Proposition 53K1322

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 1er février 2011 portant la prolongation de mesures de crise et l'exécution de l'accord interprofessionnel, et exécutant le compromis du gouvernement relatif au projet d'accord interprofessionnel.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

March 25, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work blue-collar worker work contract economic recession dismissal redundancy severance pay cessation of trading social pact socioeconomic conditions social-security contribution social dialogue early retirement employment aid unemployment white-collar worker

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

April 7, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, we have proposed in the Conference of Presidents to amend the agenda and the House has followed it. It was a politeness request from the Senate, because this legislation must be voted and can be voted so that it can be published, to take effect before 30 April.

We have a heavy agenda, I insist that the speakers, without in any way wanting to undermine the interesting content of their communication, keep it as condensed as possible. You have planned another Conference of Presidents after this vote.

I can only take note of the inscriptions and speech times announced and I assume that these are minimum speech times.

For now, Mr. Van Quickenborne is present; I will ask him to sit on the government bench. Ms. Onkelinx and Ms. Milquet will join us later.

I will first present the report of the committee meeting.

The committee discussed the draft law at its meeting on 29 March 2011. The Minister of Labour has repeated that this bill is largely based on the draft interprofessional agreement that was not approved by all social partners. The design is the result of a compromise.

The bill includes the extension of the anti-crisis measures, namely the extension of economic unemployment for employees and of the crisis premium allowed to workers.

It also provides for a gradual approximation of the statutes of workers and servants. The Minister described the historical background of this problem.

A system has been developed for the suspension of the execution of the employment contract for the sake of temporary workers, both for the workers and for the employees.

For workers, the rules are not fundamentally changed. The only novelty introduced by the draft is that the employer is obliged to allocate a supplement to the unemployment benefits, due in case of suspension of the execution of the agreement. The minimum amount is set at 2 euros.

For the employees, the arrangement for the suspension of the execution of the employment contract has always had a temporary character. The proposed bill aims to make this system sustainable.

Employers may make use of temporary economic unemployment under certain conditions, namely if a COA has been agreed or if a business plan exists, and the company should be considered to be in difficulty with respect to the criteria set forth in the draft law. If the employer meets these criteria, he will have to notify the regional office of the RVA.

There are two types of suspension. There is a complete suspension of the execution of the employment contract. In addition, there is a partial labour scheme that must count at least two effective working days per week.

Also for the employees there is a supplement that comes with the unemployment benefits. That supplement must be stipulated in a COA or in a business plan. In the case of an employer who has also employed workers, the supplement must be at least similar to that of the workers.

We also talked about the fund closing companies. From now on, the fund for closing companies will take over the amount of the unemployment benefits paid to the RVA, which is now the case for workers.

There are also some arrangements for the notice periods in case of dismissal. The new measures for employees and for certain categories of employees will come into force on 1 January 2012 for all new contracts.

For the employees, an agreement has been concluded which is specified as in cao nr. 75 to 75. This is multiplied by a coefficient of 1.15. The new terms increase depending on the old age of the employee. In the event that a different notice period or compensation has been agreed, this new arrangement does not apply. However, the joint committees and subcommittees were asked to indicate by 1 January 2013 whether they will also increase this agreement or whether they will retain their own derogation from the notice period.

The draft law also stipulates that from now on the ancientity of the emergency force will be counted for the period of ancientity. There is also a new regulation for employees. This new scheme will apply from 1 January 2012. Then the new notice periods apply. These apply to employees who enjoy an annual gross salary of more than 30 535 euros. Also here is the ancientity of the Emergency Force. For the servants, that will count for their ancientity.

As regards occupational diseases, from 1 January 2011 there is an increase of 0.7% of the wage ceiling that can be taken into account for the calculation of the benefits for occupational diseases and specific legislative provisions.

The accompanying premium is actually primarily inspired by the crisis premium. This will be paid to the worker who is dismissed when he is notified of that dismissal, from 1 January 2012. It will be fully borne by the RVA, which is a big difference compared to the current system of crisis premium. The amount of the crisis premium may also vary depending on the execution of the employment contract.

The draft also includes the extension of the bridge pension. The bridge pension at 56 years provided that 40 years of professional history and the bridge pension at 56 years provided that 33 years of old age, a combination with 20 years of square and night work or a combination with an incapacity in the construction sector.

Mr Gilkinet regretted that the salary rate of 0.3 % was not dealt with in Parliament, which deprived the possibility of submitting amendments. He and his colleagues submitted several amendments. Ms. Demir of the N-VA recalled that her party supported the draft of central agreement paraphed by all employer and trade union agencies. He and his group submitted several amendments. Mr Vercamer pointed out that this bill is the result of a compromise reached after consultation with the social partners and that the balance found in the text should not be disturbed by adding new proposals to the parliamentary discussion. On the contrary, decisions will have to be made as soon as a government with full powers comes into office. I myself, together with Mr. Bonte, have also submitted several amendments, including on Careness Day and the bonuses.

Ms. Gwendolyn Rutten and Ms. Maggie De Block of Open Vld note that the social interlocutors have not reached an agreement, but that the government’s agreement is a good agreement, a good solution. They have listed several reasons for this.

Mr. Guy D’haeseleer of the Flemish Interest considers the bill a missed opportunity to finally settle the issue of the harmonisation of the statutes of workers and servants.

Ms. Fonck defends the bill, it represents a balanced solution for her.

Finally, Mr. Mayeur was pleased that certain things remain, namely the automatic wage indexation and the purchasing power guarantee thanks to the wealth resistance of the benefits and the lowest wages.

Also Mr. Kristof Calvo of Ecolo-Groen! He submitted several amendments.

The Minister has answered the various questions.

It was approved with 11 votes for and 6 abstentions. So far the report. (Applause of Applause)

Dear President, Dear members of the Government, Dear colleagues, I have been elected in this Parliament by the votes of thousands who earn their bread by working. These workers have given me their trust because they consider it important that the voice of the working people is heard to the highest political level. More than anyone else, they contribute to the economy and prosperity of the country. However, not everyone is convinced of this. Not everyone is awake to the interests and expectations of ordinary workers.

I dare to say this here because I was a band worker at Ford Genk until a few years ago and still have the best contacts with my colleagues on the workplace. That I can speak here in Parliament today is partly thanks to them. They follow this discussion on the interprofessional agreement with more than ordinary interest. After all, it is about their sandwiches, about the future of their families.

I deliberately use the word butterham, because I am convinced that many apparently no longer know what a bread costs. Not to mention that they need to worry about 0.3% more or less wages. For the man in the street, every euro cent counts, especially in times of economic and financial uncertainty. That is why the agreements within the IPA are so important.

I have closely followed the negotiations between employers and trade unions. I regret not having reached an agreement that was acceptable for all parties. I also regret that at some times the trade unions have been drawn into struggle in dispersed order. It indicates that the respective positions are far apart and how wide the gap between the proponents and the opponents of the proposals was and is.

The IPA is now on our board. As it should be in a democracy, Parliament decides. What could not be solved by interprofessional negotiations between employers and workers, must be solved here by negotiations between political parties.

The proposal, which is under vote, contains positive elements: the notice periods for workers are slightly adjusted; the possibility to go on bridge pension is extended, but only for workers with a long career, for those who have worked under the regime of night and team work and for construction workers after a period of disability. The proposal also provides for an accompanying premium for dismissed workers, better compensation for occupational diseases, an increase in the minimum wage and a tax exemption from part of the notice periods.

We remain with a number of questions and comments. First, what is the use of the carnival day, and why do we not replace it? In this regard, we submit our amendment again.

Secondly, why have we not increased the periods of resignation of workers? We submit two amendments on this.

Third, how can we explain to the workers and servants that there must be moderation, while the bonuses outweigh the pan? All employees read in the newspaper today that the CEO of Dexia will receive a bonus of 800 000 euros. How can we convince people that we should be moderate?

The reaction of the government in the media in recent days is insufficient for our group. We can only abstain from voting. That seems to us to be the only meaningful attitude in the given circumstances. It expresses our concern for those who work to earn their bread and bear responsibility for their families.

If we want all Belgians to continue to live together in a harmonious way, then the gap between rich and poor must not be widened. Let’s stop the madness of the bonuses.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Prime Minister, ten years ago, when I finished my legal training at KU Leuven, I wanted to pursue a special license in labour law. However, my professor of Labor Law then told me that at that time I did not need to obtain a special license in labour law; because the entire labour law would be changed. Well, colleagues, today is the time. The government in ongoing affairs will lay the cement for the unity statute with the present bill.

An integral implementation of the interprofessional agreement, which I advocated two months ago. I didn’t do that, because the original interprofessional agreement was my cup of tea. I did it because the text contained fragile balances and also because it was stated that the IPA was the most feasible solution.

Despite the praiseful words and congratulations to the social partners for the proposal for an inter-professional agreement reached – the congratulations came from Prime Minister and Minister Milquet – I note today that nothing remains of the agreement concluded by the social partners. On the contrary, even the bill that is presented for discussion today completely undermines the balance of the agreement.

Our group has therefore submitted eight amendments to the committee in order to restore the first IPA.

It is a pity that the competent minister is not present. I wanted to congratulate her. Mrs. Fonck, I suggest that you convey my congratulations to Mrs. Milquet. I would like to congratulate her, because Ms. Milquet has managed, in one day time, in one committee meeting, to hunt the draft law that introduces the statute of unity, a very complex dossier, by chasing the Parliament.

She did this in one day. While the Group of Ten and other professors and experts have been forcing a breakthrough in the unity statute file for decades, the minister has managed to hunt the matter through Parliament in one day time.

Colleagues, this way of working says something about Parliament, or about the government, or about the social partners. I do not know. You choose it.

I would like to go a little deeper into a few elements, which were also thoroughly discussed in the committee last week.

The provisional anti-crisis measures will be extended until 2011. At the same time, it is already proposed to maintain those temporary anti-crisis measures in an adapted form after 2011 and to make them structural.

I will be the first to admit that the measures have proven useful in times of crisis. Thanks to these measures, many jobs could be saved during the economic and financial crisis, but structuring crisis measures without the text itself providing for the necessary responsibility for employers and the necessary activation for workers temporarily unemployed will have perverse consequences.

After all, with the present bill, non-working will be rewarded in this country, by all kinds of tax benefits such as daily benefits that will be increased.

My concern – and I have said this several times in the committee – is about the impact of the measure on the financial support of social security and the necessary responsibility for employers and the activation of workers. I do not read that in the text.

The Minister would like to refer to the OECD report. Indeed, the OECD said at the time that these anti-crisis measures have preserved many jobs. However, I would like to point out that the OECD report should be read further. The OECD report also warns us of the perverse consequences of structuring the measures.

Furthermore, I note that in the draft law a first step, according to the memorandum of explanation, is made in the harmonisation of the right of resignation, within the framework of the unitary statute.

Colleagues, I think this is not the first step, but the cement is poured for a status of unity and more specifically with regard to the right of resignation.

Please allow me to interrupt the speaker.

Mrs Demir, you are already making for the second or third time euphoria about the big step forward within the framework of the unity statute, or the cement that would now be poured. I don’t see it, but we may differ in opinions.

It is a bit unfortunate that the competent minister is not there.

