Proposition 53K1112

Projet de loi portant la prolongation de mesures de crise et l'exécution de l'accord interprofessionnel.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Stefaan Vercamer
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Valérie De Bue
Open Vld Maggie De Block
PS | SP Yvan Mayeur

Submission date

Jan. 24, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work blue-collar worker work contract working time economic recession diffusion of innovations severance pay social pact socioeconomic conditions social-security contribution social dialogue early retirement employment aid unemployment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Jan. 27, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Ms. Sminate. The following speakers are registered: Mrs De Block, Mr Clarinval, Mr Gilkinet, Mrs Fonck and Mr Vercamer.

I would like to refer to the excellent written report.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am coming at the moment and that I could not hear the debate that took place before. Excuse me ? Oh, I am the first! I wanted to be the last...

You arrived the last, you pass the first: it is always like this! Mr Clarinval, you have the word.

As I said in the committee, we would like to welcome the conclusion of an inter-professional agreement. This shows that within our country, there is still for some the possibility to forge agreements. We welcome the responsibility of employers and trade unions. However, we would like to draw attention to a particular point. In view of the fact that the interprofessional agreement unfortunately only concerns employees, we wish that, on the occasion of the upcoming budget debate within the government, measures be taken in favor of self-employed persons compared to those that have been taken in favor of employees.

This is a wish expressed in the committee that I would like to reiterate before you. Furthermore, on the form, we also wanted to bring, together with our colleague Stefaan Vercamer, an amendment to clarify that, in the event that one of the partners would not sign the interprofessional agreement, it could still come into force in its entirety. These two elements deserved to be highlighted and I wanted to recall this before you, Mr. President.

Dear colleagues, today is a strange day. We are in a difficult political context and it may be appropriate to pause on that for a moment.

The extension of the crisis measures was unanimously approved in the committee. According to the latest figures and despite the political crisis, Belgium has gone well through the economic crisis.

One reason for this is that we have taken a number of crisis measures and thus protected people from unemployment. I will give one as an example, in particular the economic unemployment for employees.

It is therefore normal and obvious that we do not leave the constructive route and end in a deadly street because the period in which the measures were applied expires.

An extension to 31 March thus seems to us a logical course of affairs, and given the political uncertainty in which we are, an option for an additional two-month extension is also not an unnecessary luxury.

These extensions are necessary to give the social consultation time to break through a number of key nodes. We rely on social consultation and hope that we will not have to extend these measures ad vitam aeternam. We also hope that each month we will score better and get out of the economic crisis. That is why this extension.

Our country needs a good interprofessional agreement. Last week, the first cricket lines were drawn and an agreement was made. It has been a whole turn of force given the little pink situation in which the social partners were.

In the meantime, however, we have heard a few critical notes from the employers, but also from the workers, and there was also some militant language spoken in the workers’ organisations.

We hope that these were just a few false notes and that we will still reach a good agreement in the coming development of the measures. It would be good for our further economic recovery.

Our country needs a strong government to make a number of socio-economic reforms. This cannot be seen separately from each other. Modernization of the labour market is urgent. We need to give more flexicurity to our employees. The reform of our pension systems is on the late side in comparison with the countries around us.

We have submitted this proposal and will fully support it from our group.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important text that deserves our attention, as is the case for the other dossier on which we will have to vote soon, the one that increases the resources of the IMF in the context of the financial crisis.

This bill, which aims to extend the mechanism of employee economic unemployment and also to anticipate certain elements of a future potential interprofessional agreement, indicates – this is the first thing I wanted to emphasize – the importance of having a real government with a real project. Otherwise, one governs only by strikes, by strikes of "sparadrap" measures, of temporary measures which, gradually, become definitive, without, however, being aware of it and measuring all the consequences. This is clearly the case with the economic unemployment of employees.

This is the fifth time that we extend this measure by two months, which can be extended by two months by royal decree. Until proof of the contrary, our legislative work is once again the response to a demand from the social partners who are important stabilizing elements for our country, who remain capable of concluding agreements by which some do not take everything at the expense of others, even if they are imperfect. I am afraid that this will be the case in this case. As we have done before, we will support this measure. In fact, as an Ecolo-Groen group! We do not want to add chaos to chaos. This time even more than before, Mrs. Minister of Employment, we will support this extension, without any enthusiasm, and this for the month three reasons.

