Proposition 53K2319

Projet de loi modifiant le titre XIII de la loi-programme (I) du 27 décembre 2006, en ce qui concerne la nature des relations de travail.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 2, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work work contract occupational status fraud social-security contribution wage earner self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 13, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Valérie De Bue returns to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we will approve this bill with great conviction, because it implements the government agreement, in particular in terms of strengthening the fight against social and fiscal fraud. We have been asking for a long time to solve this problem.

It is clear that false self-employment and false employment ultimately result in unfair competition. This is very detrimental to our honest companies, but also to the employees who are employed in those seemingly self-employed statutes. We want the problem to be resolved and we are delighted that the government is acting so quickly and has a plan to resolve the problem.

Many sectors, such as cleaning, surveillance, meat processing and construction, are self-demanding parties to address these misprints. It is therefore very good that a sectoral approach is aimed at, that customization is delivered and that this is done in cooperation with the sectors themselves.

Colleagues, as I have said, the sectors listed are, as I have already said, self-demanding parties to implement this bill very quickly, especially because they can no longer cope with unfair competition, mainly from the Eastern bloc countries. Not only the sectors did this, UNIZO also recently pointed out that the number of self-employed people in our country is increasing, but that this is due to the large number of false self-employed people coming from Bulgaria and Romania. They are also asking the party to take urgent measures.

Everyone is asking for the urgent examination of this bill. It is therefore incomprehensible that the NV-A colleagues of the Senate yesterday in the parliamentary consultation committee refused the urgency. I do not understand that. One always asks for very urgent action in such matters, and then one refuses the urgency. Not only we, but also the sectors themselves are calling for an urgent response to this problem. Unicef has also requested this. Do you want the phony independence, which is a problem in many of our cities, not to be addressed immediately or, colleagues of the N-VA, the hard-working Flaming should no longer be protected? I would like to get some explanation on this.

I hope that we can approve this proposal by a large majority and that it can be implemented very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, this text is good news, since since I am in parliament, we have been talking about the fight against the false independent.

What is the problem? Currently, many people are, in fact, under someone’s guardianship and are not independent. In order to avoid certain social contributions, they are forced to take the independent status while this is not their choice. For many years, we have wanted to move forward on this subject, but this has collapsed.

Here, the good news is that progress is being made in four areas: cleaning, construction – which are sectors that are heavily affected –, maintenance and transport. Hopefully, the new system will make it possible to restore healthy competition between actors and allow workers to no longer have to accept an independent status when they do not want it.

As said in the committee, other sectors are demanding and discussions have begun on this subject, such as in the horeca and the meat sector, discussions that would seem to be well advanced.

However, progress is only made in sectors in which both banks (managers and trade unions) are applicants. This is where the weakness lies. In some other sectors, not all banks are applicants. For example, I think of journalists. More and more young journalists are being offered jobs only on the line, on the article, under the status of a ⁇ precarious independent. But we know that it is not in advance to run after its stamp that one makes good journalism. Therefore, I regret that in sectors where employers are not demanding, progress cannot be made. Nevertheless, I think more and more sectors are affected. The bad job chases the good.

One of the challenges will be to manage, including in the sectors covered by the agreement, to work with the many foreign companies that use independent counterfeits. For me, how our administrations will be able to work to solve this problem is not clear.

The CNT’s opinion highlights the fact that certain criteria could have been better adapted to the specificities of the sectors and therefore easier to control. We have not made the choice to follow this opinion. However, I think it will be possible to move forward and, possibly later, to adopt more sector-specific criteria in order to meet the major challenge of this text. Currently, the social inspectors who descend to the field and find that there are independent counterfeits, are not equipped to remedy this problem.

I hope that with this text, they will actually be able to do so. This is the repression aspect, but it would also be interesting to have a prevention aspect. I was also surprised that this does not arouse more interest in the commission. It would be necessary to send a letter outlining the new rules to the bosses of these sectors. They should be informed that if they employ independent workers who do not meet the criteria, they will be visited by inspectors who will be able to correct the situation, while also indicating the price of the fines. It could also be signaled to them that it is possible to put themselves in order and how to proceed. Some small bosses, who are poorly familiar with the legislation, tell me that they are “falling on them” as if they were criminals. But when they ask how they can put themselves in order, they don’t get a clear answer. They do not ask for a 125-page social and fiscal guide, but a brief document would be appropriate. Therefore, prevention work could be helpful. Clear instructions should first be given to them, and if they choose to ignore them, sanctions could then be taken. I think that is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I did not plan to intervene, but what Ms. Genot just said is important. In fact, it may be necessary to consider a prevention phase before launching controls within sectors. Since this text was voted in the committee, I have heard a lot of reactions from companies. Some sectors are concerned and, contrary to what some say, the general criteria that are reflected in the text do not necessarily apply to other sectors. Ms. Genot spoke, rightly, of journalists. The criteria for journalism have absolutely nothing to do with those for construction.

