Datasets:

siacus

/

cap_pe_v2

like 0

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "1.Will the Commission estimate the cost to employers of implementing in full its agency workers directive proposal for each Member State? Will it express such a cost as a percentage of the total pay bill? 2.What estimate does the Commission make of any likely reduction in employment by Member State? 3.How is this proposal consistent with the Commission’s objective of increasing employment?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-2006/04

Labour, employment and pensions

1.Will the Commission estimate the cost to employers of implementing in full its agency workers directive proposal for each Member State? Will it express such a cost as a percentage of the total pay bill? 2.What estimate does the Commission make of any likely reduction in employment by Member State? 3.How is this proposal consistent with the Commission’s objective of increasing employment?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "What measures, if any, does the Commission take to ensure that its staff reflect the multi-cultural make-up of the European Union?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-580/95

Labour, employment and pensions

What measures, if any, does the Commission take to ensure that its staff reflect the multi-cultural make-up of the European Union?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "In August2016, two British backpackers were killed in a knife attack at a backpacker’s hostel they were staying in while working on an Australian farm. Since 2005, holders of Australian 417 work visas can apply for a one year extension on condition that they undertake 88days of ‘specified work’, mainly in agriculture but also in construction. The scheme is currently available to UK, German and French nationals, but will soon be open to other European nationalities. This scheme has been criticised for exploiting foreign workers to provide cheap labour. In 2016, the Fair Work Ombudsman identified serious concerns about working conditions for backpackers, including gross underpayment, intimidation, unsafe living conditions, sexual exploitation, blackmail, and verbal and physical abuse. In addition, basic health and safety requirements are not being met. Given that Australia consistently ranks as one of the top destinations for European backpackers, does theEU monitor labour standards in Australia? Will the Commission put pressure on the Australian Government to improve the regulation of jobs in the ‘specified work’ sectors, to take steps to ensure that labour and health and safety standards are met and to impose a duty of care on employers in these sectors?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-002469-17

Labour, employment and pensions

In August2016, two British backpackers were killed in a knife attack at a backpacker’s hostel they were staying in while working on an Australian farm. Since 2005, holders of Australian 417 work visas can apply for a one year extension on condition that they undertake 88days of ‘specified work’, mainly in agriculture but also in construction. The scheme is currently available to UK, German and French nationals, but will soon be open to other European nationalities. This scheme has been criticised for exploiting foreign workers to provide cheap labour. In 2016, the Fair Work Ombudsman identified serious concerns about working conditions for backpackers, including gross underpayment, intimidation, unsafe living conditions, sexual exploitation, blackmail, and verbal and physical abuse. In addition, basic health and safety requirements are not being met. Given that Australia consistently ranks as one of the top destinations for European backpackers, does theEU monitor labour standards in Australia? Will the Commission put pressure on the Australian Government to improve the regulation of jobs in the ‘specified work’ sectors, to take steps to ensure that labour and health and safety standards are met and to impose a duty of care on employers in these sectors?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Regulation (EC) No883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems is supposed to simplify the coordination of social security systems. Coordination regulations are primarily based on the principle of lex loci laboris, meaning that the legislation of the state in which the person is employed or self‐employed is deemed to be the relevant legislation. Pursuant to Article11(3) of the regulation, ‘a person pursuing an activity as an employed or self‐employed person in a Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that Member State’. Is it the case that only an employed person actually pursuing an activity as an employed person at the time could be considered a person pursuing an activity as an employed person? Or is it also the case that a person whose long‐term employment status is ongoing — i.e.has not been terminated — but who has been unfit for work and has, for more than a year but less than two, not pursued activities under their contract of employment, under the assumption that they will sooner or later return to pursue pursue activities under their contract of employment, is also considered a person pursuing an activity as an employed person? Pursuant to RegulationNo883/2004, could a person be considered entirely unemployed if their employment status is ongoing — i.e.has not been terminated — but they are not pursuing an activity as an employed person due to long‐term incapacity to work?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-010987-15

Labour, employment and pensions

Regulation (EC) No883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems is supposed to simplify the coordination of social security systems. Coordination regulations are primarily based on the principle of lex loci laboris, meaning that the legislation of the state in which the person is employed or self‐employed is deemed to be the relevant legislation. Pursuant to Article11(3) of the regulation, ‘a person pursuing an activity as an employed or self‐employed person in a Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that Member State’. Is it the case that only an employed person actually pursuing an activity as an employed person at the time could be considered a person pursuing an activity as an employed person? Or is it also the case that a person whose long‐term employment status is ongoing — i.e.has not been terminated — but who has been unfit for work and has, for more than a year but less than two, not pursued activities under their contract of employment, under the assumption that they will sooner or later return to pursue pursue activities under their contract of employment, is also considered a person pursuing an activity as an employed person? Pursuant to RegulationNo883/2004, could a person be considered entirely unemployed if their employment status is ongoing — i.e.has not been terminated — but they are not pursuing an activity as an employed person due to long‐term incapacity to work?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "With her term in office due to expire in 2014, could the Vice-President/High Representative please advise me of the anticipated value of her pension fund on conclusion of her term in office?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-003656-13

Labour, employment and pensions

With her term in office due to expire in 2014, could the Vice-President/High Representative please advise me of the anticipated value of her pension fund on conclusion of her term in office?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Given that 10Member States, i.e.almost half of all theEU countries minus Romania and Bulgaria, asked the Commission to suspend the right of Romanian citizens to work in those countries, can the Commission answer the following questions: — Does the Commission consider it normal for differential treatment to be given to a country that has been an EU member since 2007, that is socially and economically stable, that complies with European rules on professional mobility, and that mainly provides skilled workers for the European labour market who are valued and who do not pose any problems for their host countries? — Apart from granting the requests for the temporary suspension of the obligation to accept Romanian citizens on the labour market, does the Commission have any strategy for resolving this situation, which can be considered discrimination against Romanian workers? — Can the Commission give Romania a guarantee that all the Member States will reopen their labour markets for Romanian citizens at the end of 2013?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-005766-13

Labour, employment and pensions

Given that 10Member States, i.e.almost half of all theEU countries minus Romania and Bulgaria, asked the Commission to suspend the right of Romanian citizens to work in those countries, can the Commission answer the following questions: — Does the Commission consider it normal for differential treatment to be given to a country that has been an EU member since 2007, that is socially and economically stable, that complies with European rules on professional mobility, and that mainly provides skilled workers for the European labour market who are valued and who do not pose any problems for their host countries? — Apart from granting the requests for the temporary suspension of the obligation to accept Romanian citizens on the labour market, does the Commission have any strategy for resolving this situation, which can be considered discrimination against Romanian workers? — Can the Commission give Romania a guarantee that all the Member States will reopen their labour markets for Romanian citizens at the end of 2013?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The week of 19 to 23October 2009 was the European Week for Health and Safety at Work, organised by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU‑OSHA) and its partners, as part of EU‑OSHA’s two-year safe and healthy workplaces campaign. In Italy the number of people who are killed or injured at work is constantly rising. More than five million accidents in the workplace have been recorded in the past five years, with approximately 7000deaths and more than 200000people left permanently disabled. In the words of the President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, this is ‘unacceptable, extremely distressing and worrying in a society that calls itself civilised’. As part of its two-year safe and healthy workplaces campaign, EU‑OSHA has published a major report entitled ‘Assessment, elimination and substantial reduction of occupational risks’ which shows that many risks can be avoided or eliminated completely by tackling their source. Accident prevention is not just a specific legal obligation and a mark of respect for a person’s dignity; it also represents a saving for the community and the employer, as is highlighted by in-depth studies which show that investing in good standards of accident prevention reaps excellent results in terms of business costs and image. In light of the above, does the Commission agree that a special fund should be established to promote information, training and cultural measures in schools and businesses that will encourage the development of a safety culture? Does it also agree that, in order to reduce the alarming number of accidents in the workplace, principled firms, i.e.those that invest heavily in their employees’ health and safety, should be rewarded, while those that put their employees at risk by not complying with European safety standards should be penalised?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-5448/09

Labour, employment and pensions

The week of 19 to 23October 2009 was the European Week for Health and Safety at Work, organised by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU‑OSHA) and its partners, as part of EU‑OSHA’s two-year safe and healthy workplaces campaign. In Italy the number of people who are killed or injured at work is constantly rising. More than five million accidents in the workplace have been recorded in the past five years, with approximately 7000deaths and more than 200000people left permanently disabled. In the words of the President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, this is ‘unacceptable, extremely distressing and worrying in a society that calls itself civilised’. As part of its two-year safe and healthy workplaces campaign, EU‑OSHA has published a major report entitled ‘Assessment, elimination and substantial reduction of occupational risks’ which shows that many risks can be avoided or eliminated completely by tackling their source. Accident prevention is not just a specific legal obligation and a mark of respect for a person’s dignity; it also represents a saving for the community and the employer, as is highlighted by in-depth studies which show that investing in good standards of accident prevention reaps excellent results in terms of business costs and image. In light of the above, does the Commission agree that a special fund should be established to promote information, training and cultural measures in schools and businesses that will encourage the development of a safety culture? Does it also agree that, in order to reduce the alarming number of accidents in the workplace, principled firms, i.e.those that invest heavily in their employees’ health and safety, should be rewarded, while those that put their employees at risk by not complying with European safety standards should be penalised?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The following appears in the German magazine Das Spiegel: ‘Take for example the EUR7billion training project, half financed by Brussels' social fund, that was meant to help young Italians find jobs. A study found that, although several thousand courses were taught, only 233 people ultimately found a job as a result. This means that every job cost about EUR30million.’ (Das Spiegel 41/2014, p.73). 1.Are these figures correct? 2.How much did European Social Fund contribute in actual fact? 3.Which report documents precisely how the funds were used and their effectiveness?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-008741-14

Labour, employment and pensions

The following appears in the German magazine Das Spiegel: ‘Take for example the EUR7billion training project, half financed by Brussels' social fund, that was meant to help young Italians find jobs. A study found that, although several thousand courses were taught, only 233 people ultimately found a job as a result. This means that every job cost about EUR30million.’ (Das Spiegel 41/2014, p.73). 1.Are these figures correct? 2.How much did European Social Fund contribute in actual fact? 3.Which report documents precisely how the funds were used and their effectiveness?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "In his reply to my question P-1197/02(1), Commissioner Kinnock referred to the replies given to a number of earlier written questions, from which I was not able to obtain a sufficiently precise reply to my question. I should therefore like to ask whether Commissioners receive the transitional allowance payable under Articles 41 and 50 of the Staff Regulations and whether, therefore, before retirement age, a Commissioner can receive an allowance equal to his or her basic salary for the first three months, 85 % of basic salary from the 4th to the 6th month, 70 % for the next five years and thereafter 60 % until he or she reaches pensionable age (with the result that the years spent in receipt of the transitional allowance are fully taken into account in the accumulation of the pension)? How is this compatible with the method of calculation based on age, whereby the recipient of the transitional allowance receives 63 % of his or her basic salary at age 50 and thereafter a further 1,5 % per year up to age 59? Is national tax or EU tax deductible from this transitional allowance? Is tax on Commission pensions payable to the EU irrespective of the pensioner's country of residence? (1)OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 102.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-1911/02

Labour, employment and pensions

In his reply to my question P-1197/02(1), Commissioner Kinnock referred to the replies given to a number of earlier written questions, from which I was not able to obtain a sufficiently precise reply to my question. I should therefore like to ask whether Commissioners receive the transitional allowance payable under Articles 41 and 50 of the Staff Regulations and whether, therefore, before retirement age, a Commissioner can receive an allowance equal to his or her basic salary for the first three months, 85 % of basic salary from the 4th to the 6th month, 70 % for the next five years and thereafter 60 % until he or she reaches pensionable age (with the result that the years spent in receipt of the transitional allowance are fully taken into account in the accumulation of the pension)? How is this compatible with the method of calculation based on age, whereby the recipient of the transitional allowance receives 63 % of his or her basic salary at age 50 and thereafter a further 1,5 % per year up to age 59? Is national tax or EU tax deductible from this transitional allowance? Is tax on Commission pensions payable to the EU irrespective of the pensioner's country of residence? (1)OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 102.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "At its meeting of 27 and 28June2013, the European Council agreed, in line with the Youth Employment Initiative guidelines, that EUR6billion should be made available from 1January2014 for action to combat youth unemployment. It also held out the possibility of increasing that sum to EUR8billion. At the same time, however, it decided that only European regions with youth unemployment rates of more than 25% would be eligible for the funding. Can the Commission say whether the above information is correct? In particular, will European regions with youth unemployment rates of less than 25% not be eligible? More specifically, can it confirm that the Veneto region of Italy, where 200000 young people are without work, will not be eligible for the funding, in view of the fact that the region has a youth unemployment rate of 8.6%, which is below the 25% threshold set by the European Council?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-009020-13

