The Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE) refuses to oblige companies to establish the registration of their workers' working hours, because it considers that "there are already mechanisms of hourly control" and implies "a change towards the old" , in accordance with Employer valuations to several of the issues that are being debated at the social dialogue table and to which Europa Press has had access.
For employers, the time schedule proposed by the Executive increases bureaucracy and business costs , has "real application problems", eliminates measures of internal flexibility and reconciliation and is "very difficult to apply" for small and medium enterprises .
On the other hand, on the collective dismissal, employers want to "eliminate the obligation to contribute to the Public Treasury of companies with benefits in collective redundancies that affect workers over 50 years," measure also known as 'Telefónica amendment'.
The so-called 'Telefónica amendment' has its origin in the massive pre-retirements that the company made in 2011 and which ended up affecting more than 6,500 people.
Specifically, in the pension reform of 2011, the PSOE government established that companies with more than 500 workers who filed a collective dismissal that affected workers of 50 years or more, having had benefits in previous years, would have to be made charge of payment for unemployment and part of the contributions.
However, in 2013, the Government of the PP changed the 'Telefónica amendment' so that these costs were borne by companies with more than 100 workers who made a collective dismissal and who had obtained benefits both in the two years prior to the dismissal and in at least two consecutive financial periods within the period between the fiscal year prior to the collective dismissal and the four fiscal years after that date.
In addition, the Royal Decree approved by the Executive of Mariano Rajoy established that contributions should be made only when there is discrimination based on age in dismissals , that is, to the extent that the percentage of workers over 50 years old included in the collective dismissal is greater than the weight of that group in the company's workforce.
Both in the EREs of suspension of contract and collective dismissal, the CEOE requests that the Labor and Social Security Inspectorate, like judges, do not enter to assess the existence of causes and the proportionality of these procedures nor the economic or other reasons of the companies.
He also wants "to eliminate the business obligation to assume 100% of the cost of Social Security contributions despite there being no provision of services by the employee" and to simplify the documentation to be provided, as well as the procedure.
In this line and in the case of collective dismissals, employers also bet that the simplification of documentation is greater for companies with fewer than 50 workers and that it is presumed that when there is agreement "the causes concur and compliance with the essential formalities of the consultation procedure ".
In addition, he believes that compensation for dismissal should be unified regardless of its causality , except in cases of nullity for violation of fundamental rights and contemplate the non-criminalization of the exit from the labor market of those who have already covered their contribution career, "establishing flexible formulas for leaving the labor market linked to the simultaneous hiring of young people".
On the other hand, between the employer's assessment of the rest of the measures presented in the social dialogue round tables, the current wording of the labor reform should be maintained so that company agreements continue to prevail over sector agreements, a measure the one that the Government and the unions want to turn around.
Regarding the ultraactivity, the CEOE calls for clarification of the application of the agreement of superior scope that was applicable in case of loss of validity of the agreement and that also be made clear what is the situation in case of loss of validity of an agreement without there is a higher scope agreement that is out of application.