At time of writing early on Thursday, the Labour Modernisation bill being debated in Congress that day stands to be overshadowed by the CGT general strike and the protests in the media coverage, but even beforehand, analysis of the bill’s 200-plus articles was largely reduced to the “error” of halving sick leave pay – entirely typical of a modern compulsion to simplify complex issues for mass consumption.
Terming this initiative an “error” is equally an oversimplification, an error in itself. Technically there is no “error” if the idea is to cut labour costs while in any more human terms it is not just a simple mistake but a monstrosity. And if it was no more or less than an “error,” as Senate La Libertad Avanza caucus chief Patricia Bullrich repeatedly states, then maybe Presidential Chief-of-Staff Karina Milei’s fatwa to La Libertad Avanza deputies that they vote first and read the bill afterwards was not such a good idea – if they had been urged to read the text, somebody would surely have spotted the hazard and headed it off at the pass.
Article 44 was no careless slip but a case of addressing a very real problem in the worst possible way. An Argentine workplace free of malingerers and chronic absenteeism is almost impossible to find – a typical workforce has a minority of workaholics who keep everything going while most have some kind of work ethic but the logic of “why toil when the same money can be earned with the aid of a friendly doctor?” is irrefutable for some. Article 44 was an unsustainable sledgehammer solution but its elimination leaves intact a major problem seriously eroding Argentine productivity – both are simplistic approaches to what can never be an either/or proposition with labour reform warranting far more thought than the current slipshod improvisation seeking passage in the year’s shortest month.
The move has run into an entirely justified repudiation because it callously overlooks such cases as a worker who develops a malignant tumour and then has to meet the elevated costs of treatment and higher healthcare scheme fees on half-pay. But other dangers are less obvious. Six years after the Covid-19 pandemic, the odd case of coronavirus still crops up – if Article 44 had been retained and approved, a major carrier could have continued going to work in order not to lose pay and infected all colleagues, thus leading to a new pandemic and lockdown (not good for business). Less seriously (although not for some), an entire generation of workers could be discouraged from practising sports in order not to pick up an injury and halve their pay, thus leaving Argentina at a far greater distance from future World Cups than now. Even from a ruthlessly economic standpoint, foisting attendance on employees with minimal interest in working is sure to lower already dismal productivity data.
Designed with the technocratic approach of Deregulation & State Transformation Minister Federico Sturzenegger as a clearcut contribution to lower business costs, Article 44 has fallen victim to the political approach of Senator Bullrich giving priority to speedy passage. Her abrupt transformation from hawk to dove on this issue somewhat exposes her sedulously cultivated “what you see is what you get” image as a rare politician who says what she means and means what she says – throughout her long career her instinct has been to go with the flow in pursuit of power.
Yet this now deleted article should not absorb the debate. While this space perhaps exaggerated last weekend when implying that digital platform employment was being ignored, the bill’s provisions here are extremely abstract beyond accident insurance. Severance has been tightened rather than replaced by any unemployment insurance with the much-vaunted FAL (Fondo de Asistencia Laboral) an uncertain severance subsidy for PyME small and medium-sized companies. The bill offers nothing to improve productivity (where the only substantial gains in recent history under the Carlos Menem Presidency took unemployment close to 20 percent) or the incorporation of technology, also with its pros and cons in employment terms. Adamant against this bill, the CGT argues that it makes it much easier to fire than hire at a time when stunted consumer demand and high real interest rates to keep inflation at bay are proving adverse for business. Despite adding such acronyms as PER (Promoción de Empleo Registrado) to promote registered employment and RIFL (Régimen de Incentivo a la Formalización Laboral) for retraining, nobody is expecting job creation from this bill with the closure of FATE tyre manufacturers on the eve of Congress debate presenting a stark contrast.
Comments