The first reason was precisely related to the fact that, gradually, the provisional becomes definitive for the economic unemployment of employees. We do not deny that this could have been a useful measure to safeguard employment in the context of the economic crisis that followed the financial crisis. It now seems that what is a factor of additional flexibility for workers is gradually, subreptically, structurally, incorporated into our social legislation.

You know like me – I have questioned you more than once on the subject – that the workers consider this demand from the employers as an interesting exchange currency for advances on the status of the worker. This is a difficult debate, which is not new and which seemed to be able to see beautiful advances. I regret that the workers are thus deprived, by de facto making the economic unemployment of employees structural, of an important weapon of negotiation. This is probably one of the reasons why the contents of the draft inter-professional agreement are so disappointing in the eyes of workers.

I come to the second reason for our lack of enthusiasm over this bill. I know that it is not usual to interfere too much in the social consultation but I will still risk to comment on this draft interprofessional agreement.

There was a pre-agreement – it must be emphasized in these difficult times because it is so rare these days – but it is everything but the seventh wonder of the world. I am not throwing a stone at the negotiators; they did what they could under the circumstances we know on the political level. I am convinced that this agreement could have been quite different if they had felt a political will to support innovative measures, a real social, economic and environmental project. This is far from the case and I am afraid that the political marasme is determining on social relations in our country. We must be careful because we cannot afford to lose this important stabilizing element that this Group of Ten represents, these negotiations between workers and employers, this social dialogue with the Belgian.

In the interprofessional agreement, wage margins are both minimalist and ceiling, even in sectors that today generate a lot of profit. There are no real advances in the improvement of the status of the worker; they are, however, necessary because these differences belong to another time. A better status would have a stabilizing and attractive effect for employment.

It is also observed that the few advances, in particular the slight extension of the notice period, lead, through the effect of communicating vessels, to question the benefits achieved for employees. It is not for nothing that the two main employee trade union centers are very critical about this AIP.

These developments, which are not all positive, are again on the burden of social security – this is the case, for example, for the systematic lifting of the day of shortage – that is, of everyone. Everyone contributes to the financing of social security.

This is quite paradoxical because at first, it was the employers who financed the social advances. Then, the state – seen for recent agreements – came in addition to paying the note after the negotiation to allow for progress. And there, the third, if any, worrying phase, is again the State that pays but for things that don’t seem to be all positive.

I could also raise the whole issue of the automatic indexation of wages, a Belgian specificity of which everyone agrees that it has helped stabilize the situation in the difficult economic context we have known. There is now a working group being set up that threatens to challenge this useful mechanism. This is something we will of course not allow to do.

In short, this AIP project, beyond the fact that it exists, raises a lot of questions and it’s not for nothing – a third reason for our lack of enthusiasm for this bill – that the trade union base is more than skeptical about the final signing of the agreement. We hear it; we are in contact with workers’ representatives. This leads me to return to one of the elements of discussion of our committee meeting on Tuesday, Mrs. Minister, on the last article of this bill concerning Title II on the extension of a set of conventions, in particular on pre-emption.

This latter article conditiones the entry into force of Title II of the bill proposal to the fact that the interprofessional agreement is effectively signed. However, it seems obvious that it will not be signed by all members of the Group of Ten. I do not believe I am wrong in saying this even though the decisions from the trade union democracy must still intervene. I hope that we will not regret, in a few days, that we have not been more precise about this article 38 which offers different interpretations or that we have waited for the signing of the inter-professional agreement before adapting the measures contained in Title II.

These are my main remarks that explain our lack of enthusiasm about this bill that we will vote in the name of the stability necessary for our country and because of the few positive measures it contains, in particular in terms of pre-empensions.