Can you explain to me why you still want to hold on to a discrimination that has been repeatedly pronounced by the Constitutional Court? A man who works with his hands is taken from his first day’s salary at the moment he gets sick, while that is not the case for a servant. Why do you oppose the abolition of a carnival day? I can also ask this question to the representatives of the ACV. Can you add another argument for not abolishing, for example, Careness Day?

Mr. Bonte, I am not against that.

Then you have to vote for.

We said this to Minister Milquet during the committee meeting. Minister Milquet himself said that the social partners have not reached a compromise on that carnival day. This should be discussed in the National Labour Council. You were not present at that meeting. You cannot know that.

When it comes to harmonization, we have always been for harmonization. This is a first step towards the right to resignation. Your question about Careness Day should be asked to Minister Milquet. You should have been present at the committee meeting, then you could have asked that question. You cannot ask me that question.

Mrs Demir, I said afterwards that it is a little annoying that the minister is not here. If you want, I ask for the suspension until the minister is here.

Apart from this, I am addressing you as a representative of an important group in the Legislative Chamber and I would like to point out that in social consultation there is no agreement on anything. There is no interprofessional agreement. If you don’t know it, I’ll tell you now. There was no interprofessional agreement.

Together with Ecolo and Green! I think this is really a circus, Mr. Bonte!

Mrs Demir, allow me to ask a question in a polite manner to a representative of an important group. What is the argument of the N-VA to stick to the discrimination between workers and servants by retaining his wage on the first day of a worker’s illness, and not that of a servant?

Why do you vote against a proposal to eliminate this discrimination? You, as a member of the Chamber, must make a choice in this regard. I just ask you what choice you make and why.

Mr. Bonte, we have said from the beginning of this debate that we would support the IPA, which was negotiated by the social partners, and which also – you know that too well – was carnival. However, Ms. the Minister has said in the committee that there is no compromise on Careness Day and that it must still be negotiated within the National Labour Council. We have recalled. You have approved this.

The [...]

Yes, Ms. Kitir has approved this bill in the committee, Mr. Bonte.

I make a last attempt. I think in a debate it is intended to know each other’s views and arguments. We have indeed approved the draft at some point in the committee, but we have defended four amendments, including the elimination of the discrimination concerning the tsarist day.

We must have concluded, although there is no agreement between the interprofessional negotiators, that on behalf of your group, but also on behalf of other groups, the draft interprofessional agreement is used to judge that this discrimination should not be eliminated. I regret that you, along with other groups – which is also one of the reasons why we will now abstain – do not want to take on your responsibility as a legislator to eliminate that discrimination, identified by the Constitutional Court, after we have all concluded with pain in our hearts that the social partners do not reach agreement on this matter.

Mr. Bonte, I have respect for social consultation. You were not present in the committee, but Mrs. the Minister and also the social partners have said that the carnival day is discussed within the National Labour Council. In respect of the social consultation, we voted against your amendment, just as you did with my amendment.

Continue on, Madame Demir. Mr. Bonte is not alone in this room.

Contrary to what Mr. Bonte claims, I am in favour of the harmonisation of the statute.

The [...]

No, we will remember, Mr Bonte. You have approved it. However, I have criticisms and therefore we will abstain. My first criticism begins with the accompanying premium.

What is the purpose of the accompanying premium? From 2012 the government, more specifically the RVA, will award an accompaniment premium in case of resignation. In fact, this is a form of dismissal premium.

We also submitted an amendment. After all, the name of the accompanying premium is not correct, nor is it substantial. The bill does not mention activation.

I also told the Minister that we must fully engage in the activation. Unfortunately, I note that in the event of a dismissal, the RVA will award a dismissal premium to an employee without a certain form of guidance being linked to it.

A second note about the terminology is that guidance is a matter of the Regions. The VDAB in Flanders is competent for accompaniment. I think the name is not appropriate.

Our proposal was to call this a dismissal premium, but I note that in the text there is dismissal benefit.

I find it overwhelmed and unable that the working citizens in this country will pay a part of the dismissal costs. The invoice in this operation is therefore transferred to the working people. I am sorry that this government, which includes the liberals, endorses this.

The [...]

You are a liberal, Mrs. Rutten.

As I said before, this is the first step to remove the difference between workers and servants. Unfortunately, I note that dismissal periods will vary in the future, depending on the time at which an employment contract is terminated.

Mrs. Minister, I fear that from 2012-2014 we will be facing different types of cancellation deadlines. You also acknowledged in the committee that everything will become complex. It will be complicated for the companies, for the SMEs, but also for the workers themselves. It will be necessary to carefully consider which dismissal regime falls under. I find this ⁇ regrettable: the legislator should give legal certainty to the workers. You also said in the committee that the right of resignation will be given a very complex one. I think and have also said that the labour courts and the lawyers who have so far been engaged in the calculation of the Claeys formula, from 2012-2014 will have to deal with the question of which dismissal scheme one actually falls under.

The draft law introducing the IPA contains another gap. The purpose of this bill is actually to bring together the termination periods of employees and workers. I think this is a problem for the oil sector. It may also be the case for other sectors, but I know this is a problem for the oil sector, where the notice periods for employees and workers have already been equalized. If one then applies the rules set out in this bill, workers will in practice have a much longer notice period than the employees. Your cabinet chief said in the committee that this will have to be arranged at the corporate level. Again, I think it is the task of the legislature to create legal certainty for all sectors and not to leave this to, in this case, the companies. There is also uncertainty about the question of the final arrangement. One thing is certain. With the unity statute, the account is transferred to the working people.

Finally, I find it very unfortunate that the government extends various forms of bridge pension by 2 years. The original interprofessional agreement stipulated that this would be extended, but that, on the other hand, the Generation Pact would be evaluated. I have submitted an amendment and asked it again. It doesn’t cost money to put this signal back into your bill and report it again. Again the question: how far is the evaluation of the Generation Pact as provided for in the 2007 KB and on which the social partners had agreed in the interprofessional agreement? I did not get an answer to this question last time.

In addition to all this, some fundamental issues from the government’s mediation proposal would also be settled, but by royal decree. I have not seen the text of the Royal Decree. I am speaking primarily about fixing the wage standard and filling out a wealth envelope. In addition to these two gifts, the government gives another additional gift: the tax exemption for the first two weeks of the cancellation deadlines. Also here I wonder, Mrs. Minister, what the cost of this measure will be.

This bill is at least a missed opportunity for your team in the light of what Europe demands. Europe calls on us to work on wage moderation, indexation clauses, reduction of early exit and more flexicurity. Your text suggests something entirely different. Therefore, our group will abstain: because you do the opposite.

The social partners had said at their initial agreement that they would order a study on indexing. Unfortunately, I note that nothing of that study can be found in the texts. In addition, you extend the bridge pension by 2 years, without wanting to give the signal that we should go to an evaluation of the Generation Pact. In short, I think this is a missed opportunity.

Colleagues, the fragile balances that were there have been taken from this draft law on the IPA. Therefore, Mr. Bonte, Mrs. Minister, my group will abstain when voting on this bill.

The draft law that the Government asks us to approve is the result of the mediation that was made necessary as a result of the fact that all social partners, in this case the trade union organisations, could not approve the text of the draft interprofessional agreement.

No one will doubt, I imagine, that an inter-professional agreement is the best guarantor of the socio-economic cohesion of our country, because it is based on the legitimacy of those who negotiated it, which obviously promotes investments, allows the framework of sectoral negotiations, but above all, guarantees well-being and social peace for workers.

The failure of an interprofessional agreement is therefore always damaging, but in the current political context it took an additional dimension. That is why the PS group welcomes the fact that the government has taken the matter and has taken its responsibilities, in particular that it has unambiguously stated in favour of preserving the purchasing power of the population.

The automatic indexation of wages and social benefits is the cornerstone of our social model. Knowing that this alignment on the increase in cost of living is delayed, index smooth, and that it does not take into account a series of products, indexing is ⁇ not a luxury. However, it retains a crucial importance for low incomes. For the PS, the fact that there is no questioning of the index is essential both at the Belgian and European level.

However, the competitiveness of companies cannot be reduced to the cost of wages alone, while, in particular, energy costs are becoming an increasingly important determinant of competitiveness and are not under any control in our country. The causes of inflation must therefore be addressed by controlling, among other things, energy prices in order to combat market deviations.

That said, a margin of wage increase as low as the margin regained by the government (0.3%) poses the risk of breaking the solidarity. Strong sectors and flourishing companies will be tempted to bypass the norm by focusing more on the least solidary forms of income increase for workers, even if these increases bypass social security.

Therefore, if we accept what is contained in the government agreement, we still want to question the principle of an imperative norm.

We will ask our ministers and the PS to review, if necessary, the possibility of returning to an indicative standard.

Why do I raise this question? Because, in a certain way, the current situation makes the thing difficult to accept. I asked to bring me the Vespéral Daily of the day, but we did not find it. One of the first pages of one of his notes contains a reference to the bill that the PS has just filed to limit the bonuses and surcharges of business bosses. Indeed, it is observed that some gains of growth in our economy today benefit in priority from bonuses and surplus wages that are completely inadequate in relation to what the population earns.

To say that the 0.3% standard is imperative is understandable in a certain context, but the actuality allows us, at least, to question this imperative character.

As it is in the text, according to the tradition in the PS to respect the agreement concluded, we will vote on the text. Nevertheless, we will re-examine this aspect of the issue and return with suggestions, if necessary, related to the proposals we have just submitted on the bonuses.

Nevertheless, we also have reason to be satisfied that the government has taken the decision to reinforce the lowest wages and to distribute the entire envelope for the welfare adaptation of social benefits and wage ceilings.

But our group will remind you of two things.

First, the draft interprofessional agreement showed no trace of an increase in the minimum wage, which however must constitute above all a solidarity agreement to improve the working conditions and remuneration of the less well-protected. It is therefore, once again, public money that will have to supplement this deficiency, through the technique of the employment bonus or through taxation. This is not normal. We need to do this because we want the purchasing power of the population to be ⁇ ined, saved, or even increased.

Secondly, the discharge and distribution of a two-year "well-being" envelope are today structural mechanisms, inscribed in the law on the generation pact, which therefore have strictly nothing to do, in principle, with the conclusion of an interprofessional agreement. The envelope must be set for September 15 and it is not normal that it becomes an exchange currency in negotiations for an inter-industry agreement.

As is known, the empty chair policy had already been practiced by the employer during the period 2009-2010 in order to monetize the well-being against reductions in charges. For us, this is not acceptable. These two elements are essential and the criticisms of the PS in this regard are important.

The harmonisation of the employee and worker statutes is an important part of the implementation of this draft inter-professional agreement. Some argue that this is only symbolic advances, others say that overall it is a regression for the world of work. The position of the PS is that the statutes must be pulled upwards. We had a draft law, with the sp.a, which attempted to harmonize the statutes on that of employees. This is the position we defend. In the future, we want in particular a de facto reduction of what is called in the project the high salaries of employees (30 000 euros gross per year)... This makes me think of the bonuses at Dexia.

This engrenage should not be continued. We need to return to the original ambition that is to pull the statutes upwards. We will therefore return with a bill on the issue, even though we fundamentally think that this is a matter that must be covered by the inter-professional agreement. That is why we had submitted a bill that should be used in case of refusal of discussion on this subject, because it has not even been discussed on this subject for years. It should be used as a recourse weapon but I repeat that we want to see the statutes pulled upwards. Therefore, we will submit a legislative proposal on this subject.