Labour, employment and pensions

At its meeting of 27 and 28June2013, the European Council agreed, in line with the Youth Employment Initiative guidelines, that EUR6billion should be made available from 1January2014 for action to combat youth unemployment. It also held out the possibility of increasing that sum to EUR8billion. At the same time, however, it decided that only European regions with youth unemployment rates of more than 25% would be eligible for the funding. Can the Commission say whether the above information is correct? In particular, will European regions with youth unemployment rates of less than 25% not be eligible? More specifically, can it confirm that the Veneto region of Italy, where 200000 young people are without work, will not be eligible for the funding, in view of the fact that the region has a youth unemployment rate of 8.6%, which is below the 25% threshold set by the European Council?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Several EU Member States have taken various restricting measures against citizens arriving from Romania, including the requirement to self-isolate. These measures were imposed unilaterally, without adequately informing in advance the citizens who were at that point in Romania. Imposing such measures, in the absence of appropriate coordination, can create difficult, sometimes serious, situations for the people affected by them.What does the European Commission intend to do to ensure that such impositions will no longer happen without appropriate communication?I believe a common European standard should be prepared for such situations, and ask the European Commission for information on whether the European authorities envisage such a concept.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-004085/2020

Labour, employment and pensions

Several EU Member States have taken various restricting measures against citizens arriving from Romania, including the requirement to self-isolate. These measures were imposed unilaterally, without adequately informing in advance the citizens who were at that point in Romania. Imposing such measures, in the absence of appropriate coordination, can create difficult, sometimes serious, situations for the people affected by them.What does the European Commission intend to do to ensure that such impositions will no longer happen without appropriate communication?I believe a common European standard should be prepared for such situations, and ask the European Commission for information on whether the European authorities envisage such a concept.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "In the context of Brexit, workers, academics and students from EU Member States, including Greece, living in the UK face a serious and tangible threat to their residence status and employment and social security rights. Employers are already taking advantage of their need to conclude employment contracts in order to secure residence permits and demanding a heavy price. The aim of this attack is to squeeze wages and crack down on collective bargaining, a goal pursued both by the EU and national governments, by promoting corresponding anti-employment measures in the Member States. It is being mooted that students will see an increase in university tuition fees and lose access to grants, as they will be treated uniformly as foreign students in the UK.There is also uncertainty about the right, in the context of the EU, to free public health, which is already under pressure, with the possibility of new extortionate fees or compulsory private social security being imposed.Given that, with the coronavirus pandemic acting as catalyst, we are heading for a new crisis of capitalism, which will further aggravate the plight of workers and the poor, will the Commission say:how does it view the need to safeguard:the employment and social security rights of workers, academics and students and free public health for the citizens of the EU Member States living in the UK?the corresponding rights of British citizens - workers, academics and students - in the EU Member States?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-002596/2020

Labour, employment and pensions

In the context of Brexit, workers, academics and students from EU Member States, including Greece, living in the UK face a serious and tangible threat to their residence status and employment and social security rights. Employers are already taking advantage of their need to conclude employment contracts in order to secure residence permits and demanding a heavy price. The aim of this attack is to squeeze wages and crack down on collective bargaining, a goal pursued both by the EU and national governments, by promoting corresponding anti-employment measures in the Member States. It is being mooted that students will see an increase in university tuition fees and lose access to grants, as they will be treated uniformly as foreign students in the UK.There is also uncertainty about the right, in the context of the EU, to free public health, which is already under pressure, with the possibility of new extortionate fees or compulsory private social security being imposed.Given that, with the coronavirus pandemic acting as catalyst, we are heading for a new crisis of capitalism, which will further aggravate the plight of workers and the poor, will the Commission say:how does it view the need to safeguard:the employment and social security rights of workers, academics and students and free public health for the citizens of the EU Member States living in the UK?the corresponding rights of British citizens - workers, academics and students - in the EU Member States?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "One of the five objectives of Europe 2020, theEU strategy for intelligent, sustainable and integrating growth, is to reduce poverty, saving at least 20million people from the risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2020. Countries with the lowest statutory minimum wages (under 20% of what is considered to be a minimum decent wage) are: Georgia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania and the Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey. Data released in 2013 revealed that the statutory minimum wages in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania are lower than those in China; and those in Moldova and Ukraine are lower than those in Indonesia. The wages paid to women working in the textile industry are well below the subsistence minimum, and even further below the decent minimum. Out of all these countries, the lowest net wages fail to reach 30% of what is considered to be a minimum decent wage. What mechanisms are in place or are going to be put in place to rectify this dismal situation and to meet the Europe 2020 objectives?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-009439-16

Labour, employment and pensions

One of the five objectives of Europe 2020, theEU strategy for intelligent, sustainable and integrating growth, is to reduce poverty, saving at least 20million people from the risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2020. Countries with the lowest statutory minimum wages (under 20% of what is considered to be a minimum decent wage) are: Georgia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania and the Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey. Data released in 2013 revealed that the statutory minimum wages in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania are lower than those in China; and those in Moldova and Ukraine are lower than those in Indonesia. The wages paid to women working in the textile industry are well below the subsistence minimum, and even further below the decent minimum. Out of all these countries, the lowest net wages fail to reach 30% of what is considered to be a minimum decent wage. What mechanisms are in place or are going to be put in place to rectify this dismal situation and to meet the Europe 2020 objectives?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Youth unemployment is a problem that has been affecting the Union for many years, and the pandemic has further contributed by reducing the number of jobs for people under 30 without work experience. To help young people integrate more easily into the labour market, Member States have introduced apprenticeship schemes.The apprenticeships function as a state employment aid that can offer incentives to employers or public services, to the mutual benefit of both the employer and the young candidate for the apprenticeship. During the apprenticeship, employers train and invest in the future workforce, while the apprentice acquires knowledge and experience and enjoys full employment rights. Apprentices are thus given the opportunity to be financially rewarded while improving their professional skills.Given that apprenticeships are a concrete, proven and successful form of assistance to young people in gaining their first work experience, they need to be bolstered by increasing the intensity of the scheme, for which the Commission has clear powers. This is especially evident for countries that had high youth unemployment even before the pandemic. This would encourage employers to use it more often and provide opportunities for young people to find their first job.In light of the above, what does the Commission plan to do to approve an increase in the availability of apprenticeship schemes in the private sector, particularly in countries with higher youth unemployment such as Croatia?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-000602/2021

Labour, employment and pensions

Youth unemployment is a problem that has been affecting the Union for many years, and the pandemic has further contributed by reducing the number of jobs for people under 30 without work experience. To help young people integrate more easily into the labour market, Member States have introduced apprenticeship schemes.The apprenticeships function as a state employment aid that can offer incentives to employers or public services, to the mutual benefit of both the employer and the young candidate for the apprenticeship. During the apprenticeship, employers train and invest in the future workforce, while the apprentice acquires knowledge and experience and enjoys full employment rights. Apprentices are thus given the opportunity to be financially rewarded while improving their professional skills.Given that apprenticeships are a concrete, proven and successful form of assistance to young people in gaining their first work experience, they need to be bolstered by increasing the intensity of the scheme, for which the Commission has clear powers. This is especially evident for countries that had high youth unemployment even before the pandemic. This would encourage employers to use it more often and provide opportunities for young people to find their first job.In light of the above, what does the Commission plan to do to approve an increase in the availability of apprenticeship schemes in the private sector, particularly in countries with higher youth unemployment such as Croatia?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "It has recently been brought to my attention that, in the UK, pensioners have a proportion of their pension withdrawn from them for every week over 6 weeks that they spend in hospital. As a result of pressure from various groups, that period will be increased to 11 weeks in October 2003. This creates problems for many pensioners, since time spent in hospital does not necessarily reduce monthly outgoings (e.g. rent payments). It appears to me that, since pensions constitute social security payments, and are thus an entitlement based on a percentage of wages paid in over the years rather than a social welfare benefit which is awarded according to need, there is no justification for reducing pension payments during time spent in hospital. Does the Commission agree that pensions are entitlements based on contributions made to the social security system rather than social welfare benefits? Does the Commission agree that stopping pensions payments during time spent in hospital penalises pensioners in this position and may therefore be deemed to be discriminatory? Can the Commission give its view on this UK practice? Is the Commission aware of any similar rules in place in other Member States?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-0427/03

Labour, employment and pensions

It has recently been brought to my attention that, in the UK, pensioners have a proportion of their pension withdrawn from them for every week over 6 weeks that they spend in hospital. As a result of pressure from various groups, that period will be increased to 11 weeks in October 2003. This creates problems for many pensioners, since time spent in hospital does not necessarily reduce monthly outgoings (e.g. rent payments). It appears to me that, since pensions constitute social security payments, and are thus an entitlement based on a percentage of wages paid in over the years rather than a social welfare benefit which is awarded according to need, there is no justification for reducing pension payments during time spent in hospital. Does the Commission agree that pensions are entitlements based on contributions made to the social security system rather than social welfare benefits? Does the Commission agree that stopping pensions payments during time spent in hospital penalises pensioners in this position and may therefore be deemed to be discriminatory? Can the Commission give its view on this UK practice? Is the Commission aware of any similar rules in place in other Member States?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The temporary restrictions imposed on the free movement of Romanian and Bulgarian workers should be lifted in all EU Member States as of 1January2014. These are currently being applied fully or partially by nine Member States. One Member State has announced that it wishes to find ways to extend the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian workers. Can the Commission specify whether a Member State can introduce unilateral restrictions on the labour market and what recourse does it have in mind to prevent such measures?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-000695-13

Labour, employment and pensions

The temporary restrictions imposed on the free movement of Romanian and Bulgarian workers should be lifted in all EU Member States as of 1January2014. These are currently being applied fully or partially by nine Member States. One Member State has announced that it wishes to find ways to extend the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian workers. Can the Commission specify whether a Member State can introduce unilateral restrictions on the labour market and what recourse does it have in mind to prevent such measures?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The situation endured by economically-dependent self-employed workers in Spain is atrocious, particularly in Galicia, as a result of their working conditions, which are poor and becoming intolerable, even exploitative in terms of working hours, wages and job security. There are several reports of breaches of EU rules. 1.What is the European strategy for the assessment of the contracts of such self-employed workers? 2.Can the Commission say how such contracts are dealt with in other Member States? 3.Does it intend to ascertain whether Spain is in breach of EU rules?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-002339-16

Labour, employment and pensions

The situation endured by economically-dependent self-employed workers in Spain is atrocious, particularly in Galicia, as a result of their working conditions, which are poor and becoming intolerable, even exploitative in terms of working hours, wages and job security. There are several reports of breaches of EU rules. 1.What is the European strategy for the assessment of the contracts of such self-employed workers? 2.Can the Commission say how such contracts are dealt with in other Member States? 3.Does it intend to ascertain whether Spain is in breach of EU rules?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The Commission published its guidelines(1) for seasonal workers. Agricultural workers(2) in Europe are often the victims of difficult and precarious working conditions(3) . This is not a new development, and the situation has worsened(4) during the COVID-19 outbreak, when thousands of Romanian citizens have been hired, sometimes in precarious conditions. In its resolution(5) Parliament denounced cases of numerous companies that have not implemented precautionary protocols, in direct defiance of measures adopted by national authorities. Measures to protect workers’ health are often weak, non-existent or simply disregarded. In certain regions, thousands of seasonal workers live segregated in deplorable housing conditions such as rudimentary shelters, often without electricity, running water or sanitation. Seasonal workers have little choice as their economic prospects are limited. Taking advantage of economically vulnerable citizens is unacceptable.1.Is the Commission aware of these abuses against thousands of seasonal workers?2.What concrete action is the Commission taking to ensure the full implementation by Member States of the guidelines on the free movement of critical workers during the COVID-19 outbreak, and the respect of their fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights(6) ?3.What steps has the Commission taken to promote the ratification of ILO Convention 184(7) (Safety and Health in Agriculture) among those Member States that have not yet done so, or that choose to disregard its inconvenient aspects? (1)https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/coronavirus-seasonal-workers-included-new-guidelines-ensure-free-movement-critical-workers-2020-marzo-30_en (2)https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/629209/IPOL_STU(2019)629209_EN.pdf (3)https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/publication/file/2020-05/Covid-19%20Briefing%20Seasonal%20Workers%20Final.pdf (4)https://www.politico.eu/article/pandemic-puts-squeeze-on-europes-seasonal-workers/ (5)https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2020-0172_EN.html (6)https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT (7)https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C184". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-003647/2020/rev.1

