Proposition 53K2739

Projet de loi portant modification de la législation relative à la lutte contre l'écart salarial entre hommes et femmes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

April 5, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work anti-discriminatory measure gender equality equal pay pay penalty

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD

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 ¶

June 6, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

You will have the word in the general discussion.

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. A repair law, because the law of 22 April 2012, which was to fill the wage gap, is now being rectified. After all, it was established that what you had decided at the time was inapplicable.

Our group will abstain at the vote. I will briefly explain the reason for this.

It can be confirmed that there is a wage gap of almost 10 %. The wage gap is decreasing, but it still exists. Should women earn as much as men in an equal job? Of course, colleague De Croo! Will this bill or 2012 bill ensure that women will earn as much as men? and no.

Let me go back to history. There is already a law to close the wage gap and I also refer to the CAO of the NAR from 1975, more than thirty years ago. Subsequently, on 17 May 1999, another law was adopted through which one sought to ensure equal treatment for men and women in terms of working conditions and access to the labour process.

What will you do now? You will repair the 2012 law. At that time, you imposed all sorts of administrative obligations. You have decided to take action because you thought it could not be that women earn less than men. Additional administrative burden has emerged at three levels, namely at the interprofessional, sectoral and enterprise level.

A year later, however, we must conclude that the law is inapplicable. What are you doing? You think it’s quite complicated to implement a gender-neutral policy for job classifications and you’re asking some experts to advise you. Who will pay those external consultants? Nothing in the design specifies who will bear those costs. Will it be your department or the companies?

I would also like to hear your opinion on a possible solution to the problem. Is it not better to do something at the heart of social consultation, namely the parity committees? I asked you at the time about the proportion of women in the parity committees. There are, as you know, 170 parity committees in the country, and there are 5,300 mandates to be distributed. The trade unions and employer representatives complete these mandates. These parity committees decide how much the people earn. The salary bars are determined in the parity committees. We find that only 23% of women...

The [...]

Well, we hope that you will do something about it. Only 23% of the mandates in the joint committees are now held by women. That is much too little. This is where decisions about wage barriers are made.

The trade unions are pushing people forward for these mandates, and apparently there are still more men. The quota law approved last year does not apply to the parity committees, where wages are fixed. Wouldn’t it be better that you address the problem at the heart of the social consultation, namely the parity committees, and that you ensure that there are equally many men and women seated there, so that the women can also speak at the discussion of the wage barems instead of approving again a bill that is neither good for the companies nor for the women? I am afraid that this law will only bring about a greater administrative burden, both at the interprofessional level and at the business level. I am afraid that no one was helped with this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you of the work that has been done in advance of this bill. As you know, about a year ago, we voted by a large majority for a law aimed at reducing the gender pay gap. Whatever some say, equal pay is really not a reality in our country and it is unacceptable. We also continue to reiterate that this inequality does not only exist when women are working, but it is also reflected in their daily lives. In addition, De Tijd pointed out this week that the average pension of women in Belgium was 29% lower than that of men. This is totally unacceptable.

The work provided at the time within the Opinion Committee for Social Emancipation to result in this text had been colossal. The discussions had been lively and it was my colleague Valérie Déom who carried this job, I thank him for it. The result was a significant step forward, which we had hoped for a long time.

Through a complementarity of measures involving all levels of social concertation and on which I will not go back, we wanted to make the wage gap visible and then negotiable. I would like to clarify that the measures provided for in this law of 22 April 2012 will not result in excessive additional administrative burdens for companies, whatever some say. We were already aware that technical and practical adjustments needed to be made. We had been waiting for them for a long time and it seemed to us obviously essential that they respected the text we voted for at the time. The bill that is submitted to us today, while making some changes for the implementation of this law, actually ⁇ ins its philosophy. That is why we will support this project. We really want the adoption of these laws to change the reality of working women.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, this bill reads and corrects the bill that was approved here a year ago. I do not need to repeat the figures on the wage gap. I would like to emphasize that we consider it important that something is effectively done and that the elements that cause this wage gap are also made visible so that it can be remedied.

The wage gap can be attributed to complex factors. Several proposals were submitted on this subject last time. We didn’t go on ice in one night. We have combined the various proposals and made the best out of them. We reached a consensus in which, on the one hand, effective efforts were made to increase visibility but, on the other hand, no excessive administrative burden was imposed on companies. We have provided transparent data that can be visible, unambiguous, uniform and readable.

There was also attention to the necessary respect for too small ⁇ . The compromise was to start with companies from 50 employees. There was also an effort to preserve and eye for privacy. No data would be provided for companies with less than 3 employees.

Today we are discussing a draft law that addresses a number of legal and practical problems; that is good, we are happy to do so. We regret that it has taken so long because in the meantime there was some uncertainty and some chaos was created. This resulted in a number of discussions that we previously thought had been resolved by consensus.

