1. The subject.
Year after year, at the time when wages are discussed, the arguments are repeated laudatory or upset about how they are fixed the salaries of workers buildings.
The issue has edges that border on the outstanding legal and sociological. Its comprehensive nature and concern arises from a notorious fact of reality. The large number of condominium buildings are inhabited by workers and others whose income is affected by the increase of the common expenses motivated almost exclusively by staff wage increases.
How to tackle this problem without resorting to propositions, metajuridical, many of them slip into the realm of discrimination? The only way a democratic society can resolve their conflicts: in the light of international law of human rights.
2. Remunerative wages.
The first fundamental right in question is the one with every person who works to enjoy living and working conditions and equal pay and satisfying.
This means establishing and sustaining with axiological appoggiatura building workers have the right and the whole proposal outlined here from the beginning, which is equivalent to arguing that to solve the "conflict" in question is disvalioso advocate achieving unsatisfactory value or unequal pay.
The rate of pay must be interpreted, in our view, according to normal standards or, as the ordering labor law designates as "ordinary." This involves moving away, to judge its fairness and satisfactory extra work. Hence our proposal is about moderating the impact of the rate of pay in the pocket of the joint venturers, does not understand the work that exceeds the legal time of 48 hours per week or 8 per day. Assume that a worker needs to dispose of its work force over the time limit is to deny the human right to limited time, to rest, to the replacement of physical forces, etc.. and clear without any basis, one of the flagship achievements, but more importantly, the international labor movement.
summary: People working in rental buildings and landscape, are entitled to a salary "ordinary" fair and satisfactory, being contrary to the principle that access to the minimum standard, are obliged to pay overtime.
3. Right to collective bargaining.
Who sets the rate of pay? This workforce has a second human rights international instruments and constitutional recognize people who work: access to collective bargaining.
In our country the right has been recognized by the legal system with a specific criminality: the CST governed by law 14,250. That legal standard that we have characterized as constitutive of a culture of Argentine labor movement we call "community" organization "and justifies the most representative labor union (with" legal recognition ") to negotiate, on the one hand, and the employer side had correlate with the existence of "professional associations of employers." As we know, the de facto government of 1955/58 repealed the law providing for the organized participation of employers in collective bargaining, since being headed by the Ministry of Labour the power to appoint corporate representation according to parameters bordering on arbitrariness.
In the world of work in buildings that traditionally went to fitness associations building managers. This has produced a paradox: that the joint venturers are not involved in wage fixing, which has led to confront the homeowners associations with the joint venturers of building managers. We have analyzed this conflict intraconsorcial elsewhere (http://encargadosonline.blogspot.com/2009/04/la-representacion-de-los-consorcios-en.html) and clinging to the provisions of art. 42 CN, we support the claim of the joint venturers to integrate the joint commission after demonstrating a true representation, all under the premise that in a deliberative democracy, plurality of voices enriches the content of the solution to the conflict.
There is thus curtailing the right to collective bargaining as a constitutional way to fix the rate of pay, but advocating the expansion of the dialogue system to receive new voices. Thus the alienation felt by the joint venturers in establishing dissolve, vanishing one of the critical pillars of the system.
4. Absence of an "indirect employer."
difficult to hold since the labor law that the consortium is a "business." Under a sort of legal fiction would be, to the extent that work in the building is ordered by the Administrator for the satisfaction of specified purposes and valuable to the joint venturers (cleaning, care services and providers, monitoring etc). But put on the economic perspective it is clear that the consortium does not own profit, a situation aggravated because those who live in a building, and a proportion almost absolute, they do exercise other human rights, the right to housing. In other words, joint venturers are many workers (employees, self-employed persons, etc..), Which is equivalent to arguing that the conflict reflected the clash of workers against workers.
traumatic
The least we could find to explain the issue raised by the wage increase for workers building the difficulty is accepting that one has to establish the species in the existence of the "indirect employer."
A society that takes to work as an existential value in the conduct of the person, is intended to promote. From there it follows the constitutional premise that "the work in its various forms shall enjoy the protection of the laws." That is why sponsors with incentives, contingency is fighting unemployment and tend to discourage with compensation and cumbersome regulation uncaused or massive layoffs.
Under this provision and the world Western governed by the so-called "market system" has built the image of "indirect employer." The company employs in the economic and social system, the national labor force and established distribution mechanisms interconnected to allow all factors of production, maintenance and reproduction over time.
The labor is paid by salary and this, as we saw, in addition to fair and satisfactory to be established by collective bargaining.
What explains the role of "indirect employer" in the market system? Through the costing and pricing of goods and services produced.
In a consortium, the wage is a cost that can not be transferred to third parties. And this is the crux of the matter. When a salary increase this direct employer is inhibited from transferring the cost to "indirect employer." By contrast, in the typical situation, if they increase the wages of mechanics, increase the value of cars. Consumers will absorb the cost, in turn, may be satisfied, if the decision to buy is activated by an increase in income substitute.
But in this case the salary increase automatically moves the value of the expense and this detracts or diminishes income the joint venturers who can not choose between life and stop living in their own functional unit as they would if they chose not to buy something they deem valuable consideration. If these were all wealthy, this issue deserves some analysis from the perspective of labor law. But since the vast majority of the venturers are workers that becomes a social issue, the same entity as a utility rate increase first need is for a decent life.
