Proposition 50K2280

Projet de loi portant exécution de l'accord interprofessionnel pour la période 2003-2004.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Feb. 10, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work young worker

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 27, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, our committee examined this bill at the meetings of 18 and 25 February 2003. At the meeting of 18 February, Ms. D'Hondt and Mr. Wauters questioned whether government amendments could be submitted in order to address problems relating to additional benefits granted in certain specific sectors, including construction and fibrocement, which would not be met by the project under consideration. by

by Mr. Wauters specified that the establishment of a capital contribution burdening all of the additional benefits granted, all sectors confused, will penalize employers in these sectors because the conditions must be met to be exempt from contributions are restrictive.

These conditions are as follows: 1. the conclusion of a sectoral CCT before 1 July 2002 or, where applicable, the uninterrupted extension of an agreement provided for in one of the CCTs filed before that date 2. benefits granted to workers who can provide proof of a career of at least 40 years.

Therefore, the two speakers wished the social partners concerned with this problem to be heard.

The Minister of Employment replied that the draft under consideration constitutes the exact transcription of the Interprofessional Agreement 2003-2004. She added that she has never received any request for rectification of this agreement from the social partners. Recalling the only exception contained in the bill to the principle of subordination to social contributions of advantages equivalent to pre-payments, it indicated that it was not desirable to extend this derogation under the penalty of hypothesizing the principle of increasing the activity rate of older workers. by

In his view, the hearing of representatives of certain sectors could constitute a dangerous precedent as other sectors would be tempted to assert their specific claims. Such a way of working therefore risks forcing the social partners to renegotiate the entire inter-professional agreement. Finally, she recalled that, during the Interprofessional Agreement 2001-2002, the social partners, in perfect accordance with the government philosophy, had expressed the desire to orient themselves towards the equality of the so-called "Canada dry" benefits with conventional prepensions.

by Mr. Bonte said that he intends to comply with the interprofessional agreement and the bill that is its faithful transposition if one refers to the passage of the agreement concluded between the social partners. However, there may be questions about how the executive and social partners deal with the legislative power’s powers in other matters. He took the example of the evaluation of the credit-time or even, of the approximation of the statutes of worker and employee. by

Your rapporteur plunged in the same direction. He condemned the minimalist character of the agreement. However, he recalled the importance of our social concertation system.

At the end of our meeting on 18 February, it was decided to send a letter to the chairman of the coordination of the social partners. Regarding the presentation of the bill, the Minister referred to the exhibition of the reasons as stated in the basic document.

At our meeting on February 25, Mr. Wauters sent the members of the committee a letter from the chairman of the Social Interlocutors Consultation Platform that the bill effectively corresponds to the interprofessional agreement.

The discussion and voting, article by article, therefore followed this statement.

Mrs D'Hondt submitted 8 amendments and asked several questions of understanding on the different articles of this bill. Several amendments, no. 5, 6 7 and 8, aim to involve the National Labour Council in a number of delegations of powers granted to the King, delegations which raise in principle objections according to the State Council. They were not adopted by our committee. The Minister argued that the wording of the provisions in question is generally the same as that of the equivalent provisions of previous laws implementing interprofessional agreements.

Amendment No. 1, according to which the amount of 7,436, 80 found everywhere in the texts of articles 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21, is the result of a conversion error and must be changed by the amount of 7,436,81 , has not been accepted. The Minister and the majority of our committee members felt that the number as set by the interprofessional agreement should be respected. This amount should be considered as a new legal basis. Mrs D'hondt therefore withdrew her amendment on the condition that this explanation is included in the report, which is the case and I am currently emphasizing it. Amendment no. 4 on Article 19 first paragraph, 3°, of Mrs D'hondt was voted. It aims to correct the Dutch text compared to the French text as regards the exact amount of the French-speaking side.

The entire bill, as amended and as contained in document 2280/4, was adopted by eleven votes and one abstention.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. and Mrs. Minister, the VLD has for some time expressed its appreciation for the social partners because, despite the fact that the cards were very difficult in terms of content at the beginning of the negotiations, they have nevertheless managed to conclude an interprofessional one, so that the increase in wage costs in Belgium will remain within acceptable limits for the next two years. In addition, they have reached an agreement on a number of other matters, such as the age of bridge retirement from 58 years.

