As a general rule, the working day in Spain is 37.5 hours per week in the public sector and 40 in the private sector (all on an annual average). It is being discussed to extend by law the 37.5 hours to the private sector, while maintaining salaries. The debate is intense and is calling into question the stability of the Government. Three aspects to highlight:
1) The proposal establishes that a full-time work day means working 37.5 hours per week. There are two schools of thought regarding the work day. The liberal sees it as something that must be left to the contractual freedom of employers and workers. The protector puts it in the context of the public responsibility to avoid situations of exploitation and to facilitate great social agreements. This one has history on its side. Let us remember how in Catalonia, with the La Canadiane strike in 1919, the eight-hour day triumphed for all of Spain. Now, the world has changed a lot and it is not evident that today an instrument as poorly tuned as a uniform limit on hours per year is the best way to protect against abuse. For example: there may be workers who prefer to work above the norm one year in order to be able to work below the norm the following year. It is reasonable not to hinder it with overly rigid rules.
2) The proposal suddenly increases the real hourly wage by 6.6% in the private sector (if an agreement has not already established a shorter working day). Economic logic says that companies will hire less since, with the same employment, it is not credible that productivity will automatically increase in the same proportion. If this were to happen in any corner of the economy, the consequences for workers would be unpredictable. If a shopkeeper sees that by closing half an hour earlier he earns the same amount, perhaps he will conclude that he can close an hour earlier, or close completely and work online.
3) It is established by law. For the minimum wage it is understood that it must be done this way. But the bulk of the rest of the salaries are determined by collective bargaining. It is a principle that is broken in this case since an automatic increase that reaches 6.6% is introduced – we could say through the back door. Incorporating labor standards in the public sector and then dragging down the private sector is bad practice. It has no justification: the public sector is not subject to the market – local and global – in the same way as the private sector. It is not surprising that the employers rebel.
The primary interest of the citizens of a country is that the productivity of its economy grows continuously and that this translates into continued growth in the salary per hour worked.
Incorporating labor standards in the public sector and then dragging the private sector is a bad practice
It is well known that the fundamental problem of the Spanish economy is the stagnation of productivity. Reducing the working day will have a basically neutral effect on productivity per hour worked, although it could be negative on productivity per worker. Under these conditions, the improvement in real wages by law may not be sustainable: a dynamic of tensions and conflict.
It will cause collective bargaining to tighten and wages to be updated below inflation, until the improvement is reabsorbed. If the expectation is one of stagnation, perhaps we would have to ask workers if they prefer to implement the 37.5 hours now – and accept wage increases below inflation in successive years, until the 6.6% per hour gain is eroded – , or not modify the day and maintain the price update due to inflation. The second option is neutral with respect to wage per hour, wage per worker and employment. The first, on the other hand, may end up leading to the same real hourly wage, but many workers will move to the 37.5-hour regime and enter
less.
On the other hand, if we achieve the fundamental objective – that Spanish productivity increases at the rate of European productivity –, we will be able to allow ourselves, through social dialogue and collective bargaining, to distribute profits equitably between capital and labor. , and also that it is the worker who decides how much of his part translates into an increase in income and how much into a reduction in hours worked.
It is, I believe, the most prudent path.
Source: www.lavanguardia.com
