[ad_1]
by Luigi Oliveri
Dear Holder,
Is a permanent contract forever, like a diamond? If the answer is yes, the ongoing debates on the rules governing the contract of employment may be understandable. The fact is, however, that these debates seem to be misguided by the most concrete and serious questions: if the economic system as a whole really appears in this phase of recovery that allows companies to invest in the long term and therefore Activate the contracts for a long time, from one side; and, secondly, interventions to support the transition phase between a work (term or not) to be activated, namely which active policies to implement and, finally, to ask whether and what changes to the social security system must be available, both protections for the unemployed, both to facilitate the construction of a retirement for the future
Because, legally, all the constraints of the world can be imposed for a given time, but if companies do not read the terms of investment expenses in the long-term market, however, they will continue to use contracts of a duration consistent with the limited period of their production activity .
On closer inspection, after the law on employment and the abolition of Article 18 of the Workers' Statute, indefinite contract is not at all forever . The only difference with the term contract is in the semantic prefix "in", which differentiates the adjective "determined" from the adjective "indeterminate".
In the fixed-term contract, the parties know whose contract will expire . In the contract of indefinite duration, the parties do not know exactly if and when the contract ceases to produce effects. But, with the elimination of Article 18, the employer can always reserve the right to interrupt the employment relationship for productivity reasons, in order to timely remedy an investment on the potentially long-term worker, but not with respect to the expected volumes of production and turnover
Why, then, does the determined time continue to prevail in the flow relationships? Besides the reasons related to the economic situation still far to be brilliant, is a cost problem, obviously . It is also true that the unemployment contributions for the fixed-term contract are 3.01% (1.40% more than the indeterminate amount). It is also true, however, that early termination of the permanent contract costs much more since early termination, on the basis of the "growing protection" contract, requires the payment of a minimum of 4 monthly payments
Companies can do their job well and, therefore, even though the employment law provided for the indefinite "liberalization" of layoffs, the cost of increasing protections is more high as the end of the relationship. for the fulfillment of the term . In addition, if the additional costs of possible legal proceedings are avoided
Moreover, if the activities subject to the contract are not particularly specialized and professionalized, companies will be able to rely on a labor-intensive rate. rather high work and should not risk to continue to renew the relationship with the same worker within the limit of 36 months.
Subsequent intervention, therefore, provided for by the "Decree of Dignity" to re-regulate the employment contract, without which intervenes on the economic conditions, will probably remain ineffective if the Purpose is always that enunciated by the law on employment which is to make indefinite time the dominant contractual form.
the reintroduction of the justifying causes, even referring only to the first "renewal" and defined by obligation, run the risk of reproducing the litigation of the legality of the renewals or, all at most, when the tasks are less qualified, accelerate even faster the replacement rate between one employee and another, with the possible paradox of the additional increase in the number of contracts, symmetrical to a reduction in their duration
Moreover, dear owner, it is also rather strange to speak of "renewal" institute which presupposes the absolute identity between a first contract and another, if the contract "renewed" was to be based on justified causes not considered (and, therefore, perhaps non-existent) at the time of first employment.
In any case, problem problems: think of increasing the number of permanent contracts or, even more, the number of employees by decree. It's a very popular road to date: Ella, owner, has he ever seen the outlet?
This article was published here
[ad_2]
Source link
