1. If the legislature intended to facilitate business redundancy, you can do this in several ways: you can define more flexible because you can reduce the compensation would ease procedural requirements. In this recent labor reform has been chosen all these tracks at once . 2. As we saw in the previous post, the system allows the employer to terminate the contract so unilaterally, without the employee, solely on their own interest. However, in these cases, the law requires it to compensate the worker for an indemnity of 20 days salary per year of service.
3. To reduce the compensation paid by the employer that the employee has chosen to not see their compensation reduced, but some of it is paid by a public fund. For now, the Wage Guarantee Fund will pay 8 days of salary per year of service (so that employers only pay 12) . This rule is temporary. Subsequently, it is supposed to be to create a capital fund, will pay an undetermined amount to be deducted from severance payments. Little can be said of this fund future whose regulation is left for the moment, in the darkness of uncertainty.
4. The benefit currently provided applies only to new contracts and contracts that have lasted over a year . also accumulates that small businesses perceive and . Thus, a company with fewer than 25 workers, the social fund would pay 40% of compensation to certain limits, in addition to these 8 days of salary per year or about-not exactly, 16 days of the 20 planned by the Statute of Workers. Thus, the business redundancy you would a small business for about 4 days' salary (not exactly), per year of service.
6. As for funding, we must consider whether the Fund Wage Guarantee has enough resources to contribute to the general lowering of the dismissal of all companies, whatever their economic situation, I have no idea, but it seems that right now there dough to spend. From the bottom
"Austrian" we know nothing, except a mysterious message written in code in the Royal Decree Law states that not involve an increase in employers' contributions ; do not know if that means will get the money from a magic cornucopia, if you end up going to manage the bank as a sort of compulsory private insurance or pension plan ( think wrong and be right) if you are to be financed government deficit or are the workers who will be paid directly your own dismissal in convenient installments.
7. I believe this uncertainty is a reflection of an inherent contradiction in this policy decision. As I tried to argue above, the reduction of severance pay does not affect significantly to job creation . However, an increase in employer contributions to fund future job losses themselves that most clearly affect the company's decision to hire , since, at first, more expensive and regular the immediate cost of labor.
long term, yes, even employers who pay, it is normal that these payments are completed to impact on wages (as part of what economists call "indirect wages"). So, ultimately, in some ways yes they are the workers who will finance their future dismissal. But even so, the contributions can be seen as restricting the use (a kind of tax on labor).
8. There is a fact that could be positive for the establishment of this fund (not yet implemented, therefore). portion of the compensation paid does not depend on the age in the company, but seniority in the market, since it would accumulate, even if the worker go from one company to another . In this way, yes that is partially addressed some of the negative effects on productivity caused by the fact that our system of employment protection is based solely on seniority. To the extent that the compensation does not depend on seniority, eliminating disincentives for workers seeking employment in other companies to improve their situation, and incentives for employers to get rid of their employees before they reach a certain age.
In any case, so that the effect was significant, would affect a significant portion of compensation, greatly increasing employer contributions (those who say they will rise), which significantly hamper job creation.
9. The main side effect of this reduction in the cost of dismissal from the new relationship established between the dismissal and alternative measures (working or not) for dealing with situations of inefficiency of the company, especially when the cause had been relaxed . Compensation not only serves to compensate the employee for damages caused by the unilateral breach of contract. If the dismissal leaves cheaper, provide an attractive solution for the entrepreneur , in particular when undertaking significant changes to working conditions or transfers, workers may decide to leave the company with a compensation of 20 days salary per year of service ; to this compensation does not contribute any funds . So, to dismiss a worker can go for 12, or even, for about 4 days' salary per year, while trying to shift it can cost 20 days per year, without public subsidy, if the employee does not accept the change. This effect contradicts the rhetoric of the preamble, showing a preference for internal flexibility on decisions extinct.
10. Sometimes it requires that the regulation of "notice" also affects the cost of dismissal for objective reasons. The law requires the employer to the worker is some time before the decision to terminate the contract, and even forced him to grant paid leave to seek employment. For various reasons, this notice is not met rarely, automatically replaced by financial compensation. With labor reform, the notice is reduced from 30 to 15 days, implying a reduction of 15 days wages absolute perception that the worker receives the dismissal, this action also affects the pre-reform contracts.
11. There is no doubt therefore that the business redundancy has greatly facilitated. The logic in this case would have been more severely deal with unfair dismissals, which are those that determine the core of the (im) balance of power between employers and employees. As discussed in the next post, not only has not properly fought arbitrary dismissal, but also has helped in a way aberrant.