I hear Mr. President. Major with a lot of interest. I hope he will listen to my speech with so much attention. I would like to encourage him not to postpone to tomorrow what he can do today or what he could have done in the Social Affairs Committee. It’s a bit easy to create a smoke screen by talking about things that shock us too, the salaries of the big bosses, and at the same time voting out of spirit for such a bad text, as you describe it, even if it has qualities.

We decided to re-submit all the amendments I defended with my colleagues in the Social Affairs Committee. It is still time to change your mind!

Mr. Gilkinet, when we submit a bill here, we do our job. You can call this a smoke screen, I say that’s our profession. So, we are submitting legislative proposals regarding bonuses and employee salaries.

On the other hand, it may be difficult to understand for you because you do not have this practice but when the PS is in a government and it makes an agreement, it respects it. You may not agree with me, I understand. You can blame the PS for a lot of things, but he respects the agreements.

The agreement entered into the government, we respect it, which does not prevent us from giving our point of view. This does not prevent us from listening to what is said about this agreement elsewhere than in this auditorium, eventually giving reason to the critics and re-attacking, re-deposing proposals and affirming a different position. This is our way of working. It may be difficult to understand for you, Mr. Gilkinet, but I feel that in the last few years, this method has yielded its fruits, if we compare our social situation with others.

Mr. Mayeur, I also addressed you on this in the committee meeting. We are somewhat in a different strategy, which is logical, as you are still part of a government that is shaking in ongoing affairs.

You are right when you say that we should do our job here. So, we do our work. For example, we share the outrage that there is a moderation of wages for employees, while today, for example, we find that unethical premiums are paid. From this we draw our conclusions, we do our work, and today we submit an amendment to limit this. This amendment is submitted to the present draft law.

We do the same in the question of the status of workers and servants. However, I do not want to throw it in the foot here. Nevertheless, it is strange that at the time when there is no interprofessional agreement, which we all regret, and that we know that within a few days or weeks we will again be confronted with a judgment stating that we as legislators must urgently resolve that discrimination, you about a proposal containing a signature of PS and of sp.a, then you still refuse to draw the conclusion to do your work here and eliminate that discrimination. So, you just do.

Doing your job as a legislator effectively means making choices here. Now don’t tell us that this is the result of an interprofessional agreement, because there was no interprofessional agreement. It is a deliberate choice to not put an end to the discrimination in the area of Cars Day today, at this time, on 7 April. That has nothing to do with loyalty in the government, nor with the existence of the interprofessional agreement, because that is not there. It has to do with the choice you will make here later in the vote as a legislator.

Similarly, I blame the people of the ACV, who out there say that it is important that the workers are better protected and that the carnival must be abolished. On April 7, they will do exactly the opposite of what they say outside. Colleague Vercamer, you laugh at it. This is done with respect to a population group that is ⁇ vulnerable to retaining its belief in politics. Either you explain outside that you are not so for it, or you vote for it here.

Mr. Speaker, I leave Mr. Mayeur, the excellent chairman of our Social Affairs Committee, to his remarks on the role of the PS in governments.

I don’t know if he is talking about the notional interests law, the generation pact, or agreements negotiated on our behalf at the European level, which will have rather worrying social consequences.

I would like to reaffirm that when we have the ability to assume our responsibilities within a government – our party is younger than yours – like you, we do it with the concern of respecting the word given. And we try to negotiate in advance the best possible social and environmental agreements.

Mr. Bonte, I can only state that you are pretending that there was no draft IPA. There was one. There was something about Cars Day, but I think I know that it was the socialist trade unions that voted against the draft agreement.

With regard to the day of lack, I agree with what was said by Hans Bonte. We find it unacceptable that this has not been removed and that we have not made any progress on this subject.

The employee employment contract suspension regime is a temporary crisis measure that will become structural from 1 January 2012. Our concern is not about the principle of transposition of the 1978 Law on Employee Economic Unemployment because the use of this form of unemployment has ⁇ proven its effectiveness for the survival of companies and to limit dismissals. However, the criteria for the company in difficulty, as defined by the bill or as defined by the royal decrees that must be taken, we believe – I said it in the committee – involve a risk of misuse of this measure. Not only have the thresholds been overturned but the reference year, namely 2008, is fixed and far too far away, which is illogical compared to a measure that will become definitive in 2012. Thus, some companies could be tempted to use temporary unemployment in fine to reduce their costs and with the means of social security. That’s why I proposed in committee...You will remember, Mr. Gilkinet. You have submitted an amendment on my initiative.

No to No! No to No! I almost approved this amendment.

Wait until I finish my sentence.

You anticipate, while I wanted to thank you for the amendment I had dictated.

The best way to thank you is to vote. I think there is more in two heads than in one. An amendment filed by Ecolo stated that the reference year should be 2010 because it is the year that precedes 2011. Now, listening to you, I thought it was more interesting to indicate “the previous year” than “the year 2010”. In 2012, it will be 2011. So you have actually made progress on this excellent amendment that we had submitted. I am here today and count on your support, Mr. Speaker!

Mr. Gilkinet, you confirm thus that my suggestion was more correct than your original proposal. This amendment will not have a majority in this Parliament today. In the interests of efficiency, I therefore propose to put it back in the form of a law.

The [...]

I confirm that in terms of effectiveness, it is better to come back with a bill, negotiate it with others and pass it instead of believing that we will vote here in plenary an amendment that will obviously not get a majority. Our parliamentary work is as simple as this!

I give the floor to Mr. by Gilkinet.

I would like to be able to continue.

I have just arrived; I give the word to Mr. Gilkinet and we’ll see.

I did not intend to interrupt Mr. Mayor every five minutes but if he questions me, I feel obliged to answer!

You have a strange conception of democracy, Mr. Mayeur. If we follow you, the minority parties, which is currently the case of the Ecolo-Groen group! Compared to the government in ordinary affairs, they can never submit an amendment.

As I will explain again recently, many of the amendments we have submitted have resulted in the sympathetic approval of the Minister. Simply put, I am surprised that parliamentarians do not have the courage of their opinions and do not support them!

As for your excellent suggestion to turn our amendments into bills, we didn’t wait for you to do so. They will therefore be taken into consideration during the first plenary session after the Easter holidays. This emulation will ⁇ lead us to better decisions. So we will be able to correct the wrong text that you are going to vote for now and we will not vote for.

My conception of democracy is always that 12 plus 26 out of 150, that is not a majority. This is a calculation problem.

I have confirmed.

Do you confirm? thank you . The Minister of Finance has a calculation...

Furthermore, the employer’s reluctance to conclude collective labour agreements is another reality that has damaging consequences for all employees. They involve lowering the threshold of negotiations at the company level and in case of failure or absence of trade union delegations, the development of a business plan that does not allow employees to exercise control over the conditions and on the opportunity to resort to economic unemployment.

The absence of sectoral guidance thus accentuates the disparities between workers, whether in the amount of the daily supplement, in the duration of the suspension of employment contracts or in the measures aimed at ⁇ ining the maximum employment.

Therefore, I reiterate my request, made in a committee to the Minister, to formally recommend to the social partners but also to the employer bank to start negotiations on the conclusion of such agreements at the sectoral level.

Regarding the approximation of the workers’ and employee statutes, I will make a few remarks about the accompanying premium, renamed by the commission “dismissal allowance”, which is obviously more just.

The temporary crisis measures, which last until 31 December 2011, may include the exemption granted to employers from paying their quota in the event that they encounter economic difficulties. But for our group, this crisis response was obviously not the basis for a long-term solution.

From the moment when this structural allowance is paid from 1 January 2012, the 15 % increase in the period of prior notice of the workers does not in any way justify a disresponsibility of the employer in relation to a flat-rate allowance which, I recall, would not exist if the workers were to benefit from a truly dissuasive period of prior notice.

Early notice periods are not privileges, but the best insurance against redundancies. Of course, anything that can relieve the distress of an unemployed worker is welcome, but making the entire amount paid by the social security, in the end by the workers themselves, obviously does not make sense for us.

Basically, the danger lies in offering employers a too beautiful escape to never have to meet their real responsibilities, which is to raise workers’ warnings to the level of employees’ warnings. This is part of the general appreciation I had just recently, on behalf of the PS group, of a upward leveling of the workers’ and employed status.

In conclusion, the PS group will support the bill that translates the interprofessional agreement as amended by the government. The two main reasons are, first of all, that the purchasing power of the whole population is consolidated, safeguarded in a European context yet marked by austerity, dark cuts in social budgets and the willingness to challenge the index and the protection of workers.

Then, federal social consultation is ⁇ ined and is a reference for the government. It is so that the prime minister himself, at the European summit, defended it as a value that Belgium wants to see promoted.

These two elements are essential for us. It is in this context that we support the bill that translates the interprofessional agreement. The PS will, however, remain vigilant on all the points I have discussed.

It is unnecessary to remind you in what difficult context the social partners were able to conclude an interprofessional agreement in mid-January. The rejection of this agreement by two signatories was therefore felt as totally regrettable, or even deplorable. Consequently, the government had to take things in hand in order to find a compromise and implement an agreement that the MR considers balanced.

A solution had to be found quickly in order to restore social peace and give a good signal to investors. Therefore, we are pleased that the government has taken its responsibilities and submits today to us this bill.

First of all, I would like to clarify that the aforementioned bill must be examined in a comprehensive set including the salary standard established by royal decree and tax measures concerning, in particular, low wages, which will be included in another bill.

As far as we are concerned, we would like to highlight several positive points. In particular, it is planned to extend the crisis measures until the end of the year. We hope that this will be a transitional period before the establishment of definitive mechanisms. The project also provides for a permanent mechanism of economic unemployment for employees. We also welcome the fact that a first step has been taken in the harmonisation of the workers’ and employed statutes. The progressive approximation of these two statutes is initiated. The file has been blocked for years. This progress seemed unexpected.

Of course, we will have to continue on this path. But we also want to highlight some weak points of this text. First, the concept of accompanying premium is not adequate. This premium is actually a dismissal premium. No specific accompaniment is planned. We think it would have been better to assort this premium from a process of activating the worker who lost his job. Unfortunately, this was not the option chosen.

Second, we regret the disappearance of the study on the indexation system. In its 2010 report, the National Bank insisted, however, that such a study be conducted on the various indexation mechanisms in Belgium. We consider this to be a missed opportunity. This is ultimately a compromise. It is therefore logical that the MR, as a responsible party, supports this compromise.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Ministers, 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, 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. There was, among other things, an arrangement for the carnival day. However, not all social partners have defended the draft social agreement with the same level of responsibility and commitment, so that arrangement is now not included in it. Mr. Bonte, it’s just something too easy to get only this one element out of that draft agreement and want to regulate it through law. That is just something too easy. It is a global balance and we respect that. It is only a pity that this could not happen in a draft agreement that was drawn up together with the social partners.

Mr. Vercamer, I can only repeat that through the normal democratic game of social consultation, to which you attach such importance, there has been no interprofessional agreement. You put yourself out in all your zeal to say that somewhere there was a bit of an interprofessional agreement because the big half of the ACW approved it. Should we consider this a bit of an interprofessional agreement? Take a look at the reality with the great respect you have for the social consultation and find that the water was too deep. That being said, I can deduce from that that you also find with your commitments in other areas that what is in that draft no. 3 of the interprofessional agreement stood a good arrangement was for the solution of the carnation day? Was that the big step forward you dreamed of?