We take this bridge pension as an example to make a bridge to the related problem of the Canada Dry. There has been uncertainty about the problem of capital contributions. However, this ambiguity was removed after a letter from Mr Vansteenkiste, who could formally confirm on behalf of the Group of 10 that the bill in question corresponds to the content of the interprofessional agreement. After some details and text corrections, the present text was therefore approved by the committee. Mrs D'Hondt was undoubtedly the most attentive party in those text adjustments and corrections, that can be said.

As for the VLD, we intend to approve this here in the plenary session.

Regarding the policy on the activation of older workers, we would like to point out, however, that recruiting older workers or keeping them working longer is a major challenge for the future, if our country wants to ⁇ the objectives of the Lisbon summit by 2010.

Finally, we would like to point out that the interprofessional agreement is a compromise in which everyone should be able to live. This also means that all involved parties would like to have achieved some other points. For example, we — the VLD — find that there has been a slightly insufficient progress in the unity statute dossier. However, we also realize that this time ⁇ the expression first things first comes up. The slowdown in economic growth initially required clear agreements on wage costs and wage control. As I said, our party will approve this draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is submitted to us today provides the legislative measures necessary for the concrete transposition of the Interprofessional Agreement 2003-2004. This interprofessional agreement negotiated last September between the social partners constitutes the framework for the next negotiations that will be conducted, at the level of sectors and sometimes also companies, regarding wages and working conditions.

It was the subject of harsh discussions that could have resulted — it must be agreed — to a mini-deal, moderate on the background of crisis and anxiety about the fate of employment and economic uncertainty.

However, once again, the Belgian model of social concertation has proved itself, not without a little push from our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Employment. The agreement thus offers a guarantee of social peace in the enterprises and ensures, we remind, a solidary framework for all private sector workers, whether they are from the north or south of the country. We are pleased that the federal network is thus preserved. Certainly, some claims have not echoed in the agreement but it provides guarantees, both for workers and employers. This is the main thing.

The Social Agreement provides for some new innovations to improve entrepreneurship and employment, which we welcome. These include the reduction of employer contributions by EUR 71 million, a measure aimed at encouraging the employment in small enterprises for the first, second and third workers, as well as the employment of older workers. The Rosetta plan also includes changes to the employment of young immigrants or disabled people.

Other measures are planned, such as the fixing of the salary standard at 5.4% for 2003 and 2004 with a recommendation to the sector to observe the greatest moderation. The index is preserved, pre-pressions as well. The economic unemployment allowance will be increased from 60 to 65% of the salary. It is a good compromise that must provide stability to companies and their staff in a difficult economic context.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

The MR group will support this bill as we welcome this inter-professional, moderate and prudent agreement, concluded by the employer and trade union organizations.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the CD&V group has no difficulty, neither in the past nor in this speech, to say that we attach great importance to the interprofessional agreement. A bill transposing the interprofessional agreement should have been a penny flute in the Social Affairs Committee. This was not the case, for three reasons.

Let me start with the least important reason. I mentioned this reason first because a number of amendments had to be submitted in order to correct some disturbing errors in the draft law. The rapporteur pointed out this in his correct oral report. Without these amendments, the Chamber would face a text that not only shows textual differences between the Dutch and French versions, but also deals with different amounts.

A second reason why the committee has remained a little longer at the draft law and why CD&V has submitted amendments has to do with a number of provisions the implementation of which is left to the King. My group would have preferred to see that these implementing decisions can only be taken after the advice of the National Labour Council (NAR). The fact that a number of exceptions relate mainly to the public sector is an argument but not sufficiently conclusive. In fact, the provisions do not apply exclusively to the public sector so that they fall within the competence of the NAR.

The third reason is a fundamental reason. The discussion in the Social Affairs Committee and what happened behind the scenes has, in my opinion, clearly demonstrated that there was a problem. Although, in my opinion, the letter of the Chairman of the Group of 10 correctly states that the bill is a correct translation of the agreements between the social partners, regardless of the correct translation, there remains a problem for a number of target groups.

