The CEOE presents its counterproposal to the Government: no maximum limits of temporary by sectors

The labour reform enters injury time, with the parties still distant in several of the bones of the negotiation. At this Tuesday’s meeting the CEOE has presented its counterproposal to the documents that the Government has been putting on the table to reform issues such as temporality, the Outsourcing, the ultraactive or the new model of ertes. Entrepreneurs do not propose an amendment to the whole, but almost. As detailed by different sources of social dialogue, CEOE has presented this Tuesday in writing its refusal to set limits or maximum percentages of temporary employment by sectors or company size, as proposed by the Government. In matters such as the application priority of the agreements, it remains firm in preserving the primacy of the sectorial ones. And in ultraactivity, it is open to agree on a minimum content that would not decline in case of losing the agreement.

The CEOE moves tab to try to turn around a labor reform that it sees marked by “ideology” and that is not “what Europe is asking for”, as its president, Antonio Garamendi, has reiterated in recent weeks. To do this, it puts on the table a twist to the proposal on temporality that the Executive raised them on November 17. The Labor, Economy and Social Security negotiators proposed limiting the eventuality according to the size of the company. With limits of 8% of eventuality for SMEs or 4% for large companies. There the businessmen have been planted and, according to sources of social dialogue, they have told the Government that there are no percentage limits or any kind of temporality.

They also do not see with good eyes the rise in contributions that Social Security designed for companies that use temporary contracts of very short duration. Escrivá seeks to multiply the business cost of these contracts, with the aim of minimizing the ‘weekend’ effect (companies that terminate a worker on Friday to rehire him on Monday and save two days of contributions).

Another way by which the Executive wants to tackle temporality is by reformulating its cause, that is, that companies have fewer arguments to be able to register a temporary contract and not an indefinite one. For example, the latest government proposal foresees enabling a contract of maximum three months if the employer has to attend a non-periodic peak of activity, for example, hiring a waiter for a few days for the town festivals. Regarding causality, entrepreneurs are open to studying a causality adapted by sectors and company sizes, pointing out that not all sectors have the same productive needs and that the organization of work in the field is not the same, which goes by seasons and where the temporality exceeds 50%, which in the industry, more stable and with rates substantially below.

The counterproposal of the businessmen, although it contains many amendments, also includes some measures close to the positions that the Government has been leaving in writing. This is the case, for example, of subcontracting. There, the text of the latest draft of the Government reads that “the collective agreement applicable to contractors and subcontractors will be that of the sector of the activity carried out in the contract or subcontract.” Shared element in the counterproposal of the employer.

Training courses and contracts

Related news

The CEOE document, according to social dialogue, sees room for improvement in the latest proposal for the ertes model, known as the ‘RED Mechanism’. Employers consider that the exemptions from Social Security contributions for companies should be greater when they provide training to affected workers. There the Government raises 50% savings for companies, although with mandatory training. This training load and the final percentage of aid are two issues currently in contention at the tables.

And the business proposal also contains modifications in the field of training contracts, those similar to the old figure of the apprentice. In this sense, employers are open to improving the remuneration of these workers, but if it is the Administration that assumes this increase in income.