Download article in original language : ES9902297FES.DOC
Late 1998 and early 1999 saw the first agreements between the social partners aimed at introducing the 35-hour working week in Spain, in order to help create jobs. However, the deals - mainly concluded in regional and local authorities - have met opposition from central government and criticism from the main employers' organisation, CEOE. Indeed, central government has taken action through the courts to suspend certain agreements.
The introduction of a 35-hour working week has been the focus of debate in Spain since autumn 1997 - especially following enactment in June 1998 of the French law on shorter working hours (FR9806113F) - and is considered to be a major issue by the social partners, government, experts and public opinion in general. The reason is very simple: the problem of unemployment is so serious in Spain and has such a negative impact on other aspects of individual and collective life that no initiative aimed at reducing it can be ignored (ES9807178F).
The United Left (Izquierda Unida, IU) political party and the General Workers' Union (Unión General de Trabajadores, UGT) are in favour of a law regulating shorter working hours (ES9804251F). However, the Socialist Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español, PSOE) and the Confederation of Workers' Commissions (Comisiones Obreras, CC.OO) propose negotiations between the social partners as the main instrument of change, though they are not opposed to a law to regulate certain general aspects. PSOE favours a programme of incentives to encourage companies to negotiate appropriate arrangements. The People's Party (Partido Popular, PP) government and the Spanish Confederation of Employers' Organisations (Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales, CEOE) think that working hours should be negotiated by the social partners rather than regulated by law. The government has stated that it will give full support to agreements reached by the social partners on this question.
From words to deeds
Over the closing months of 1998, several regional, district and local pacts have paved the way for shorter working hours (ES9811188F). Some of the most significant - the agreements for employment signed in Galicia (ES9810184F), Catalonia (ES9805154F), Castilla-León, Navarre and Andalucia (ES9809282N) - propose different forms of public aid for companies that create employment, especially if this is carried out through shorter working hours. The most explicit in this respect is the Andalucia pact, which was signed by the Junta (regional government) and the trade unions, but not by the region's employers' associations. It should be said that the reduction of working time has met opposition from regional employers' organisations in all cases.
Collective agreements were later signed in a series of town councils and in the provincial council (Diputación) of Barcelona, all introducing the 35-hour week. The town councils involved were mainly in Catalonia, and the towns involved were large (for example, Sta. coloma de Gramanet, Tarragona and Manresa), medium (for example Salt, Sant Adrià del Besós, Badía and Montornés) and small. Both in the town councils and in the Barcelona provincial council, the agreements were negotiated between the relevant social partners - that is, between the management of the institutions and the respective workers' committee s.
Central government's reaction was to challenge these agreements, arguing that they contravened the Local Government Law (Ley Reguladora de las Bases del Régimen Local), which establishes a working week of 37.5 hours for both local government employees and civil servants. For the time being, this challenge has been effective, since the High Court of Catalonia has already suspended the application of the agreements on the 35-hour week in several local authorities. Central government has stated that it will also contest the agreement for Andalucia when it is applied to the institutions of the administration. This reaction is surprising, not only because it seems to undermine the autonomy of the parties to negotiate, but also because there are city councils which have had agreements on the 35-hour week for years. These may be calculated either on a weekly or on an annual basis (as in the case of the city council of Madrid, with 1,512 hours per year). For some observers, everything seems to indicate that, as the employers' committee and the workers affected claim, the government's reaction is merely aimed at blocking the 35-hour week.
Reaction of the trade unions
The trade unions - and the workers' committees involved - have reacted forcefully, accusing the government of obstruction and of failing to practise what it preaches. Civil servants and local government workers have demonstrated in several cities.
The unions have also reaffirmed their positions on shorter working hours in public. CC.OO proposes a framework law that promotes and provides incentives for the gradual negotiation of the 35-hour week. UGT calls for a similar law to prevent the fragmentation that could result from negotiation at regional level. Both think that this law should be negotiated between the social partners and the government and then put before parliament.
More importantly, the two union confederations want to make the 35-hour week one of the main items on the bargaining agenda for 1999 (ES9901194N). They will give it priority over pay increases, though they will continue to press for higher wages because they believe that greater purchasing power also benefits employment. The 35-hour week will clearly be on the bargaining agenda at both sector and company level. The union positions thus show that they believe in the need to combine legal initiatives with bargaining in order to solve the problem.
Rejection by employers' associations
CEOE has opposed the Andalucia agreement and criticises the initiatives in the local councils with the same argument: that the 35-hour week is being used for political purposes. The employers' confederation is not opposed to negotiating shorter working hours but feels that these should be implemented company by company. The trade unions and many observers feel that this would involve a high risk of fragmentation of working conditions and a possible distortion of the significance of shorter working hours.
Change advances slowly
The 35-hour week is starting to be introduced into companies, but conditions vary from one to another. JEVSA, a rubber firm based in Catalonia, is the first private company in which an agreement has been reached. It will be supported by the Catalan government through a reduction in social security contributions and is being introduced in exchange for a reorganisation of shifts. In some other companies, the 35-hour week is being introduced as an alternative to reducing the workforce.
Other sectors are also interested in shorter working hours from an economic viewpoint. Hoteliers on the Costa Dorada (Tarragona) feel that shorter working hours may considerably increase the tourist trade and thus employment in the sector. Opinion polls indicate that a majority of citizens are in favour of shorter working hours, but do not feel that wages should be reduced as a result.
Commentary
There are major differences between companies and sectors in terms of the results of collective bargaining on conditions of employment: there have always been groups of workers who are better placed than others and have led the way, owing to the characteristics of their negotiating partners or their economic situation. This is the case with large companies, certain leading sectors and public companies.
It seems clear that in the struggle to improve employment levels, and specifically to introduce shorter working hours to create new jobs, the public administration and public companies will mark out the route to be followed by the rest. The government is opposed to this development in the public sector for two reasons. Firstly, shorter working hours would mean increased expenditure, both in wages and in creating new employment to cover the tasks that staff working fewer hours will not be able to perform. Secondly, this would have a decisive influence on demands in the private sector, and the public sector's example would go against the business strategies of CEOE (thus involving a political cost for the government). However, interfering in social partners' autonomy to negotiate employment conditions - which is the meaning of the challenges made by the government - seems to be the wrong way to solve the disagreements. Nevertheless, these public sector examples will undoubtedly influence the private sector.
Therefore, though from another viewpoint, the chair of CEOE is right to consider this question as a political problem. There is no doubt that unemployment will not be reduced unless serious policies are introduced to combat it. Common sense, public opinion and experts on the subject all agree that shorter working hours do not affect the competitive capacity of companies. (Fausto Miguélez, QUIT