationals has been emphasized as a central element of this report. In addition this ban should be amended by sanctions imposed on employers who infringe against it. Individual concrete sanctions should be determined by the member states themselves. In general, one must not overlook the fact that an important attraction factor for the illegal entry into the EU is the reason that it is possible to find employment in the EU without having a required legal status.
A very good measure at first glance seems the regulation to be according to which financial sanctions for employing illegal immigrants could be imposed on both sub-contractors and general contractors. However, taking a closer look one notices that general contractors are only then held liable if they were aware of the fact that their sub-contractor employed third party nationals without legal abode. As a result one can already at this point assume that this extremely watered down liability regulation will hardly be enforceable. This is a clear retrograde state to the original proposal of the Commission, which was not so toned down.
Another point concerns inspections, as without them it might be very difficult to take effective steps against employers giving work to illegal immigrants. As to this matter, the Parliament Report states that the member states themselves ensure that effective and appropriate inspections are carried out on their territory. The Commission originally demanded that annually at least 10 % of the companies based on their territory would be subject to inspections. This proposal vanished into thin air; now each member state can decide freely how often inspections are carried out. AK EUROPA demands a minimum number of inspections and welcomes the proposal of the Commission.
One of the most important points, however, must be that employers providing work for Illegal immigrants may also have to make additional payments. This means, for example, that illegal workers must be paid wages, which are in accordance with the collective agreement or the minimum wage. In addition, social security contributions, taxes and, if applicable, the costs of transferring outstanding amounts to the country, to which the third country national returns must also be paid. In any case, the assumption is that employment relationships are always based on 3 months, which exactly represents the 3-month easing with regard to the proposal of the Commission. Another retrograde step. A problem, however, is the question whether and how illegal workers will manage to assert their claims. A consideration would be to give third country nationals the opportunity to file their complaints directly or via appointed third parties, such as trade unions or other organisations.
Finally, the imminent agreement with the Council can be rated as a first step in the right direction. The step, however, is rather small and contains many toned down elements in contrast to the original proposal by the Commission. In particular in times of a financial and employment crisis this imminent agreement cannot be regarded as being sufficient. In the opinion of AK EUROPA it should also be said that combating black labour and the exploitation of workers associated with it is a great concern. However, only to impose sanctions on employers who provide work for third country nationals without legal abode does not go far enough. In order to be able to combat black labour effectively, in particular those persons, who have no work permit have to be included in this Directive.
For further information:
Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals
Press release of the European Parliament
A very good measure at first glance seems the regulation to be according to which financial sanctions for employing illegal immigrants could be imposed on both sub-contractors and general contractors. However, taking a closer look one notices that general contractors are only then held liable if they were aware of the fact that their sub-contractor employed third party nationals without legal abode. As a result one can already at this point assume that this extremely watered down liability regulation will hardly be enforceable. This is a clear retrograde state to the original proposal of the Commission, which was not so toned down.
Another point concerns inspections, as without them it might be very difficult to take effective steps against employers giving work to illegal immigrants. As to this matter, the Parliament Report states that the member states themselves ensure that effective and appropriate inspections are carried out on their territory. The Commission originally demanded that annually at least 10 % of the companies based on their territory would be subject to inspections. This proposal vanished into thin air; now each member state can decide freely how often inspections are carried out. AK EUROPA demands a minimum number of inspections and welcomes the proposal of the Commission.
One of the most important points, however, must be that employers providing work for Illegal immigrants may also have to make additional payments. This means, for example, that illegal workers must be paid wages, which are in accordance with the collective agreement or the minimum wage. In addition, social security contributions, taxes and, if applicable, the costs of transferring outstanding amounts to the country, to which the third country national returns must also be paid. In any case, the assumption is that employment relationships are always based on 3 months, which exactly represents the 3-month easing with regard to the proposal of the Commission. Another retrograde step. A problem, however, is the question whether and how illegal workers will manage to assert their claims. A consideration would be to give third country nationals the opportunity to file their complaints directly or via appointed third parties, such as trade unions or other organisations.
Finally, the imminent agreement with the Council can be rated as a first step in the right direction. The step, however, is rather small and contains many toned down elements in contrast to the original proposal by the Commission. In particular in times of a financial and employment crisis this imminent agreement cannot be regarded as being sufficient. In the opinion of AK EUROPA it should also be said that combating black labour and the exploitation of workers associated with it is a great concern. However, only to impose sanctions on employers who provide work for third country nationals without legal abode does not go far enough. In order to be able to combat black labour effectively, in particular those persons, who have no work permit have to be included in this Directive.
For further information:
Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals
Press release of the European Parliament