The government held its chest and for around five months, in the privacy of its offices, it prepared a set of changes to labor legislation without articulating with the unions what it was building.
The house started from the roof and let’s see if, now, the house doesn’t fall on top of it.
Excessive confidence and a huge lack of common sense on the part of the Executive led to a threat of a general strike by its union federations, UGT and CGTP.
Government arrogance? Without a doubt yes. Lack of common sense? There certainly was. Tough strategy in proposals so there is room for retreat later? It’s possible so, but things won’t go well.
I don’t know what goes through the mind of the government that decides to initiate changes to labor legislation without first listening to the social partners in order to feel the pulse and their availability for these same changes.
Where is the promised dialogue?
The government’s lack of dialogue stance led to the scheduling of a general strike and a rare unity between the two unions. A blind knot for which the Executive will have to have great skill to be able to undo.
This does not mean that labor legislation does not need to be changed in the sense of modernization that accompanies the new labor relations that today have nothing to do with what existed two decades ago.
Let’s look at some of the more controversial aspects of what’s at stake!
The minimum services of the strike law have, naturally, to be changed. It makes no sense to schedule strikes at the end or beginning of the week, leading to long weekends and preventing those who, not joining the strike, want to find transport solutions to travel to their workplaces. They are within their rights and should be given that possibility.
With regard to fixed-term contracts, it does not make much sense to change the period of their application from two to three years. Term contracts with fixed start and end dates are an instrument to maintain a certain form of precariousness over the worker and their job. The employers, once and for all, must understand that they are in favor of the worker “wearing the company’s shirt” and having a horizon of security in their employment relationship. Increases your productivity. There is usually some stupidity on the part of employers who prefer to maintain fragile employment relationships.
In terms of dismissals in companies with up to 250 workers (the overwhelming majority of Portuguese companies are at this level) the government is perhaps entering the realm of unconstitutionality. How can we admit that a worker who is fired does not have the right to conduct investigations and indicate witnesses to defend himself?
Identical situation when a company makes an unlawful dismissal. In this situation, the government does not want to allow the Working Conditions Authority, within its responsibilities, to stop this unlawful dismissal. How will this be possible?
Regarding the time bank, in this chapter we believe that the worker can accumulate hours (up to a limit of 50 hours per week and 150 hours per year). Useful, for example, for younger people (or less young people) who want to have a longer vacation.
Regarding flexible schedules for those who have children up to 12 years of age with disabilities or chronic illnesses, it makes perfect sense for flexible schedules to be authorized, contrary to what the Executive wants.
There is, however, one aspect in which the government is right, when it wants companies to fire workers who present false certificates. Of course, there is nothing more to say about this. Dismissal and period.
Finally, as for “outsorcing”, that is, hiring external services in the face of a collective or individual dismissal of workers, it doesn’t seem good to us. External services must be hired when there are no technical solutions within companies to perform certain tasks. Not to replace collective or individual redundancies.
Well, are all these issues that I listed above really that difficult to negotiate?
No, they are not. The government must be open to dialogue, correct errors and avoid a general strike. This is if you don’t want to have a lion’s entrance and a path exit.
Journalist