10 Amendments of Thomas HÄNDEL related to 2016/2211(BUD)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that Finland submitted the application for a financial contribution from the EGF on 11 March 2016, and that following additional information provided by Finland, its assessment was finalised by the Commission on 29 July 2016, thereby respecting the deadline of 12 weeks from receipt of the completed application;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Recognises that this application continues a series of cases revolving around the decline of Nokia in Finland and that two further related applications for workers being made redundant in the ICT sector are expected to follow;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Emphasises the importance of the ICT sector to employment in the regions of Helsinki-Uusimaa, Etelä-Suomi and Länsi-Suomi and the potential for the redundant workers to contribute to the industry if they receive sufficient support through further education, training and plans to take up entrepreneurship;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Welcomes the high percentage (close to 80 %) of the overall package being used for personalised services;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Notes that the pay subsidy mentioned in paragraph 7 is between 30 and 50 % of the worker’s payroll costs and will be given for a period of 6 to 24 months; calls on Member States to pay strict attention when using pay subsidies to ensure that redundant workers hired with a subsidy are not replacing, in whole or in part, a position held previously by another employee at the company concerned; is pleased the Finnish authorities have given assurances that this is the case;
Amendment 14 #
7 b. Notes that the income support measures amount to 16,64 % of the overall package of personalised measures, well below the 35 % limit set by the EGF Regulation and that these actions are conditional on the active participation of the targeted beneficiaries in job-search or training activities;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7 c. Invites the Commission to evaluate and provide information about the impact of these income support measures over a period of several years, to ensure that they are supporting high-quality employment and not being used to subsidise short- term, low-cost contracts;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9 c. Recalls that, in line with Article 7 of the EGF Regulation, the design of the coordinated package of personalised services should anticipate future labour market perspectives and required skills and should be compatible with the shift towards a resource-efficient and sustainable economy.
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. StressNotes that the Finnish authorities have confirmed that the eligibleproposed actions dowill not receive assistancefinancial support from other Union funds or financial instruments, that any double financing will be prevented and that such actions are complementary to actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to the Commission to present an annual comparative evaluation of those data to ensure full respect of the existing regulations and that no duplication of Union-funded services can occur;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Reiterates that assistanceWelcomes Finland’s assurance that a financial contribution from the EGF mustwill not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements nor measures for restructuring companies or sectors; notes that Finland has confirmed that the EGF contribution will indeed not replace themthe enterprise concerned is required to take by virtue of national law or pursuant to collective agreements;