The European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) welcomes the recognition that Military Mobility is a workers’ issue, but warns that the failure to protect the right to strike and the introduction of disproportionate derogations pose serious risks for workers and for the credibility of the EU’s approach.
Yesterday in the European Parliament, the TRAN and SEDE committees adopted the Parliament’s negotiating position on Military Mobility. With the Council’s own mandate adopted last week, the co‑legislators are expected to enter interinstitutional negotiations soon.
ETF recognises and celebrates the fact that the compromise found by MEPs finally recognizes the role of transport workers in military mobility, notably thanks to support from MEPs in the S&D, Left and Greens/EFA groups. Nonetheless, we are dismayed that key safeguards have failed to reach a majority.
Most of all, the failure of co‑legislators to protect the right to strike sends a worrying sign. In the current wording of both positions, nothing prevents a Member State or the Commission from considering that industrial action creates a situation of emergency, crisis, or a gap between needs and capacity for military transport, and thus requires activating the exceptional regime (EMERS). EMERS would risk becoming a tool to break a strike, or retaliate against workers.
As stressed by ETF, grounds for activation of EMERS must include a clear, binding exception for collective industrial action. Choosing not to do so despite repeated calls from Trade Unions is both politically and legally problematic.
Protecting the fundamental right to strike is a political imperative as it is under increasing pressure across Europe, despite the ICJ’s recent confirmation that it is an integral part of freedom of association under ILO Convention No. 87. On the legal side, leaving things uncertain opens the door to the activation of EMERS being challenged in national courts for violating the right to collective action. ETF welcomes that the European Parliament report at least includes the exception in a recital.
Besides, sensible and necessary limits to EMERS have been put forward in the Parliament’s position, whereby its activation would be conditional upon a situation of emergency or crisis and reviewed periodically.
Derogations to the road transport acquis remain disproportionate. Co-legislators saw no issue with allowing longer driving periods before a break, or drivers to take their weekly rest in their truck. Such derogations even go beyond the worst practices of pandemic times, which had the disastrous consequences that road transport stakeholders know too well: dozens of thousands of drivers left the profession permanently.
What is even more disturbing is the proposal to allow workers to drive up to 12 weeks with only one 24‑hour rest per week. Something decision‑makers in Covid-19 times did not consider even on a short‑term basis is now at risk of being allowed for periods of up to a year under EMERS. Where the Member States did not flinch at this perspective, ETF salutes the commitment of MEPs to lower the maximum number of weeks from 12 to 8. As driver shortages loom higher than ever, ETF is genuinely wondering who will accept to work on those terms, except those people who do not really have a choice. Contracting authorities and road operators will have to compensate drivers properly to ensure the job retains some attractiveness, and does not become breeding ground for exploitation beyond what it already is.
On cabotage in emergency times, ETF regrets that all notion of proportionality is lost and rules will be automatically lifted everywhere in the EU, even in those countries where it is not necessary to facilitate military transport.
The ‘whole‑of‑society’ approach to Military Mobility promoted by those very negotiators in the Parliament 2025 political report has not gathered the same support this time. Despite some improvements, such as securing an observer role for social partners in EU‑level military mobility governance, co‑legislators overall did not create the adequate framework for involving Trade Unions at national level. This is an unacceptable shortcoming that will have serious repercussions on the acceptance – or lack thereof – of exceptional measures by workers when the time comes to apply them.
Last but not least, it appears there will be no uniform rules for the contracting of private operators across the Union. Where a Military Transport Certificate may be issued to civilian operators, following the Council’s position, it will seemingly not be conditional upon the fulfilment of social criteria, not even in those sectors exposed to fraud such as road freight transport.
ETF regrets that its warnings have been ignored so far, and reminds that under existing rules it is enough for unscrupulous companies (including, potentially, criminal ones) to register a letterbox company in one Member State with low compliance standards or enforcement, to be able to carry out dubious operations throughout the whole Union.
The report of the European Parliament also includes positive provisions on liability for military cargo, cabotage rules outside of EMERS, duration and periodic review of EMERS, or amendments to the EASA Basic Regulation.
The dossier is likely to move to interinstitutional negotiations as of July. ETF and its affiliate organisations remain mobilized to preserve the positive elements of the respective mandates, and secure the best possible deal for transport workers.
ETF’s detailed position on the Military Mobility regulation can be found here.