Ah, but the labor reform is not an event at the cutting edge? No doubt. But before starting to analyze it, it must be some forethought. Because in this subject heading there are some errors that may distort the understanding of the problem. is said to address the crisis it must be a "labor reform" , this is practically forced, in this way will invigorate the labor market. is also said that this reform has to involve a lowering of dismissal to facilitate recruitment. Two lies. And fat. At one point, at the beginning of the crisis, these lies have been spread by people and organizations interested in broadcast and have been repeated so many people they have been believed.
The second claim is more controversial. But the truth is that the first statement, that is to do a labor reform to address the crisis, was taken as indisputable. Some critics have complained, it must be said, but the truth is that almost everyone has believed in the media, on the street, in institutions, in organizations. Or, to be exact, there are people that you know is a lie, but believe it was fake because which moves not in the photo.
All this has much to do with a problem of politicking in general and our industrial relations system in particular which I can not stop now. What matters is not what it is, but what it seems. The ritual, symbol, creates a magical reality made up of words that are projected on the conflicts and anxieties of material reality. A labor reforms, among other things, they are attributed a role thaumaturgical in job creation, although this was not underpinned by sound arguments and statistics that demonstrate the limited role, if there are any building- use of the subsequent amendments. In the present context, it seems that if the Government makes a labor reform is doing something against the crisis and it seems that if welfare reform does not doing anything. seems . That is what matters.
the end, the second statement hides lurking inside the first. Everyone certainly has to do a labor reform to end the crisis and the lowering of dismissal flapping under water the first mantra and ends up at our door, but we have not called. Because, for those who propagated the first lie, "labor market reform" is a euphemism for lowering of dismissal. " There will be some things to say.
1. In our society, not labor law who creates employment, but the companies that produce goods or services. If business network, if there is real economy, if demand for goods and services, as there employment. If there are no companies that produce things, because there are no jobs. This is a truism, but you have to say more.
2. It is clear that the crisis has not led to labor market regulation, which was the same in good times, but in any case, the progressive deregulation of financial markets has been conducted worldwide since the 80's. The financial turmoil over the economy to blow illusory speculators who had built, but this has made banks turn off the tap of financing the real economy companies, which have finally sunk. This is what must be addressed if we want to address the crisis. Sure, it would then have to annoy the banks, which are those who finance political parties.
3. Labour Law does not serve to create jobs, but to produce social cohesion channeling the conflicting interests between employers and workers through the generalization of expectations . That said, its effective implementation can have side effects of all kinds, positive and negative, on various aspects of the economy and society. Employment could be affected, at least theory, among other things: we must look at these effects in all their complexity, not isolate them so scrawny. In any case, these possible effects on employment levels will not be miraculous, but rather modest. Broadly speaking, the Labour Law does not set the number of jobs but, above all, the conditions under which it operates.
4. Anyway, is true that labor costs may adversely affect, at least in theory, investment or decision to hire . Especially if labor productivity is low (ie, if the production model is based on the mundanity) and if it is particularly profitable to speculate rather than invest in the real economy. If starting a business is very expensive and unprofitable, while putting the capital in an investment fund in a tax haven comes far more benefits, but of course, there is little appetite to invest in companies that produce goods and services and need to hire people . Here
should be sought a delicate balance between, on one hand, the business need to limit costs to maximize profit and, on the other hand, the interests of workers. This is not surprising the Labour Law, which specifically deals with channel conflict, searching for equilibrium points. However, the volume of employment not confined to individual decisions of the employer to hire or more workers. As mentioned above, the level of employment depends on demand for goods or services, which in turn derives from consumption. Thus, the employer crappy interest that disqualified workers are "cheap", but at the same time we can agree that its customers are workers "expensive" in companies less crappy. Because if people takes a good salary, can consume more goods and services, creating a demand for the market. If incomes are low, people consume fewer goods and services and in any case, lower quality, generalizing the trend of mundanity (because the things of higher quality are those that require workers skilled and therefore more expensive to hire).
5. In any case, reduce costs if we want to influence the business decision to hire is LIE that these effects is important to control the high costs of dismissal . This is obvious. During the years of economic boom created a HUGE amount of employment with the regulation we had. I would go even further, it created a huge amount of precarious employment, something for nothing impossible in our system. It is completely untrue that the costs of unfair dismissal would constitute a significant disincentive to hiring. First, because we live in a country with the lowest unused temporary and lots of precarious contractual arrangements available to entrepreneurs. Second, because under the illusory surface of contractual arrangements, the true separation of our labor market does not refer to the type of contract, but rather old, so it is very easy to get rid of an employee without cause when it takes little time in the company, regardless of whether their contract is indefinite. Workers become "expensive" to fire (without cause and "face") when many years pass, but that's as far from the initial decision to hire.
When deciding whether it is worthwhile to establish a business or hire more people, the employer shall account of wages, social contributions and administrative costs and bureaucratic, but not the eventual dismissal may be produced within 20 years, much less if the contract is temporary. It is true that there are failures due to excessive role of old, but that's another story.
6. As is another story, some concerned voices sell the lowering of dismissal as a tool for overcoming the segmentation of our labor market. It is true that this segmentation exists, but the solutions given are inconsistent. First, not matter the type of contract used, because the real segregation is given by the length company. Most temporary contracts are "legal fraud" and extinction can be considered unfair dismissal, but the award amount is too small to who has little time in the company, in any case, add additional complications to multiply the terms , but the segmentation is still there anyway. Second, because to provide new hires, which is usually done to encourage new forms of contract is indefinite, such as 33 days. Now we have workers compensation throughout the life of 45 days, employment support workers 33 days, others 45 days after the contract because the tap 33 days opened and closed temporarily, new workers for employment with 33 days and additional benefits of social fund and temporary workers of all kinds, with different compensation depending on the date, whether they are the years of service and wage that determines the actual amounts. What you do with these measures is to multiply the types of workers, increasing their division into castes with different rights. To say that this is anti-dualization of the labor market is an exercise in cynicism.
7. And if the costs of dismissal are not a disincentive to the recruitment of why so much effort then the firing and not something else? Really easy, I'll tell you, because the cost of dismissal is the true measure of the balance of power between the parties in the employment relationship . That is, difficult to dismiss a worker has a certain power over the employer and therefore a certain amount of autonomy and assertion of rights and interests. In contrast, easy to fire a worker is completely defenseless against the social and legal power unfolds before him their employer. If the dismissal is easy, the rest of labor rights, individual and collective, are worthless. There is the keystone of the entire labor law, so the dismissal is always a sensitive issue.
8. As we have believed the lie that we have to make a labor reform to face the crisis, the Government has taken to change many other things of the Statute. I wanted to change things anyway, following a normal legislative policy and is now trying to sell as a response to the economic crisis, though they were things that were going to do anyway (such as the regulation of private employment agencies). Some of these things are good, some very objectionable, others almost irrelevant. But that's the general tone of any legislative amendment. Labour reforms, can have all kinds, good bad or regular but they never exert a magical power over the labor market. Although some of these measures may be important, for practical purposes are flexible wrap dismissal, which is the real interest has segregated all of this ideology of reform that now afflicts us. why I believe that the most urgent is that I address this issue, the flexibility of firing close-in entries, whether they can later try to analyze the overall effects.
0 comments:
Post a Comment