Post by account_disabled on Feb 28, 2024 4:39:12 GMT
Congress of Deputies. Isidor to continue reporting Become a member of Nuevatribuna We are on the verge of the important vote of our Congress of Deputies validating, or not, the RDL that transfers to our legislation the Tripartite Agreement of Unions-Employers-Government, which corrects very significant aspects of the PP Labor Reform. Numerous articles have been published these days explaining and analyzing said agreement. I agree with practically all the arguments on its contents that point to the important advances in hiring and against precariousness, as well as in union rights with the new balance in collective bargaining by reestablishing the ultra-activity of the agreements (while they are not replaced by another agreed) and due to the also reestablished impossibility of agreeing on salary conditions lower than the sectoral agreement in the company (except in the regulated cases of “off-boarding”). I often lack, in relation to the progress of the agreement, a non-secondary consideration. I
t is indicated, and it is true, that compensation for dismissal is not modified, but it is argued, with reason, that the measures against precariousness will reduce dismissals, but it is not pointed out that precisely for this reason, as hirings are classified differently , and layoffs, will actually increase effective compensation. But what worries me most in the defense of the Agreement Malta Phone Number is the insufficient (1) response to the reasons given by civil and union nationalisms, clear unsupportive corporatisms, of ERC, PNV, ELA, LAB, BNG, CIG. Some even point out a error in their positions contrary to what I understand they commit. They are described as “pure”, that is, well-intentioned radicals but mistaken because of what it may mean to “ask” too much of a letter from the kings. According to these definitions, they would be bad politicians and bad trade unionists, when I consider that their position is actually “reactionary”, not only in the field of social relations, but even in civil relations. Other union areas have not said a word about this issue.
It is true that from ERC to the CIG they talk about other things, not always with a correct reference to the Agreement, but they have all made it clear that the basic requirement, and decisive for deciding their YES, NO or abstention, would be the prevalence of the autonomous agreements. on the state ones. Introducing this priority in collective bargaining would mean an attempt to break the solidarity of the working class of the State as a whole, a solidarity that meant so much in the fight against the Franco Dictatorship and that is meaning so much in improving the living conditions of many. thousands of workers, on the complex path of building democracy. This is not a minor problem, it is an expression of a fundamental issue in labor relations, in the union strategy, also in the configuration of the necessary supranational unionism towards an effective global unionism, in the adequate articulation of this with the forms of organization and union action in all areas from the workplace. I
t is indicated, and it is true, that compensation for dismissal is not modified, but it is argued, with reason, that the measures against precariousness will reduce dismissals, but it is not pointed out that precisely for this reason, as hirings are classified differently , and layoffs, will actually increase effective compensation. But what worries me most in the defense of the Agreement Malta Phone Number is the insufficient (1) response to the reasons given by civil and union nationalisms, clear unsupportive corporatisms, of ERC, PNV, ELA, LAB, BNG, CIG. Some even point out a error in their positions contrary to what I understand they commit. They are described as “pure”, that is, well-intentioned radicals but mistaken because of what it may mean to “ask” too much of a letter from the kings. According to these definitions, they would be bad politicians and bad trade unionists, when I consider that their position is actually “reactionary”, not only in the field of social relations, but even in civil relations. Other union areas have not said a word about this issue.
It is true that from ERC to the CIG they talk about other things, not always with a correct reference to the Agreement, but they have all made it clear that the basic requirement, and decisive for deciding their YES, NO or abstention, would be the prevalence of the autonomous agreements. on the state ones. Introducing this priority in collective bargaining would mean an attempt to break the solidarity of the working class of the State as a whole, a solidarity that meant so much in the fight against the Franco Dictatorship and that is meaning so much in improving the living conditions of many. thousands of workers, on the complex path of building democracy. This is not a minor problem, it is an expression of a fundamental issue in labor relations, in the union strategy, also in the configuration of the necessary supranational unionism towards an effective global unionism, in the adequate articulation of this with the forms of organization and union action in all areas from the workplace. I