Ms. Genot is right to say that we must first prevent all sectors from changing the legislation and only then launch the controls. In fact, one can fear that many small independent workers who do not read the Moniteur belge every day will be treated as vulgar offenders while it is only a distraction on their part.

It is therefore essential to carry out a phase of prevention.

Then, regarding the sectors that have not yet had the opportunity to determine their criteria, I am pleased to observe that the Senate is slowing things a little. It is essential to give sectors time to set their specific criteria.

Some sectors have never had the opportunity to address this problem and to reflect on it. It is true that you were considering a two-month deadline and that the text provides for four. Despite this, it is therefore impossible for them to establish the most suitable criteria in a few weeks: it is known that the four sectors that Ms. Genot just mentioned sometimes took years before reaching an agreement on the criteria chosen. Precipitation could harm the quality of the text.

In summary, a phase of prevention is necessary and a longer time will be needed for the reflection of sectors that have not yet had the opportunity to think about this problem. There will be time later to judge and punish: otherwise, many people of good faith will suffer undue punishment.

I think it is important to pay attention to these two points in parallel with the policy you are considering.

Monsieur le président, Monsieur Clarinval, ce que vous venez de dire est assez incroyable. J’y reviendrai.

We discussed the content of the law in the committee and unanimously approved it, for which I thank you.

That is why I am surprised that the Senate is now being asked to pause. It is necessary to stop speaking generally, as if a measure in all sectors could be a stigma or a negative response.

We promulgate this law and ask for the urgency, because a number of sectors are in serious difficulties and companies and SMEs are asking for an adjustment. That is the only thing that interests me.

The law is drawn up in such a way – and we have also discussed it – that we implement measures for the small group of sectors listed in the law or for the sectors that themselves request an adaptation, the sectors that are concerned.

That is the only prevention that can be done: we call for urgent action for sectors in difficulty.

Colleagues of the N-VA, your response in the Chamber is very constructive and very correct, but I do not understand that your colleagues in the Senate find the opposite, namely that it is not urgent.

I mean, Mr. Clarinval, that it may be useful to discuss with SMEs belonging to sectors experiencing competitiveness problems, problems to get their business running normally; those whose turnover is experiencing a 40% decrease. So I suggest you go and explain to them that we need to take a little time. We ask nothing better than to help the sectors in difficulty. But it is they who have to decide whether we should do it. Some have already expressed this desire, have even determined the criteria and are ready.

Therefore, what you are saying now — after a discussion that has lasted months — is incredible!

I also ask the N-VA group in the Senate to review the refusal to accept the high urgency. The negotiations with the sectors where things need to change quickly have already been completed. So I do not understand where the demand comes to delay.

Then I come to the prevention before the inspections. It is in the length of what I just said.

Prevention, in addition to repression, is a bit the same thing. We will start working with the sectors with which we have already had a concertation. As in 2006, sectors that do not experience problems of unfair competition do not seem to be affected.

Why do we take these measures? Some sectors have serious problems. Per ⁇ there is a discussion about false independence in other sectors. That is not my priority now. What I want to do now is to create the opportunity to end the very serious distortion of competition in a number of sectors, at the request of those sectors themselves. I ask the Parliament to take into account the demand of those sectors.

I am surprised by the irritation of the Secretary of State against me. It is extraordinary! You will notice that I am not a senator. I have nothing to say to my colleagues in the Senate. I do not understand exactly what you accuse me of. I would like to remind you that I voted the text in the committee.

What have I said? I said two things and Mrs. Genot said the same thing. First, I said that a prevention phase was needed first. Is it serious to ask people to be warned before punishing them? It does not seem to me to be incredible to ask people to be warned that there is a change in legislation. It is not the sea to drink. Secondly, for four sectors, the criteria were determined by law. I simply request that time be given for sectors whose specific criteria are not determined and which are not subjected, or in a lesser way, to competition.