3. To reduce the compensation paid by the employer that the employee has chosen to not see their compensation reduced, but some of it is paid by a public fund. For now, the Wage Guarantee Fund will pay 8 days of salary per year of service (so that employers only pay 12) . This rule is temporary. Subsequently, it is supposed to be to create a capital fund, will pay an undetermined amount to be deducted from severance payments. Little can be said of this fund future whose regulation is left for the moment, in the darkness of uncertainty.
4. The benefit currently provided applies only to new contracts and contracts that have lasted over a year . also accumulates that small businesses perceive and . Thus, a company with fewer than 25 workers, the social fund would pay 40% of compensation to certain limits, in addition to these 8 days of salary per year or about-not exactly, 16 days of the 20 planned by the Statute of Workers. Thus, the business redundancy you would a small business for about 4 days' salary (not exactly), per year of service.
5. This measure would not be especially shocking if it had been limited dismissals from , although some may consider controversial issues from the perspective of funding and, secondly, we must take into account some perverse effects, especially in conjunction with relaxation of the cause.
6. As for funding, we must consider whether the Fund Wage Guarantee has enough resources to contribute to the general lowering of the dismissal of all companies, whatever their economic situation, I have no idea, but it seems that right now there dough to spend. From the bottom
"Austrian" we know nothing, except a mysterious message written in code in the Royal Decree Law states that not involve an increase in employers' contributions ; do not know if that means will get the money from a magic cornucopia, if you end up going to manage the bank as a sort of compulsory private insurance or pension plan ( think wrong and be right) if you are to be financed government deficit or are the workers who will be paid directly your own dismissal in convenient installments.
7. I believe this uncertainty is a reflection of an inherent contradiction in this policy decision. As I tried to argue above, the reduction of severance pay does not affect significantly to job creation . However, an increase in employer contributions to fund future job losses themselves that most clearly affect the company's decision to hire , since, at first, more expensive and regular the immediate cost of labor.
long term, yes, even employers who pay, it is normal that these payments are completed to impact on wages (as part of what economists call "indirect wages"). So, ultimately, in some ways yes they are the workers who will finance their future dismissal. But even so, the contributions can be seen as restricting the use (a kind of tax on labor).
8. There is a fact that could be positive for the establishment of this fund (not yet implemented, therefore). portion of the compensation paid does not depend on the age in the company, but seniority in the market, since it would accumulate, even if the worker go from one company to another . In this way, yes that is partially addressed some of the negative effects on productivity caused by the fact that our system of employment protection is based solely on seniority. To the extent that the compensation does not depend on seniority, eliminating disincentives for workers seeking employment in other companies to improve their situation, and incentives for employers to get rid of their employees before they reach a certain age.
In any case, so that the effect was significant, would affect a significant portion of compensation, greatly increasing employer contributions (those who say they will rise), which significantly hamper job creation.
9. The main side effect of this reduction in the cost of dismissal from the new relationship established between the dismissal and alternative measures (working or not) for dealing with situations of inefficiency of the company, especially when the cause had been relaxed . Compensation not only serves to compensate the employee for damages caused by the unilateral breach of contract. If the dismissal leaves cheaper, provide an attractive solution for the entrepreneur , in particular when undertaking significant changes to working conditions or transfers, workers may decide to leave the company with a compensation of 20 days salary per year of service ; to this compensation does not contribute any funds . So, to dismiss a worker can go for 12, or even, for about 4 days' salary per year, while trying to shift it can cost 20 days per year, without public subsidy, if the employee does not accept the change. This effect contradicts the rhetoric of the preamble, showing a preference for internal flexibility on decisions extinct.
10. Sometimes it requires that the regulation of "notice" also affects the cost of dismissal for objective reasons. The law requires the employer to the worker is some time before the decision to terminate the contract, and even forced him to grant paid leave to seek employment. For various reasons, this notice is not met rarely, automatically replaced by financial compensation. With labor reform, the notice is reduced from 30 to 15 days, implying a reduction of 15 days wages absolute perception that the worker receives the dismissal, this action also affects the pre-reform contracts.
11. There is no doubt therefore that the business redundancy has greatly facilitated. The logic in this case would have been more severely deal with unfair dismissals, which are those that determine the core of the (im) balance of power between employers and employees. As discussed in the next post, not only has not properly fought arbitrary dismissal, but also has helped in a way aberrant.
0 comments:
Post a Comment