In groups such as construction, asbestos cement, laundry and certain subsectors of the textile, agreements have been concluded with CAO which regulates the withdrawal of older workers outside the classical system of bridge pension but still with a system that cannot be compared with the Canada dry schemes. These arrangements are not included in the provisions of the interprofessional agreement and therefore not in the draft law. This has the effect — and this has nothing to do with the Minister’s will — that the construction, asbestoscement, laundry and textile sectors for the arrangements for older workers and for the arrangements for workers in difficulty — which are not discussed because we accept that not only companies can be in difficulty but also workers — in the future will no longer be able to apply the arrangements that are good for these groups, which are not Canada dry arrangements, but will have to pay capital contributions.

However, I think that the discussion in the Social Affairs Committee and the very concrete question from our committee addressed to the social partners and the IPA negotiators will have been a sufficient signal for them that the social partners themselves in the coming days and weeks will find a solid solution to those systems of older workers in difficulties that are not “Canady Dry schemes”. My confidence in social partners is great. However, I think it was also good that the Social Affairs Committee of the Parliament has also clearly addressed these problems with regard to the social partners. Employees in difficulty can only find a good solution.

Through that discussion, through the amendments that were accepted and through the report that included certain matters so that we could withdraw some amendments, our group has also approved that bill in the committee meeting. We will also approve that draft volgaire here, in the plenary session, because the interprofessional agreement is one of the most important two-year social facts.

Mr. Speaker, I preferred to split the oral report and the intervention of the Socialist Group.

I would like to make some considerations on behalf of our group with regard to this inter-professional agreement, which can also be called prudent or minimalist with regard to certain social advances, although we also note some positive points, including the extension for the next two years of the very important achievements of the previous inter-professional agreement. For example, we think of the pre-emption sector.

I would like to make a few remarks regarding measures that are not contained in this bill, and in particular to highlight three points.

First, the issue of economic unemployment. We think it would be time for ONEM and ONVa to agree on the notion of economic unemployment. The current disagreement has as a result that the number of days taken into account for calculating the holiday fee differs from one organization to another, which has as a result that many workers do not receive a full fee, since the days of economic unemployment are not assimilated. A procedure allowing both bodies to grant their violins should therefore be established as soon as possible.

My second observation concerns initiatives relating to the approximation of the employee-employee statutes. Given the uncertain economic situation, social interlocutors considered that it was not possible to make progress in this sector, and we regret this.

Even though we are aware that this is an extremely complex matter in view of its multiple dimensions, it seems that the employers’ demands for greater flexibility have prevented any constructive debate on this subject. We will, of course, respect the desire of the social partners to continue to handle the problem on their own, even if it is not simple. Many of us have submitted legislative proposals on this subject and we hope for constructive work, which involves coordinated initiatives, without misunderstanding from the social partners. We trust in the maturity of our model of social concertation that does not limit the issues to the sharing of productivity gains but also to values of equality and general well-being. We therefore take note of the appeal to the sectors to continue their efforts to gradually eliminate discrimination, including the issue of shortage days, the abolition of the first two shortage days and, for workers who are fifteen years old, the third shortage day.

A small piece of consolation, let us point out, for the workers, that they will receive from now on 65% of the ceiling wage instead of 60% in case of temporary unemployment. In comparison to this, it is indeed a lot of consolation.

A third regret for what is not in the agreement is the way the wage rate is calculated, which is heavily disputed by some trade union organizations. Although, for the period 2003-2004, the standard is indicative and not imperative, the gap between forecasts and final achievements in the three reference countries constitutes a recurring problem. We are not going to re-debat here on the law of 26 July 1996 on the safeguarding of competitiveness but we believe that a thorough reflection should be carried out regarding the technique of fixing this standard as well as on what should be accounted for or not. Thus, for example, the cost of the approximation between the statutes of worker and employee, where there would be advances in the different sectors, will be fatally imputed on the wage standard. The principle of cost solidarity may seem seductive, but workers will have to contribute financially to the abolition of the discrimination that affects them. There is a paradox that is not capable of facilitating consensus.