A social agreement is a balance, it is giving and taking. As for Careness Day, most of it is regulated at sectoral level. Therefore, nothing prevents you from encouraging the people you know at the employee representatives and ⁇ at the employer representatives to put that on the agenda in the coming months and try to regulate that sectorally. It is already regulated in most sectors. Where this has not yet been arranged, I also regret that this has not yet happened. But well, that was part of a global agreement that was not accepted by all social partners.

Mr. Bonte, I have here the interprofessional agreement, the design of text. The carnival day, the guaranteed salary, which was in it. Your trade union has denied this. I don’t understand that you’re sitting here on your couch talking about Carnival this and Carnival that day. It is inside. Your trade union has rejected it.

You claim to have respect for social consultation, I have this too. This means that if a draft of social consultation is rejected, there is no interprofessional agreement. If you say that you have an interprofessional agreement in your hands, then that is a very serious prime. There is no interprofessional agreement.

Mr. Vercamer, having said this, I want to know of you now. If you know a little about the history of our social and labor legislation, you will know that progress is always made through trade union consultation, through consultation in the companies and sectors, which will sooner or later be followed by legislation.

If you say that in many sectors and ⁇ the carnival day has been abolished, then you are right. Where has it not been abolished? In the sectors where trade unions and workers are weakest. It is the historical vocation of progressive politicians, if sufficient progress has been made along the path of consultation, that they try to generalize this for the weak birds of the economy by law. You belong to the legislative branch and it is up to you to take your responsibility in it and not to stand behind a draft agreement that has been rejected by a large part of the workers’ organisations.

Mr. Bonte, I would like to remind you once again of the law of 1978, which establishes that carnival day for workers. You know that this was introduced by Tindemans II, which also included the Belgian Socialist Party, your party. And you are starting to see here now to remove that. I understand nothing of it.

Mr. Bonte, of course, you have a selective memory in terms of social history. Once again, a draft social agreement was shot down, and then the social partners agreed with the government to silently comply with the agreements.

Now suddenly pretending that a draft agreement rejected by a few social partners has never existed, forget it. This has been taken into account in the past, and it has also been taken into account today. The government has made it a little better.

In this way, there is no longer any interprofessional consultation. Think carefully about what you are doing. There will always be a draft that will be used as an inter-professional agreement on the basis of which the government does what it wants to do.

In any case, the government has improved the draft of social agreement that was there, after a lot of consultation. It has made very clear choices even in a limited budgetary context.

Furthermore, the discussion in the committee and the extensive informal consultation that preceded the final submission of the mediation proposal have taught us that there is a very large support in this matter. In the committee alone, there were 11 votes for and 6 abstentions. This only proves that there is a huge support. It is also important that the support level is there, in order to maintain social peace in this country.

We will support the current bill.

What is at least equally important and actually connected with the present draft law – it was also at the table of the negotiations of the social partners – is the expenditure of the wealth envelope. While the social partners were the requesting party to spend at least 60 % of the aforementioned 498 million euros, the government is committed to the full 100 %. Thus, the oldest and lowest pensions and the lowest benefits will be increased. We also fully support this measure.

For our group, this is a logical continuation of the justice agenda launched three years ago, to create a collection movement for the lowest pensions and the lowest benefits. The lowest pensions will be increased by 250 euros. The lowest benefits for long-term unemployed will increase by 340 euros. What is very important for our group, and which we have been insisting on for years, is the increase of disability benefits by 250 euros per year, in addition to the 2% increase that comes when the person concerned is entitled to a number of years.

This is an important decision to close the wealth gap and an important lever in the fight against poverty.

However, I would also like to make a few comments on the mediation proposal.

First, I would like to call on the Minister and the Prime Minister to be vigilant in Europe for our indexing mechanism, wage formation and the involvement of the social partners. Those are three key elements in the struggle for the preservation of purchasing power.

Secondly, the proposals on the harmonisation of the statute of workers and employees are a first step, which does not contribute much to the transparency of our labour law.

We can live with it because we also see it as the first step towards a definitive harmonised system. We remain vigilant and warn you that there is no real deadline in the extended time path. In 2016, our group would not like to be confronted with social partners who stand empty-handed and say they have not touched it.

The next government must make compelling agreements with the social partners to empower them so that they effectively realized a unitary status of workers-servants in 2016.

Finally, I have a very technical question, Mrs. Minister, to clarify the content of the bill. It is about the notice periods. Article 10 of the draft law states that if Section 2 does not apply, Section 1 shall apply. Article 25 of the draft law states the same for employees. Regarding the workers, it is very clearly stipulated that, for example, it also applies to the entry notice period on Monday, the following week, and for the arbitrary dismissal. For all clarity, it would be good that you repeat in which situation it applies to the operators.

In any case, you can count on our support for this bill.

Mrs. Speaker, as I have already expressed somewhat from my bench, I left this day of debates in the Social Affairs Committee last Tuesday, with some frustration: on the one hand, many colleagues did not express themselves or then in ⁇ vague terms, neither to defend nor to criticize the government agreement; on the other hand, no alternative majority, as we have known here since the last elections, was able to get out of the many amendments deposited, including when some colleagues expressed their interest in the proposals we had issued to improve and re-balance the text.

I think this is a lack of courage. It is too easy to express itself then by arguing that one would have wanted, but that it was not possible; or by trying to deviate to other subjects, to install a smoke screen and not to use that parliamentary power that is the voice, after pressing the button, to support the ideas that one finds good.

I would like to give the same to Mr. by Gilkinet. I interrupt it as little as possible, but still from the beginning so that things are clear! I want to repeat things, Mr. Gilkinet.

Even though some of your amendments, especially those inspired by me, are good, even if we vote for them, I point out that we are not a majority in this assembly. This act has no interest. Worse than that: it would mean that one government party breaks the government agreement and, eventually, would thus allow others, given the colour palette of the range of that hemisphere, to submit other amendments and create further breaches of the government agreement. You would suffer much more.

That is why the logic, when one belongs to a government, is to support the project coming from the government and continue to fight by other means to obtain satisfaction.

What you are offering is a smoke screen!

I know your strategy that is to announce the worst to then say that it didn’t happen and that it’s thanks to you! I also deny you the paternity of the amendments that my group submitted during the session and that it is re-deposing today.

I was not only addressing the PS group by saying that there are amendments that can improve the text, that can re-balance it and contribute to a true social peace that will also allow our economy to function properly. We are experiencing an unprecedented institutional crisis. If we add a social disorder, I think we will pay for it. Since 2007, the social partners have played a role as stabilizers of our economy and also of our country. One of my first interventions at this tribune concerned the application of the previous inter-professional agreement while there was not yet a government and Mr. Trump had been extended. Vanvelthoven as Minister of Employment. We then implemented the agreement reached between the social partners. I simply say that if we do not pay attention to it and if we do not re-balance things, the breaking of social peace will hang us at the nose and it will cost expensive. This concerns everyone, not just the PS group.

When I hear your courageous statements at the tribune, I am sometimes surprised at the lack of consistency in your votes. The strength of a member is his vote. I have a vote of 150, like you, Mr. Mayeur. Do not hesitate to express yours!

This interprofessional agreement is a Belgian originality. Its principle is the collectiviser at the maximum of discussions at the highest possible level of social concertation. This also allows to protect the sectors in which workers are less well represented. It is the proposal of social progress for all sectors and of assuring a certain social peace necessary to the proper functioning of all economy and all society. Often, the social partners are shown to be more responsible than the political representatives. You have this, since 2007, they have assured a certain stability, until the moment where the file is broken. You l'ai this il a month, lors d'une question d'actualité au premier ministre, il n'y a pas d'accord interprofessionnel! There is no interprofessional agreement.

In this case, the 1996 Competitiveness Act is clear. The government must submit a new proposal in order to obtain consensus. The government played its role and did not get more support, as two out of three trade union organizations rejected the agreement and the third, Mr. Vercamer, approved it from the bottom of the lips. Personally, I don’t want to play in this game where you oppose each other. The common front is, in my opinion, the most important thing in trade union matters.

The competitiveness law simply provides for a third round. In this regard, Parliament must assume its responsibilities, must play its role by analyzing the texts and submitting amendments. Our conviction was and is always that the draft agreement put on the table by the government was socially unbalanced and needed to be re-balanced. We have played and we are playing our role of opposition to try to improve it and it is not too late.

What is the general context in which this agreement falls? It is simply a context of general degradation of social relations, which leads to crispations on both sides, with communication campaigns – this is the role organized by both employers and workers – and which are the symptom of a difficulty in communicating, of a certain insecurity, which leads to an instability that we do not need.

Who is responsible for this situation? Globally, our economy lacks regulation as well as internationally. The phenomenon of the exchange of services makes workers compete with other workers. What is no longer produced here is produced in other countries, but in sometimes degraded social and environmental conditions.

Who is responsible? It is also the fact of giving bad answers to good questions. Let me take the example of energy. Indeed, we are told, as part of the preliminary study of the Central Council of Economy and the latest report of the National Bank, that the problem of our country is that of the cost of energy. Some find no better solution than removing this parameter from those that are considered for the calculation of the index. This is the typical example of a bad answer to a good question.

This question is central. She is today. It remains for tomorrow. It should encourage us to mobilise all public and private resources to enable everyone to be more energy efficient. This will lead to employment, address the environmental problems that arise, improve our trade balance and avoid depending on oil or gas producing countries.

The third element that explains this situation is the financial crisis and the return of the arrogance that we talked about at the beginning of this session with banks that have been aided by the state and that continue to pay excessive wages, completely unbearable for workers who are asked to tighten their belts or who see their colleagues being fired. These employer bonuses and the slow reforms needed in the financial sector cause workers to fear being forced to pay for the crisis again.

The last uncertain element is the European context, which we have already discussed several times in the European Affairs Monitoring Committee. The new economic governance, the European Semester, the euro pact, these messages that tell us that we must balance the budgets of each state by limiting spending, therefore by limiting the ability to redistribute, by limiting the capacity to invest, the generalized austerity that is announced to us, all this does not help create a context favourable to good deals.

I think that there can be no good interprofessional agreements if they do not meet a carrying political project. But it must be noted, since 2007 and even before that, since 2003, this carrying project does not exist. It is urgent and important to regain confidence, to try to give a boost at all possible levels, starting with Europe, to those regulatory measures that improve economic exchanges between all countries and protect economies that function like ours with high social and environmental criteria. We must invest in the future and in the economy of tomorrow. As I said, in this context, the energy issue is central. It is necessary to regulate in order to avoid the profits of producers; it is necessary to invest in clean and renewable energies and above all in energy savings. We expect this government to give encouraging signals in this regard.

As I said in the committee, the 2011-2012 AIP is ⁇ the worst AIP in the history of social consultation. I will now nuance this word. On the one hand, I ⁇ do not throw a stone at the negotiators who have tried to reach the best possible agreement; I do not deny the first important advances in the improvement of the worker’s status, but I refuse to present as advances what is merely the enforcement of the law, as some of my colleagues do, for example Mr. Vercamer or Mr. by Major.

The allocation of margins for the partial linking of social benefits to welfare was paid by workers under the Generation Pact. It is not about getting them paid again. The automatic indexation of wages is a fundamental social achievement, an originality of our country. The extension of the pre-empensions as provided in this text in connection with the AIP is simply normal and logical.