We are pleased with this bill. We also count on you for further implementation. I have seen that you have engaged in this committee. When it comes to the analysis report and the payroll structure, you will have to effectively ensure that the agreements made are also fulfilled. For companies with more than 100 employees, effective and clear regulations need to be established.

You have pledged to eventually move towards a simplification for companies with between 50 and 100 employees. I hope, Mrs. Minister, that you are effectively guided by the transparency, which is necessary, and that you are not distracted when one partner says that it is never good or never enough. I hope that you will be on the same line with those who want and can come to a consensus.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will not repeat the very beautiful feedback of Mrs. Lalieux. I will simply say that the implementation of the law passed on April 22 quickly highlighted a whole series of legal and practical difficulties encountered daily by the administration and ⁇ . That is why the government has decided, through this new text, to face the problems. Technical corrections therefore promote greater legal certainty.

As far as I am concerned, I am pleased that, thanks to the constructive attitude of Mrs. Minister and thanks to the work of my colleagues in Parliament, we have been able to contribute to this simplification exercise. Ms. Genot was referring to this recently, we were able to bring through amendments a simplification in the level of the information cascade within companies.

It was originally planned that there would be a cascade from the board of directors to the CPPT; in this amendment, we were able to return to the classic cascade from the board of directors to the trade union delegation. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted this amendment. This change was very important for the social partners; I am pleased that we have been listening to them.

However, I think we need to return to one aspect of things: the administrative overload that this proposal unfortunately risks to generate. You know that the government’s goal is to reduce the administrative burden on companies by 30%. Therefore, Mrs. Minister, I would like to ask you today, as I did in the committee, whether you will create a simplified form for companies with between 50 and 100 employees.

In my opinion, this is a simplified form. I have heard that social partners have not been able to agree on the issue. It will then be your responsibility to resolve the matter by royal decree. So let me ask you: will you, as you announced in the commission, create this simplified form? I will go a little further. I heard Mrs. Becq talk about the social balance sheet. We could go so far as to reintegrate this form into the social balance sheet, but there maybe I’m going too far.

I would like to hear you on the subject.

The MR group joins me to welcome this measure, which is another step in the harmonisation of treatment between men and women.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill allows to make a series of corrections to the text that was voted a year ago, and thus improve the applicability of this law relating to the fight against the pay gap between men and women. This concerns both administrations – I think in particular of the SPF Employment – as well as ⁇ , in particular SMEs. With regard to the latter, I would like, Mrs. Minister, that you ensure that the famous simplified model for companies employing between 50 and 100 workers is realised. This has been discussed today and has been the subject of long discussions in the committee. This is important in view of the reality of our SMEs. Beyond the commitment you have made, I ask you to fulfill it as soon as possible.

In this case, as in others elsewhere, a tireless effort must be made by the government to reduce the administrative burden. I recall that, in his general policy statement, he committed to reducing them by 30%. I hope that he will respect this commitment, especially since, in the case that we are dealing with, we must take care not to burden the companies with additional administrative burdens.

That said, I heard my colleague from the N-VA. One cannot deny – and you did not – that for the same job, the same level of responsibility, the same level of training, a woman earns 10% less per hour than a man. Will this law solve everything? and no!

Does this law allow for progress? Today, there is still too often the policy of the oysters in this area. Yes, the law will remove this inequality that remains prodigiously unfair and will help us move forward in favour of equality between men and women.

Certainly, it does not solve everything, and we should not get stuck behind this project to forget another aspect of the wage gap. In fact, it grows even more in two other situations. I think first of all of the women who work part-time. It is not always their choice. It should be reminded, instead of simply saying to them, “Ladies, you just have to work more.” It is not so simple. The reality of the job market is that women sometimes work part-time because they have no other option.

The second case of figure that must be taken into account, Madam the Minister, is that women benefit from fewer extra-legal benefits than men, with equal education and with the same profile. This wage gap is increasing even more.

I will conclude without really concluding, since all imaginable leverages, if they are constructive and positive, will have to continue to be mobilised to advance this cause and thus reduce the unjust and unjustified wage gap between men and women.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Opinion for Social Emancipation has worked for long months, not to say long years, to hear all the actors involved in this matter in order to identify the various possibilities and to gather around the table to reach, all together, this law of 22 April 2012.

This law, once implemented, deserved a few corrections. They arrive today. Again, we can regret the length of time passed before they reach us. Clearly, tensions have arisen between the social partners regarding the corrections to be made in order to enable this law to come into force. Unfortunately, these tensions continued afterwards. Indeed, this bill was the subject of sixteen amendments submitted in session, which I heard some colleagues say came from social partners. But not ! Some amendments came only from “some” social partners.

I will return to the cascade. The amendment, as in the case concerning the temporary work, was proposed by Mr. Clarinval, supported by the majority on how to carry out information analysis for companies with more than 50 employees. The text of the law had been well thought out and proposed the cascade corporate council, committee for prevention and protection at work, trade union delegation.