In conclusion, we consider that the weakness of the interprofessional agreement indicates how much social concertation, as well as climate policy, as well as the future of our pensions, as well as the reception of asylum seekers and many other key policies at the federal level, need a true government, with real powers, a real budget and, above all, a real vision, a real action to act positively on the future of our country and our planet in social, economic and environmental matters.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, first and foremost, we must welcome the important signal that was sent by the Group of Ten with this draft interprofessional agreement, a signal that will have to be validated by the various instances. by Mr. Gilkinet advanced at the time that this first step towards the harmonisation of the statute of worker and employee was taken at the expense of social security. This is true, Mr. Gilkinet, and this is the formula chosen by the Group of Ten, it is important to recall it. He could have opted for another formula to come, instead of a passive allocation, to a formula for extension of notice. This formula is not the one adopted by the Group of Ten but we must now continue on the path of the signal sent.

Through these bills, some of the anti-crisis measures are pursued; a basis is laid for a part of the interprofessional agreement, but not only that. Other elements will be introduced by royal decree: the increase in the rate of compensation for temporary unemployment, the linking of social benefits to well-being, especially for smaller pensions – not negligible advances are yet to come in this area – and prepensions in the field of construction, but also for the 20 years of night. I will not mention all these elements that we have had the time to expose before the committee, even if they are important. They will be translated not into a law but into royal decrees.

Continued anti-crisis measures serve as a bridge to other structural measures. Beyond today’s text, which is not banal, it is about bringing a new oxygen balloon to companies but also to workers who find themselves in a ⁇ difficult situation and who are victims of discrimination through their status.

But it is also supporting the stabilizing role and, moreover, the driving role of social concertation.

Today, it is a step, of course, but an indispensable step that, tomorrow, in any context whatsoever, will obviously have to be completed.

Following your speech, I would like to make a few remarks.

Indeed, the Group of Ten negotiates and presents the note to the government and social security. This is not new! We can worry about it. But I believe that this can be positive if the government is actually “in the back kitchen” and clearly indicates, in a climate of dialogue, of going back and forth with the social partners, a positive intention. I wanted to draw attention to the absence of a political project, which we almost all experience here, which can explain the fact that this agreement is ⁇ unambitious.

Furthermore, you highlighted – I could have done so – the progress announced in terms of lower pensions. But we should not be forced to buy for a second time—this is, however, sometimes the feeling of the workers’ representatives—things stipulated by law. I think here of the Generation Pact, according to which, within the framework of the Interprofessional Agreement, priorities are given in terms of allocating the available margins, beyond the index, to increase social benefits. This is what the law provides! We can be pleased that this has been decided within the framework of the interprofessional agreement, but that is only logical! A problem really arises in this country in that social advances must be systematically negotiated, even when they are provided by law. In addition to those who participate in the negotiations within the Group of Ten, the leaders and political representatives we are also need to pay attention to this.

I would like to ask Mr. It’s good to be patient for a short moment.

I would like, first of all, to clarify – even for the report of what is said today to Parliament – about a series of extension of existing agreements that are planned. I recall that a battery of measures could no longer be pursued beyond the agreement previously in force. An inter-professional agreement had to be reached – it was not us who decided it – and new royal decrees had to be made, in any case, for certain matters.

Then Mr. Gilkinet speaks of the absence of a political project. It is obvious that it would be a thousand times better to have a full and whole government today, but I will allow myself to emphasize that this government in ordinary affairs has resolutely supported this social concertation and the signal sent by the Group of Ten.

Such an attitude is not negligible; it must at least be acknowledged.

The conclusion of an IPA is always an important moment. It is always awaited because it is about working conditions that are agreed for hundreds of thousands of employees. The federal government, the government, is constantly trying to facilitate this. That is the importance of this bill. We try to facilitate and enable a number of things that fit into that global interprofessional agreement. That is the importance of this bill.

With this bill we allow the extension of half-time bridge pension, the financing of the funds for the formation of the risk groups – the people who ultimately have the hardest on the labour market – and the one-time innovation premiums. It is therefore important that we approve this.

The bill also allows the social partners, as it fits into the global agreement, to take the first step towards the long-awaited harmonisation of the statutes of workers and servants.

The extension of a number of anti-crisis measures is in line with that global agreement of the social partners, to make this possible and to work on it from 2012. They really want to take their time, more than six years. In any case, we will have to ensure that during that period the social partners also effectively complete their homework. What we see today is only the first step. The goal is still not so clear, it is not clear where one wants to end. The path to it is also not yet clearly agreed. Therefore, more will be needed to ⁇ effective harmonisation in line with a modernisation of the labour market and a policy that increases the level of employment of older workers.

