It is evident that progress is being achieved in the the collection of domestic waste. In a medium to longterm perspective, it seems like a system is coming into its own for the methodical and orderly clearance of household refuse even as per capita our society is – if I understand correctly – generating the highest volumes of waste in Europe.

On the other hand, it is not so clear what progress there has been in the processing of garbage. Significant investments have been laid out in this area in which for a number of years we had lagged, not least given the commitments that were assumed in the EU framework. When it comes then to the final disposal of the waste, using (i.e. ruining) stretches of land where to bury it remains a leading solution; and these zones have continued to expand. Meanwhile, how sure are we that the method by which toxic waste is getting cleared remains sustainable?

The reports that are produced about these developments should be given more publicity and more attention by the media and the public.

***

MEMBERS OF A UNION

Workers who are union members get greater protection at their workplace than do non-members. If workers who earn less than a certain wage must by law become union members, it is likely that a good number of them will enjoy a greater degree of protection from exploitation at their workplace.

However one also needs to reflect about how employers could still get around such an arrangement. No doubt, attempts will be made to manouever with wage payments in ways that bring them outside any regulation that makes them subject to a mandatory union membership. A whole range of tricks could be developed on such lines. And this would happen over and above the fact that  much exploitation is “informal” in scope, as work is doled out and done outside the structure of a work contract.                      

***

LICENCES

The new system being proposed to license workers in the construction industry is necessary and should have been implemented long ago. It introduces obligatory standards of technical skill in construction for those who want to work in this sector.

However as I remember matters, a problem is that entrepreneurs who go in to do a project would not be well equippped to carry it out, nor would they have enough workers able to do it well. Sometimes they would bid for a contract and then see later about how to do it. In this process they would employ workers on an irregular basis, by fits and starts, according to what could best fit the job at hand. Personally, they would likely have the necesssry skills but give scant attention to whether their “employees” did.

This meant that work was being undertaken with inadequate equipment for what a job involved putting workers, even if qualified, in danger.

I cannot see how this problem will be addressed by issuing licences of proficiency in skills to workers in the construction industry.