It is not to say that we have avoided the worst and that we must be content with this text. It is unbearable to have to renegotiate three times for small social benefits that are essential in a context where the number of poor workers is increasing and where the social allocators, in any case those who receive the lowest benefits, have increasing difficulties ending the month.

As I said in the Social Affairs Committee, this compromise text has more than a weakness. The first is situated at the level of the donor-donor logic between the improvement of the worker status and the degradation of the employee status.

Improving the working-class status is urgent and necessary, especially from an economic point of view. This professional category must be recognized a full and complete status, wage and contractual conditions of dignity. We need workers in the many cutting-edge sectors of the economy, whether it is recovery, building renovation, insulation. You know it is expensive to us.

The differences that still exist today between employee and worker statutes are discriminatory and vexatory. Let me take the example of the day of shortage. This element is not entirely included in the Interprofessional Agreement, although it is found in the text paraphed by the Group of Ten. It is still true that this element has been cited and that we could have advanced on this point. It could also have gone further in terms of the length of the notice. Belgium has already been pointed out several times for its delays in this matter. The Constitutional Court has condemned the Belgian state. Advances are necessary if we want to be able to continue recruiting motivated workers tomorrow. We missed an opportunity.

Certainly, there are improvements in the level of pre-notification of workers. We supported these specific articles in the article-by-article vote that intervened in the committee. On the other hand, we find it neither normal nor acceptable that these advances are made at the expense of the conditions of pre-notification of employees. This logic of communicating vessels is not justified.

I would like to repeat that the notice is there not only to preserve a certain level of salary, income for the dismissed worker but also and above all to place a barrier against dismissal. It has a deterrent effect which also protects companies from all the consequences of dismissal on other workers and on the general working context.

The questioning of the existing notice periods, in particular through the removal, Mrs. Minister, of the application of the Claeys grid that allowed to value in the calculation of the notice period the extra-legal benefits – which, unfortunately, it must be noted, are multiplying – is a downturn that we do not endorse. We therefore propose through an amendment to remove articles aimed at reducing the conditions of pre-notification of employees.

The second weakness is that of social progress. I don’t want to say that the bottle is half full. She is not at all. The AIP project envisaged a two-time increase in the time of workers’ notice. The second part of the increase disappeared in the government text. Just as, as I said, the abolition of the lack day was considered, it did not find itself in the compromise put on the table by the government.

Furthermore, this increase in workers’ advance notice will only affect future contracts and not existing workers. The State Council made it clear that this would introduce unjustifiable discrimination, which is why we proposed that these increase in notice apply to all workers, including those already under contract.

Likewise, this is a positive element of the text, it is proposed to value the periods worked within the framework of the interim, for a year before the start of the contract but it is known that some workers, some workers and employees, are compelled to very long periods of interim before they can have a contract in good and proper form. Why limit this interesting advance to just one year while workers sometimes have to work six or seven years before signing a contract? We propose that this extension be planned for an indefinite period depending on the time actually provided.

The minimum wage is increased by 10 euros per month, charged to the community through tax bills that still need to be submitted to us. The previous increase in the minimum wage dates from the AIP 2006-2007. Before that, there was a long period of on-site. It seems to us logical and necessary to increase it more significantly, so that we can fight against this job trap, since those workers who only benefit from the minimum wage are precarious workers.

The same applies to a symbolic measure that was inexpensive, namely to raise the minimum wage for young workers under twenty-one. The social partners could have agreed on this and, in this case, I am more specifically targeting the employer’s bank. This is something that the government could have reintroduced in its compromise proposal. This would have been a signal to the attention of the working world, but we did not take advantage of it!

A third weakness of the text submitted to us is the unconditionality of the aid. A structural weakness of the aid mechanisms set up by the federal state for the benefit of companies is their lack of conditionality.

Mr. Minister of Finance, I am not returning here to the tax measure of notional interests at risk of irritating you. This is not the object. However, I would like to emphasize the fact that I appreciate you being here. Employment aid, if it can be considered as such, such as those that are applicable in the sector of securities-services, win-win plans, etc., or what appears in this proposal of law on employee economic unemployment, Mrs. Minister of Employment, are not sufficiently conditioned. That’s why it offers the least scrupulous employers – fortunately they’re not all! – Effects of aubaine and a possibility of maximizing their profits at the expense of the community.

For this reason, we have proposed to raise the threshold from which one can benefit from the economic unemployment of employees by 5%. In order to try to catch up to the reality, we agreed with Mr. Major to take as a reference year the previous year, the year N-1, rather than the year N-3, as proposed here. I think it is possible to think about other criteria that would prevent employer economic unemployment from being applied in situations that are not justified.

A good free discussion in the Social Affairs Committee could have improved the text. This is a proposal that, symbolically, is less burdensome than the abolition of the day of shortage that ⁇ would not collect 50% of the votes. Some of the proposals issued were common sense and aimed at a good management of public money.

The fourth weakness of this bill is the financing by the community of what I consider to be social retreats. In the last AIP, social partners negotiated and subsequently presented the invoice to the government, which then financed social advances. I said it in the committee, I think that this crisis premium for dismissed workers, which became dismissal compensation after debate, is a false good idea. The notice has two functions: on the one hand, to preserve for a certain period of time the purchasing power of the dismissed workers and, on the other hand, to protect them from dismissal. This dismissal compensation is borne by the federal state, if it can relieve in the very short term – and someone who is in distress...

Mrs. President, Mr. Gilkinet, I didn’t speak so far, but I heard the play of ping-pong between the two. I find that debates take on more scale than in committees; I do not know whether the fact that the tribunes are occupied explains this situation.

I would like to discuss the issue of dismissal compensation. You must know, and this was repeated in commission, that another scenario was possible. One proposal, which I find very interesting, was to take a bigger step in the harmonisation of advance notice. It is ⁇ a shame that we missed the opportunity to incorporate this interesting scenario.

But if this was not followed, it is that there was no agreement of all the trade unions. In particular, the CSC agreed on this proposal which would have enabled a completely different mechanism, with a greater increase in the duration of the notice, but also the participation of employers in the outplacement.

Today, if this has not been done, it is not because of a choice or a non-proposition, on the contrary: the proposal was issued, but the unions that criticize today this fact are those who refused yesterday the alternative proposal.

I do not know who you are targeting. I am not the spokesman of any particular trade union, but only that of the Ecolo-Groen group! who has convictions and an analysis of the text, who is quite capable, by listening to one and the other, to form an opinion.

Madame Fonck, you were present in the Social Affairs Committee; do not say either that I have not intervened on this text and that I have not defended in the most explicit manner possible – see the report – the thirty amendments we have submitted. You have ⁇ also intervened.

I just wanted to say that with this additional dismissal allowance charged by the federal state, one can give a little point-by-point support to dismissed workers; it is not me who will consider that this is not a good thing. By accepting this logic, we enter a dangerous gear: eventually, to use a somewhat cynical formula, employers will have a form of incentive to dismiss as the state will pick up the pieces.

This is why we have proposed that this supplementary compensation be covered by employers. This seems quite logical to us. I would like to clarify here that when I submitted my amendment, I had not received any order from anyone, even though I had discussed it with each other.

I will come to the last criticism I would like to make about the AIP. I want to talk about the problem of “corseting” of the salary standard. Proposing a maximum wage rate (0.3 percent in 2012) while it has always been indicative constitutes a first in our social history. This poses several problems when one finds that some sectors have returned with very large profits, that comfortable wage bonuses are granted to some, when one examines the dividends distributed in particular in the financial sector.

A debate on this subject could not take place in the committee in so far as the question of fixing the salary standard will be settled by royal decree and that is really a shame.

Following the fixation of the wage standard at 0.3%, the leading sectors that have regained profits will not be able to play their role of social locomotive in relation to other sectors; there is a risk of multiplying the non-wage benefits that are not the most just, on which social contributions are not paid, which can sometimes have a strong environmental impact.

It is not in the next two years that we will be able, thanks to sufficient wage increases, to re-balance the share of wages against that of capital in our GDP. This is problematic from the moment when wages contribute not only to the purchasing power of workers, but also to the financing of our social security.

It is clear that there is no employment without economic activity and without an entrepreneur. But there is also no economic activity without workers.

In recent years, the situation of workers has continued to deteriorate. As I said in the introduction, social peace is more threatened than ever before and I dare not imagine, in the difficult political and institutional context that is ours, the consequences of an even greater degradation of the climate.

Our political responsibility, our responsibility as elected is to act on this matter. The Regions – I will focus more on the Walloon Region and the Brussels Region – work as best as they can.

I think the Marshall Plan 2.green offers perspectives in terms of job creation and sustainable economic activities. The federal state must put itself in the diapason, ⁇ by acting at the energy level. Mr. Prime Minister, you represent us in very important negotiations, which will have an impact on our budgets, on our social policies. You have already been questioned on the subject. The issue of energy efficiency must be a transversal priority to enable companies and individuals to ⁇ savings in this area that will generate available amounts for other things, which can contribute to the competitiveness of companies, to the creation of jobs and to the improvement of our trade balance.

You understand, my colleagues, I believe that the Regions are doing their job. I call on the federal state to do its own and I also call on you, dear colleagues of all banks, not only those of the PS, to vote on the fifteen amendments that we re-depose to further improve the status of workers, to challenge the degradation of the status of employees. My colleagues Zoé Genot and Kristof Calvo will present them to you soon: you can only vote for them. Thank you for your attention and I hope it wasn’t too long but I think the topic was worth it.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, this bill is inspired by the concern to protect our socio-economic climate from unnecessary disturbance. Belgium must be able to safeguard its competitive position in relation to the countries around us. The end of the crisis is not yet in sight.

This is the result of a re-negotiated compromise because the social partners had not reached an agreement. The government has taken its responsibility and that is what we are discussing here.

The failure to reach an agreement between the social partners has already been called a regrettable matter by several members. It has also given rise to some flagrant examples of disinformation and led to a number of strikes and demonstrations of which the population did not always understand exactly what it was about.

An example is the wage rate that was proposed as a threatening impoverishment, while indexation is ensured and an increase of 0.3 % has been registered. The salary standard, Mrs. Minister, must be arranged through KB and in the committee we have asked you what your plan B would be if it would be destroyed by the Council of State. Would you like to return to this for clarity?

Colleagues, inflation has risen from the forecasted 3.9% to 5.4% over two years. Our wage disability will increase. At some point, we will have to make a choice whether we go for more jobs or to increase purchasing power for those who already have a job. This is an important, social choice that we will have to make. There will be no money for both options. It is just what we understand by solidarity and what it means.

In order to make these decisions, objective information and figures on employment, competitive position and the status of our workers and servants are needed more than ever. We are pleased that the first phase of the unity statute in the agreement was achieved. The status of the workers will be improved. This has already been explained by several members. We are also positively opposed to this.

In this context, the government continues to recognize the autonomy of the social partners. For example, in the case of the extension of economic unemployment for employees, only an allowance above the ordinary remuneration can be granted after a sectoral agreement.

Mr. Vercamer has also mentioned this.

An important element is also the cost neutrality concerning the convergence of the statutes of workers and servants. In the committee passed a number of rather unilateral cost-increasing amendments, such as the abolition of the carnival day, which Mr. Bonte here fiercely defended.

We know that this has been asked repeatedly by you, Mr. Bonte. We are also positively opposed to this. I have said this to you several times, but the day of Careness – as Ms. Demir demonstrated here with flag and whip – was part of the agreement, was included in the second phase of the agreement. For me, that is no problem. We also want this troubling issue, which has been carried on for years, to be settled and that the agreement can be fully implemented. We respect the plan, as originally planned by the social partners.