As for the draft agreement in itself, I will limit myself, Mr. Minister, to two remarks.

First, with regard to the layout of the Rosetta plan for, among others, young immigrants, we know that this measure is criticized and that positive discrimination policies can have pernicious effects. However, this is a courageous measure, employment discrimination is an indisputable reality in our country, the figures show it: the chances are different depending on who is in the north, the center or the south of the country, and this justifies the decision of the social partners.

We hope that this measure will contribute to a change of mentality. Today we can see that there are many trade union delegates of Italian or Spanish origin, but this was not the case twenty years ago. So I think there is a change of mindset that is really necessary in this regard.

My second point is about pre-emphasis. The Socialist Group is pleased that the pre-payment system has come out intact from the negotiations. Thro ⁇ the legislature, we said that this system should be ⁇ ined to avoid social dramas, in the absence of alternative solutions. In this debate, the patronal discourse that demands to increase the activity rate of the elderly and delay the pre-payments is valid on the macro-economic scale but is totally contradicted in micro-economy. While the number of beneficiaries of advance pensions decreased during the legislature, the number of unemployed over the age of 50 has markedly increased. Overall, the erosion is very important because today one in three employees is unemployed between 50 and 65 years of age.

This is a conclusion that once again highlights the contradictions between the discourses and practices of employers. Companies are pushing their fifty-year-olds out of the job market, largely at the expense of the community, to reduce wage costs. The figures mostly hide a practice used by some employers to allow workers to leave the labour market by receiving, in addition to unemployment, an extra-legal compensation.

A policy aimed at taking into account the problem of older workers must take into account both the demands of workers and employers, but also the demands of society as a whole, in particular that of equality between workers.

Outsourcing the cost of this policy to the community is neither sustainable nor justifiable. Employers must therefore be empowered; this is one of the objectives towards which this bill tends, which has occupied most of the committee debates.

Mr. Speaker, the Socialist Group will of course vote on this bill that transcribes the inter-professional agreement and, as Ms. D'Hondt said, it is an important political fact in our society and for the socio-economic life for the next two years. Therefore, it is without reluctance that we will vote this project in addition very cautiously.

The interprofessional agreement is indeed a very important social fact. Social partners, employers, workers’ organisations can conclude a basic agreement to maintain social peace. A basic agreement also gives the sectors the opportunity to continue negotiating.

As Parliament, we must also respect the basic agreement. The social partners renew their efforts here in the context of employment, training and the risk groups. They also provide efforts around the bridge pension. They also make some arrangements on the Canada Dry schemes, which have been there.

We must respect these efforts. It is good. We had a discussion about the fact that the social partners — the Group of 10 — responded to us that the present bill was a conclusion of the agreement they reached. However, we know that in the application of the law, a number of problems may arise around certain employees. We and you, Mrs. Minister, are convinced that there should be a socially responsible solution for these workers. In this sense, I agree that the draft law is a decision. Nevertheless, we must continue to look for solutions for people from certain sectors. The sectors are named: the timber sector, the construction sector, the asbestos sector. For them, we need to find a solution. I am convinced that this can succeed. This can be achieved by the inventiveness of the social partners in this area. Also through your concerns and through the policy you lead, we must be able to come up with solutions.

It is important that we follow the social partners. Corrections can also be made.

I would like to say that, of course, we are also dealing with certain topics on a political level. You can also find with me that the combination of work-family has come a little too little out of the paint in the interprofessional agreement. Indeed, we would have preferred the time credits to be extended. We may have to think politically about time credits that enable precisely the combination of work and family. We do not have to just pass the inter-professional agreement. We must also continue to spread important political lines.

Mrs. Minister, one of the main themes on which we have been working together for four years is precisely the combination of work and family. In that regard, the agreement should have contained a little more. Per ⁇ the challenge for the next government is to set out even better lines on that point.