In a democratic system, often assesses whether for basic human rights is necessary to intervene in the economy. These ruminations have been experienced by neoliberalism as "pernicious." However, we have seen with some puzzlement, that those who have touted as a true dogma that the state should not intervene in the market have been the first to apply for aid to banks and financial groups in trouble or worse, through ingenious systems detracted value of savings made by citizens or change foreign currency devaluing so confiscatory income subject to the most disadvantaged sectors of society (pesification skewed).
5. The dilemma of subsidies.
Many social activities are subsidized. Usually service is essential to ensure access to standards of dignity, such as electricity, gas, sanitation, public transport or a few essential items.
The State has chosen a proper principle of social law for developing its policy on subsidies. Try increasing amounts of benefit to citizens to be included in the system at minimum conditions of dignity. Method is used to measure the extent of the law in question using the assumption of its negation. A proportion of society which affect denied their right to work, to the full expression of their ideas, housing, health, etc. If the social system does not guarantee access to these fundamental rights, the State should intervene to correct the imbalance.
What is the benefit that can be instituted to amend the evanescence of the figure of "indirect employer" in the case of work in buildings? No doubt it must be a mechanism to mitigate the impact of staff salaries not diminish or alter its collective conventional etiology. Before it necessary to distinguish the circumstances in which the subsidy would be justified. It would be unfair distribution to benefit someone who needs it.
This would require the exclusion of high-end buildings, ie those whose assessed value objectively indicate which are inhabited by people who are able to meet its expenses without regard to their social situations argued criticism.
The second argument for granting the subsidy should come from other objective standard that could well be a significant proportion of the consortium budget used to pay salaries. If that percentage consuming, for example, over 50% of the expense budget, objective means that the rate of pay is relevant to the efficient cause increased expense. Such an extent greater than in buildings where the budget is not as determined by the cost of labor. Outside the computer, in our view, the payment of overtime (for reasons that sheds above) and payments to companies that outsource services such as cleaning and surveillance, as violations to the vertical nature of the collective bargaining agreement.
legal
The last parameter that could be imposed is the proportionality of each unit in relation to total expenditure, ie when the rate of expense mind being a very small percentage (less than 2%, for example), which shows that the expenditure is distributed among several joint venturers, less significance to the problem of wage increase little influence, in large numbers on the increase in expense.
With these clarifications would be based on a similar principle of solidarity, social security (the most, but they can contribute), fall outside the grant:
• A consortium of luxury, with high tax valuation in their units.
• Consortia total wages paid in an amount less than a significant proportion of their expense, taking as a fact witness, for example, the last six assessments.
• Consortia with a lot of units.
What is the "subsidy"? We bow to their meanings and easy calculation, the total eximisión social security of workers in question.
will say that this system as an engine of employment exemption has already failed. This is partially true. When our country experienced higher levels of unemployment to double digits, the governments of that time tested mechanisms to promote employment under certain conditions to exempt employers from payroll taxes. Also, when the pension system was "privatized", trying to inject social savings of our workers to an alleged "capital market" (which never happened), was privileged membership of AFJP a lower tax rate for contributions. None of the trials had proved satisfactory. Why this happened? Or worse, why at this intend to propose a mechanism data demonstrably failed?
The answer is simple. These subsidies were treasured by the "direct employer" and "indirect employer" never received anything. The labor cost savings as a result of suppressed contributions was established in "extra-guarantee service" to the employer.
to exempt the payment of employer contributions to the consortia at risk benefit Exemption is bounded in itself and not a cost is not transferred to the price paid by "indirect employer" does not exist. Thus, by failing to "profit" no capture extra profits. Only the system would be resented pension which would reduce revenue at a rate which we consider negligible compared to the total active personnel.
turn, to grant the authority granted the application of the rule of law to be issued (obviously a national law), would ANSeS. Each consortium submitted its application and then determined the respective actuarial calculation, taking full knowledge of the ultimate cost of the subsidy could be implemented, if significant, a contribution of the National Treasury, as has happened on other occasions.
6. Synthesis. Undesirable consequences.
In summary, the proposed system is capable of producing, in our view, some effects which improve the lives consortium:
• Forces whitening settlement expense as the consortia that aim to seek the grant should submit legally.
• Reduce labor costs by improving the lives of workers by the removal of excessive overtime. Avoid harmful collusion or abuse in its concession.
• In the event that this work during weekly rest was really necessary, overtime will be replaced by substitution of new workers. The value of an alternate set salary is always less than the overtime paid to permanent staff (salary savings). And multiply the sources of employment. We take this opportunity to confirm that the wage rate of relief staff who do not work more than 48 hours per week does not carry any additional fees even when break took place during the week.
• As the subsidy reaches the payroll only "ordinary" is intended to eliminate unnecessary benefits beyond collective bargaining.
• It discourages the procurement of cleaning and security companies also profit from the provision of staff have disproportionate rates. The owners could assess this disproportion, for example, if you take the amount billed by a company surveillance and collating the amount with the basics of a general monitoring agent (CAT 507/05), or a night security staff (CAT 398/04). Thus, further urges the implementation of the collective agreement is characterized by its verticality.
Our contribution, from the place of the defense of labor rights of workers should be judged as, in a comprehensive manner, to the extent that this proposal tries to combine artificially conflicting interests, under the guiding premise of subjecting all law international human rights.
0 comments:
Post a Comment