However, the amendment goes back to the agreement that was reached on this subject and proposes that we no longer pass through the Committee on Prevention and Protection at Work. It is justified by its non-practice in a number of other areas. But there are many other areas in which this practice takes place. Thus, in the Welfare Act, it is provided that in the absence of corporate counsel, the committee receives and discusses economic and financial information, annual accounts and the social balance sheet divided by gender. It is therefore logical that the committee does not only discuss the information on the wage gap contained in the balance sheet, but also detailed information.

In addition, a committee is elected through the vote of all workers, which is not always the case for a trade union delegation. For committees, the rules regarding meetings, frequency, reporting, documents, are anchored in the law, which is not the case for the trade union delegation. We can therefore expect a lot of discussions and tensions about how, in practice, to organize this discussion at the level of the trade union delegation, which is a pity when there is a way to have a committee for prevention and protection at work.

In this area, it is also regrettable that the social partners agree on a balance and then, the parliamentarians relay the demands of the employer bank and submit amendments in session, disbalancing the text.

Like my colleagues, I would like to ask the Minister what her intentions are regarding a simplified form. There is also a high level of tension among the social partners. Nevertheless, UNIZO and the three unions managed to agree on a proposal. I hope that is the one you will support.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a little information to Mrs. Genot. Social partners did not agree on the text; opinions were divided. We must not believe that the agreement was there and that we then opted for one or the other. It cannot be said that there was an agreement of the social partners on the original text!

Mr. Clarinval, I heard you say that there was an agreement of the union partners on the amendments you submitted. I think that is not true.

I never said that the trade unions agreed on the amendment.

The social partners...

As I know, FEB is part of the social partners! Social partners are not limited to trade unions.

Before we look at the future challenges in the labour market, we must take into account that the ageing wave and retirement will create between 500,000 and 600,000 jobs. We may not be able to imagine it so well.

It will therefore be important to attract workers of working age and, above all, to keep them working. This means that the competition on the labour market, the war on talent, becomes very important and that it will be necessary, including for employers, to have accurate data, correctly measure and communicate about it. This is in their own interest. I do not understand how one can conduct a business properly if one is not willing – even without any legislation or regulation – to keep it for himself, to think about it, and to conduct a policy on that.

I think that companies that pursue a transparent and sustainable policy in this regard will be able to attract a large number of employees, men and women from different target groups, and thus likely win the war on talent.

Mrs. Lalieux, of course, I find it unacceptable that women who do the same work as men are remunerated differently – Ms. Fonck has said something about extra-legal benefits – and sometimes even less paid, resulting in women sometimes receiving a lower pension, even if they have had the same career as men. In this regard, we are working on a mentality change among men, women, employers and workers’ organisations.

As I have done in all my duties, I will continue to strive for women’s representation at all levels, including in parity committees, and for their legitimate participation there.

For all clarity, I am convinced that bodies, structures and companies function much better thanks to a mixed audience including young and old people.

Several speakers also spoke about the administrative burden. I am very understanding of this concern and consider that, if one imposes administrative obligations, one should do something about it. If you are asking for information, you must also work with it. We cannot simply fill a piece of paper.

The social partners issued a split opinion in the NAR. Next week I have an appointment with the administration to work on a simplified form for employers with fewer than 100 employees. This way we can get correct information from the companies and one will realize its value in the long run.

In my view, the measure must be linked to a social balance. Apparently, however, this is not yet so obvious, because not all companies have a social balance.

Mrs. Fonck, I intend to take my responsibilities and create a simpler and more transparent form.

Mrs Demir, you call it a rather degrading law of repair. I don’t know what idea you have about yourself, but I know from experience that when one deals with matters – you are now in a position of ultimate responsibility on the political level – everything doesn’t always go as one wants and that some scenarios can be pushed out, but that sometimes mistakes or other estimates also come to light.

The correction here is that Article 4 should be replaced by Article 5. This is based on the 1996 Competitiveness Act.

You also know that an IPA is concluded every 2 years and there are wage negotiations. The proposal is to provide for reporting in the year that is not negotiated, also in order not to overload the administration.

It’s pretty stupid to ask companies to report on it every time, during the year they negotiate and conduct CAOs.

We have some expertise in our administration, but we will use external consultants where necessary. I have understood from my administration that we are very economical and that this is not always appropriate, given the expertise already available. If necessary, we will, of course, release resources for that and sometimes even seek.

The participation of women in parity committees is not only the responsibility of trade unions but also of employers. I also see that this is not always fulfilled. If some parties do not support the fact that there are many women in the boards of directors and the executive committees, there will also be few women in the parity committees.

I notice that employers and employers in large companies can suddenly change their minds if they have daughters, and that women find their daughters important in ⁇ .

Mrs. Genot, I understand that you’re criticizing, but I really think we’re doing what we said. We have discussed with the social partners to simplify procedures and instruments, but they have not reached an agreement. We will try – commitments are already being made for next week – to create a simpler form, especially for companies with fewer than 100 employees.