Proposition 52K0594

Projet de loi relative à l'exécution de l'accord interprofessionnel 2007-2008.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Inge Vervotte
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Maggie De Block, Bart Tommelein
PS | SP Karine Lalieux
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

Dec. 19, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work fringe benefit pay bonus payment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Hagen Goyvaerts (VB) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

Dec. 19, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Does anyone ask for the word?

Does anyone ask for the word?

Our country has a very important tradition of consultation between employers, workers and government. The social partners have reached an interprofessional agreement for 2007-2008, but the implementation of this agreement requires a number of agreements to be signed this year, which require a legal basis. This is the result of this additional legislation.

These include the introduction of a number of very important social measures: a new system of result-based benefits for workers, a bridge pension scheme for workers with a career of forty years and a bridge pension scheme for disabled workers and workers with serious physical problems. The social partners have reached a compromise and, in accordance with the agreements and the interprofessional agreement, they now intend to implement each of these new arrangements from 1 January of next year, i.e. within a dozen days. Within a dozen days, so it should go quickly.

Colleagues, before I step into the substantive aspect: what a dragon of a procedure! Is it normal for us to evaluate this in a few hours and approve it in a few hours? Is it normal that this is not discussed in a proper manner with sufficient preparation in a committee? Is it normal that no advice can be sought from the State Council?

Colleagues, I am new to this Parliament, but is this really the way one can deal with a parliament? I don’t know, I ask the question. Ecologically green! It attaches great importance to a good social consultation and for us, of course, the content is still much more important than the procedure. This bill effectively regulates a number of very urgent matters, but this last minute addition is another proof that important social measures in the last 190 days have been undermined by the community supply that accompanied the formation.

Let me introduce the content of some of these proposals.

The first component is the possibility of granting result-based benefits to employees. This threatens to increase competition between employees. This threatens to increase inequality among workers. This also threatens to lead to a higher working pressure.

Fortunately, there were many safety valves installed. It is a collective measure, and therefore not for individuals who can benefit from those benefits. It should be about wave-dependent groups of workers.

In the event of disagreement between employers and workers on the introduction of such result-based benefits, the parity committee shall decide. The benefits cannot replace remuneration or other regular benefits. A limit amount was also established. That amount is 2,200 euros per year. Employers are bound to a special contribution of 33% whose revenue goes to the RSZ-Global Management.

For us, these result-related benefits are not necessary. We must not be mistaken. This is not a measure that can increase purchasing power and accommodate the rising prices of food, energy and housing for those who need it most. On the contrary, profit-based benefits threaten to increase inequality if they are granted only in strong and profitable sectors.

Ecologically green! Calls on the new government in particular to urgently work to increase purchasing power, ⁇ from low-income families or families that need to come around with a replacement income. An agreement was reached on a new government. Let that be her first priority task.

The Interprofessional Agreement 2007-2008 also provided for the introduction of a special system of bridge pension from 56 years after 40 years of career and also for the recognition of bridge pension from 58 years after 35 years of career for workers with serious physical difficulties under the heavy occupation scheme.

In both cases, it is a matter of implementation of the Generation Pact. At the same time, however, it is partly about a social softening of the mantra longer work of the Generation Pact of the outgoing government.

Employees with a long career have been waiting for clarity for a long time. The same applies to the regulation of heavy professions. These people should be able to request a recognition of their physical problems from January 1, next year, within about ten days. The Fund for Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases should be empowered to grant such recognition.

These are effective social defence measures as they facilitate access to retirement for people with a long career or people with physical problems.

Our basic criticism of the Generation Pact remains. The Generation Pact put too much emphasis on the end of the career rather than looking at the entire career and ensuring that work and family can be combined in a good way. How can we open the debate about longer labour if we do not first provide for a number of possibilities to ⁇ a better distribution of labour? During this legislature we will need a new but above all a different generation pact.

This is a compromise proposal by the social partners to resolve a number of urgent issues. We respect the outcome of the social consultation and we will support this bill. The social partners, as well as this Parliament, were taken into the blunder by the difficult formation. Those who campaigned for good governance have achieved something different with their community offering, namely almost 200 days without a government.

Social policy has not been a priority for the past six months. Now we get this bill on our board because the measures envisaged must come into force within 10 days. It goes without saying that workers who wait for their bridge pension should ⁇ not be the victim of this. That is why we will approve this bill. Hopefully now, after ⁇ 200 days of non-government, the political games will stop. Hopefully, measures will be developed to increase the purchasing power of the households, to raise the substitute income above the poverty line and to make the energy invoice again affordable.

I thank you.

Thank you my friend for your maidenspeech. (The Applause)

Mr. Speaker, the committee had desired that no report be made on this bill. In order not to prolong our debates, I will simply specify that it was unanimously adopted. Furthermore, given that we have come to a few considerations, I would like to emphasize that all speakers have welcomed the conclusion of this agreement by the social partners, the correct functioning of social consultation in our country, which constitutes the element of economic stability and social peace of the country.

I recall that already in 2006 three elements of agreement had been reached while the social partners were in the preparatory phase of negotiating an interprofessional agreement 2007-2008. I also recall the federal solution that recently intervened on social dialogue in enterprises and worker representation; this is a very important step following the ideological blockage that has long prevailed.

This inter-professional agreement must have legal force on 1 January 2008, hence the proposal of law filed urgently. Three points are very positive. First, the question of assimilated periods; these are much more restrictive for prepensions than for pensions. In view of the difficulties encountered by a number of workers, men and especially women in matters of unemployment, disability or interruption of career, we consider, given the importance of these assimilated periods, that the extension of the career condition must have a counterpart; it is here achieved. This is a matter of social justice. Six years will now be granted, including three calendar years and three years in working days, including involuntary part-time. We consider this a very important social advance. We would also like to welcome the arrival of an agreement on advance pensions for workers who have started working at a very early age: they will be able to benefit from advance pensions at 56 years if they have 40 years of work.

The second essential component of this agreement is the definition of heavy jobs, which opens the right to pre-pension to 58 years old, with 35 years of career. It is an open list, which will allow to function in social consultation and dialogue, and that takes into account an evolution of what is called "penibility" at work.

The third part of this agreement concerns the non-recurring benefits related to the result. It is also an element that complements the law on employee participation in companies. In this regard, it is welcomed that a social framework will also be made through a consultation, which will be formalized either by a collective labour agreement or in an act of accession. The product of these results, the contributions will be paid in full to the overall management of social security.

The three elements of this interprofessional agreement form a balanced and indivisible whole. As such, all the groups in this assembly will support the vote that will take place in a few moments.