You are talking about an agreement and you are saying that there was an agreement. There is no interprofessional agreement. Let us not be deceived about this. You should ask yourself, Mrs. De Block, what you would do if there was a draft text to which the VBO and Unizo say no. It cannot! Are we talking about an inter-professional agreement? Pretending that there is an interprofessional agreement is giving the death stake to social consultation. (The Romanian)

The [...]

Mr. Bonte, it is about taking responsibility and giving a word. First say yes and then afterwards get the stuff up again and come back, that is not possible in a society.

Mr. Bonte, you have said here several times that there was no agreement. A draft agreement was signed by all parties at the negotiating table. Then it had to be connected back to the back, as it should be. Because there was no approval from certain trade unions – one of which you know well – it did not lead to a real agreement. Therefore, the government has taken on its responsibility to reach a new compromise.

You can’t lose your disappointment about not reaching an interprofessional agreement at your back and so you come here constantly ventilate them. You can do it if you feel a better person, but it leads to nothing!

You are right: there is a government draft, but let go of referring to an interprofessional agreement, because that was not there!

A draft has been drafted, and there is now an agreement within the government. Thus the points are put on the i, Mr. Bonte. You are a happy person, and I too.

I can now talk about the extension of the system of bridge pensions, with which we are less happy. We find that there is no good signal now that the ageing is already feeling in our economy and now that the number of vacancies continues to rise. We consider this a missed opportunity and we hope that this can still be corrected after the review of the Generation Pact in autumn. This evaluation is, as mentioned, legally mandatory and will have to take place in September.

We asked the Minister for further explanation on the design of this evaluation, what commission she has given and what she has given in it as accents. We would like her to emphasize this, because it is very important for us that the evaluation of the Generation Pact takes place. In this way we know what needs to be done in the future with regard to our pension problem. I do not have to repeat it, but Belgium is one of the few countries in Europe that does not yet have a reformed pension legislation, although it may be due to a number of circumstances beyond our will.

I conclude with two punctual comments.

The dismissal benefit – formerly known as the crisis premium – is actually there to save the purchasing power, but its cost price now comes entirely to the RVA. In exchange, we would like to see some activation measures, Mr. Bonte. I think we are allies in this regard, so to speak.

We will approve that. Mr. Bonte’s party fellow approved the text in the committee. We thought that was a brave statement.

Secondly, the provisions on the calculation of the old age of the stationed personnel and the provisions on the harmonisation of the notice periods in Article 13 should be applied in accordance with the initial draft. We urge you to take care of this too. We find this very important.

We will approve the present draft. We think that by doing so – now I speak a little in medical terms – we will be able to reanimate the social consultation which will be able to reach a better consultation and a better conducted agreement for the next phase. After all, there is still a lot of work to be done, the work is not finished with the present IPA. To get out of the economic crisis, a number of measures are needed.

The policy has taken its responsibility in the present draft. We hope and demand from all social partners that from now on they also take their responsibilities and take over the torch to come to a solid labour and pension policy in our country.

Mrs. Speaker, colleagues, we are discussing today the government’s compromise proposal, which is based on the inter-professional agreement signed by the social partners and which was subsequently rejected by a number of trade unions.

Several provisions in the draft may take away our approval, such as the extension of the crisis measures, in particular the temporary unemployment for employees and the crisis premium for dismissed workers.

The Minister of Labour made it clear that one of the main objectives pursued by the present draft is the promotion of the gradual approximation of the statutes of workers and servants. That was also the reason why there was such euphoria after the IPA was accepted, though before it was labeled by a number of trade unions.

I also remember the big headlines that ⁇ a historical agreement on that issue, according to a certain newspaper. Finally, according to another newspaper, there was so-called an agreement in a file that had been blocked for years. The agreement was a lesson for politicians, as it put an end to the discriminatory and outdated difference between workers and servants.

For my group, this is a historically missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity, because the text makes it impossible to remove the backward distinction between workers and servants and thus the introduction of a genuine unity statute in the near future and sends in an orbit around the earth. I think that Parliament should not accept this, given the history of the case.

I would like to remind my colleagues once again of the fact that already in 1993 the then Arbitration Court found the distinction between the two statutes unconstitutional and the legislator summed up to eliminate the distinction. Colleagues, 1993, which is exactly 18 years ago. Since then, much has been talked about the problem, but little action has been taken. The Parliament and especially the members of the majority proved in the following years that they were the slaves of the trade unions and that those trade unions determined the playing space for Parliament, a playing space that was very small. At every negotiation on an IPA, it was promised that there would finally be work done on a unity statute. With every policy statement by every Minister of Labour, which has passed the review in recent years, the elimination of the distinction was at the top of the political agenda. However, we have always had to establish that nothing, but therefore nothing, has changed. However, many studies have been done and many experts have been appointed, who had to make concrete proposals, but the result was always zero.

The social partners have also always made sure that the file remains out of Parliament’s hands, with the sole intention of carrying out delaying manoeuvres. Each of them did not get out of it and the pattern was, understandably, total. Employers are rightly as the death for the possible consequences in terms of wage costs. That is understandable, given the fact that the wage cost disadvantage in relation to the countries around us continues to exist, with all consequences for the competitive position of our companies. The trade unions, on the other hand, have been unwavering for years when it comes to this case. I hear them constantly shouting and screaming or crawling the barricades, if it is about any alleged discrimination or not, but if it is about the biggest discrimination in our labour law, then they look in the other direction. Unions are more conservative than anyone else.

The clothes that are now born will not change that in the long run. The notice periods are improved, part of the invoice is paid by the State through the RVA and a timeline until 2016 is drawn out, which has now disappeared from the draft. At the end of the race, we still have no unity status. That is the reality.

What we will have, however, is an even greater discrimination between groups of workers depending on whether one signs employment contracts or is dismissed before or after 1 January 2012. Therefore, it becomes a complicated curve, from which no one will yet become wise, and that only the social secretaries may benefit. It makes our labour law even more opaque and complex than it was before. Instead of solving a problem, you create problems.

It is clear that the trade unions ultimately do not even want a unity status. The way the trade unions are structured, through, among other things, parity committees, plays a major role in this. Their power structures and financial interests are threatened. The interests of the workers in this country are clearly subordinate to those of the trade union stop and its structures and power. This should be said clearly.

Furthermore, a whole set of measures related to the so-called approximation between the two statutes are the subject of expert working groups, further negotiations between trade unions and employers, and so on. I wonder, by the way, whether any further discussions and agreements will be concluded in the file, since certain negotiators have simply been flooded back by their backbone and therefore it is no longer clear who speaks on whose behalf. For example, when I have seen ABVV-headpiece Rudy De Leeuw in the past weeks engaged in the framework of social consultation, then I fear that it is indeed the end of the social consultation model that has characterized this country for years. What is raised there has no equal. I had thus thought that Mr. De Lion would have held the honor to himself after he stood with his pants on his ankle at his back. Any form of consistent behavior can apparently not be noticed in that man, and any respect is not even placed for him.

Colleagues, the fact that this continues to be a very significant disadvantage for our labour market is actually unacceptable. It has a great influence on the influx of young people into the technical professions, professions that our business has sought for years and which are chronically lacking. But it is all subordinate. Moreover, the bill sets the Parliament out of play in the file for years, as the timeline agreed between the social partners runs until 2014-2016 and therefore no interference of the legislature will be tolerated, as has been the case in recent years. The perfect alibi has now been found to prevent Parliament from interfering with the file.

It is as a legislator sad to eventually have to put our hopes on a ruling of the Constitutional Court, which is about to arrive on Monday. I cannot imagine that the Court will be satisfied with the so-called steps forward put in the file by the present draft law.

Colleagues, we therefore remain convinced that if Parliament wants to demonstrate some credibility in the present file, it must show its teeth, draw the file to itself and impose a global, balanced status of unity, in which every employee is equal from now on.

Of course, this can only happen if such a statute does not lead to higher wage costs for our self-employed and our companies. After all, higher wage costs would be economic suicide in the current, harsh economic times.

Such an operation should be accompanied by a large reduction in wages, which does not increase the invoice for the companies and which, on the other hand, does not decrease what the employee eventually gets on his bank account.

However, the problem is not that, for example, the net dismissal fees for employees are too high. The problem is that the wage burden and dismissal costs for companies are too high.

This problem can only be solved by exempting the cancellation fees from social security contributions and taxation. Thus, indeed, the time limits can be harmonised, without the workers of the harmonisation being the dupe. After all, it is not normal that in the event of dismissal up to 60 % of the premiums are taxed off and the State thus collects the majority of the money.

Colleagues, I cannot imagine that the members of Parliament who have followed the case in question over the past years are satisfied with the way the case is now being dealt with. The solution is again a typical Belgian compromise, which gives the impression that the government is working on the matter. However, it does not solve the fundamental problem, on the contrary.

Meanwhile, everyone in the hemisphere, at least on the Dutch-speaking side, knows that this country is ruined under the Belgian compromises. Therefore, it is high time that we take the heels to put things in order in our economy and in our labour market. Waiting longer every day is therefore harmful to our Flemish prosperity.

Therefore, we will not consistently approve the IPA.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the adjective "balanced" has already been used several times, but I will insist on this point because this agreement, this project we will vote today, is a balanced agreement.

It is also heard through the debates this afternoon: some would like to go backwards, towards less in favor of workers, namely the initial AIP project; others, on the other hand, would want more "presents", proof that this project takes into account the reality of workers but also the importance of ensuring the competitiveness of companies.

This agreement is not banal because of course we are in a delicate political situation. Remember, the government is in ordinary affairs.

Not banal either because the case is delicate as such. Certainly, we can regret and talk endlessly about the fact that there was no agreement between the social partners but the agreement is there today. This is a clear proposal and the least we can say is that the government has taken and assumed its responsibilities.

I will not return, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, to all the discussion we had in the committee, but I would nevertheless like to insist on a number of points that I find ⁇ important.

The first, and not the least, is the fact that the indexation of wages is not questioned. This is all but banal since the indexation of wages is the subject of severe attacks, especially at European level with Germany and France. I think it was ⁇ important not to question the indexation of wages.

Second, there is a margin for wage increase, in addition to the index, from 2012. It is true that 0.3% is not much, but to stop at this is to look at only a part of the reality. If we look at the figures, since we expect an increase in indexation of 3.9%, it means that wages will increase by 4.2% in two years. There will be a net salary increase for workers whose salary is low thanks to a larger employment bonus. This is the strategy for combating employment traps.

The third point that I think is important is the extension of the special pre-emption regimes. Whether it is workers who started before the age of 17 and who have 40 years of career with the possibility to take their prepension at the age of 56 or those who have 33 years of career and 20 years of work in construction or night work, these are not negligible points, which take into account the painful nature of work. There is a fear of the National Labour Council not to be seen extending these collective agreements 96 and 97. It was therefore important to be able to validate through the law these particular pre-emption regimes, by default, in the absence of an agreement within the CNT by 15 April and to ensure them so that they can enter into force.

For the persistence of the two crisis measures (crisis premium and employee economic unemployment), it is important to recall that they showed no negligible effects on employment, not only according to the figures of Belgium but according to those validated by Europe.