Have you read the law? It is planned!

The project is scheduled for four months. Four months ! I ask that time be given to these sectors to determine their specific criteria. That is all! I did not ask for anything else. I do not understand this irritation. The Minister for me.

The Minister is not angry at all.

Mr. Speaker, my group believes that we already have more than enough expectation in this area, since we have been waiting for the first progress for ten years. In this sector, both employers and trade unions shout “Help! We, the companies that work normally, can no longer do so because we are in competition with companies that work massively with fake independent workers and which, as a result, break prices and take away all of our markets.” Therefore, we must move forward quickly.

When I say that prevention needs to be done, I don’t think it takes months. You just need to inform people about what will happen, tell them what the new rules will be and how to proceed if they want to get in order, whether they hire Belgian or European workers. In fact, some people are less equipped to know how to work.

This law on false self-employed is interesting to fight against unfair competition but its weakness is that it does not allow enough to fight against the obligation, for some workers in certain sectors, to accept this status of false self-employed, while they do not want to. This law was built on the fact that both employers and trade unions are in favor of it. In increasing sectors, such as journalism, call centers, horeca, etc., there is competition between workers. Either you agree to be false independent, or you will not have a job with us.

This is a problem! I hope that we will also soon have a text on this aspect because the working conditions are deteriorating because of this increasing use of fake independent workers.

Mr. Speaker, the game N-VA-bashing continues here, after we have worked constructively on this proposal in the committee.

So I informed myself. What happened yesterday, according to my information? In the Parliamentary Consultation Committee the majority was not in number and the Minister could not answer a number of questions we had asked. Members of the majority: Do your homework first and then come here to bash the N-VA.

I cannot blame Mr. Jambon for spreading misinformation here, because he was not there yesterday. I was present at the meeting, as were some of my colleagues. Mr Jambon, you are apparently misinformed. For all clarity, it was Mr. Pieters who opposed the high urgency of this measure.

I’m not going to discuss it further, but if you think you need to spread information here, check your sources before you say such things, in order to get another populist applause from your banks. I am tired of that.

Mr. President, in addition to the words of Mr. Terwingen, I was also present yesterday. It is not correct that one could not answer the questions. All questions were answered. There has been a substantial refusal to vote on the high urgency. Mr. De Croo was also present.

Mr. Clarinval, I will remain calm.

Priority should be given to sectors in difficulty. Everyone agrees on this point. The priority is not to urgently organize a debate for other sectors. Priority should be given to sectors that actually experience serious problems. In this regard, it is imperative to move forward. Consultations have taken place. Affected sectors have been warned; they know what is going to happen. Some have even prepared specific criteria that are not included in the law. During the four-month period, the sectors will have time to describe these criteria. This means that if sectors do not know the problem, which are not demanding, it is not by them that we will start. First, we will find solutions to the real problems that arise. Therefore, I respond positively to the question of whether there is really an emergency. Small and medium-sized enterprises are falling bankrupt because of what is currently happening. And know that I am not exaggerating. I was in contact with one of them yesterday. It should be noted that a 40% difference can sometimes be recorded, due to the fake independent companies, companies that do not belong to the sectors in which work is difficult to relocate, but which are very distant. That is the only urgency.

You said you were pleased that the Senate took more time. The Council of Ministers requested the urgency to be able to have a framework before the holidays.

Mr Jambon, colleagues of the N-VA, this is not a bashing. I have just stated that I highly appreciate the attitude of the N-VA group in the discussions of the policy notes and of this not simple draft. I have only asked you to pass on the position of your group in the Chamber Committee to your colleagues in the Senate. After all, in the Senate, Mr. Pieters has rejected any argument for the urgency, which I do not understand well, and which I regret at this stage of the draft. That is my only point of criticism. This is not N-VA-bashing. I ask the Parliament to ensure that this draft, for which many are petitioning parties, is not delayed again without reason.

I would simply point out that the text is indeed an urgency. Yesterday, at the meeting of the Committee where I was also present by the force of things, arguments were exchanged; they were not sufficient to lead us to decide to speed up the terms of processing in the Senate.

That being said, Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to reassure you: the Senate can very well grasp the text and the majority decide to grant it an emergency treatment. Therefore, the procedure of yesterday can easily be corrected later. Don’t worry: Assembly regulations always contain formulas to accelerate things when a majority wants to.

Is anyone still asking for the word (No)?