For more than a month, and although the Minister of Labour and Employment Promotion, Susana Pinilla, found that there was "rushing" this decision, the Congress Working Committee adopted The draft Labour Law, which was filed with the Bureau of Parliament. The Chairman of this working group, Aldo Estada Shock, said the project consists of 438 items and does not provide absolute job security, since they have included clauses about 17 grounds for dismissal.
On May 08 this Working Committee ended the debate on the draft Labour Act, and noted that after returning to dialogue with the Ministry of Labour was able to define the start of recruitment activity and amended Article 166 ° referred to the challenge.
If consensus had been reached on the most important points of this law and has put an end to be ready for the debate (in Parliament), why to date the congressmen do not care about its early enactment? . Perhaps this issue is not more important than the Bicameral?, Or is that so-called "jaguars" only concerned about their personal interests and not the interests of the population?.
We know that among the approved devices was that concerning unfair dismissal of workers, a topic that was controversial, and that causes more problems between employers and employee, this case has already been determined, because after the corresponding process will the judge who decides whether any compensation or replacement is left to the court the possibility absolutely determine the fate of the parties (as set out above absolute job security).
worth noting that the Constitutional Court has established case law on this issue, stating that the replacement can only occur in exceptional cases and not as a rule. However, many specialists there are no guarantees that the judges take into account exactly this sentence. We assume that this rule will generate unfair dismissal disputes and endless lawsuits, even in some cases are contradictory statements, which undermine legal stability and, therefore, against the generation of employment.
In other parts of this project was incorporated LGT Home Contract Activity and confirms the need for workers "part time" (who work less than four hours per day) are all fringe benefits. We believe that this law must tend to provide work that does not (encourage employment), but not be only formal pro worker, should not be protectionist nor the employer and the worker must be an INTEGRAL LAW WORK (for both public and private scheme) SMEs Extra (Special), with social balance and that tends to the modernization and competitiveness.
The Bureau in coordination with Congress Working Committee had to write the draft of this to be expedited subsequent parliamentary debate on the floor. Lords of Congress is necessary that the notorious "advisors" and discuss what little they needed and define a coherent and consensual rule, showing that they do not are "ghosts" or "domestic employees" to help improve their salaries.
On May 08 this Working Committee ended the debate on the draft Labour Act, and noted that after returning to dialogue with the Ministry of Labour was able to define the start of recruitment activity and amended Article 166 ° referred to the challenge.
If consensus had been reached on the most important points of this law and has put an end to be ready for the debate (in Parliament), why to date the congressmen do not care about its early enactment? . Perhaps this issue is not more important than the Bicameral?, Or is that so-called "jaguars" only concerned about their personal interests and not the interests of the population?.
We know that among the approved devices was that concerning unfair dismissal of workers, a topic that was controversial, and that causes more problems between employers and employee, this case has already been determined, because after the corresponding process will the judge who decides whether any compensation or replacement is left to the court the possibility absolutely determine the fate of the parties (as set out above absolute job security).
worth noting that the Constitutional Court has established case law on this issue, stating that the replacement can only occur in exceptional cases and not as a rule. However, many specialists there are no guarantees that the judges take into account exactly this sentence. We assume that this rule will generate unfair dismissal disputes and endless lawsuits, even in some cases are contradictory statements, which undermine legal stability and, therefore, against the generation of employment.
In other parts of this project was incorporated LGT Home Contract Activity and confirms the need for workers "part time" (who work less than four hours per day) are all fringe benefits. We believe that this law must tend to provide work that does not (encourage employment), but not be only formal pro worker, should not be protectionist nor the employer and the worker must be an INTEGRAL LAW WORK (for both public and private scheme) SMEs Extra (Special), with social balance and that tends to the modernization and competitiveness.
The Bureau in coordination with Congress Working Committee had to write the draft of this to be expedited subsequent parliamentary debate on the floor. Lords of Congress is necessary that the notorious "advisors" and discuss what little they needed and define a coherent and consensual rule, showing that they do not are "ghosts" or "domestic employees" to help improve their salaries.