I would also like to point out one point that colleague Delizée also addressed. I am talking about the unitary statute for workers and servants. In the interprofessional agreement, however, there is a passage in which politics is cut off. Thus it cannot. It is not possible that this majority and this government can no longer take the initiative in the context of a further approximation of the employee status to the employee status. I think we need to further examine the role of Parliament in this matter. I am a strong supporter of consultation between the social partners. In the end, however, politics must also be able to carry out its policies. Politics must be able to indicate how certain, important, social issues are realized. One of these important matters is indeed the approximation of the employee status to the employee status.

I hope that we also succeed in this. Furthermore, I hope that this process, which was planned for a six-year period, but which is already being delayed, will be the subject of a political acceleration.

Finally, I would like to say that this agreement is important for the social society. It is an important signal for workers and employers to tackle unemployment and promote employment.

I have five things to say. First of all, like all the colleagues who have expressed themselves, I would like to welcome this inter-professional agreement. An agreement is always a great moment: it supports our social model, it is a carrier of social peace and economic development. You know, this agreement was achieved in a difficult economic situation. It took courage to conclude it. I would also like to welcome the work of the social partners. by

We have worked a lot during this legislature in terms of employment, the social partners have worked a lot but there are still very important construction sites for the future; the approximation of the workers and employee statutes is one of them. It is true that social partners have failed to incorporate sensitive changes in such a short timeframe. However, I would like to point out to the Parliament that following the “gentlemen’s agreement” that was concluded between the social partners and which concerned in particular collective labour conflicts and on days of shortage, it appears in the extension of this inter-professional agreement that original sectoral agreements are currently being concluded that execute this “gentlemen’s agreement”, which is therefore in the sense of workers-employed convergence. by

I heard what Mr. said. Discussions about the salary standard. Attention: when we talk about the revision of the salary standard system, some come hidden, also talking about the revision of the salary indexation system. There is no need for this indexation. Therefore, we must be cautious. Of course, I know you well and I know that it is not in that sense but every time we want to put on the profession the system of salary standard, some want the donor-donor with the indexation of wages. There is no point in this indexation. by

For the arrangement of working time, for the harmonisation of life times, as they say, life time at work, life time in the family, we have also made a lot of progress under this legislature. There is still a lot of work to do, a path to go. The social partners invited, in the implementation of the Interprofessional Agreement, to go as far as possible in the current legislation on time credit. I think that in the next legislature, we will need to make further progress to enable this harmonisation of lifetime. by

Finally, it is true that in the bill, we executed the interprofessional agreement in the letter. The "Canada dry", as some have said to this tribune, is a system that facilitates the dismissal of older workers. We find it difficult to have in our country an honorable employment rate for those over 45-50 years old. Maintaining the "Canada dry" as it is a distortion of our willingness to promote jobs for our elderly. That said, it should not be confused "Canada dry" with systems that allow workers in some difficult sectors to take a retreat, a deserved rest depending on the hardness of work. In order to enforce the law, a whole series of royal decrees must be made, which must specify the spirit and letter of the law and the interprofessional agreement. I will be happy, as you all have invited me, to work with the National Labour Council. I told you in the committee that I could not formally refer to the National Labour Committee because part of the agreements concerns the public service but I will work in consultation with the social partners to enable them to present original solutions that preserve achievements in the protection of workers subject to difficult working conditions. by

I would like to thank all the colleagues who helped to realize the interprofessional agreement in the urgency.

It is always very pleasant to hear competent ministers!

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Minister made clear in her reply that there are problems in relation to the bridge pension and the Canada Dry system that need to be solved. The problems relate to workers in difficulty and are obviously only present in a number of sectors or subsectors. We must continue to pay attention to the schemes that are ⁇ not a Canada Dry scheme, but also not a bridge pension. This distinction must be made absolutely and I am grateful to the Minister that she has formulated this so clearly in her response.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat a statement I made in the committee on the older people and on which I drew the attention of Mrs. Minister. Indeed, if it is necessary to increase the employment rate for people aged 45 to 50 years and older, it is also necessary to take into account a whole range of sectors where the difficulty is high and from which these people wish to take advantage, after a certain number of years of career. Therefore, it is also important to work on planning career goals.

In addition, the Minister mentioned the National Labour Council. For public services, it might be interesting to ask the different partners of Committee A to position themselves in relation to the measures we are proposing.