For the CDH, the allocation of the entire 500 million to the increase of social benefits for pensioners, for invalid sick and for the unemployed is a point that we want to highlight. This does not exempt us from a future debate on this subject – and I will return to it later.

Finally, in terms of harmonisation of employee and worker statutes, this is ⁇ a first step, but there are several ways to see it. For the first time, the law introduces an increase in the pre-notification of workers. In this sense, it is a historical moment: it has been reminded, it has been a long time since nothing could have been done. But this is only a first step; social partners will have to fix the next phases of harmonisation.

These points and this agreement are only one element among many others. If it is a balanced agreement, if it is an important agreement for workers, if it brings an oxygen blow to companies, it seems to us, at the CDH, that there are still problems to be solved.

Progress in this regard will need to be made, whether on the total approximation of the status of workers and employees – without however making a policy of discount for some – whether on the abolition of the day of shortage, whether on the continuation of the policy of linking to well-being, even though it goes far beyond this debate, in particular everything concerning pensions, including those of self-employed persons, whether on corporate solidarity responsibility, or finally on the issues of enterprises related to innovation, research and training.

Of course, this will have to be done in a government agreement and in a very close relationship with the social partners. In any case, it marks the coming months and years where, both for workers, ⁇ and economic development, important elements will be defended and where solutions will need to be brought.

We have had a relatively long and animated debate in the Social Affairs Committee and that is good. We do not have every week the opportunity to speak as Parliament about an interprofessional agreement. We don’t have every week the opportunity to look each other in the eyes when it comes to the life situation of a lot of employees. We don’t have every week the opportunity to talk about a issue where very clearly the left-right opposition plays a role in this Parliament.

It was an animated debate but I personally did not find it such a productive debate. My analysis of the committee meeting is that there are two schools, two interpretations, two visions. To keep it easy, let us call them the school-Mayeur and the school-Gilkinet, my colleague who just spoke very extensively and very deeply.

Mr Mayeur’s school says there is a negotiated agreement, negotiated by the social partners. That school says that Mr. X and Mr. Y failed to convince their backbone, that the government of ongoing affairs has tried to save the furniture, that it has made something more of it, that it has made the best possible of it. She says that there is social protest, that this is legitimate or maybe not so legitimate, but that Parliament must approve that government proposal. This is the school mayor.

The school-Gilkinet says that this outrage, that social protest, is legitimate, that they push forward a number of things that are important, which are worth mentioning. That makes for the school-Gilkinet that this parliamentary discussion is a third round and that we cannot simply give up on the proposal of the government.

Colleagues, my group has done its homework and submitted a number of amendments, not to look for the imbalance, not to look for a signal to employers to start creating employment elsewhere, but to make a number of concrete proposals aimed at social progress, aimed at realizing the legitimate concerns of a lot of workers who day-to-day shake their necks.

We do not have the time to discuss all our amendments. I will select some of them, because I am especially curious about the voting behavior of some groups.

First, there is the inclusion of periods of temporary work in the antiquity. Many of our employees, approximately 90 000, are currently employed under a contractual contract. We do them a service if we today the Ecolo-Green amendment! approve to calculate the antiquity they build up in the period of temporary employment in the antiquity.

Second, the carnival day. A lot has already been said about this. Mrs. Minister, I asked you in the committee whether you could tell me what technical, economic or social reasons exist to eventually abolish the abolition of the carnage provided for in the mediation agreement.

You answered me that you could not immediately find a technical, economic or social reason for this, that it is part of a political balance, that it was the most feasible and that you could not persuade your colleagues in this room – I suspect the liberal colleagues – to abolish the tsarist day, as was planned and negotiated by the social partners.

The discussion of the statute is very difficult because of the technical complexity, but also because of symbolic matters, discriminations that still exist today, such as the carnival day. This is the Ecolo-Green Amendment. Let us take the step today and abolish the carnation day, as was planned.

A third amendment that I would like to draw your attention to is the issue of the minimum wage. Parliament should take initiatives to tackle the unemployment decline. We need to do something about the ever-increasing group of working poor.

Therefore, we propose a stronger increase in the minimum wage of 20 euros per month at the expense of the employers. At the same time, and that’s something that I like as a young member of Parliament, we propose to finally remove the actually discriminatory distinction that still exists today between the minimum wage for young people under 21 and the rest of the population. That would also be a signal.

Colleagues, we have submitted some concrete proposals because we really think that this deserves a parliamentary debate, because we do not, like the school mayor, assume that we should simply approve this: it is just an exercise today, we discuss that here, but after Easter we will start the serious work and we will submit bills and do it again.

That is not our way of working. Today we have the opportunity to do the parliamentary work and to take steps. We therefore serve these proposals. I find it ⁇ bizarre that around matters such as the minimum wage and the carnival day, the PS does not have the openness that one would expect from a social-democratic party in the matter.

In fact, as a social democrat, as a socialist, wait for Easter to rise, Mr. Mayeur. After Easter we will resolve this. We will organize two weeks of Easter holidays and then we will do social policy, then we will give the signal to our employees.

Of course, 75 members of our hemisphere would like to support your strategy? You need a majority.

Mr. Mayeur, your humility adorns you. You know that the PS has only 27 seats in the hemisphere. The difference, Mr. Mayeur, is that if we are convinced of something and we see possibilities to move forward, we do not lay those things down and do not wait until Easter to rise and engage in social politics. That is the difference between the colleagues of Ecolo, who do not really need your trade union to write amendments, which they can write themselves, and the Socialist Party, which apparently does not want to take those steps. That is the difference between Ecolo and the PS. I hope the French-speaking voter has noted this well. There is the school-Mayeur and the school-Gilkinet.

Ladies and gentlemen, I look forward. Thanks to the school-Mayeur, after Easter, homework is on the shelf of social policy. We need to submit and discuss legislative proposals. My party is committed to this. We also need to reflect on the longer term. We often, if not always, talk about wage costs. For the liberals and the other right-wing parties in the hemisphere, that is the focus. This is the core of our competitiveness.

Colleagues, I invite you to reflect with us on the social consultation of the future, which should also include energy and commodity prices. Together with our social partners, we are committed to a green economy. That is the social consultation of the future and the debate on this subject we hope to discuss after Easter, together with the PS proposals.

I see that Mr. De Croo is satisfied. Per ⁇ this will make it possible that he will approve some of our amendments later.

What we see today is not a very bad agreement, but it is not enough. It is neither a short-term nor a long-term guarantee of social, therefore economic stability. It is not an answer to a number of legitimate questions and needs in the workplace. It does not facilitate consultation at sectoral and enterprise level. That is why, colleagues, unless you still approve our amendments, why we will abstain from voting on the present agreement, which for us is imperfect.

The idea is to submit the amendments. Have they already been distributed to the banks?

and no. They were not.

I hope they will be able to do so that everyone can get to know it.

You can defend them.

Mr. Speaker, our first amendment concerns the economic unemployment of employees and how to address it.

In the initial project, at the time when the first crisis measures were voted, it was decided that the economic unemployment of employees should be strictly framed. The drifts that could exist at the level of the workers were already known. Therefore, we have tried to avoid the Aubaine effect. Indeed, the mechanism set up was interesting to avoid massive redundancies, but it had to be avoided from being used for bad purposes. We know companies that make some of their employees work for four days to put them into economic unemployment on the fifth. They force the cadence by giving a "small supplement", and it is the society that pays the unemployed day.

In our opinion, economic unemployment for employees can be a good tool, but it should not be misused. That is why we have taken back the initial criteria that had been voted in this Parliament. Thus, the company must register a reduction in its turnover of 20%. In our view, a 15% reduction constitutes a reduction in relation to the measures voted by the parliament at the time. The turnover must also be compared with that of the previous year. If the comparison is made with 2008, the year when the economic crisis was the deepest, many companies will be affected.

We want this system to be sector-specific because it is clear that sector-specific actors will be the most able to avoid abuses. We also regret that some employer federations – not all, fortunately – have not reached an agreement on this matter.

We have submitted several amendments concerning the improvement of pre-notification for employee contracts and the cruel difference that still exists between worker and employee pre-notification. It is known that in our country, the warning for workers is considered to be one of the worst in Europe. This has been pointed out by a whole range of actors, including the Belgian Constitutional Court which, since 1993, recognises this discrimination that does not rely on any elements that can justify it and calls for progress in this area.

It is essential to extend the notice of workers. This is the purpose of this amendment, like others that will be presented.

A number of parity committees have already adopted a series of measures to extend these worker warnings. However, it is important that those parity commissions that have derogated can also benefit from the planned extension. This is the subject of the amendment to Article 13. This small amendment should be adopted. Otherwise, it will be necessary, in a few months, to correct this forgetfulness, this error, as part of a different disposition. It is important to vote for a proper text from the beginning.

Another aspect concerns the taking into account of temporary work. During a field visit on the occasion of the dismissals in the many subcontractors working around the VW plant, I was very surprised to find that some people worked as interim workers for six or seven years and were fired with a week’s notice without receiving any compensation.

We clearly propose an improvement because we want to take into account the work done in the last year, if there has been no interruption of more than 15 days. As we have already discussed in the committee, this question of interruption will pose a problem. In addition, only the last year is taken into account, while very often the interim is very long. We therefore propose to take into account all the interim periods that have been provided with that employer before finally having a contract. Unfortunately, the interim concerns more and more people. Today, 90,000 people work in these conditions. I think this element is ⁇ important.

Our fifth amendment also aims to improve workers’ pre-notification through corrections to a series of articles. The negotiation ratified by the Group of Ten went a little further than what was planned in the government text as improvements to the workers’ notice until 2014 were planned there. We find it important to reintroduce these aspects in the text. It can be seen, at present, many employers hesitate to dismiss their workers because they know the value of a well-trained worker. However, it is not the cost of this dismissal that discourages them. As an economist, I know that internalizing costs ensures that one takes the right thoughts. It is important that a wrong decision is punished. Dismissal must therefore have a certain cost, which is not the case for workers at present. Therefore, there are difficulties in recruiting for this status. That is normal! I also don’t want to be fired overnight with small allowances. It is important to remedy this deficiency.

The Sixth Amendment also aims to return to the previous situation, the one adopted during our discussions on crisis measures. It is about taking into account the turnover, i.e. companies are declared in difficulty only in the event of a 20% decrease in turnover, and this, compared to the previous year. There too, this text contains a bug: we still refer to 2008, but, in five years, will the reference remain compared to 2008? This way of working seems weird.

The seventh amendment aims to maintain the prior notice of employees.

There is no logic in reducing the status of employees by improving the status of workers. This is a logic of another century. More and more people are working under employee status; this is a good thing. Removing these warnings does not respond to any reality.

One of the concerns that people often feel is to wonder whether young people who enter the labour market will have a better situation than their own. Often, they believe that no, that the situation will be worse for young people, for their children. To vote for this removal of employee notice is to send the signal that for young people, the situation will be worse and that in case of dismissal, they will only benefit from a shorter notice.

Our eighth and ninth amendments aim at the overall accounting of interim periods and the improvement of the employee notice period.

The tenth amendment relates to what the government called a “called dismissal premium.” The only small improvement was the name change. Sorry, but a bonus rewards a positive act while a dismissal is the opposite. Fortunately, the new designation will be "compensatory dismissal allowance", but, unfortunately, this allowance will be fully borne by the state. We would like it to be supported for at least a third by employers.

You need to contact the FGTB.