Labour, employment and pensions

The Commission published its guidelines(1) for seasonal workers. Agricultural workers(2) in Europe are often the victims of difficult and precarious working conditions(3) . This is not a new development, and the situation has worsened(4) during the COVID-19 outbreak, when thousands of Romanian citizens have been hired, sometimes in precarious conditions. In its resolution(5) Parliament denounced cases of numerous companies that have not implemented precautionary protocols, in direct defiance of measures adopted by national authorities. Measures to protect workers’ health are often weak, non-existent or simply disregarded. In certain regions, thousands of seasonal workers live segregated in deplorable housing conditions such as rudimentary shelters, often without electricity, running water or sanitation. Seasonal workers have little choice as their economic prospects are limited. Taking advantage of economically vulnerable citizens is unacceptable.1.Is the Commission aware of these abuses against thousands of seasonal workers?2.What concrete action is the Commission taking to ensure the full implementation by Member States of the guidelines on the free movement of critical workers during the COVID-19 outbreak, and the respect of their fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights(6) ?3.What steps has the Commission taken to promote the ratification of ILO Convention 184(7) (Safety and Health in Agriculture) among those Member States that have not yet done so, or that choose to disregard its inconvenient aspects? (1)https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/coronavirus-seasonal-workers-included-new-guidelines-ensure-free-movement-critical-workers-2020-marzo-30_en (2)https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/629209/IPOL_STU(2019)629209_EN.pdf (3)https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/publication/file/2020-05/Covid-19%20Briefing%20Seasonal%20Workers%20Final.pdf (4)https://www.politico.eu/article/pandemic-puts-squeeze-on-europes-seasonal-workers/ (5)https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2020-0172_EN.html (6)https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT (7)https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C184

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "According to an investigation by the Investigate Europe(1) network (published in 12 media outlets in 10 European countries), the proposal to create a ‘Pan-European Pension Product (PEPP)’ currently being discussed in the relevant committees of the European Parliament is inspired by BlackRock, a company managing USDUS 6 trillion, 80% of which comes from pensions, as its executives claim. According to Investigate Europe, back in February2015, BlackRock had publicly announced to the Commission the creation of a ‘cross-border personal pension plan in the framework of a road map to the Capital Markets Union’, a project unveiled two years later by Commission Vice-Presidents V. Dombrovskis and J. Katainen. During 2017, according to the same investigation, MrDombrovskis twice met Blackrock executives, while representatives of the company had a series of meetings with seniorDG FISMA officials(2). Will the Commission say: Can it confirm the meetings mentioned in the investigation and, if so, say what they were about? According to which criteria is it funding, through ‘Horizon 2020’, the ‘Resaver’ project(3), the first private pan-European pension product, which is managed, inter alia, by BlackRock? (1)http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/i-blackrock-i-komision-kai-o-thanatos-toy-kratoys-pronoias (2)Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union. (3)Resaver was set up in 2014 by a consortium of university and research institutes from 11 European countries with the aim of developing a private pension product, mainly for researchers frequently moving within theEU. See in this connection the website http://www.resaver.eu/". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-003254-18

Labour, employment and pensions

According to an investigation by the Investigate Europe(1) network (published in 12 media outlets in 10 European countries), the proposal to create a ‘Pan-European Pension Product (PEPP)’ currently being discussed in the relevant committees of the European Parliament is inspired by BlackRock, a company managing USDUS 6 trillion, 80% of which comes from pensions, as its executives claim. According to Investigate Europe, back in February2015, BlackRock had publicly announced to the Commission the creation of a ‘cross-border personal pension plan in the framework of a road map to the Capital Markets Union’, a project unveiled two years later by Commission Vice-Presidents V. Dombrovskis and J. Katainen. During 2017, according to the same investigation, MrDombrovskis twice met Blackrock executives, while representatives of the company had a series of meetings with seniorDG FISMA officials(2). Will the Commission say: Can it confirm the meetings mentioned in the investigation and, if so, say what they were about? According to which criteria is it funding, through ‘Horizon 2020’, the ‘Resaver’ project(3), the first private pan-European pension product, which is managed, inter alia, by BlackRock? (1)http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/i-blackrock-i-komision-kai-o-thanatos-toy-kratoys-pronoias (2)Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union. (3)Resaver was set up in 2014 by a consortium of university and research institutes from 11 European countries with the aim of developing a private pension product, mainly for researchers frequently moving within theEU. See in this connection the website http://www.resaver.eu/

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "According to the monthly statistics produced by the Institute for Employment and Vocational Training, 4929 inhabitants of the Azores were registered in Employment Programmes for those islands in December2014. In fact, this has simply removed almost 5000 jobless from the unemployment statistics, assigning them on a permanent basis to tasks for which they are grossly underpaid. For example, the ‘beneficiaries’ of the programme for social inclusion benefit claimants work 80 hours a month for EUR100, which is blatant exploitation. Furthermore, the Employment Programmes are of great benefit to the public sector, effectively sparing it the need to recruit staff to meet ongoing requirements. In view of this: 1. Can the Commission say whether these Employment Programmes are receiving EU funding? 2. Does it consider this to be in line with its frequently reiterated pronouncements regarding the need for the creation of quality jobs? What is its assessment of the situation?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-005743-15

Labour, employment and pensions

According to the monthly statistics produced by the Institute for Employment and Vocational Training, 4929 inhabitants of the Azores were registered in Employment Programmes for those islands in December2014. In fact, this has simply removed almost 5000 jobless from the unemployment statistics, assigning them on a permanent basis to tasks for which they are grossly underpaid. For example, the ‘beneficiaries’ of the programme for social inclusion benefit claimants work 80 hours a month for EUR100, which is blatant exploitation. Furthermore, the Employment Programmes are of great benefit to the public sector, effectively sparing it the need to recruit staff to meet ongoing requirements. In view of this: 1. Can the Commission say whether these Employment Programmes are receiving EU funding? 2. Does it consider this to be in line with its frequently reiterated pronouncements regarding the need for the creation of quality jobs? What is its assessment of the situation?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "An Austrian firm contracts out workers, the majority of whom are from Austria or the other current Member States of the EU, to companies in the EU, including some in the South Tyrol. The authorities in the South Tyrol have pointed out on numerous occasions that workers from Austria and the rest of the EU require work permits. This decision is impeding the activities of the firm concerned. 1. Is it possible that work permits are required in Italy on the basis of existing transitional arrangements, for example? 2. Or are the Italian authorities in breach of the law by impeding the activities of the Austrian firm?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-0870/04

Labour, employment and pensions

An Austrian firm contracts out workers, the majority of whom are from Austria or the other current Member States of the EU, to companies in the EU, including some in the South Tyrol. The authorities in the South Tyrol have pointed out on numerous occasions that workers from Austria and the rest of the EU require work permits. This decision is impeding the activities of the firm concerned. 1. Is it possible that work permits are required in Italy on the basis of existing transitional arrangements, for example? 2. Or are the Italian authorities in breach of the law by impeding the activities of the Austrian firm?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The Greek Government recently unveiled the Ariadne project concerning the compulsory registration of certificates for deaths, births, marriages and divorces with not only the authorities responsible to date but also a notary’s office, which would be required to inform the relevant insurance funds accordingly. This decision is in no way related to the much-debated government ‘rationalisation’ measures, since, instead of the procedures being completed automatically (for example, ensuring that municipal registry offices inform insurance companies directly of any developments), it will, on the contrary, further complicate them, causing additional inconvenience and expense to members of the public. The inefficiency and wastage involved emerges even more clearly in the light of the ‘National Registry Office’ project costing around EUR44million in total, forming part of the 2007-2013 Operational Programme for Digital Convergence and intended to ensure that all new certificates entered with or issued by local registry offices, as well as the majority of existing registry office certificates issued in Greece are recorded, amended and monitored systematically as the events occur. In view of this: 1. Can the Commission indicate whether the ‘National Registry Office’ project and related sub-projects have been completed? If not, why not? When is it expected that the project will be completed and will enter into operation? What percentage of the funding earmarked for this purpose has been utilised? 2. Is there any connection between the Ariadne and ‘National Registry Office’ projects? Will they cover different needs? If not, why are they both necessary? 3. Will this recent government decision have any impact on implementation of the co-funded ‘National Registry Office’ project? Will there be any rescheduling or delay in the implementation thereof? Will additional funding be necessary for any changes involved?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-009351-12

Labour, employment and pensions

The Greek Government recently unveiled the Ariadne project concerning the compulsory registration of certificates for deaths, births, marriages and divorces with not only the authorities responsible to date but also a notary’s office, which would be required to inform the relevant insurance funds accordingly. This decision is in no way related to the much-debated government ‘rationalisation’ measures, since, instead of the procedures being completed automatically (for example, ensuring that municipal registry offices inform insurance companies directly of any developments), it will, on the contrary, further complicate them, causing additional inconvenience and expense to members of the public. The inefficiency and wastage involved emerges even more clearly in the light of the ‘National Registry Office’ project costing around EUR44million in total, forming part of the 2007-2013 Operational Programme for Digital Convergence and intended to ensure that all new certificates entered with or issued by local registry offices, as well as the majority of existing registry office certificates issued in Greece are recorded, amended and monitored systematically as the events occur. In view of this: 1. Can the Commission indicate whether the ‘National Registry Office’ project and related sub-projects have been completed? If not, why not? When is it expected that the project will be completed and will enter into operation? What percentage of the funding earmarked for this purpose has been utilised? 2. Is there any connection between the Ariadne and ‘National Registry Office’ projects? Will they cover different needs? If not, why are they both necessary? 3. Will this recent government decision have any impact on implementation of the co-funded ‘National Registry Office’ project? Will there be any rescheduling or delay in the implementation thereof? Will additional funding be necessary for any changes involved?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "How many EU officials aged 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 retired in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities? How many Austrian and how many German EU officials retired in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities? How many German and how many Austrian EU officials aged 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 retired in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities? How many EU officials aged between 50 and 55, 56 and 60, 61 and 65 and over 65 retired in 2006, 2007 and 2008? What was the average retirement age of all EU officials who took early retirement in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities? What was the average retirement age of all Austrian EU officials who took early retirement in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-0961/09

Labour, employment and pensions

How many EU officials aged 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 retired in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities? How many Austrian and how many German EU officials retired in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities? How many German and how many Austrian EU officials aged 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 retired in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities? How many EU officials aged between 50 and 55, 56 and 60, 61 and 65 and over 65 retired in 2006, 2007 and 2008? What was the average retirement age of all EU officials who took early retirement in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities? What was the average retirement age of all Austrian EU officials who took early retirement in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in accordance with Article23 of AnnexXIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "To ask the Commission if it can provide figures on the number of workers in all sectors of the nuclear industry who have suffered or are suffering from occupational diseases, the role, if any, of national cancer registers in monitoring the health of workers in the nuclear industry, particularly as regards thyroid cancer, and if it will provide details of the results of monitoring the health of workers in the UK involved in the nuclear industry.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-3115/95

Labour, employment and pensions

To ask the Commission if it can provide figures on the number of workers in all sectors of the nuclear industry who have suffered or are suffering from occupational diseases, the role, if any, of national cancer registers in monitoring the health of workers in the nuclear industry, particularly as regards thyroid cancer, and if it will provide details of the results of monitoring the health of workers in the UK involved in the nuclear industry.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The Commission has proposed certain measures that would provide EU workers with greater freedom to move, based on the Commission report entitled ‘Internal Market: Awareness, Perceptions, and Impacts’. One of the proposed measures is to create channels for EU employers and workers which would provide them with information, assistance, and advice about their rights. In many instances, EU citizens are unaware of how to access information relating to the protection of their rights. How does the Commission propose to implement this initiative? What is the foreseen timescale for the implementation of this initiative? How does the Commission envisage the harmonious implementation of the proposed measures, particularly in relation to Member States which are reluctant to allow EU workers from other Member States enter their labour markets?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-006353-13

