Übersetzung für "Arbeitsplätze gefährden" in Englisch

Counterfeiting and piracy undermine jobs and result in a considerable loss of revenue.

Thus, the existence of the Community industry and many jobs may, ultimately, be at risk.

The cost of these missed opportunities can run into millions of euro and threaten jobs.

It is also likely to threaten jobs elsewhere.

He makes the clear and correct observation that the decision would immediately jeopardize a sector which employs 140 000 people in Europe.

Taking into account jobs in mining-related industries, this could jeopardise up to 100 000 jobs.

We should not jeopardize more jobs by operating at a competitive disadvantage as a result of inadequate research into industry.

Any other behaviour would threaten the European Idea, our prosperity and, above all, our jobs.

Citing scientific evidence, the text argues that software patents in Europe will hurt jobs and innovation.

They expressed particular concern that the current difficulties would put at risk a significant number of jobs and underlined the importance they attached to the future of the industry.

Mr Commissioner, if you do not succeed in solving this problem, you will not only put countless jobs at risk, but you will also compromise the postal provision we have agreed on in this House.

Is it not rather contradictory to organize grandiose employment summits, set up action plans to preserve and create jobs, and then simultaneously, by rigidly adhering to principles, jeopardize more jobs than programmes of this kind could ever preserve or create?

Do you believe that it is possible to evaluate what levels of particulate matter should be taken into account in future in order to prevent jobs being put at risk?

It was then put to me that freeing-up trade and having liberalization was actually harmful to jobs and the issue was brought up of the possibilities of some form of agreement between the European Union and the United States.

A possible trade war would jeopardise tens of thousands of jobs, which clearly conflicts with the aims of Union employment policy.

Our opposition to this process, which forms part of the Lisbon Strategy, revolves not solely around federalist issues relating to legislative harmonisation and to the effective loss of sovereignty over monitoring financial services markets and those operating in these markets, it is also based on economic considerations, given that the unchecked movement of capital and the speculative nature of a market focused on the short term and on accruing capital gains are responsible for increased volatility and for the likelihood of financial crises, which affect economic growth and jobs.

There are many examples demonstrating that reduction is possible, and a gradual reduction strategy could have been introduced without endangering the industry and jobs.

It is appalling that social dumping and environmental dumping, which jeopardise jobs in Europe and are at the heart of unfair competition, can be allowed to continue unchecked in the world and to continue to act to our detriment.

If the directive becomes a reality in that form, it will constitute, at a global level, the best guarantee for protecting health from dangerous chemical substances, without jeopardising thousands of jobs, or putting small and medium-sized enterprises into an impossible situation, nor giving away any manufacturing secrets.

As the European Parliament, and as the European Union, we must not allow unfair trade practices to damage European business and put jobs at risk. Otherwise, these unfair practices will emerge in other sectors too, impeding growth and threatening jobs.

The rules will threaten jobs in countries like mine and will have a knock-on effect in other sectors.

If we impose further restrictions on European industries, we will jeopardise both the competitiveness of companies and employment, and in the end investments will shift towards countries that do not raise climate-related obstacles.

They range from the case of General Motors to that of so many small and medium-sized enterprises right up to what is taking place, for example, in the Eaton factory, in Piedmont, a business in which the restructuring process and the failure to comply with trade union agreements are seriously threatening jobs.

Both in agriculture and industry, there are likely to be considerable structural changes, which could threaten many jobs.

The Committee asks the Commission to bear in mind that the increasing professionalisation and industrialisation of recovery, recycling and re-use processes may threaten jobs already created which provide accessible employment for disadvantaged groups.