Europe is strengthening its defence capabilities through the EU’s Military Mobility Package, designed to enable the swift movement of troops and equipment across borders in times of crisis. While the objective of improving preparedness is legitimate, it must be pursued in full respect of fundamental rights, social standards, and democratic governance.
The European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) is guided by a commitment to peace, international law, and multilateralism. The European trade union movement rejects the use of force to alter borders, supports diplomacy, and recognises the right to self-defence. At the same time, increasing defence capacity must not come at the expense of workers’ rights or risk fuelling escalation dynamics.
Critically, the current proposal fails to adequately recognise that military mobility depends overwhelmingly on civilian transport workers. Staff of civilian operators already carry the vast majority of military transport activities in Europe. Yet the proposal does not sufficiently address their rights, protections, or working conditions, nor it addresses the current labour market imbalances, which are an obstacle to seamless transport in Europe.
Emergency Powers Must Be Clearly Defined and Strictly Limited
The proposal introduces a European Military Mobility Enhanced Response System (EMERS), allowing exceptional transport measures during crises. While emergency coordination is necessary, the absence of clear definitions and safeguards creates serious risks.
The Regulation must explicitly define what constitutes an “emergency” and ensure that emergency powers remain strictly exceptional, proportionate, and time limited. Without such safeguards, temporary derogations risk becoming permanent governance tools—a pattern previously observed in EU crisis responses.
Most importantly, industrial action can never be considered an emergency. The right to strike is a fundamental right protected under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and must be explicitly excluded from the scope of EMERS activation.
No Derogation from Labour Standards Without Social Dialogue
The proposal allows for exemptions from core labour and fair competition rules, including working time, rest periods, and cabotage restrictions. These rules are not administrative burdens—they are essential safeguards for workers’ health, safety, and fair competition.
Any derogation from these standards must be strictly justified and proportionate, must be limited in time, and must be subject to prior negotiation with social partners, including compensation mechanisms for affected workers.
Unilateral relaxation of labour standards is unacceptable. Weakening protections will not enhance resilience; it will deepen labour shortages and further destabilise already strained transport sectors.
Resilience Requires good jobs
The Military Mobility Package is built on the assumption that transport systems can absorb additional pressure during crises. This assumption does not reflect reality.
Across Europe, transport sectors face acute labour shortages, ageing workforces, and persistent recruitment and retention challenges. Staffing levels are often already minimal, limiting operational flexibility.
Resilience cannot be achieved by overburdening an already fragile workforce. It requires investment in working conditions, staffing levels and a well-functioning labour market. Without this, the system will not be able to deliver in times of crisis.
These are long-term challenges, originating from political choices and increasing focus on competition across transport. The situation won’t be changed through a military mobility package but recognising the current challenges and the need to act are necessary steps.
Training, Safety, and Fundamental Rights Must Be Guaranteed
Transporting military equipment is not a routine operation. It requires specialised training, coordination, and strict safety standards. The current proposal does not adequately address these requirements.
Furthermore, the potential mobilisation of civilian assets—and possibly workers—raises fundamental rights concerns. The Regulation must explicitly recognise the right to conscientious objection, as enshrined in international and European human rights instruments.
Workers must have the right to refuse participation in military transport operations on grounds of conscience, and clear legal protections must be established.
Social Partners Must Be Central to Governance
The governance framework proposed in the package risks marginalising social partners. This is unacceptable.
Trade unions and employers possess essential operational knowledge and must be fully integrated into decision-making structures. Effective crisis management depends on trust, and trust requires meaningful, institutionalised social dialogue, not consultation after decisions have already been made.
A “whole-of-government” approach, as envisaged in the EU framework, must also be a whole-of-society approach, including workers and their representatives .
Security and Social Justice Are Interdependent
Strengthening military mobility is part of Europe’s response to a changing security environment. However, resilience is not only about infrastructure, procedures, or speed—it is also about people.
Transport workers are not simply a logistical resource. They are skilled professionals whose rights, safety, and dignity must be always protected.
If the EU fails to strike the right balance, it risks undermining the very democratic values it seeks to defend. Security and social justice are not competing priorities—they are mutually reinforcing and must advance together.
The European Economic and Social Committee issued an opinion on the package which acknowledging many of the priorities outlined by the ETF. Th file is currently being discussed by the European Parliament and Council. We are making our voice heard by policy-makers to make sure the final text reflects the views of the workers that move Europe.
The full ETF position paper “Safeguarding Workers in Europe’s Military Mobility Plans” is available here.