Labour, employment and pensions

The Commission has proposed certain measures that would provide EU workers with greater freedom to move, based on the Commission report entitled ‘Internal Market: Awareness, Perceptions, and Impacts’. One of the proposed measures is to create channels for EU employers and workers which would provide them with information, assistance, and advice about their rights. In many instances, EU citizens are unaware of how to access information relating to the protection of their rights. How does the Commission propose to implement this initiative? What is the foreseen timescale for the implementation of this initiative? How does the Commission envisage the harmonious implementation of the proposed measures, particularly in relation to Member States which are reluctant to allow EU workers from other Member States enter their labour markets?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "It is regrettable that the social partners (UNICE and ETUC) failed to reach an agreement on temporary work in May. At the same time, it is important to note that private employment agencies play a vital role in the European social economy. Private employment agencies could considerably contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon objectives of increasing the employment rate from 60 % to 70 % over ten years. However, a prerequisite is that EU governments remove outdated restrictions that often have the sole effect of preventing job-seekers from getting quality jobs. With regard to the Commission's current drafting of a Directive on agency work, it is of vital importance that the Commission consults the sectoral dialogue committee already set up between CIETT (the trade association of private employment agencies) and UNI Europa (the sectoral union) before deciding on a draft Directive. It would be regrettable if the Commission pressed ahead with its drafting of a Directive without giving due attention to this reasonable request. Can the Commission guarantee that such consultations will take place in the near future?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-2547/01

Labour, employment and pensions

It is regrettable that the social partners (UNICE and ETUC) failed to reach an agreement on temporary work in May. At the same time, it is important to note that private employment agencies play a vital role in the European social economy. Private employment agencies could considerably contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon objectives of increasing the employment rate from 60 % to 70 % over ten years. However, a prerequisite is that EU governments remove outdated restrictions that often have the sole effect of preventing job-seekers from getting quality jobs. With regard to the Commission's current drafting of a Directive on agency work, it is of vital importance that the Commission consults the sectoral dialogue committee already set up between CIETT (the trade association of private employment agencies) and UNI Europa (the sectoral union) before deciding on a draft Directive. It would be regrettable if the Commission pressed ahead with its drafting of a Directive without giving due attention to this reasonable request. Can the Commission guarantee that such consultations will take place in the near future?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Council Directive 89/391/EEC(1) of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work states, in its Article 5, that """"""""the employer shall have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work."""""""" Despite this, in Portugal work-related tendinitis has been on the rise since 1992. In 1994, 150 employees of Ford Electrónica were already suffering from this disease. Today, in the electrical sector and in southern Portugal alone, 1500 workers aged under 30, employed by such firms as Visteon (formerly Ford Electrónica), Indelma, Delphi, Deta, Pioneer, Samsung, Legrand Eléctrica and Tyco, have been confirmed as suffering from tendinitis, and the same fate could soon await thousands of others. One of the factors common to enterprises where tendinitis is rife is the so-called """"""""modernisation"""""""" of work. The labour process is characterised by mechanisation, fragmentation of production and a high degree of specialisation. This means an increase in the number of tasks which place high physical demands on the hands, arms and shoulders and which call for fast, exact and repetitive movements, which may require considerable straining, difficult postures and the use of force. In spite of the warnings issued and proposals made by the trade union for the sector, on the basis of studies and scientific opinions emanating from specialists and national and international organisations, it is clear that not a single one of the companies located in Portugal in which there is a high incidence of tendinitis has introduced any kind of workplace health and safety programme aimed at preventing repetitive strain injuries. On the contrary, the workers affected are expected, after treatment and convalescence, to return to work under the same conditions as created the illness in the first place; and if they are replaced, it is by new workers who will very soon develop similar illnesses and, over time, become victims of occupational disease. Can the Commission state whether it is aware of this situation, how far it believes it is compatible with EU legislation, and what type of action is provided for in EU law to ensure that suitable health and safety conditions are created in workplaces with a view to preventing the development of injuries of this kind? (1)OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-2058/01

Labour, employment and pensions

Council Directive 89/391/EEC(1) of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work states, in its Article 5, that """"""""the employer shall have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work."""""""" Despite this, in Portugal work-related tendinitis has been on the rise since 1992. In 1994, 150 employees of Ford Electrónica were already suffering from this disease. Today, in the electrical sector and in southern Portugal alone, 1500 workers aged under 30, employed by such firms as Visteon (formerly Ford Electrónica), Indelma, Delphi, Deta, Pioneer, Samsung, Legrand Eléctrica and Tyco, have been confirmed as suffering from tendinitis, and the same fate could soon await thousands of others. One of the factors common to enterprises where tendinitis is rife is the so-called """"""""modernisation"""""""" of work. The labour process is characterised by mechanisation, fragmentation of production and a high degree of specialisation. This means an increase in the number of tasks which place high physical demands on the hands, arms and shoulders and which call for fast, exact and repetitive movements, which may require considerable straining, difficult postures and the use of force. In spite of the warnings issued and proposals made by the trade union for the sector, on the basis of studies and scientific opinions emanating from specialists and national and international organisations, it is clear that not a single one of the companies located in Portugal in which there is a high incidence of tendinitis has introduced any kind of workplace health and safety programme aimed at preventing repetitive strain injuries. On the contrary, the workers affected are expected, after treatment and convalescence, to return to work under the same conditions as created the illness in the first place; and if they are replaced, it is by new workers who will very soon develop similar illnesses and, over time, become victims of occupational disease. Can the Commission state whether it is aware of this situation, how far it believes it is compatible with EU legislation, and what type of action is provided for in EU law to ensure that suitable health and safety conditions are created in workplaces with a view to preventing the development of injuries of this kind? (1)OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Will the Commission consider giving longer application deadlines and greater publicity to the ESF bidding process, to allow quality bids to be presented?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-0342/96

Labour, employment and pensions

Will the Commission consider giving longer application deadlines and greater publicity to the ESF bidding process, to allow quality bids to be presented?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "On 16 March 1994 the Commission decided to carry out a general policy review with regard to temporary staff between that date and the summer of 1994. Pending this policy review, the initial duration for new contracts was set at three years as a precautionary measure. Is it true that the Commission has announced its intention of implementing this decision also with regard to staff including staff recruited by selection procedures (Article 2(a) of the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities) advertised in the press and the Official Journal explicitly providing for extension of the contracts beyond the three-year period up to five years? Is it true that, over two years after this decision was announced, the new policy guidelines have not yet been introduced? If this is the case, what is the Commission's justification for maintaining the three-year limit on contracts, given that this precautionary measure was clearly dependent on a review which it failed to complete in time? Is the Commission aware of the social problems arising from lack of security under the Staff Regulations which, in the absence of new policy guidelines for temporary staff, is affecting a large number of current employees?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-2606/96

Labour, employment and pensions

On 16 March 1994 the Commission decided to carry out a general policy review with regard to temporary staff between that date and the summer of 1994. Pending this policy review, the initial duration for new contracts was set at three years as a precautionary measure. Is it true that the Commission has announced its intention of implementing this decision also with regard to staff including staff recruited by selection procedures (Article 2(a) of the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities) advertised in the press and the Official Journal explicitly providing for extension of the contracts beyond the three-year period up to five years? Is it true that, over two years after this decision was announced, the new policy guidelines have not yet been introduced? If this is the case, what is the Commission's justification for maintaining the three-year limit on contracts, given that this precautionary measure was clearly dependent on a review which it failed to complete in time? Is the Commission aware of the social problems arising from lack of security under the Staff Regulations which, in the absence of new policy guidelines for temporary staff, is affecting a large number of current employees?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The European Offender Employment Group is continuing its work to encourage a higher priority to be given to the reintegration of offenders and to work for improvements in the quality and quantity of work undertaken. How is the Commission ensuring that this important initiative receives the attention it requires to be effective in its objective?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-1073/97

Labour, employment and pensions

The European Offender Employment Group is continuing its work to encourage a higher priority to be given to the reintegration of offenders and to work for improvements in the quality and quantity of work undertaken. How is the Commission ensuring that this important initiative receives the attention it requires to be effective in its objective?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Safeguarding the physical and mental health of workers is not only a right sanctioned in the constitutions of many Member States, but also a fundamental principle for the organisation and development of labour. Everywhere there are instances of harassment and the absence of a healthy structure for industry, which damages the economy and business and seriously wastes economic resources. The smooth functioning of the world of work is not only a moral issue, but also a factor in general economic growth. In resolution A5-0283/2001(1) on harassment at the workplace, adopted in September 2001, the European Parliament pointed out that the problems associated with bullying at work are still probably underestimated in many quarters within the Union and thus urged the Commission to consider a clarification or extension of the scope of the framework directive on health and safety at work or, alternatively, the drafting of a new framework directive as a legal instrument to combat bullying. Four years on, can the Commission say: 1. what action has been taken since 2001 both horizontally and more specifically, to curb this phenomenon at European level; 2. whether, in the context of the Lisbon strategy for the next five years, it considers that specific measures should be considered in order to harmonise existing legislation in the 25 Member States and to introduce a monitoring system at European level (e.g. a network consisting of the existing national observatories or using the existing European Working Conditions Observatory (EWCO); 3. bearing in mind that the 2003 report ‘Preventing violence and harassment at the workplace’, drawn up by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, identified a series of good practices designed to prevent and control the phenomena of harassment and violence at the workplace, what other studies have been carried out and, above all, how the results obtained have been translated into tangible measures aimed at introducing European legislation on the subject? (1)OJ C 77 E, 28.3.2002, p. 138.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-0418/05

Labour, employment and pensions

Safeguarding the physical and mental health of workers is not only a right sanctioned in the constitutions of many Member States, but also a fundamental principle for the organisation and development of labour. Everywhere there are instances of harassment and the absence of a healthy structure for industry, which damages the economy and business and seriously wastes economic resources. The smooth functioning of the world of work is not only a moral issue, but also a factor in general economic growth. In resolution A5-0283/2001(1) on harassment at the workplace, adopted in September 2001, the European Parliament pointed out that the problems associated with bullying at work are still probably underestimated in many quarters within the Union and thus urged the Commission to consider a clarification or extension of the scope of the framework directive on health and safety at work or, alternatively, the drafting of a new framework directive as a legal instrument to combat bullying. Four years on, can the Commission say: 1. what action has been taken since 2001 both horizontally and more specifically, to curb this phenomenon at European level; 2. whether, in the context of the Lisbon strategy for the next five years, it considers that specific measures should be considered in order to harmonise existing legislation in the 25 Member States and to introduce a monitoring system at European level (e.g. a network consisting of the existing national observatories or using the existing European Working Conditions Observatory (EWCO); 3. bearing in mind that the 2003 report ‘Preventing violence and harassment at the workplace’, drawn up by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, identified a series of good practices designed to prevent and control the phenomena of harassment and violence at the workplace, what other studies have been carried out and, above all, how the results obtained have been translated into tangible measures aimed at introducing European legislation on the subject? (1)OJ C 77 E, 28.3.2002, p. 138.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The Spanish Government has recently begun the process of reforming current employment law. Two of the main measures it aims to carry out are, firstly, to raise the age of retirement by two years from the current statutory limit of 65years to 67, and secondly to increase the number of years worked for entitlement to a pension. These measures will involve cutting the future pensions of millions of Spanish citizens. Like the Spanish Government, the governments of various other Member States have announced or introduced reforms delaying the retirement age of their citizens. Thus the French Government of President Sarkozy, after ignoring seven mass general strikes, put up the retirement age for French workers by two years from 60 to 62, and the Hungarian Government did the same, raising it to 65. These measures, together with a series of reforms that are damaging to workers’ rights under current employment law, are in practice an indirect way of boosting the phenomenon of ‘social dumping’ between EU Member States, because by making use of the current freedom of movement of workers and capital, companies will relocate their industries to Member States with less social protection for workers. The main consequence will be to launch a competitive process to cut back the employment rights and social protection of citizens. Bearing in mind that the European Union claims as one of its characteristic features its high level of protection for workers and the recognition of greater social rights for citizens, and that standardising the retirement age throughout theEU Member States would avoid this real loss of state sovereignty in favour of businesses, Is the Commission planning to curb this phenomenon of social dumping by proposing a directive for the Community-wide regulation of the retirement age, and to take practical steps to protect the social rights of European citizens? Could the Commission provide details of the retirement age and number of years worked for entitlement to a pension in each EU Member State?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-000911/2011

