Why so much resistance to labour reform that can guarantee workers' rights? Clearly, the "easing of the labour market" has had a negative impact on job stability and wages for the benefit of businesses.

The political parties that rule in Spain carried in their electoral programs the repeal of the 2012 Labor Reform. On 20 May, government forces agreed with EH Bildu to implement this derogation before the pandemic's emergency measures were exhausted. The agreement will also involve increasing the capacity for social expenditure of municipalities, deputies and autonomous communities, ending the austerity imposed by the Montoro law. Both the signatories and the Minister of Labor, Yolanda Díaz, showed their firmness to continue along this path, in the face of the debate generated by the depth of the new reform. Today, however, the road lies ahead.

The issue has raised controversy. On the one hand, because the European Commission made it clear in May that the requirement to receive Von der Leyen’s reconstruction plan is not to touch on the 2012 Labour Reform. It should be remembered that one of the European Commission’s conditions for Spain to receive the rescue at the beginning of the decade was labour reform. For their part, the employers CEOE and Cepyme of Spain have opposed and called for the need for a social agreement. Although Confesbask and the employers' association CEN took the same line against it, those responsible for the PNV in Euskal Herria have been the ones who have made the most noise against the agreement.

Why so much resistance to labour reform that can guarantee workers' rights? Clearly, the "easing of the labour market" has had a negative impact on job stability and wages for the benefit of businesses. This has had a negative impact on workers (i.e. a large majority of society), worsening working conditions and the economic model. As a result, domestic demand and consumption have been particularly frustrated.

Economy and labour relations

This situation is taking place before the last reform. In fact, since the 1980s, experts have been denouncing the “rigidity of labour markets”, proposing measures against the organization of workers and the tools to improve working conditions. Restrictive labour reforms have been repeated throughout history and many countries have taken steps to increase the flexibility of their labour relations on the pretext of reducing unemployment caused by the oil crises of the 1970s. This resulted in a reduction in employment costs and an increase in the use of non-standard employment contracts such as temporary and part-time contracts. As a result, they created a segmented model of labour relations, with an increasing share of unusual contracts. The argument for carrying out these reforms is that over-protection of indefinite employment has a negative effect on levels of employment and unemployment.

As far as Spain is concerned, the Organic Law on Freedom of Association (LOLS) and the Workers' Statute have been the basic laws to regulate labour relations and rights. As a result of the above, more than 52 labour reforms have been carried out since 1980.

The “objectives” of the labour reforms of recent decades have been, on the one hand, to combat the precariousness of employment contracts and, on the other, to combat the “rigidities of the labour market” in order to reduce unemployment. Have the intended objectives been met? No. Almost a third of the workforce still have a temporary contract (in both Spain and the Basque Country). The easing and reduction of redundancies has not led to an increase in recruitment, of which nine out of ten contracts are kept on a transitional basis and lack continuity. And what about unemployment? Has there been any positive impact on this? No: A study carried out jointly by the UPV/EHU and the University of Cambridge has shown that recruitment could not be encouraged. Moreover, the rate of temporality has increased and indefinite recruitment has decreased. The liberalisation of labour relations has led to the dualisation of the labour market (definitive versus provisional) and precariousness. In short, the positive contributions of flexibility in recruitment have been very limited compared to the damage done.

A new labour reform

Given the impact that the 2012 Labour Reform has had on workers, it seems that a minimum agreement can be reached for a legislative change. Some speak of derogation and others do not. But beyond words, what can be the ingredients needed to improve the situation of workers?

Firstly, the situation of precarious workers must be effectively protected. Temporality is the sword of Damocles, which protects workers from violations of the labor regulations of companies: how to denounce, complain or demand a right when the contract has a specific maturity? Fraud in temporary contracts must be punished forcefully. There are no specific general data on this, but the following two examples can explain the direction: In Madrid, 46% of temporary contracts signed in 2018 were fraudulent and 99% of seasonal workers contracts concluded in Huelva in 2019. The law leaves the worker unprotected, as companies have two options: not renewing the contract or paying a small amount as compensation for improper dismissal. The key is to regulate these cases as worthless redundancies, in order to prevent companies from paying the penalties for compensation directly and thus to encourage indefinite contracts. Thus, a further step would be taken in the effective protection of precarious workers from violations of rights and corporate abuse.

Concerning contract fraud, the clearest examples are the false self-employed, the riders and the so-called “collaborative economy”. For these cases it is not necessary to regulate new legislation, but to apply the existing legislation itself: Compliance with the Staff Regulations and the legislation of self-employed persons who are actual or employed under the Staff Regulations. To this end, it is essential to define once and for all whether they are self-employed or employed, so that they do not confuse us with the need for new legislation.

Another important element to work on is subcontracting fraud. Subcontracting is used systematically to circumvent the responsibilities of companies. As a result, working conditions deteriorate greatly; the case of hotel cleaners or kellys is a clear example, but there are also many other cases. The key is not to outsource basic services, because without them businesses cannot function, for example, without cleaning services.

It is also noteworthy the implementation of the 135 Agreement of the International Labour Organization to guarantee the right to the organization of workers and the exercise of the rights inherent in the trade union model. In the latter sense, two models (trade union and unitary) were established with regard to the representation of workers in the company, although the latter has been promoted and developed, emptying the model of the trade unions. That is why trade unionism is weaker in the company. Continuing with this international organisation, Agreement 189 must also be complied with in order to improve the unacceptable situation of domestic workers. The situation of pseudoslavery that currently exists is not acceptable unless it is considered to be developed in a country.

The Covid19 crisis has highlighted the lack of teleworking regulation. We must be careful with this working model, as the employer saves costs at the expense of the worker. On the other hand, if you work from home, where is the prevention of occupational risks? And where is the right to digital disconnect? Where, the balance between work and life? This is a very complex issue that requires deep and substantial reflection to develop regulation through collective bargaining.

Labour reform and new policy

Two other elements have to be mentioned which have an indirect bearing on labour reform, the importance of which has become apparent in recent months. On the one hand, the situation of the Labour Inspectorate is worrying: The lack of staff and resources is manifested in the interests of companies and against workers. Effective legislation can be regulated, but if the means to enforce this regulation are not put in place, we will be in a similar situation. On the other hand, the public sector should be an example in hiring and offer subcontractors social clauses and intervene in any kind of irregularity to prevent violations of rights.

As has already been mentioned at the outset, some social and political organisations have complained about the agreement to repeal the Labour Reform and have called for the process to be carried out through the social agreement. But behind these words is a clear purpose: Exclusion of trade union and employer organisations in both Spain and the Basque Country. Faced with this, the responsibility and complicity of the institutions that have signed the reforms must be denounced, the possibility of workers being able to influence, and more unions should be involved in the reform, not only those of the usual (CCOO and UGT).

We are about to see the effectiveness of the Agreement and the depth of the Labour Reform. If the commitment is maintained, it is a historic breakthrough for Basque and Spanish workers, a decisive step against the general trend of the 52 labour reforms carried out since 1980. Will the agreement between left-wing forces in Congress have any effect on Basque policy? The PNV has been the main collaborator of the neoliberal tunnel of decades, patrimonializing the Basque institutions and taking advantage of the lack of control over the powers of government. Now that we are in a serious economic, social and ecological crisis, removing those who are always out of government can be a way to take our own steps towards profound change. The future is in our hands, if we have hope.