The Shelves In My Refrigerator Are Fogging Up

What worries me about the labor reform?

Reading what has been writing about labor reform in both the media and on many blogs that I enjoy reading, one thing that I start to worry: the extreme positions.

When one defends his position with passion, is convinced that is correct, and makes for a long time, searching for the black and white and you forget about the gray. That is, it tends to overemphasize the immediate arguments, striking and refuting the "dialectical rival" to the detriment of others, possibly more important, but subject to discussion and uncertainty.

In the process of labor reform that the government is in the process, this translates as follows: for some, the reform is the solution to most of our problems, no matter how much its content: reform is needed, period. For others, reform is an attack on the rights of workers, a consequence of subjecting governments to "rule the markets."

At this point, remember the obvious:

• labor reform is not a recipe for solving an immediate problem. not recognize this, even by his strongest supporters, and explain it to citizens, will lead to frustration for some and a climate of tension in the other flying the "I already said" no possibility of being refuted.

labor reform is a structural measure or, as my companion blog, Democritus, and Jorge Galindo is part of a process , a social process: it must lay the foundation to facilitate a more flexible and rational labor market, the English, who has demonstrated his level of surrealism. Must accompany economic growth when it occurs, probably (I hope I'm wrong) in some years, and meanwhile provide the solution to the crisis and the next not be so brutal effects on employment.

In this regard, does not help to argue that the English labor market is the most flexible as some indicator that circulates around, ignoring the fact that it is in aggregate form because it is extremely (and undesirably) flexible for 30% of the population and relatively hard for the rest. It does not help see day in and day out to the Governor of the Bank of Spain asking for reform: a figure is well qualified to offer much information has your opinion on the subject, but such insistence, tired. Especially since we're still waiting to deal with what it should, which is of financial reform and savings banks.

• The pim-pam-pum union (in the words of José Rodríguez ) should not be exacerbated. Change the status quo is not easy for anyone. The unions are also faced them in a process, not just to fight a measure that is damaging their interests or those of their constituents, or their position in the social dialogue ... it is that unions need to redefine its role within society, must reinvent itself, and that's not easy for anyone ... well, "the enemy has to leave an exit, even if you think can not hurt. The fact that unions receive and clubs everywhere are increasingly cornered I can not bring anything good. I, however, I hope they succeed and get out of this positioning and attitudes keeping grounded in the past and slogans. I rely much less on how you do the CEOE, while trade unions may be said to have been reasonable in the recent past, the CEOE still remains a despicable mess president whose actions and attitude should embarrass any business in this country.

• Another point that worries me about the labor reform is that are forgetting what is important, and focusing all debate, as always, in dismissal costs. And they are forgetting to require the counterparty: one puts all the pressure on the unions, and calls for efforts to workers ... but we are forgetting require the employer to do its part . What will companies do to improve productivity? Reform can not be a blank check for business and these do not change the status quo. Measures to index wages to productivity, for example, companies are those that develop mechanisms to implement them rigorously ... Another possible measure to remind the employer responsibility is to penalize companies based on their history of layoffs. Insurance there are other, what can be done to promote the much hyped innovation? And speaking of innovation taking away all the glamor and idealism to the process, as it is argued here and here. I am especially thinking of the myriad of SMEs and freelancers who make up the majority of the productive fabric of this country, for all this may sound like a Chinese ...

said before is forgetting the most important thing that should have a labor reform. Others have argued in detail on the subject, eg. here, here or repeatedly here. Summarizing much to my essence is this: Remove

• duality. It can not continue having 30% of "rogue", most young people without job security can not plan for the future. The multiplicity of temporary contracts encourages fraud (and not, increase the number of labor inspectors is not the solution), favors investment in bricks and beach bars and, above all, constitutes a "reserve for bad times" for employers, a bag of people who know they will have no trouble firing when things get tough, and therefore have no incentive to convert into permanent and invest in them. Delete
• bureaucratic and legal confusion to the process of hiring and firing. (And that costs do not depend on the decision of a judge, as argued in the above link Citoyen)

The last two points could be resolved with a single contract with severance indefinite growing old. This is not contemplated by the present reform. Reconfigure

• collective bargaining. This is a complex point, but the aim should be clear that wages do not have a procyclical effect: they can not be increasing when the economic situation worsens. As argued elsewhere entry, reform must prevent productivity adjustments occur via massive increases in unemployment, and should encourage where possible (not the only key to play) a sustained increase in "value generated." Flexicurity
• : again we forget to look at the Scandinavian countries, or put another way: to protect workers, not jobs. The protection must increase, but should encourage the search for employment. One idea I like is to increase the years collection of unemployment benefit, but in decreasing amounts over time . The goal is avoid long-term unemployment, with undesirable effects on productivity and morale of the unemployed. But improving the employability of the worker requires more than his own efforts: it also requires a job-seeking services and training and retraining for unemployed workers to work and are not mere administrative offices to process the payment of the subsidy.

Because nobody escapes, some of these issues are complex, require highly technical analysis, and in my opinion is what should be occupying the hours of study and negotiation of our social partners, rather than the obvious and " Inalienable rights of the worker. " Study the details, agree on mechanisms try and rectify policies ... but with two or three clear goals.