Labour, employment and pensions

The Spanish Government has recently begun the process of reforming current employment law. Two of the main measures it aims to carry out are, firstly, to raise the age of retirement by two years from the current statutory limit of 65years to 67, and secondly to increase the number of years worked for entitlement to a pension. These measures will involve cutting the future pensions of millions of Spanish citizens. Like the Spanish Government, the governments of various other Member States have announced or introduced reforms delaying the retirement age of their citizens. Thus the French Government of President Sarkozy, after ignoring seven mass general strikes, put up the retirement age for French workers by two years from 60 to 62, and the Hungarian Government did the same, raising it to 65. These measures, together with a series of reforms that are damaging to workers’ rights under current employment law, are in practice an indirect way of boosting the phenomenon of ‘social dumping’ between EU Member States, because by making use of the current freedom of movement of workers and capital, companies will relocate their industries to Member States with less social protection for workers. The main consequence will be to launch a competitive process to cut back the employment rights and social protection of citizens. Bearing in mind that the European Union claims as one of its characteristic features its high level of protection for workers and the recognition of greater social rights for citizens, and that standardising the retirement age throughout theEU Member States would avoid this real loss of state sovereignty in favour of businesses, Is the Commission planning to curb this phenomenon of social dumping by proposing a directive for the Community-wide regulation of the retirement age, and to take practical steps to protect the social rights of European citizens? Could the Commission provide details of the retirement age and number of years worked for entitlement to a pension in each EU Member State?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "On30March 229 employees of Nortel Networks (UK) Limited were invited to a meeting to be heldto ‘discuss restructuring’. On 30March the employees were told that they were redundant, that their contracts were terminated immediately and that they should collect their belongings and leave. They were also told that the company would pay no redundancy and would not pay contractual or statutory notice. No consultation took place prior to this date. The only support available to employees is a very limited payout from the Government. Does the Commission believe that Nortel Networks (UK) Limited acted in breach of Directive14/2002/EC(1) establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community? Does the Commission believe that the British Government has adequately transposed the above Directive? Does the Commission believe that Nortel Networks (UK) Limited acted in breach of Directive98/59/EC(2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies? Does the Commission believe that the British Government has adequately transposed the above Directive? What action does the Commission intend to take in order to enforce the application of these Directives? (1)OJL80, 23.3.2002, p.29. (2)OJL225, 12.8.1998, p.16.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-4162/09

Labour, employment and pensions

On30March 229 employees of Nortel Networks (UK) Limited were invited to a meeting to be heldto ‘discuss restructuring’. On 30March the employees were told that they were redundant, that their contracts were terminated immediately and that they should collect their belongings and leave. They were also told that the company would pay no redundancy and would not pay contractual or statutory notice. No consultation took place prior to this date. The only support available to employees is a very limited payout from the Government. Does the Commission believe that Nortel Networks (UK) Limited acted in breach of Directive14/2002/EC(1) establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community? Does the Commission believe that the British Government has adequately transposed the above Directive? Does the Commission believe that Nortel Networks (UK) Limited acted in breach of Directive98/59/EC(2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies? Does the Commission believe that the British Government has adequately transposed the above Directive? What action does the Commission intend to take in order to enforce the application of these Directives? (1)OJL80, 23.3.2002, p.29. (2)OJL225, 12.8.1998, p.16.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Reducing unemployment and increasing employability were the central arguments used by supporters of flexible modes of employment, even when applied to the most extremely precarious employment situation. According to recent Eurostat statistics, the rate of unemployment in Europe exceeds 10.2% (10.8% in the eurozone), which shows a negative tendency from the time of the establishment of ‘flexicurity’ and also highlights the meagreness of this mode’s contribution even to preserving existing jobs. Flexible forms of employment, with wage levels that are often below the national poverty line, have throughout the crisis been functioning as a substitute for, not as a precursor of, full employment, on the one hand removing whatever opportunities exist for specialisation and career-building, because such jobs are grounded in the logic of a limited engagement in professional activity, and on the other hand depriving insurance funds of much needed resources because of the resultant contraction in contributions. In this context, can the Commission answer the following: — Given the EU’s declared objectives of combating poverty (including the phenomenon of the working poor) and ensuring decent remuneration for work, will it revise the existing model of promoting flexible modes of employment to strengthen the ‘security’ dimension through a forceful regulatory framework? — Does it plan to initiate a study on the effects of the unregulated proliferation of flexible forms of employment — observable in many Member States — on the viability and adequacy of social insurance systems? — What is the relationship between the expansion of flexible modes of employment and the phenomenon of the working poor? In which countries are they most visibly interlinked? — Does it intend to promote the exchange of best practices between Member States so as to create a favourable environment for the coordination and amalgamation of flexible employment and training policies?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-003707/2012

Labour, employment and pensions

Reducing unemployment and increasing employability were the central arguments used by supporters of flexible modes of employment, even when applied to the most extremely precarious employment situation. According to recent Eurostat statistics, the rate of unemployment in Europe exceeds 10.2% (10.8% in the eurozone), which shows a negative tendency from the time of the establishment of ‘flexicurity’ and also highlights the meagreness of this mode’s contribution even to preserving existing jobs. Flexible forms of employment, with wage levels that are often below the national poverty line, have throughout the crisis been functioning as a substitute for, not as a precursor of, full employment, on the one hand removing whatever opportunities exist for specialisation and career-building, because such jobs are grounded in the logic of a limited engagement in professional activity, and on the other hand depriving insurance funds of much needed resources because of the resultant contraction in contributions. In this context, can the Commission answer the following: — Given the EU’s declared objectives of combating poverty (including the phenomenon of the working poor) and ensuring decent remuneration for work, will it revise the existing model of promoting flexible modes of employment to strengthen the ‘security’ dimension through a forceful regulatory framework? — Does it plan to initiate a study on the effects of the unregulated proliferation of flexible forms of employment — observable in many Member States — on the viability and adequacy of social insurance systems? — What is the relationship between the expansion of flexible modes of employment and the phenomenon of the working poor? In which countries are they most visibly interlinked? — Does it intend to promote the exchange of best practices between Member States so as to create a favourable environment for the coordination and amalgamation of flexible employment and training policies?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "As MEPs, we have been approached by a number of Bulgarian citizens who worked in Greece and paid their social security contributions there in the normal way. The names and telephone numbers of the individuals concerned are appended to this question. On retirement, these people have experienced a range of problems: mostly commonly, undue procedural delays in confirming their pension entitlement or delays in issuing pension-related documents which have to be submitted to the authorities in Bulgaria. In other cases, where pension entitlements have been confirmed, the actual payment of the pensions has been delayed, without any proper explanation, for months or even years. A further problem about which people have contacted us is the requirement that pensioners present themselves in person in Greece once a year to confirm that they are still alive and eligible to receive their pensions. We are aware that social security systems are national systems and that every country has its own relevant legislation. However, theEU lays down general rules for the protection of people’s social security entitlements when they move from one EU country to another. The system of rules is underpinned by four principles, one of which is the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. That principle requires that Bulgarian citizens have the same rights and obligations as the citizens of the country in which they paid their social security contributions — in this case, Greece. In the Commission’s view, do the practices that these Bulgarian citizens have described to us constitute a violation of the principle of equal treatment and amount to discrimination against them? What measures could the Commission take to ensure the correct application of the general rules protecting social security entitlements when people move from one EU country to another?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-001800-14

Labour, employment and pensions

As MEPs, we have been approached by a number of Bulgarian citizens who worked in Greece and paid their social security contributions there in the normal way. The names and telephone numbers of the individuals concerned are appended to this question. On retirement, these people have experienced a range of problems: mostly commonly, undue procedural delays in confirming their pension entitlement or delays in issuing pension-related documents which have to be submitted to the authorities in Bulgaria. In other cases, where pension entitlements have been confirmed, the actual payment of the pensions has been delayed, without any proper explanation, for months or even years. A further problem about which people have contacted us is the requirement that pensioners present themselves in person in Greece once a year to confirm that they are still alive and eligible to receive their pensions. We are aware that social security systems are national systems and that every country has its own relevant legislation. However, theEU lays down general rules for the protection of people’s social security entitlements when they move from one EU country to another. The system of rules is underpinned by four principles, one of which is the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. That principle requires that Bulgarian citizens have the same rights and obligations as the citizens of the country in which they paid their social security contributions — in this case, Greece. In the Commission’s view, do the practices that these Bulgarian citizens have described to us constitute a violation of the principle of equal treatment and amount to discrimination against them? What measures could the Commission take to ensure the correct application of the general rules protecting social security entitlements when people move from one EU country to another?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "On 18February2014, in Rome, three boys were overcome by carbon monoxide fumes in a swimming pool in Rome. The three children were taken to hospital in a serious condition and treated in a hyperbaric chamber. The carabinieri of the Madonna del Riposo station attended, and await the report of the fire service which inspected the premises to verify the exact cause of the three boys’ sickness. In view of this incident, can the Commission clarify whether any specific European standards exist in relation to safety in premises of this kind? Who should be held responsible for the incident in cases similar to the one described?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-002024-14

Labour, employment and pensions

On 18February2014, in Rome, three boys were overcome by carbon monoxide fumes in a swimming pool in Rome. The three children were taken to hospital in a serious condition and treated in a hyperbaric chamber. The carabinieri of the Madonna del Riposo station attended, and await the report of the fire service which inspected the premises to verify the exact cause of the three boys’ sickness. In view of this incident, can the Commission clarify whether any specific European standards exist in relation to safety in premises of this kind? Who should be held responsible for the incident in cases similar to the one described?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Last February the Robert Bosch company announced its plan to close the Petrol Systems division it has in Alcalá de Henares (Spain), which directly affects 415full-time workers and over 150indirect employees. The plan seeks to transfer the ‘petrol filters’ product to the Bosch factory in Aranjuez (Madrid), 75kilometres away, directly affecting 250workers. There is also talk of early retirement for 152further individuals, given the high average age of the workforce. Furthermore, no solution is proposed for subcontracted workers. This Robert Bosch closure constitutes not only an assault on the social rights of its workers, but also a blatant non-compliance with Spanish and Community labour law. Given the gravity of the situation: — Does the Commission know about the closure of the Robert Bosch Petrol Systems division in Alcalá de Henares (Spain)? — Does the Commission have any information about possible subsidies granted to the Robert Bosch company by the Spanish or Community authorities? — Does the Commission not believe that Bosch should be investing in its Alcalá de Henares factory so as to prevent its closure, given that a transfer to a site 75km away, without any solutions being offered for the subcontracted workers, actually constitutes a serious social problem in terms of sackings? — What measures does the Commission intend to take, in conjunction with the relevant Spanish authorities, to guarantee that Community legislation on collective dismissals and protection of workers' rights (Directive98/59/EC(1)) is correctly applied? (1)OJL225, 12.8.1998, p.16.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-3161/07

Labour, employment and pensions

Last February the Robert Bosch company announced its plan to close the Petrol Systems division it has in Alcalá de Henares (Spain), which directly affects 415full-time workers and over 150indirect employees. The plan seeks to transfer the ‘petrol filters’ product to the Bosch factory in Aranjuez (Madrid), 75kilometres away, directly affecting 250workers. There is also talk of early retirement for 152further individuals, given the high average age of the workforce. Furthermore, no solution is proposed for subcontracted workers. This Robert Bosch closure constitutes not only an assault on the social rights of its workers, but also a blatant non-compliance with Spanish and Community labour law. Given the gravity of the situation: — Does the Commission know about the closure of the Robert Bosch Petrol Systems division in Alcalá de Henares (Spain)? — Does the Commission have any information about possible subsidies granted to the Robert Bosch company by the Spanish or Community authorities? — Does the Commission not believe that Bosch should be investing in its Alcalá de Henares factory so as to prevent its closure, given that a transfer to a site 75km away, without any solutions being offered for the subcontracted workers, actually constitutes a serious social problem in terms of sackings? — What measures does the Commission intend to take, in conjunction with the relevant Spanish authorities, to guarantee that Community legislation on collective dismissals and protection of workers' rights (Directive98/59/EC(1)) is correctly applied? (1)OJL225, 12.8.1998, p.16.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The Danish newspaper Jyske Vestkysten reported on 15 March that a businessman from Kiel had had the idea of supplying German workers to Danish firms. This is a shrewd idea in that the German government subsidises German workers who take up jobs abroad by approximately DKK 60 an hour. The individual worker also receives a tax allowance of some DKK 800 a day. The businessman in question has sent 3 000 e-mails and faxes to Danish firms offering to supply them with German workers in the building trades at an hourly rate of DKK 120. By way of comparison, a firm must pay between DKK 175 and 190 an hour for a skilled Danish worker. The businessman is doing nothing illegal, he is simply exploiting current German law as the system was introduced by the Federal Institute of Labour. However, this system is severely undermining the Danish labour market in that it is increasing the pressure on a sector in which unemployment is currently rising. Germany has, in effect, introduced an unfair system in an attempt to export high German unemployment to another Member State, in this case Denmark, thereby undermining the Danish system. In the light of this situation, what does the Commission intend to do to put an end to this arrangement, which is distorting competition?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-1225/03