We would also like to point out that the increase in the wage ceiling for the system of occupational diseases is not included in this bill. However, it was also important in the context of a balanced agreement between workers and employers. We therefore insist that for this part, which, contrary to the imposition of the wage ceilings of other benefits, needs a legal basis, a proposal to regulate this would be made very quickly.

The bill that we have submitted is therefore important for employers and workers. It also draws cricket lines for the future, Mr. Gilkinet. The latter could be placed higher and there could already be made greater steps forward, but the first step has, in any case, been taken.

The implementation of all this depends, of course, on the completion of the IPA and that is best done by all partners. We therefore expect that all social partners will be well aware of their responsibility in the coming days when evaluating the IPA. After all, it is about the income of many hundreds of thousands of people and especially also about the income of the financially weakest in our society. We have confidence in the social consultation and we will see in the coming days how it will be judged. In any case, our group will support and approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, our group will approve this bill, as we have done in the committee. You may remember that a few months ago we submitted an amendment with identical content of which we all voted very nice no here, 150 MPs except my group then, knowing well that the next day we would all vote for the same amendment with the same content.

well well . We come in January. The committee will meet again. The same amendment is submitted. The crisis measures are extended by only one month. We propose to extend this by 3 months. We are stuck again on a ninth. Ra ra ra, today we stand here again to extend it again until the end of March. I regret this way of working and I hope that this will bring different among us to think about the situation we have now come to.

Two of the crisis measures, the crisis premium for workers and the temporary unemployment for workers, are extended. The anti-crisis measures also eliminated discrimination between victims of restructuring and victims of bankruptcy. The RSZ discounts granted to both employers and employees when a victim was recruited with a restructuring card were also granted to victims of a bankruptcy. This extension ceased at the end of December 2010 and is no longer valid from 1 January. In any case, we believe that this discrimination has nothing to do with the crisis. This is a discrimination that is constant. We regret that no further hearing has been given. The sp.a. group has prepared a bill to eliminate this discrimination and we urge that this issue be discussed in Parliament as soon as possible, so that we can eliminate this discrimination, which actually has nothing to do with the crisis, as soon as possible.

The committee that I preside over has already met six times with the extension of anti-crisis measures as the agenda. As my colleague sp.a. said, and, before her, as Mr. Bottom in commission many times, I admit that it becomes complicated for members of the committee to work on the same repetitive topic.

That said, the parliament as well as the government must accompany the trade union movement and the employer movement in their negotiations. This must be part of the game between the state, the public authority that we also represent, and the negotiations.

We are very pleased with the progress in the harmonisation of the employee and worker statutes, although we regret that it is partially produced by a financing of social security; this is a novelty. I would, however, add a note to this note: Social security is also managed by the social partners. It is also one of their means and they can decide the allocation.

It is clear that the progress seems to us to be disturbing: the means of social security can not be used to resolve problems of discrimination between two statutes. For many years, indeed, we have submitted, PS and sp.a, bills aimed at harmonizing these two statutes. Nevertheless, we are pleased with the progress on this path, which will be long, which will be slow, but which we find necessary.

The government will have the possibility to extend the measures until 31 May since we empower the government to act by decrees, based on a consistent opinion of the CNT and, obviously, a 2011 budget framework that must intervene by then, as we wish.

Finally, the debate in the committee focused exclusively on the extension of crisis measures. It was not about negotiating the inter-professional agreement.

Furthermore, for our part, since this debate takes place, today, in the trade union organizations, it does not appear to me appropriate that the politics intervene by giving one or the other direction as to the matters that should be the subject of a debate in the trade union centers.

For my part, I do not want to take such a position, even though some colleagues seem to make other choices. In my opinion, this would not be appropriate. This is especially true at a time when the politicians themselves fail to come to an agreement. In these circumstances, indeed, it would be a bit delicate to tell the social partners how to proceed and even less to the trade union base.

In my opinion, it is necessary to let the trade union debate proceed properly, and then we will see what conclusions are to be drawn from the interprofessional agreement. The debate must be held when it has been or has not been ratified by all partners.