How To Sew In A Weave With A Fringe

DEVELOPMENTS: THE DISMISSAL "BY THE FACE"

1. In the English economy, external flexibility needs of enterprises (= adaptation of the number of workers to productive needs) was channeled through the checkout the employment of older workers less (largely young people, women and immigrants). This strategy has been manifested primarily in two legal institutions: temporary contracts and compensation for unfair dismissal.

2. In this context, unfair dismissal has become a way "normal" to adapt the templates to the economic situation even when there is legal cause for dismissal. Implicitly or explicitly, consciously or unconsciously, most employers do not receive compensation for unfair dismissal as the penalty that the law provides for conduct illegal, but rather considered as the cost involved in a legitimate business decision. When defending business interests complain that the cost of dismissal in Spain is "too high", they often refer to the cost of unfair dismissal. This amounts to criticize something like build houses is very expensive because of how expensive they are the fines associated with breaches of planning legislation.

3. The "strategy of unfair dismissal" has important shortcomings. Thus, even fired for business reasons, though formally through an unfair dismissal for workers older-out "too light" workers with little seniority are completely unprotected against arbitrary dismissals , those deriving from the improved exercise of raw power of the person acting on behalf and not always in the interest of the employer (I like you / you do not I like you, you are docile / you are not obedient, you protest / you the power you submit, you are very effective / you make me no shadow), layoffs "by the face." Since firing older workers continue to leave "too expensive", business demands continue to focus on compensation for unfair dismissal and every new reform, the workers work taking her vulnerable in a situation increasingly precarious.

4. As we have seen in previous entries in the labor reform of 2010 has established an important relaxation of business reasons for dismissal and, moreover, s and have funded severance pay from . As this was not done in a negotiated, but unilateral, has served only to business interests and has got a good goal to the team of workers. But from a legal standpoint, these business claims would have been channeled in a reasonable way: expanding opportunities and reducing legally fire costs of redundancy. This reform would have been, therefore, an opportunity to redress the balance by placing effective limits for unfair dismissal, now even more unjustified, since it has reduced the requirement of cause for dismissal.

5. First, compensation for unfair dismissal depends solely on seniority and salary, without taking into account other factors that may also be important, as the gravity of business failure, the damage suffered by the worker, the worker's conduct and the employer during the procedure, the economic capacity of the company, etc. Second, Contrary to what happens to most civil claims (and has not plunged the world), the amount is completely predictable, which facilitates its consideration as a cost, and I saw a list in which the entrepreneur trying to prorate the monthly salary, as if it were a paid extra. Third, although it has provided a ceiling, what is reasonable, there is no minimum threshold, so that the dismissal "by the face" of workers with low seniority is virtually free. Fourth, wages are forgiven processing employers to recognize the illegality of the dismissal and the employer "good" he is convinced to be right and defend to the end he is punished by the order if the judge finds that the cause is insufficient, while the employer "bad" bouncing "over the hill" and openly admits it is rewarded; be indifferent the reason or not having . reform, despite having eased significantly from the dismissal, has not faced any of these problems .

6. Another gift of order for the defaulting employer is the aberration called "contract for the promotion of permanent contracts, which reduces compensation for unfair dismissal to 33 days salary per year of service . Imagine the law had established a contract "for women" with a lower return on the grounds that this will encourage employers to hire women. Now stop imagining "strange things" and remember that compensation for unfair dismissal is compensation . And not only pay, but largely determines the arbitrary limits of corporate power and therefore the balance of power in the relationship.

However, the building contract for permanent hiring does not apply only to women but also other "disadvantaged groups" in the labor market. Well, actually, the trick is that it applies to almost everyone, so we can not say that it is a form discriminate against women or other social groups. But applying supposedly "disadvantaged" is the way that you can think of anyone to say they have reduced the compensation for unfair dismissal. The thing is not only the requirements are quite extensive, but also that each new reform is an "amnesty" to convert temporary contracts, implicitly, fraudulent contracts, the promotion of permanent contracts. A paradoxical phenomenon very similar to the regularization of foreigners.

7. However, in many cases employers prefer to pay compensation of 45 days (dismissal inappropriate discipline) than 33 (dismissal improper purpose building contract). Not that they are fools. Just happens that no disciplinary dismissal notice, although the disciplinary case is completely false (in other countries, so there is no notice, the cause must be very clear.) Instead, the dismissal notice and this lens has is substituted, as we have noted, for financial compensation. So, if the worker had more than two years in the company for compensation worth 33 days, but for smaller antiquities was the cheapest of 45. Now notice has been reduced by half, so extinction of 33 days comes more profitable if the employee has at least one year and three months in the company. This implies a transfer of disciplinary dismissal unfair dismissal improper purpose and increased the importance of compensation for 33 days.

8. But of course, compensation will not go for 33 or 45 days, but for 25 or 37 days per year of service, because the Wage Guarantee Fund will pay 8 days of salary per year of service also in wrongful dismissal . This is not only a gift to employers, but a legal and moral absurdity. Openly and unequivocally, a public fund is financing part of the cost of an illicit , of dismissal "in the face", thus encouraging the commission of these crimes. For when a fund to finance environmental crime? This measure is an insult to the logic of law, the law-abiding employers, whose contributions feed the fund and redistributed to the defaulters at this level, "to workers who suffer mainly from this concession to the raw power and the entire society English, who holds the public trust. To make matters worse, l business reasons as well have been relaxed it being funded are only arbitrary dismissal, based solely on the logic of power unrelated to any business rationale. Finally, it is expected that this reduction of the allowances paid by employers for unfair dismissal to significantly reduce being agreed upon to get by in the dismissals invalid by violation of fundamental rights or discrimination because readmission is often a realistic solution.

This outrageous action alone justifies and a general strike . Of course, it is hoped that the case merits "Austrian" who want to establish will not improve things (if not press for it), although in Austria, to my knowledge, this fund is to pay compensation for lawful dismissal.

9. There is a final gift to the employers' dismissal. Formerly, the dismissal was held to be unfair if there was sufficient cause and void if they violate fundamental rights or did not meet the formal requirements. Those who managed to defend corporate interests at the time that breach disciplinary dismissal the minimum requirements to be declared as null rather unfair. Why discipline? Because it was in this figure were concentrated layoffs "across the face." Now that seeks the transfer of many of the layoffs "the face" of the disciplinary objectives has achieved the same effect on redundancies objectives. That is, from now on only defects so it is inappropriate.

This seems silly, but it is not. Imagine that you are a business they want to fire someone "on the face," without cause, without reason. What is the punishment for violating the manner prescribed by the laws? As the dismissal is declared unfair. What is not so terrible punishment if the dismissal is unfair YA for lack of cause. And there is absolutely no additional penalty. In other words, they do not care to send a letter of dismissal or discharge conditions orally or even by "conclusive acts, without speaking. It must be remembered that the employee has 20 days to claim the dismissal since learned should be considered. When should be considered learned in a tacit dismissal? What if the judge interprets the employer already expressed in his day and has lost the action? Then the worker is left without compensation.

Ultimately, this reform maintains the horrific regime of unfair dismissal and multiplies the nonsense with new goodies. It is easy to put those things are not right. As a result of this mockery of the principle of causality of dismissal increases the arbitrary power of employers, affecting the entire system of guarantees Labour Law, which is worthless if workers do not dare to cough to avoid unfairly kicked out.