Labour, employment and pensions

The Danish newspaper Jyske Vestkysten reported on 15 March that a businessman from Kiel had had the idea of supplying German workers to Danish firms. This is a shrewd idea in that the German government subsidises German workers who take up jobs abroad by approximately DKK 60 an hour. The individual worker also receives a tax allowance of some DKK 800 a day. The businessman in question has sent 3 000 e-mails and faxes to Danish firms offering to supply them with German workers in the building trades at an hourly rate of DKK 120. By way of comparison, a firm must pay between DKK 175 and 190 an hour for a skilled Danish worker. The businessman is doing nothing illegal, he is simply exploiting current German law as the system was introduced by the Federal Institute of Labour. However, this system is severely undermining the Danish labour market in that it is increasing the pressure on a sector in which unemployment is currently rising. Germany has, in effect, introduced an unfair system in an attempt to export high German unemployment to another Member State, in this case Denmark, thereby undermining the Danish system. In the light of this situation, what does the Commission intend to do to put an end to this arrangement, which is distorting competition?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Word has reached us that the Commission may be putting the jobs of at least 400 people at risk as a result of the announced discontinuation of its catering services on 1January 2021.The Commissioner responsible for employment should accordingly throw his full weight behind measures to prevent hundreds of people from being placed in such a precarious situation.Given the Commission’s concern for more job conservation measures, it clearly has a direct responsibility in this respect following its decision.Is this announced measure the Commission’s final word on the matter and, if so, will it resolutely uphold the rights of the workers directly affected, reflecting its justified concern for doing so elsewhere in the Union during this pandemic?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-006452/2020/rev.1

Labour, employment and pensions

Word has reached us that the Commission may be putting the jobs of at least 400 people at risk as a result of the announced discontinuation of its catering services on 1January 2021.The Commissioner responsible for employment should accordingly throw his full weight behind measures to prevent hundreds of people from being placed in such a precarious situation.Given the Commission’s concern for more job conservation measures, it clearly has a direct responsibility in this respect following its decision.Is this announced measure the Commission’s final word on the matter and, if so, will it resolutely uphold the rights of the workers directly affected, reflecting its justified concern for doing so elsewhere in the Union during this pandemic?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "My attention was recently drawn to the fact that the Commission's EURES website — the ‘European job mobility portal’ — is incomplete in that it does not mention the existence of the social status of ‘self-employed person’ in Belgium. In addition to the status of employee, with the social rights and obligations which it entails, there is also a social status of ‘self-employed’ person in Belgium, giving rise to rules which apply to all self-employed persons. These particularly concern family allowance, health and disability insurance, pensions and insurance against bankruptcy. However, the abovementioned Commission website makes no mention of this, giving rise to some confusion. For the benefit of European citizens who are considering working in Belgium as self-employed persons, would the Commission therefore check the content of the website of the European job mobility portal? If appropriate, will the Commission add information about the social status of the self-employed in Belgium to the website?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-0358/07

Labour, employment and pensions

My attention was recently drawn to the fact that the Commission's EURES website — the ‘European job mobility portal’ — is incomplete in that it does not mention the existence of the social status of ‘self-employed person’ in Belgium. In addition to the status of employee, with the social rights and obligations which it entails, there is also a social status of ‘self-employed’ person in Belgium, giving rise to rules which apply to all self-employed persons. These particularly concern family allowance, health and disability insurance, pensions and insurance against bankruptcy. However, the abovementioned Commission website makes no mention of this, giving rise to some confusion. For the benefit of European citizens who are considering working in Belgium as self-employed persons, would the Commission therefore check the content of the website of the European job mobility portal? If appropriate, will the Commission add information about the social status of the self-employed in Belgium to the website?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Owing to climate change, Europe is experiencing long periods of heat waves with temperatures often rising to over 30 degrees Celsius. These heat waves have severe consequences for truck drivers. According to Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, drivers are allowed to sleep in the truck cabin if it has suitable sleeping facilities. However,air conditioning in trucks only functions when the engine is on. This is costly, consumes a lot of energy and raises environmental concerns. The alternative is stand-alone air conditioning in the cabin. A survey by CNV Vakmensen in the Netherlands showed that only 20% of trucks have such stand-alone air conditioning in their cabins. High temperatures in the cabin undermine drivers’ working conditions and could harm road safety as a result of driver fatigue.1.Will the Commission carry out or fund studies to assess the problems that heat waves cause for drivers?2.What proposals will the Commission make to improve the temperatures that drivers have to contend with while sleeping in the cabin of the truck?3.Will the Commission propose mandatory stand-alone air conditioning in trucks?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-004811/2020

Labour, employment and pensions

Owing to climate change, Europe is experiencing long periods of heat waves with temperatures often rising to over 30 degrees Celsius. These heat waves have severe consequences for truck drivers. According to Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, drivers are allowed to sleep in the truck cabin if it has suitable sleeping facilities. However,air conditioning in trucks only functions when the engine is on. This is costly, consumes a lot of energy and raises environmental concerns. The alternative is stand-alone air conditioning in the cabin. A survey by CNV Vakmensen in the Netherlands showed that only 20% of trucks have such stand-alone air conditioning in their cabins. High temperatures in the cabin undermine drivers’ working conditions and could harm road safety as a result of driver fatigue.1.Will the Commission carry out or fund studies to assess the problems that heat waves cause for drivers?2.What proposals will the Commission make to improve the temperatures that drivers have to contend with while sleeping in the cabin of the truck?3.Will the Commission propose mandatory stand-alone air conditioning in trucks?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "In reply to my earlier questions about the emoluments and pensions of its Members the Commission has given the appropriate answers. There is in fact a translation error in Article 9 of the Finnish version of Regulation No422/67/EEC(1), since 4,5 % of the last basic salary for each full year in office plainly denotes the amount of pension and not the size of a pension increase (the correct word in Finnish being """"""""maksetaan"""""""" (paid) as opposed to """"""""korotetaan"""""""" (raised)). To clarify one specific point of interpretation, can the Commission say whether the period in which a person receives the transitional allowance, as provided for in Article 7, is credited to his accrued entitlement based on years of pensionable service? (1)OJ L 187, 8.8.1967, p. 1.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-0330/03

Labour, employment and pensions

In reply to my earlier questions about the emoluments and pensions of its Members the Commission has given the appropriate answers. There is in fact a translation error in Article 9 of the Finnish version of Regulation No422/67/EEC(1), since 4,5 % of the last basic salary for each full year in office plainly denotes the amount of pension and not the size of a pension increase (the correct word in Finnish being """"""""maksetaan"""""""" (paid) as opposed to """"""""korotetaan"""""""" (raised)). To clarify one specific point of interpretation, can the Commission say whether the period in which a person receives the transitional allowance, as provided for in Article 7, is credited to his accrued entitlement based on years of pensionable service? (1)OJ L 187, 8.8.1967, p. 1.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "In 2011, the Dutch authorities passed a law removing a person’s entitlement to a pension from the Netherlands unless at least 90% of the income they earn worldwide is subject to income tax in the Netherlands; this seems to also include widows’ pensions. The issue is a prima facie case of discrimination against non-Dutch citizens of other EU countries, who are unlikely to pay Dutch tax in their country of residence, and was recognised by the Commission as contravening EU regulations on free movement. On 21February2013, the Commission referred the Dutch Government to the Court of Justice for failing to address this discrimination. However, widows from other countries are still being denied their partners’ pensions under Dutch rules. Therefore, can the Commission explain what has been done by the Dutch to rectify this breach, and what recourse is available to widows who are not Dutch residents to secure their partners’ pension entitlements?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-006891-14

Labour, employment and pensions

In 2011, the Dutch authorities passed a law removing a person’s entitlement to a pension from the Netherlands unless at least 90% of the income they earn worldwide is subject to income tax in the Netherlands; this seems to also include widows’ pensions. The issue is a prima facie case of discrimination against non-Dutch citizens of other EU countries, who are unlikely to pay Dutch tax in their country of residence, and was recognised by the Commission as contravening EU regulations on free movement. On 21February2013, the Commission referred the Dutch Government to the Court of Justice for failing to address this discrimination. However, widows from other countries are still being denied their partners’ pensions under Dutch rules. Therefore, can the Commission explain what has been done by the Dutch to rectify this breach, and what recourse is available to widows who are not Dutch residents to secure their partners’ pension entitlements?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "I request the Commission’s assistance in interpreting social security legislation in Denmark. It appears that it may constitute grounds for discrimination in the awarding of invalidity benefits and old-age pensions. In light of the above, could the Commission answer the following questions: 1. Who is entitled to exercise the rights set out in Article50 of Regulation 883/2004 and Article51(2) of Regulation 1408/71 corresponding to Decision P-1 and the Danish law on invalidity benefits and old-age pensions? (Decision P-1 of 12June2009 on the interpretation of Articles50(4), 58 and 87(5) of Regulation (EC) No883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the award of invalidity, old-age and survivors’ benefits)? 2. Does the Commission’s answer of 20.4.2012 (PE462.649v02-00) only apply to economically inactive EU citizens residing in Denmark or does it also apply to economically active persons and those in receipt of invalidity benefits under Regulations 1401/71 and 883/2004, and persons who, while receiving invalidity benefits in Denmark, were receiving benefits based on flexible employment arrangements and for unemployment due to illness? 3. Would it be possible for EU bodies to make a comparative calculation of pensions in order to identify possible breaches of EClaw by the Danish authorities?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-000089-14

Labour, employment and pensions

I request the Commission’s assistance in interpreting social security legislation in Denmark. It appears that it may constitute grounds for discrimination in the awarding of invalidity benefits and old-age pensions. In light of the above, could the Commission answer the following questions: 1. Who is entitled to exercise the rights set out in Article50 of Regulation 883/2004 and Article51(2) of Regulation 1408/71 corresponding to Decision P-1 and the Danish law on invalidity benefits and old-age pensions? (Decision P-1 of 12June2009 on the interpretation of Articles50(4), 58 and 87(5) of Regulation (EC) No883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the award of invalidity, old-age and survivors’ benefits)? 2. Does the Commission’s answer of 20.4.2012 (PE462.649v02-00) only apply to economically inactive EU citizens residing in Denmark or does it also apply to economically active persons and those in receipt of invalidity benefits under Regulations 1401/71 and 883/2004, and persons who, while receiving invalidity benefits in Denmark, were receiving benefits based on flexible employment arrangements and for unemployment due to illness? 3. Would it be possible for EU bodies to make a comparative calculation of pensions in order to identify possible breaches of EClaw by the Danish authorities?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Languages have always been at the heart of the EU project, and are an integral part of the EU institutions’ work. Showing solidarity to those affected by the COVID-19 crisis has rightly been central to the EU’s response. Yet this is contradicted by the Commission’s decision to unilaterally suspend, from the end of May, all daily contracts previously offered to long-term freelance interpreters. Many of them will therefore be without income for several months, even after many years of – sometimes exclusive – service to the EU institutions, paying EU tax on their income and being required to live near the EU institutions. Instead, their contracts are being cancelled on a rolling basis without prior notice or consultation. 1.Will the Commission propose an ad-hoc solution for providing non-refundable financial aid to freelance interpreters who work regularly for the Commission?2.Does it believe that the most recent offer of a ‘loan’ of EUR1300 to cover three to six months interpretation work adequately reflects the solidarity it calls for?3.How does it intend to put into practice President von der Leyen’s statement that ‘solidarity is at the very heart of Europe’?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-003518/2020/rev.1