Madame Fonck, it is not the FGTB who votes here, but it is the parliamentarians.

Our twelfth amendment aims to improve wages for 18-21 years of age. In our time, continuing to give a discounted salary for this age group is a surprising signal to send to workers who are beginning to appear on the labour market and who want to get into it quickly. We remove this anachronism.

The same applies for the increase of the minimum monthly income of 20 euros to be borne by the community and employers. The number of poor workers is becoming increasingly important. In Belgium, it is 5%. The minimum wage was raised only in the Interprofessional Agreement of 2007-2008. It has not been since 1993. This should be revised upwards in each interprofessional agreement. This amendment has been submitted.

The Thirteenth Amendment is symbolically very important, as it aims to eliminate the day of lack. This day of shortage is ⁇ denigrating, because historically it reflected the idea that when a worker did not appear on the first day of sick leave, it was ⁇ because he was unable to work and not really sick. This anachronism must be removed.

Our fourteenth amendment also aims to extend one of the crisis measures that has been little used, but which, in our view, was sympathetic. I mean the collective reduction of working time. In some companies, it has been well used. I do not see why this tool, which is not very expensive, since it is little used, but which allows collective accounts of critical situations for some companies, is not extended. We would like to extend this possibility of reducing working time.

The same goes for crisis time loans. This tool is useful for avoiding redundancies and the use of economic unemployment. We want to extend this measure.

These are the amendments that we have re-submitted and that we would like to see more widely supported than in the committee.

During the debate, I have repeatedly commented on a number of key amendments. This means that, in my opinion, the legislature must take on its responsibility to eliminate some of the major discriminations facing workers. I have not heard any argument to hold on to the fact that someone who earns his sandwich by dirty his hands must pay for the first day of his illness period. I see no reason for that. I do not hear any argument for this.

We propose to eliminate this discrimination, along with that of the notice periods. We look forward to the attitude of other people.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly answer various questions and above all express the viewpoint of the Government.

I’ve heard a lot of things but I wonder what people who criticize this bill would have said if there wasn’t a bill at all.

Basically, there is no negative proposal in this bill. They are all positive and bring a plus, point by point, even though that is still insufficient. For the first time in many years, we have allowed a step, ⁇ still too weak, but an important step that has never been taken forward for a better harmonisation of the statutes between workers and employed. I want to say it. When I see the progress of this bill, I wonder if there would be no demonstrations if it had not been voted rather than if it had been voted!

I would like to make a few feedback.

It is true that we find ourselves in a particular situation that in the end, led the government to assume an agreement that, even without the support of the base, indeed, at the time we were requested, collected the unanimous agreement of all the trade unions, their leaders and representatives of the Group of Ten. We came to wake us up in the middle of the night to ask us to support an agreement that was, at that time, for all confused leaders – I have witnessed it – historical. It was expensive. It was written to make sure the government bears the costs but our support was asked very explicitly and we responded positively.

We have publicly expressed, together with the social partners, during this night, in front of the press, our collective support for this agreement that, in the end, did not receive the support of the base. But it was well negotiated, discussed with a salary standard, it was accepted at the time by trade union leaders and representatives of employers.

I would like to repeat it because I think that sometimes there is amnesia about the evolution of certain decisions.

I think that this project obviously contains several positive elements.

I think the present draft legislation involves important, positive improvements. I give a summary: the extension of the anti-crisis measures until the end of December 2011, the gradual approximation of the statutes of workers and servants – a first but important step – the definitive system for the suspension, in whole or in part, depending on the employment contract, the actual increase of the notice period for workers, the payment of the dismissal benefit.

The minimum amount of at least 2 euros in the case of economic unemployment is a new provision. The calculation of the old age for staff members is also a new provision.

The welfare link for occupational diseases. The extension of the exemptions for bridge pension from 56 years. The renewal of certain agreements relating to the half-time bridge pension, the one-off innovation premiums and the contribution of 0.10 % to the efforts for risk groups.

I’m not talking about the other fiscal measures that are also very important, but that will be included in another bill.

There can, of course, be criticism of wage moderation and wage standards. For some people, there are certain disadvantages to these provisions. The great advantage, however, is the confirmation of the automatic indexing of wages.

This is a very important point, as has been pointed out. If the government supported it, it is because in this agreement concluded between social partners, there was explicitly the maintenance of the automatic indexation of wages, which we consider essential. This indexation, we have defended it at European level and we continue to do so. We have amended the texts of the Euro Pact and the conclusions of the European Council in order not to question this element.

After the refusal by some bases to support the interprofessional agreement, we made a proposal for mediation. We departed from this base that had been negotiated without us; and I must confess to you that I had heard some criticism, in particular about the fact that these agreements were paid in large part by the social security. We modified it in four aspects: the increase of 120 euros pocket on the minimum wage, the partial taxation of the notice allocation, the removal of the third phase, especially for employees and for 0.90% in terms of notice, which was important, and finally the confirmed idea that one could not go beyond the initial three months in terms of notice, which also seemed to be a significant advance.

Is it sufficient? No, Mr. Bonte, no, Mr. Gilkinet This is an essential first step, but it is obvious that the social partners, to whom we have asked to resume negotiations and social concertation, are...

I admit that there is a bunch of positive elements present. I appreciate the efforts of the government and the head of government to maintain our index. What I really have difficulty with is that you repeatedly refer to an IPA. It is not a detail, Mrs. You are responsible for the social consultation in this country. For years, you have evacuated a lot of difficult files to the social consultation. You have concluded a government agreement with provisions regarding workers and servants. For three years in the committee you said: workers and servants, I want, but the social partners...

You have said: if no agreement is reached within the framework of the IPA around the social partners, then the legislature must act.

I am convinced that there is no IPA. I note that there is no new legislative initiative that eliminates discrimination. I speak to you as one of the negotiators within the framework of a hopefully fast new government. Can we expect a demand from you, with your conviction that we must eliminate that discrimination, that in a next government agreement it is clear that the legislator will regulate it, or do you refer again to the 2016 IPA?

I hear colleagues say it needs to be resolved by 2016. This should only be dared in a context where the Constitutional Court says that the legislator must act. Anyone who deals with the file knows that we will hear it again in a few weeks.

Mrs. Minister, as a negotiator in the framework of a new government, will you, based on your conviction of the past years, insist that in that government agreement there is a clear commitment that the legislature must act to eliminate this discrimination?

I share Mr. Bonte’s concern about the status of unity, although he has some problems with his long-term memory. He refers to the last three years that Minister Milquet was responsible for Work.

Mr. Bonte, do you know who was Minister of Labour when your motion Kamerbreed was approved here on 1 April 2000? Maybe it was an April joke. It was Frank Vandenbroucke. In all policy statements, including by Mr Vanvelthoven, it was written that progress had to be made because otherwise Parliament would draw the initiative to itself.

If you are intellectually honest, you would also charge that period from 2000 onwards.

We are still looking for a majority. I am dealing with it.

As you may know, there were two different phases in the history of this bill. First there was an agreement with the Group of Ten and then there was a lack of support from the base. First and foremost, in some days there was a real agreement and there was the question that the government would support this agreement. That was clear. Then we added a number of changes and positive elements.

We must, of course, go further and organize additional improvements, such as the abolition of carnival, the end of the difference between new and old employment contracts, a better link between the obligation of outplacement of the companies and the payment of the dismissal benefit, and the accountability of the companies for the application of the legal provision on economic unemployment.

Of course, it is important to revive the social partners in the coming weeks and months. We left time to time. In fact, coming back early around the table would have been a mistake. We will ask them to resume together, after Easter, the work of a more definitive regime.

It will be up to the next government to examine – it will depend on the members who will constitute it – whether it itself takes some additional measures, some of which are necessary, including the abolition of the day of shortage, etc. and if, on the basis of the evolution of the negotiations between the social partners, a part of the system continues to be discussed in terms of social partners or social concertation. This is a collective appreciation of those who will form the government.

In any case, Mr. Mayeur, it seems to me that discussions should be carried out at the sectoral level.

For the review of the Generation Pact, I repeat what I stated during the discussion in the committee. I have sent a letter to the NAR requesting a total review of the Generation Pact by the end of September 2011 and thus by the beginning of October 2011. On the basis of the above evaluation, a new government or the current government – which we have to wait for – will propose structural measures.

With regard to bonuses and the link made by some to the problem of controlling the remuneration of business leaders in the private sector and in the public sector, this seems to me an important topic but requires a collective initiative that blends both tax and social elements. Parliamentary initiatives bringing together representatives from different committees must be taken.

In response to Mr. Vercamer’s question, I can confirm my position. The provisions on the termination of servants are not amended by this draft law and remain applicable. This means, for example, that the rules concerning the commencement of the notice period or the rules concerning the waiver to obtain the retirement pension remain applicable unchanged.

for Mr. Gilkinet, I confirm what I said in commission: extra-legal benefits continue to be calculated in the salary as such. No changes are planned.

For the reference year, we had a debate, but depending on the case, the reference year that targets the year 2008 when the business was optimal is also a guarantee to not have exaggeration in requests. I am not sure that your analysis is generalizable. As you know, a royal decree can change both the criteria and the reference year.

Mr. Minister, there are two things. When calculating the advance notice and the fact of no longer using the Claeys grid, two elements must be considered: the duration of the advance notice and the amount to be paid per month.

That extra-legal benefits are included in the calculation of monthly payments is one thing; that they are taken into account in the calculation of the duration of the notice is another. When reading the text submitted to us, it seems to me that, in the calculation of the duration of the notice, extra-legal advantages are no longer taken into account.

In the Claeys grid, depending on the bar, you may have access to additional months. When you say that your text contains only advances, even if we would like them to be more frank, the questioning, even partial, of the employee notice does not seem to me to constitute an advance. I don’t know how, intellectually, you can present this as an advance; with all the respect I owe you.

Regarding n+1, i.e. the reference year for the calculation of accessibility or non-accessibility to employee economic unemployment, I can follow your reasoning: ⁇ 2008 was better than 2010. In any case, it will evolve: the nearest reference year seems to me the best.

I think other criteria could be added, including the profits of the company. A period of decreasing economic activity, of recession, can nevertheless produce profits, or even profits greater than the previous year. In such a case, having access to economic unemployment with state aid becomes problematic. I have been ⁇ examples where companies abuse the system. Therefore, these are the effects of aubaines for scrupulous entrepreneurs and some therefore increase their profits on the account of the community. This is a real problem.

Because this is important for the preparatory work, I would like to reiterate very clearly that extra-legal benefits are included in all remunerations, whether they are those that define the 30,000 euros for the application of the new rules or not. On all amounts as such, there is no change compared to current practice. The only difference is that there is now a system for employees transparent, objective and registered in the law and that will no longer be based, for wages beyond 30,000 euros, on the Claeys grid that allowed to organize things at the time the notice was given. That is the only difference. On the other hand, for calculations and integration into remuneration, there is no change.

I agree, the only point that can be negative is the one you mentioned. But it is 0.97% and it is overall one day. This is probably a day too long, but it is a balance depending on the increase in pre-warning for workers. It was necessary to converge the figures and this is the agreement that was reached by the social partners. Objectively, in fact, this represents a day of difference.

In connection with Mrs. De Block’s last observation, the wage margin was set in full in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1996. If the Royal Decree is suspended as a result of a complaint to the Council of State, the wage margin may be validated by law. However, this is now premature.