Faced with the draft amendments to the Labor Code and related legislation, the two union federations, understanding the proposals as an unprecedented attack, unjustifiable (in a positive phase of the economic cycle) and unspeakable for worsening the asymmetry of power between employer and worker in the negotiation of working conditions, unanimously called, as a true form of pressure on the government, and in the face of its inflexibility, a general strike in defense of workers and against a significant setback civilizational.
In an increasingly unequal economy and society, in terms of the distribution of wealth, with the increasing degradation of the living conditions of a very significant part of the resident population, the government decided, unilaterally, without considering the justifications that it presents without great conviction, and without having announced it in an electoral campaign that took place months before the presentation of the draft project, to launch an unprecedented attack on those who make a living from their work. Under what pretext? Adapting to the challenges of modernizing the job market!
According to the guidelines of the ILO, International Labor Organization, published in this 2019 document, (Working for a Better Future – World Commission on the Future of Work), the main challenges facing the future of the world of work are related to profound transformations driven by technological, environmental, demographic and social factors. More specifically, with artificial intelligence, automation and robotics, and the concomitant obsolescence of some traditional skills, which will require continuous qualification and requalification policies.
The transition to greener and more sustainable economies will also imply the destruction of jobs in carbon-intensive sectors that will have to be progressively abandoned, making the transition require management that guarantees social justice and protection for affected workers. Population aging in some countries and accelerated growth of young people in others also pose challenges in adapting labor markets, whether arising from the need to work until older ages or the reception of migrant workers.
Without adequate policies, these transformations can increase existing inequalities, making it crucial to revitalize the “social contract” and ensure a fair distribution of the benefits of technological and economic progress. Finally, the emergence of atypical forms of work (such as teleworking and digital platforms), which challenges traditional models of employment relationships, requiring new work governance systems. In view of this, the ILO defends a human-centered agenda, with three pillars:
i) increase investment in people’s capabilities (education, continuing training);
ii) strengthen labor institutions (social protection, labor rights) and
iii) promote decent and sustainable work.
Now, there is not a single one in any of the amendment proposals made in the infamous Labor Package that responds to these challenges. What is the strategic vision for the country’s productive specialization that the draft materializes? How do the changes allow for the governance of the necessary adaptations in the world of work, guaranteeing due dignity and protection?
All one hundred proposed changes weaken and harm the quality of labor relations, making the fight against them justifiable. But there is a hundred and eleventh reason, which has been more or less removed from the discussion of social protection.
Social Security, more specifically the Social Security Pension System, has been, for some years now, under fire from the financial and insurance system, under the false threat of its unsustainability, and in the face of very desirable regular revenues, whether from contributions on work or from the generous nest egg of the Social Security Financial Stabilization Fund. And the impact of the proposed labor changes on the weakening of a system that, more or less generously, has robustly guaranteed the social protection of workers in the face of eventualities in their life cycle, is not insignificant and should not be ignored and removed from the discussion.
In a non-exhaustive way, the increase in the precariousness of employment relationships, the facilitation of dismissals, the deregulation of working hours and the reduction of payment for overtime work, the limitation of the action of unions and collective bargaining, the increase in the degree of economic dependence of independent workers, reduces guarantees and places workers in a situation of greater vulnerability, with a direct impact on their stability in the labor market and their remuneration and, therefore, on contributory careers and the resulting social benefits, dependent on them, particularly in old-age pensions, continuing to condemn part of the retired population to poverty and poverty pensions.
The explanatory memorandum of the preliminary project to “make Portugal a fairer and more supportive country, which combats social inequalities (…), which protects the most vulnerable, (…), which promotes social cohesion (…) but also promotes the creation of wealth, the increase in workers’ income, the growth of productivity and the competitiveness of employers” appears as a provocation and an affront.
What assessment does the Government, and in particular the Minister who, in addition to Labor, also Solidarity and Social Security, make of the impact of the proposed changes on social protection? The opportunity cost of proposed changes to the income of the social security pension scheme may, over time, be significant and should therefore not be ignored.
And this is the hundred and first reason why the general strike is just and imperative.