Vanesa SileyDeputy of the Fuerza Patria and Secretary of New Labor Relations of the PJ, is one of the strongest voices heard in Congress against the “Labor Modernization” project that the government has presented to Congress.
consulted by THE NATIONclaims that this reform not only will not contribute to job creation but, if adopted, will also restrict workers’ rights from the beginning to the end of the work cycle.
− Do you think the project will have a positive impact on the creation of formal jobs?
− There will be no positive effects, and I have proof: exactly a year and a half ago, when the Basic Law was voted on and a chapter on “work modernization” was included, rights were also removed, and then too the excuse was “creation of formal employment”. And what happened? So far this government, 276,000 registered jobs have been lost, the informal share has fallen from 41% to 43.2% and there are 19,000 fewer businesses, according to the latest Superintendency of Labor Risks report. So the problem was never the rights (which the government calls “labor costs”) but the economic model. If there is no internal market, there is no sufficient salary, no consumption, no support for industry; Going into debt and keeping debt low will destroy the productive framework, and no matter how much you abolish the entire labor contract law, no one will hire anyone just because the problem is “the economy, stupid.”
−What benefits would this reform offer for future workers?
−None. This project aims to strengthen the powers of the corporate sector in the context of industrial relations vis-à-vis the employee. Let me give you an example: Currently, Article 68 of the Labor Contract Law regulates the way in which the employer must exercise its powers, taking care to respect “the dignity of the employee and his property rights”. The government and “entrepreneurs” project removes this limit from the law. Eliminate the dignity of the worker! All the articles repeat this logic with small or major changes, always at the expense of some rights or protections that Argentine workers have today. I only saw one article that seemed good to me, namely 11 bis, which talks about vocational training as a fundamental right. It is good to say that the training and further education of employees is now carried out by the trade unions, sometimes together with the employers, and is regulated in almost all collective agreements. The paradox of this art. 11 bis is that this type of good practice will be dismantled in other parts of the project. The only thing that seemed like progress ends in regression.
−Which aspects of the project are left half-way through or harm workers?
− The project is structured in such a way that the rights of employees are restricted in each individual case of the employment relationship from start to finish. It excludes the so-called “self-employed” from legal protection, lengthens the working day, allows the employer to spread the granting of vacation over several weeks, reduces protection against work-related accidents or occupational diseases, enables downward collective bargaining to reduce salaries, reduces severance payments and restricts the collective organization and exercise of all typical claims for damages. And perhaps the most serious thing about the whole project is the reduction of social security by cutting employers’ contributions by 3% to create a fund to finance layoffs. That is, if this is accepted, today’s retirees will fund tomorrow’s layoffs, and those working today will never retire. Delusional and unconstitutional.
− Do you think that the project should abolish the so-called “union fees”? Or should it be dealt with in a separate law?
− The history of our country has made it clear that the only path to fruitful labor and trade union legislation that enables the harmonious development of society, economic growth and the redistribution of wealth lies through tripartite dialogue and the active participation of all sectors involved. The union issue is being used as a “bait” to divert workers’ attention from all the other issues that could harm them. To discuss this is to fall into a trap.
−Which points were left out of the project and should be included?
−Various. First, the salary: the restoration of purchasing power, a minimum wage that covers the basic basket, free parity and no stocks. Secondly, time: reduction in working hours and digital shutdown. In today’s world with artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, the digitalization of production and administrative tasks, it is absurd to keep the 19th century working day, we need to bring it to 7 hours a day and reduce it to 6. And in this way also create more formal jobs. Third, mental health: creating safe and hygienic environments in the workplace that counteract the conditions of anxiety, depression and stress in which we work today. Fourth, the expansion of parental leave, because when a new life is added to the family through birth or adoption, parents only have two days of leave. Fifth, the law on the care and protection of platform workers: make the algorithm transparent, avoid arbitrary suspensions, health and charging stations, accident insurance protection, the right to rest, protection and, above all, collective bargaining so that they can increase their commissions. It is paradoxical that the government seeks agreements for companies and does not start with these platforms that have nothing.
− Do you think that now is the right time to discuss a work modernization law?
− It is always a good time for a discussion, that is the role that we legislators, but above all political activists, play. The proposal put forward by the government aims to worsen the quality of employment in our country. I am convinced that we should take the opposite approach.
About The Author