Labour, employment and pensions

Languages have always been at the heart of the EU project, and are an integral part of the EU institutions’ work. Showing solidarity to those affected by the COVID-19 crisis has rightly been central to the EU’s response. Yet this is contradicted by the Commission’s decision to unilaterally suspend, from the end of May, all daily contracts previously offered to long-term freelance interpreters. Many of them will therefore be without income for several months, even after many years of – sometimes exclusive – service to the EU institutions, paying EU tax on their income and being required to live near the EU institutions. Instead, their contracts are being cancelled on a rolling basis without prior notice or consultation. 1.Will the Commission propose an ad-hoc solution for providing non-refundable financial aid to freelance interpreters who work regularly for the Commission?2.Does it believe that the most recent offer of a ‘loan’ of EUR1300 to cover three to six months interpretation work adequately reflects the solidarity it calls for?3.How does it intend to put into practice President von der Leyen’s statement that ‘solidarity is at the very heart of Europe’?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "It has been established that the """"""""millennium bug"""""""", a problem also known as the """"""""year 2000 effect"""""""", may affect all types of programmable electronic systems (PESs), ranging from mainframe computers to microchips. These systems are employed for all nature of industrial purposes at the various stages of the production process, in the transport sector, in the public services and so forth. Furthermore, the said systems are date-dependent and their reaction on the first day of the new millennium will be critical. For those reasons, it would advisable to pinpoint the risks involved. In the Commission's view, what role can the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work play in preventing and/or lessening the potential impact of computer errors on safety at the workplace?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-3659/98

Labour, employment and pensions

It has been established that the """"""""millennium bug"""""""", a problem also known as the """"""""year 2000 effect"""""""", may affect all types of programmable electronic systems (PESs), ranging from mainframe computers to microchips. These systems are employed for all nature of industrial purposes at the various stages of the production process, in the transport sector, in the public services and so forth. Furthermore, the said systems are date-dependent and their reaction on the first day of the new millennium will be critical. For those reasons, it would advisable to pinpoint the risks involved. In the Commission's view, what role can the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work play in preventing and/or lessening the potential impact of computer errors on safety at the workplace?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "According to Eurostat (on 31 March 2000) between 1994 and 1996 the risks of accidents at work in the EU fell by 7 % (fatal accidents by 13 %), men are three times more likely to have accidents than women and firms with more than 250 employees are safer. In 1998 there were 4,7 million accidents, 5 476 of them fatal. According to these estimates the annual costs in the EU (medical expenses, sick pay and compensation paid for permanent invalidity or death) total nearly € 20 billion, not to mention the social costs of accidents (assistance, rehabilitation and reintegration into employment, where possible, etc.). In Italy alone an average of three people die at work every day (not counting domestic accidents, those not reported because people are working unofficially and road accidents involving people who travel in the course of their work). The European Agency for Health and Safety at Work is trying to show that the introduction of provisions in these areas may help to improve the working environment and reduce the costs of compulsory insurance which firms are obliged to take out to show that safety pays. Can the Commission say whether in addition to the EU's legislative role - to offer workers social protection and employers economic protection - it might be appropriate to step up its non-legislative role by publishing information material, promoting comparative studies and providing better training for workers and employers? The European Week for Safety and Health at Work to be held in autumn at the end of an information campaign involving all the Member States, the Commission and Parliament, trade unions and employers' organisations may be agood start. Does the Commission not consider that it is wrong to accept different minimum safety levels in different Member States or in firms of different sizes? If one understood exactly what the competences of the EU and of the Member States are, the Community's objectives would be better defined and the compliance with them required of the Member States could be regulated by periodic inspections and checks to be carried out by the competent authorities. Does it not consider that more space should be given to issues of health and safety at work in the future guidelines for employment on the basis of an analysis of the best practices in the Member States?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-1532/01

Labour, employment and pensions

According to Eurostat (on 31 March 2000) between 1994 and 1996 the risks of accidents at work in the EU fell by 7 % (fatal accidents by 13 %), men are three times more likely to have accidents than women and firms with more than 250 employees are safer. In 1998 there were 4,7 million accidents, 5 476 of them fatal. According to these estimates the annual costs in the EU (medical expenses, sick pay and compensation paid for permanent invalidity or death) total nearly € 20 billion, not to mention the social costs of accidents (assistance, rehabilitation and reintegration into employment, where possible, etc.). In Italy alone an average of three people die at work every day (not counting domestic accidents, those not reported because people are working unofficially and road accidents involving people who travel in the course of their work). The European Agency for Health and Safety at Work is trying to show that the introduction of provisions in these areas may help to improve the working environment and reduce the costs of compulsory insurance which firms are obliged to take out to show that safety pays. Can the Commission say whether in addition to the EU's legislative role - to offer workers social protection and employers economic protection - it might be appropriate to step up its non-legislative role by publishing information material, promoting comparative studies and providing better training for workers and employers? The European Week for Safety and Health at Work to be held in autumn at the end of an information campaign involving all the Member States, the Commission and Parliament, trade unions and employers' organisations may be agood start. Does the Commission not consider that it is wrong to accept different minimum safety levels in different Member States or in firms of different sizes? If one understood exactly what the competences of the EU and of the Member States are, the Community's objectives would be better defined and the compliance with them required of the Member States could be regulated by periodic inspections and checks to be carried out by the competent authorities. Does it not consider that more space should be given to issues of health and safety at work in the future guidelines for employment on the basis of an analysis of the best practices in the Member States?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "On 10May, the Swiss government decided to trigger a clause in the agreement with the European Union that provides for the temporary introduction of restrictions on access to the Swiss labour market for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. With immediate effect and for the next 12months, Bulgarian and Romanian citizens wishing to work in Switzerland will have only limited access to its labour market. Paragraph 25 of the European Parliament resolution on EEA-Switzerland states that ‘reciprocity and fairness between the EEA and Switzerland are necessary with regard to their use of the single market’. Likewise, paragraph18 states that ‘the free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms and a pillar of the single market’. What steps will the Commission take to ensure that Switzerland complies with the free movement of persons and workers and does not discriminate against Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, who are also European citizens?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-003271-17

Labour, employment and pensions

On 10May, the Swiss government decided to trigger a clause in the agreement with the European Union that provides for the temporary introduction of restrictions on access to the Swiss labour market for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. With immediate effect and for the next 12months, Bulgarian and Romanian citizens wishing to work in Switzerland will have only limited access to its labour market. Paragraph 25 of the European Parliament resolution on EEA-Switzerland states that ‘reciprocity and fairness between the EEA and Switzerland are necessary with regard to their use of the single market’. Likewise, paragraph18 states that ‘the free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms and a pillar of the single market’. What steps will the Commission take to ensure that Switzerland complies with the free movement of persons and workers and does not discriminate against Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, who are also European citizens?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The Commission has decided to extend the derogation on the prohibition on the placing on the market and use of asbestos fibres and products to which such fibres are added intentionally (see Directive1999/77/EC(1)). That extension, which was due to lapse on 1January 2008, was justified on the basis of the work conducted in July 2006 at a meeting with the enterprises concerned. The results from July 2007 showed that there are only asbestos substitutes for high voltage equipment, and not for low-voltage equipment. The working meetings were attended by the enterprises concerned and the respective Member States. The Commission decided to extend the derogation despite the fact that no favourable opinion was issued by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) or the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC). Does the Commission not consider the assessments in favour of the extension that emerged from the working meetings of 12July 2006 and 3July 2007 to be biased, in that they were made solely by the enterprises concerned and the countries to which they belong? Does the Commission not feel that despite the lack of dialogue with workers’ associations, consumer organisations and environmental organisations in general, the interests of industry are being placed before those of the health of workers and the public? Does it not consider this issue to raise questions as to the transparency of the process to which that decision relates? (1)OJL207, 6.8.1999, p.18.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-0805/08

Labour, employment and pensions

The Commission has decided to extend the derogation on the prohibition on the placing on the market and use of asbestos fibres and products to which such fibres are added intentionally (see Directive1999/77/EC(1)). That extension, which was due to lapse on 1January 2008, was justified on the basis of the work conducted in July 2006 at a meeting with the enterprises concerned. The results from July 2007 showed that there are only asbestos substitutes for high voltage equipment, and not for low-voltage equipment. The working meetings were attended by the enterprises concerned and the respective Member States. The Commission decided to extend the derogation despite the fact that no favourable opinion was issued by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) or the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC). Does the Commission not consider the assessments in favour of the extension that emerged from the working meetings of 12July 2006 and 3July 2007 to be biased, in that they were made solely by the enterprises concerned and the countries to which they belong? Does the Commission not feel that despite the lack of dialogue with workers’ associations, consumer organisations and environmental organisations in general, the interests of industry are being placed before those of the health of workers and the public? Does it not consider this issue to raise questions as to the transparency of the process to which that decision relates? (1)OJL207, 6.8.1999, p.18.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Article 37 of Italian Law No 109/94 provided that """"""""the social partners concerned"""""""" were to enter into an appropriate agreement by 5March 1995 to encourage workers' mobility through mutual recognition of the payments made by workers to the various building societies. The above article provided that in the absence of such an agreement the building societies would automatically mutually recognise all """"""""rights, payments, allowances and benefits to which workers have become entitled with the institutions of which they are members"""""""". Pursuant to Law No 415/98, the deadline laid down in the previous law for concluding the mutual recognition agreement was extended to 16May 1999. In the interval between the two above-mentioned laws, the Sardinian and Sicilian Confederations of Craft Industries and Trades set up with the trade union confederation UGL (Unione Generale di Lavoro - General Workers' Union) two regional building societies for the craft industries giving workers who were members of them exactly the same rights as those of the other building societies in strict application of all the provisions laid down by the national collective bargaining agreement for that sector. On 18December 1998, at the instigation of the Ministry of Labour, the ANCE (Associazione Nazionale Costruttori Edili - National association of building contractors), the craft industries confederations and the CGIL (Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro - Italian general workers' confederation), the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the UIL (Unione Italiana del Lavoro - Italian workers' union) signed the agreement originally provided for by Law 109/94 excluding the UGL and the above-mentioned regional confederations of craft industries and trades. InJuly 1999 Under-Secretary Viviani called another meeting of the above-mentioned parties and confirmed the exclusion of the UGL and the Sardinian and Sicilian Confederations of Craft Industries and Trades. On 9September 1999, at the end of the above meeting, another agreement was entered into in which the Ministry of Labour """"""""takes note of the resulting obligation on the part of the organisations which have not signed the protocol of 18December 1998 to complete by means of similar provisions the implementation of the mutual recognition agreements between the respective joint bodies by 30September 1999"""""""". Up to now, neither the UGL nor the Sardinian and Sicilian Confederations of Craft Industries and Trades have been called to a meeting. Can the Commission: - ascertain whether the facts set out above are true; - if need be, take action to persuade the Italian Ministry of Labour to remove any discrimination and any unlawful competition which might arise due to the fact that those excluded cannot obtain the essential """"""""declarations of release certifying that they have regularly paid their contributions"""""""" provided for by Law No 415/98?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-1790/00

Labour, employment and pensions

Article 37 of Italian Law No 109/94 provided that """"""""the social partners concerned"""""""" were to enter into an appropriate agreement by 5March 1995 to encourage workers' mobility through mutual recognition of the payments made by workers to the various building societies. The above article provided that in the absence of such an agreement the building societies would automatically mutually recognise all """"""""rights, payments, allowances and benefits to which workers have become entitled with the institutions of which they are members"""""""". Pursuant to Law No 415/98, the deadline laid down in the previous law for concluding the mutual recognition agreement was extended to 16May 1999. In the interval between the two above-mentioned laws, the Sardinian and Sicilian Confederations of Craft Industries and Trades set up with the trade union confederation UGL (Unione Generale di Lavoro - General Workers' Union) two regional building societies for the craft industries giving workers who were members of them exactly the same rights as those of the other building societies in strict application of all the provisions laid down by the national collective bargaining agreement for that sector. On 18December 1998, at the instigation of the Ministry of Labour, the ANCE (Associazione Nazionale Costruttori Edili - National association of building contractors), the craft industries confederations and the CGIL (Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro - Italian general workers' confederation), the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the UIL (Unione Italiana del Lavoro - Italian workers' union) signed the agreement originally provided for by Law 109/94 excluding the UGL and the above-mentioned regional confederations of craft industries and trades. InJuly 1999 Under-Secretary Viviani called another meeting of the above-mentioned parties and confirmed the exclusion of the UGL and the Sardinian and Sicilian Confederations of Craft Industries and Trades. On 9September 1999, at the end of the above meeting, another agreement was entered into in which the Ministry of Labour """"""""takes note of the resulting obligation on the part of the organisations which have not signed the protocol of 18December 1998 to complete by means of similar provisions the implementation of the mutual recognition agreements between the respective joint bodies by 30September 1999"""""""". Up to now, neither the UGL nor the Sardinian and Sicilian Confederations of Craft Industries and Trades have been called to a meeting. Can the Commission: - ascertain whether the facts set out above are true; - if need be, take action to persuade the Italian Ministry of Labour to remove any discrimination and any unlawful competition which might arise due to the fact that those excluded cannot obtain the essential """"""""declarations of release certifying that they have regularly paid their contributions"""""""" provided for by Law No 415/98?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Is the Commission aware of discussions in the UK to end allocation by sector of Objective 3 funds and instead to have open competition for funds at regional level? What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the women's training sector will continue to receive funds at a national level via the Women's Training Network?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-0966/96

