Proposition 54K3223

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 18 juillet 2018 relative à la relance économique et au renforcement de la cohésion sociale et le Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Stefaan Vercamer
MR David Clarinval
N-VA Wim Van der Donckt
Open Vld Vincent Van Quickenborne

Submission date

July 6, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

labour law reflation social legislation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Oct. 4, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Mr Delizée and Mr Vercamer, refer to the written report.

There is no Minister present.

I see it like you! Even if this is a bill, it is good that the government is represented. I would like to call the ministers concerned.

I think the ministers Van Overtveldt and De Block are responsible for this.

The [...]

No, he is not competent in these.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, if you allow it, I will make a comprehensive intervention for the three proposals, which concern all three of the elements that are fundamental for workers. They have been widely discussed in the committee, but my group would like to make some considerations on these three proposals.

Regarding the first text, we remember very well that the law you passed, which institutionalizes black labour, has been the subject of many criticisms from civil society. All the people who were heard voted against this law that creates unfair competition, internal social dumping, de-professionalization of professions, unprotected workers, and causes a loss for state financing and social security.

Despite this opposition, you decided at the time to go into force by promising us quickly a reparative law. This is the pseudo-reparatory law, which was to respond to the fundamental remarks of civil society. This proposal does not respond in any way to the observations in question. Even worse, it could increase them. What a contempt!

Have you submitted this bill to workers, employers and associations? Of course no! In their opinion, you have nothing to do with it. We cannot endorse your adjusted measures, which in no way meet these criticisms and which precariate our fellow citizens or your methods. We will vote against this proposal.

The second text is no better than the first. In fact, with this text, you want to allow bosses to make their staff work even easier on Sundays. Definitely, for you, people need to work more and more flexibly. After attacking the 38-hour week, you are now attacking the collective rest day.

Yet, often, Sunday is the only day during which workers can spend time with family and move away from work concerns. Sunday rest is a social achievement that cannot be underestimated. The importance of the balance between work, family and private life is a necessity. Some of you recognize it, but in reality you do the opposite. We will vote against this proposal.

Finally, I come to the third proposal. For professions in shortage, you want to facilitate what is called a “schooling clause”. Those who leave their job within three years are obliged to partially repay the training they received. Today, these clauses are already possible, but are subject to certain conditions designed to protect workers. For example, the worker must receive a sufficient salary or that training allows him to acquire new skills.

Your proposal removes these protections. You affirm that those in force do not offer any training and that it is necessary, especially in professions in scarcity. The result would be that a worker receiving a small salary who leaves his employer could be forced to reimburse a costly training, even if it did not provide him with any skills to value on the job market. The employee will therefore be forced to reimburse a training that has not taught him anything. It is incomprehensible. Some workers will find themselves trapped with an employer they cannot leave because of the lack of funds to repay the training. It is nonsense. The result is that they will think twice before accepting one in a shoreless profession. Therefore, this measure is completely counterproductive.

In fact, you are serving yourself again in shortages to justify the indefensible, as with your famous jobs deal, which should rather be called "deal against workers".

With the announced degressivity of unemployment benefits, you claim to solve the problem of vacancies in our country, but everybody knows that this is total smog! A large number of studies, and recently academic experts, have demonstrated that decreasing unemployment benefits faster and more strongly does not encourage people to find employment faster.

Driving people into poverty doesn’t help them find a job. When citizens, workers have to survive with few resources, their priority is not the search for employment. You are also mistaken on this subject.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will conclude. Mr. Minister, again, and systematically, you are forecasting antisocial and ideological measures without a real scientific basis. Most importantly, you don’t listen to anyone. Worse, you despise the experts, the field actors and above all the citizen. As always, it is the most fragile who pay and will pay your broken pots. As you have understood, we will vote against these three texts.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, DEFI will not support this correctional bill, which does not correct much. Certainly, it makes it possible to better take into account the terminologies in force in the French-speaking federated entities, which will ⁇ improve legal certainty by avoiding hesitation and even appeals.

