The Committee on Labor Affairs and Transformation of the Pension System for a Decent Retirement was present today, Wednesday, at the start of the discussion on House Bill 3, which aims to repeal Law 4 of 2017 on Labor Transformation and Flexibility.
The measure proposed by the President of the Commission, Domingo Torres García, and the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) delegation of the House of Representatives, received the early hours of the opinion of José Rodríguez Vélez, representative of the Solidarity Movement ( MSS), an independent organization representing hundreds of private sector employees working in the manufacture and distribution of soft drinks by companies such as Pepsi and Coca Cola.
Rodríguez Vélez, while speaking for the measure, expressed several concerns about the legislation as it was being drafted. “We celebrate and support the efforts of lawmakers who have repealed the so-called labor reform. However, we have several concerns, ”said the MSS representative.
We recommend that you:
The delegate explained that his organization’s concerns are expressed in the language used in the preamble to the explanatory memorandum on the “restoration” of the presumption of dismissal without valid reason; the language proposed in Article 8 of Law 80 on automatic probation; the need to integrate or harmonize provisions of different draft labor laws presented in the legislature and the need for genuine labor reform.
Regarding the measure, which would repeal Law 4, Representative Denis Márquez warned of the need to amend the bill to secure the additional benefits after the adoption of the labor reform. “With the approval of House Bill 3, the few positive things that Law 4 added would be repealed,” he added.
“With this and House Bill 112, of my authorship, 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, ” stated Representative Márquez, who also proposed a bill in favor of the amendment of dozens of articles of Law No. . 4 of 2017.
According to the commentary to House Bill 3, the labor reform has done nothing but dismantle the rights the working class had acquired through decades of struggle. The legislation did not create jobs promised by the then government, nor did it improve the material conditions of our people; on the contrary, it led to the uncertainty of the working class.
Representatives also received the appearance of Carlos M. Rodríguez, president of the Industrial Association. The organization was against House Bill 3. Through a written presentation, Rodríguez argued that the Commission should not focus on repealing Law No. 4 of 2017, but on creating a balanced composition of which provisions deserve to be retained and which should be maintained. are being changed. So the legislative analysis must be based on an objective evaluation of the beneficial aspects that represented an advanced step in the reform, while at the same time evaluating the aspects that need to be changed or improved, ”he said.
For his part, the representative of the Association of Industrialists also pointed out that, regardless of the decision of the legislature, the project will go through the melting pot of the first executive and the Council of Tax Supervision (JSF), which will have to assess whether the changes in the employment law framework have some tax implications and are compatible with the tax plan certified by the said federal agency.
Finally, the Labor Affairs Commission received input from Cristian Bernaschina, a member of the Puerto Rico Builders Association, who was in favor of the measures proposed by the council. “Our association fully supports the efforts led by the Fiscal Oversight Board and the Department of Economic Development to promote structural and operational change to improve our ease of doing business in Puerto Rico and reduce the costs of doing the same,” added he adds.
“We agree with the increase in the minimum wage for construction workers. However, we are not in favor of the provision (of the Project) that is maintained on employment contracts. Many projects in the United States with policies in favor of these employment contracts face delays, increased costs and impoverished recruiting capacity, ”said Bernaschina.