The proposed Bolkestein directive seriously undermines the application of health at work rules which in many cases involve the definition of requirements for service providers who may have a direct role in prevention (preventive services, organization of health surveillance, construction site coordination, ...) or as economic operators whose activities may affect the health and safety of workers (e.g., building contractors, temporary employment, ...).

Far from bringing about a harmonization consistent with the protection of safety and health, the proposal actually sets out to significantly restrict Member States' abilities to introduce rules that guarantee quality of work by what may be key players in health and safety. This would undermine state institutions (parliament, the executive, administrative agencies) as well as many non-state actors, since the “requirements” that are prohibited or constrained by the proposal for a directive may be collective rules taken up by legally independent professional bodies or associations. By listing prohibited and questionable requirements (“to be evaluated”), the proposal for a directive far overshoots its professed aim. It does not stop short at tackling whatever discriminatory requirements might prospectively be laid down purely to protect a national market, but in fact sharply curtails States’ abilities to continue regulating the market in services.

• Read more
• Link to the ETUC comments and position
• HSC's response to DTI's consultation on draft EU Directive on Services in the Internal Market
• Controversy over draft Directive on services
  A report for the EIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory)