The Committee on Labor Affairs and Transformation of the Pension System for a Dignified Retirement attended today, Wednesday, the start of the discussion on the House 3 Project, which seeks to repeal Law 4 of 2017 on Transformation and Flexibility Labor.
The measure presented by the president of the Commission, Domingo Torres García, and the delegation of the Democratic Popular Party (PPD) of the House of Representatives, received in early hours the opinion of José Rodríguez Vélez, representative of the Solidarity Trade Union Movement ( MSS), an independent organization representing hundreds of private industry workers, employed in the manufacture and distribution of soft drinks by companies such as Pepsi and Coca Cola.
Rodríguez Vélez, although he spoke in favor of the measure, presented various concerns about the legislation as it was drafted. “We celebrate and support the efforts of legislators who have set out to repeal the so-called labor reform. However, we have several concerns,” the MSS representative noted.
We recommend:
The depositor, explained that the concerns of his organization are framed in the language used in the preamble to the statement of reasons around “restoring” the presumption of dismissal without just cause; the language proposed by Art. 8 of Law 80, around the automatic probationary period; the need to integrate or harmonize provisions of various draft labor laws that are presented in the legislature and the need for real labor reform.
On the measure, which would repeal Law 4, representative Denis Márquez warned of the need to amend the project to safeguard the aggregate benefits after the approval of the labor reform. “With the passage of the House 3 Project, the few positive things that Act 4 added would be repealed,” he added.
“With this and the House 112 Project, of my own, my position will always be in favor of the defense of the working class. In a world where the balance of power is always in favor of one party, the rights of the working class must be recognized and expanded, “said representative Márquez, who also proposed a bill to amend dozens of articles of Law no. 4 of 2017.
According to the explanatory memorandum to the House 3 Project, the Labor Reform did nothing but dismantle the rights that the working class had conquered through decades of struggle. The legislation did not lead to the creation of jobs that the government of the day preached nor did it improve the material conditions of our people; on the contrary, it led to the precariousness of the working class.
Also, the representatives received the appearance of Carles M. Rodríguez, president of the Association of Industrialists. The organization, was against the Project of the Chamber 3. Through a written report, Rodriguez argued that the Commission should not focus on repealing Law No. 4 of 2017, “but to make a balanced composition on which of its provisions deserve to be preserved and which should be modified. Thus, the legislative analysis must be based on an objective assessment of the favorable aspects that go to represent a step forward in this reform, while evaluating those aspects that need to be modified or improved, “he said.
For his part, the representative of the Association of Industrialists, also noted that whatever the decision of the legislature, the project will go through the crucible of the first executive and the Board of Fiscal Supervision (JSF), which will have to assess whether the changes to the labor legal framework have any tax impact and their compatibility with the Tax Plan Certified by this federal body.
Finally, the Labor Affairs Committee received input from attorney Cristian Bernaschina, a member of the Puerto Rican Builders Association, who was in favor of the measures suggested by the JSF. “Our partnership fully supports the effort led by the Board of Fiscal Supervision and the Department of Economic Development to drive structural and operational changes to improve our ease of doing business in Puerto Rico and reduce the costs of doing the same.” he added.
“We agree with the increase in the minimum wage of builders. However, we do not favor the provision (of the Project) that remains on labor agreements. Many projects in the United States with policies in favor of these labor agreements experience delays, increased costs and impoverish recruitment capacity, “Bernaschina ruled.