Labour, employment and pensions

Is the Commission aware of discussions in the UK to end allocation by sector of Objective 3 funds and instead to have open competition for funds at regional level? What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the women's training sector will continue to receive funds at a national level via the Women's Training Network?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "In many European states, ever greater use is being made of community social services provided on a voluntary basis. At the same time, a number of Member States in which general military service has been abolished have also abolished compulsory alternative community service. Consequently, voluntary social service organisations, local-government service departments and the health sector in particular confronted with the problem of having to cover their increasing manpower needs with full-time staff. The EU‑wide introduction of compulsory social service for a four-month period, for instance, for all men and women who have reached the age of majority, to be spent in their local or a neighbouring community, would considerably reduce the financial pressure on welfare organisations and local authorities. This would also bring home to young people in the EU, in a tangible fashion, involvement is. A society built on values such as solidarity, as Europe’s is, should not automatically do without young adults’ help. How does the Commission view this proposal?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-0798/07

Labour, employment and pensions

In many European states, ever greater use is being made of community social services provided on a voluntary basis. At the same time, a number of Member States in which general military service has been abolished have also abolished compulsory alternative community service. Consequently, voluntary social service organisations, local-government service departments and the health sector in particular confronted with the problem of having to cover their increasing manpower needs with full-time staff. The EU‑wide introduction of compulsory social service for a four-month period, for instance, for all men and women who have reached the age of majority, to be spent in their local or a neighbouring community, would considerably reduce the financial pressure on welfare organisations and local authorities. This would also bring home to young people in the EU, in a tangible fashion, involvement is. A society built on values such as solidarity, as Europe’s is, should not automatically do without young adults’ help. How does the Commission view this proposal?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Studies indicate that in 2010 some 60000 young ‘economic refugees’ left Hungary, whilst a German company specialising in start-ups suggests that, on the basis of social security data, the number of ‘Hungarian economic emigrants’ this year will reach 600000. In my capacity as an MEP I undertook to establish a forum to represent the interests of people working abroad, provide support for them to return home and prosper, and look for the necessary programmes and funding. — What action can the Commission take to enable young people who have gone abroad through economic necessity, if they so decide, to return home and begin a new life there? — What is the Commission doing to ensure that people who have gone abroad do not suffer from discrimination, are paid correctly and are not made to work in unacceptable conditions? — Are there any initiatives (in the case of Hungary, possibly as yet unexploited) to encourage young people to return home by funding them to start careers and possibly set up their own businesses?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-005716-14

Labour, employment and pensions

Studies indicate that in 2010 some 60000 young ‘economic refugees’ left Hungary, whilst a German company specialising in start-ups suggests that, on the basis of social security data, the number of ‘Hungarian economic emigrants’ this year will reach 600000. In my capacity as an MEP I undertook to establish a forum to represent the interests of people working abroad, provide support for them to return home and prosper, and look for the necessary programmes and funding. — What action can the Commission take to enable young people who have gone abroad through economic necessity, if they so decide, to return home and begin a new life there? — What is the Commission doing to ensure that people who have gone abroad do not suffer from discrimination, are paid correctly and are not made to work in unacceptable conditions? — Are there any initiatives (in the case of Hungary, possibly as yet unexploited) to encourage young people to return home by funding them to start careers and possibly set up their own businesses?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "According to data contained in the recent OECD youth employment report, it appears that 26.09% of all young people in Italy aged under 30 are not in employment, education or training. In fact, Italy is ranked fourth in the so-called ‘NEET’ classification in OECD countries. Considering that the number of young people in this category has risen by 7% compared with the start of the crisis, how does the Commission intend to intervene to change this trend and structure more effective policies for the inclusion of young people?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-009556-15

Labour, employment and pensions

According to data contained in the recent OECD youth employment report, it appears that 26.09% of all young people in Italy aged under 30 are not in employment, education or training. In fact, Italy is ranked fourth in the so-called ‘NEET’ classification in OECD countries. Considering that the number of young people in this category has risen by 7% compared with the start of the crisis, how does the Commission intend to intervene to change this trend and structure more effective policies for the inclusion of young people?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "The 600 000 workers in the Italian cleaning and multi-service sectors have been waiting for over seven years for the renewal of their national collective agreement, which expired on 30 April 2013. These workers, 70% of whom are women, experience job insecurity and severe exploitation, with low pay, constant changes of contractor and long hours.Contracts have an average duration of three years and are awarded on the basis of the lowest price. To win such contracts, companies reduce their labour costs and have frequent turnover of their workforce. Labourers, porters and cleaning staff have their hours reduced or are dismissed, and, as a result, they are constantly taken on as ‘new’ workers with few benefits(1).In 2016, the European Union established a European Centre of Expertise (ECE) in the field of labour law, employment and labour market policies. It covers legal, regulatory, economic and policy aspects of employment and labour markets, including reforms, in the 28 Member States.I would ask the Commission to clarify the following:1.What activities has the ECE has carried out in relation to Italy?2.Does the situation of workers in the Italian cleaning and multi-service sectors comply with European labour law provisions? (1)https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/10/24/puliamo-scuole-ospedali-uffici-bus-ma-ci-danno-7-euro-lordi-allora-la-battaglia-dei-lavoratori-multiservizi-per-il-contratto/5978010/". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-006869/2020

Labour, employment and pensions

The 600 000 workers in the Italian cleaning and multi-service sectors have been waiting for over seven years for the renewal of their national collective agreement, which expired on 30 April 2013. These workers, 70% of whom are women, experience job insecurity and severe exploitation, with low pay, constant changes of contractor and long hours.Contracts have an average duration of three years and are awarded on the basis of the lowest price. To win such contracts, companies reduce their labour costs and have frequent turnover of their workforce. Labourers, porters and cleaning staff have their hours reduced or are dismissed, and, as a result, they are constantly taken on as ‘new’ workers with few benefits(1).In 2016, the European Union established a European Centre of Expertise (ECE) in the field of labour law, employment and labour market policies. It covers legal, regulatory, economic and policy aspects of employment and labour markets, including reforms, in the 28 Member States.I would ask the Commission to clarify the following:1.What activities has the ECE has carried out in relation to Italy?2.Does the situation of workers in the Italian cleaning and multi-service sectors comply with European labour law provisions? (1)https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/10/24/puliamo-scuole-ospedali-uffici-bus-ma-ci-danno-7-euro-lordi-allora-la-battaglia-dei-lavoratori-multiservizi-per-il-contratto/5978010/

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "Given the ILO’s finding that Swedish legislation adopted following the Court of Justice’s ruling in the Laval case is incompatible with its conventions, what does the Commission propose to do to prevent EClaw from forcing Member States to adopt legislation that conflicts with ILO conventions? More generally, what is the Commission’s view of the critical remarks made by the ILO concerning setbacks in EU countries to the right of workers to organise, and what action does it propose to take?(1) (1)This question refers to the following section of the ILO report: Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations; Report III‐ Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations 2013‐ 102ndSession Part1 (A), pp.176-181. The report concerns the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 (ratified 1949) (No87) and [the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949] (No98). See press release of the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) and the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCU) published 27February2013: ‘ILO: Swedish Laval Legislation Violates Freedom of Association’.". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

P-006104-13

Labour, employment and pensions

Given the ILO’s finding that Swedish legislation adopted following the Court of Justice’s ruling in the Laval case is incompatible with its conventions, what does the Commission propose to do to prevent EClaw from forcing Member States to adopt legislation that conflicts with ILO conventions? More generally, what is the Commission’s view of the critical remarks made by the ILO concerning setbacks in EU countries to the right of workers to organise, and what action does it propose to take?(1) (1)This question refers to the following section of the ILO report: Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations; Report III‐ Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations 2013‐ 102ndSession Part1 (A), pp.176-181. The report concerns the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 (ratified 1949) (No87) and [the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949] (No98). See press release of the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) and the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCU) published 27February2013: ‘ILO: Swedish Laval Legislation Violates Freedom of Association’.

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "According to the view expressed by the Commission in various documents (see, for example, the Green Paper on the modernisation of labour law), there are European workers who prefer a period of ‘protected unemployment’ to a ‘protected job’. Furthermore, it is claimed that there are a considerable number of workers who prefer part-time employment with a reduced income to 8hours of full-time work with higher and more stable remuneration. However, apart from these general points, the Commission makes no reference to the unemployed (who have abandoned the search for work owing to disappointment), or, of course, their views on this subject. What data has the Commission used to determine the percentage of workers who are in stable employment and would prefer ‘protected unemployment’ in the 27Member States of the Union? What are the reasons why some workers prefer part-time employment to stable employment and what is their level of income? Finally, what is the rate of unemployment in the EU as a whole?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-2382/07

Labour, employment and pensions

According to the view expressed by the Commission in various documents (see, for example, the Green Paper on the modernisation of labour law), there are European workers who prefer a period of ‘protected unemployment’ to a ‘protected job’. Furthermore, it is claimed that there are a considerable number of workers who prefer part-time employment with a reduced income to 8hours of full-time work with higher and more stable remuneration. However, apart from these general points, the Commission makes no reference to the unemployed (who have abandoned the search for work owing to disappointment), or, of course, their views on this subject. What data has the Commission used to determine the percentage of workers who are in stable employment and would prefer ‘protected unemployment’ in the 27Member States of the Union? What are the reasons why some workers prefer part-time employment to stable employment and what is their level of income? Finally, what is the rate of unemployment in the EU as a whole?

<s>[INST] Here is a question of a member of the European parliament. Question: "As has been denounced by trade unions, the Spanish Government has violated fundamental labour rights by imposing a minimum service requirement of 90% as well as binding arbitration in connection with the Eulen industrial dispute at El Prat airport, directly attacking Eulen and Aena employees, who denounce the deterioration of working conditions as a result of the outsourcing and the privatisation of air services. In its answer to Question P-000572/2016, the Commission stated that ‘the right to strike is a fundamental right and any limitations to its exercise can only be exceptional and must be duly justified’. Article28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of theEU, in particular, recognises the right of workers to ‘take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action’, in line with Article6 of the European Social Charter. The recommendation on the European Pillar of Social Rights, in point8 thereof, expressly upholds ‘the right to collective action’. 1.Is the Commission aware of the Eulen labour dispute at El Prat airport? 2.Does it consider that imposing a compulsory minimum service provision of nearly 100% across the board in public services and requiring binding arbitration in situations such as that in question run counter to the justified and exceptional nature that limitations on the right to strike should have?". And this are major political agenda topics: ['1 = Macroeconomics','2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties','3 = Health','4 = Agriculture and Fisheries','5 = Labour, employment and pensions','6 = Education','7 = Environment','8 = Energy','9 = Immigration','10 = Transportation','12 = Law and Crime','13 = Social welfare','14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning','15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues','16 = Defence','17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues','18 = Foreign trade','19 = International affairs and foreign aid','20 = Governance and government','21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues','23 = Culture and media','99 = none of the above']. Please return only a json list of at most 3 elements corresponding to the text labels:[/INST] [5]. </s>

E-005510-17

Labour, employment and pensions

As has been denounced by trade unions, the Spanish Government has violated fundamental labour rights by imposing a minimum service requirement of 90% as well as binding arbitration in connection with the Eulen industrial dispute at El Prat airport, directly attacking Eulen and Aena employees, who denounce the deterioration of working conditions as a result of the outsourcing and the privatisation of air services. In its answer to Question P-000572/2016, the Commission stated that ‘the right to strike is a fundamental right and any limitations to its exercise can only be exceptional and must be duly justified’. Article28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of theEU, in particular, recognises the right of workers to ‘take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action’, in line with Article6 of the European Social Charter. The recommendation on the European Pillar of Social Rights, in point8 thereof, expressly upholds ‘the right to collective action’. 1.Is the Commission aware of the Eulen labour dispute at El Prat airport? 2.Does it consider that imposing a compulsory minimum service provision of nearly 100% across the board in public services and requiring binding arbitration in situations such as that in question run counter to the justified and exceptional nature that limitations on the right to strike should have?