The projects of Labor reform and government-sponsored punishments to be considered in the extraordinary sessions of Congress caused a stir in the world of JJudges, judicial officers and law professors The question the changes proposed by regressives.
In this sense it is Association of Judges and Officials of the National Judiciary (AMFJN) expressed this “categorically rejects” the changes contained in the project called by the Executive “Work Modernization Act”.
The main arguments of the Association of Judges and Judicial Officers are: “Tendency towards the dissolution of the National Labor Justice System”which is why she calls it “inadmissible” The Articles 90 and 91 of the project.
Authoritarians don’t like that
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a mainstay of democracy. That is why it bothers those who believe that they are the owners of the truth.
“We once again urge that any change to be introduced is done within the framework of respect for the institutions that ensure it.” judicial independence and the Non-subordination to national jurisdictions“, the association stated in a statement signed by its president, Andres Fabian Bassoand its Secretary General, Maria Carolina Ocampo.
Articles rejected by the AMFJNOn the one hand, they intend limit constitutional control and the actions of the judges of the first and second instance, since it forces them to adapt to the precedents of the Supreme Court, with the possibility of accusing them of “poor performance in their tasksIn the event of a “deviation” from these criteria, Article 90 states. And on the other hand, Article 91 orders “progressive dissolution” the National Labor Justice until it was completely abolished and replaced by the Justice of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.
The reasons why they declared invalid the Milei decree that suspended the disability emergency
He also expressed his “deep rejection” on the labor reform project presented by the government Association of Labor Lawyers (AAL). “It is a plain and simple abolition of labor rights and social security“, he explained.
In this sense, he pointed out that “The need to extend the working day lacks support and basis and to lift the restrictions – daily and weekly – recognized at the end of the 19th century,” he stresses, stressing that this will have an impact on the “psychophysical integrity and the possibility of exercising the right to care” of workers.
He claims that “the introduction of the concept of ‘dynamic salary’ destroys the sense of balance and fairness of remuneration”, which also promotes competition between workers and adequate incomes.
The AAL points out that the public labor order is being destroyed and “priority is being given to individual negotiations between employer and employee, which …” increases the possibility that the employer will enforce his unrestricted will“.
The CGT’s march against labor reform is already supported by ATE, CTA and UOM
Regarding the creation of the Work Assistance Fundassured that “there is one financial business whose goal isSubsidize companies so they can lay off workers at the expense of definancing the social security and pension systems.”
“HE promotes outsourcing – Placement of people and subcontracting – Elimination of ideas of solidarity between companies and elimination of employer responsibility. Likewise, it consecrates the Exclusion of employees who provide services through companies digital platforms of all occupational safety measures,” highlighted the lawyers’ association, among other things.
At the same time, it is noted that the project promotes “company agreements” over “collective bargaining agreements” in order to “fragment collective bargaining” and disrupt minimum rights for all workers in the same sector.
On the rejection of criminal law reform
Another reform that the government also wants to carry out is that of the criminal code, which was submitted to Congress on Monday December 4th Argentine Association of Criminal Law Professors (AAPDP) called for a democratic, informed debate with civil society and not “explicit treatment” based on the scale of change to be implemented.
At the same time, he warned that official statements “advocate ideological codification and without dialogue and without the technical inputs essential to granting legitimacy.”
As a basis for a serious discussion, the AAPDP proposed the participatory background of the 2006-2007 and 2012-2014 reform projects, as well as the Argentine legal overview prepared by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (Law 26,939).
They also claimed that the Argentine codification tradition was “characterized by respect for constitutional guarantees,” recalling figures such as Tejedor, Rivarola, Moreno (h.), Julio Herrera, Soler, Núñez and Fontán Balestra.
The panel called on Congress to postpone the debate to regular sessions and to ensure the participation of universities, professional institutes, bar associations, judges’ associations and NGOs to critically evaluate the project sponsored by the executive branch.
The document bears the signatures of former presidents of the AAPDP such as Daniel Erbetta (UNR Senior Professor), Javier A. De Luca (UBA Senior Professor) and Omar Palermo (UNCuyo Senior Professor), as well as more than a hundred professors, researchers and references in the crime field from universities and organizations across the country.
LM
About The Author