The French version of the initial project was banal, including, for example, denominations of functions not recognised by the Wallonia-Bruxelles federation. Note that it would have been better to negotiate before legislation to avoid this kind of corrections; but either, this is not what worries us most in the establishment of an associative and occasional work taxed at the rate of 500 euros per month.

We are pleased to note that youth movements and playgrounds are now excluded, but Brussels and Wallonia demanded that many other sectors be excluded, which you have not taken into account.

Therefore, we continue to oppose the approach itself. In essence, this correctional law does not in any way meet our expectations, as I had already had the opportunity to express it on the occasion of the debate on the initial bill last July 5.

This has caused and still causes a real lifting of shields. Representatives of the French-speaking association circles gathered into a platform entitled "50 shades of black", to denounce all the perverse effects of this project. You are accused of wanting to whiten black labour by making it legal at the expense of traditional labour. Experts, including the Court, expressed reservations on the financial impact of the project; the social partners unanimously issued a negative opinion. Employment is threatened, both in the private sector and in the public and non-market sectors. We can easily understand it. If it becomes more interesting to work at 4/5th time with a taxed surcharge work, it will motivate full-time workers to reduce their regular working hours.

This distortion of the labour market will weaken the financing of social security since a certain volume of activity will be dispensed from contributing to it. Independent companies are ⁇ concerned about the risk of unfair competition. Your project also competes with volunteering. The partners of the majority of the French Community Commission, including those of DéFI of course, opposed this project, and they submitted a motion in conflict of interest in the hope of a fruitful negotiation. It should be noted that neither the procedure in conflict of interests nor the return of the file to a consultation committee between the entities have led to concrete progress.

Without being able to block this project, we have tried to be constructive by submitting amendments to try to at least convince you of the need to limit the scope of action of the original law to the only sector that is clearly demanding such an evolution, that of sport. Our amendments provided for the possibility of extending the scope by royal decree to other sectors of activity mentioned in Article 24 of the original law, but on two conditions. The extension must be the subject of social concertation, and it cannot generate unfair competition.

Finally, when you announced a correctional law, we kept a hope, thin it is true, but a hope anyway, to see you make substantial corrections. We had to shake. This correctional law, on the contrary, reinforces the risks of derivative and unfair competition in its Article 3. A deliberate decision in the Council of Ministers may allow to increase the maximum of the monthly taxable compensation, up to a maximum of 1,000 euros per month. Certainly, the commentary to Article 3 mentions that this delegation to the King is introduced at the request of the federal entities, in particular the ministers competent for sports, but Article 3 mentions in turn certain categories of associative work, without specifying which.

To allow a taxed work up to 1,000 euros per month is a lot. This is not done lightly, in a legal blur. Statbel states that 50% of employees earn less than €3,095 gross per month. I am not sure that all members of your majority are aware of this.

For all these reasons, it is with great conviction that we will not vote on this bill.

This is a correction law, but the corrections are very slight. These are “carrot corrections.” As I often recall, as much as we were in favor of the application of this type of device in certain sectors, such as the sport, so much, given the side effects, we are not in favor of such broad provisions, all sectors confused.

Last week, in the plenary session, I was still relaying the construction sector denouncing the major unfair competition brought by this device of the 500 euros defiscalized and de(para)fiscalized that actually organizes the social dumping within the border.

It is positive to finally agree to lift the device for youth movements. I also have no difficulty in making the system suitable for the sports sector. We were in favor. But you forget other indispensable corrections by obstinating yourself not to take into account the shrinkage of this law on the ground. You have set up a penalizing system for self-employed and small and medium-sized enterprises. This unfair competition could result in the destruction of jobs.

I regret that you have not taken the measure of this reality, as you have not taken the measure of the requests filed by the governments of the federated entities in favour of a constructive, but strictly limited arrangement, at least in the beginning. An evaluation could have followed to assess the possibility of expanding this device.

You have from the beginning of the game decided to stay on a very dogmatic position. You wanted to apply it to all sectors. I regret it. As it comes to “carrot corrections”, we will abstain.