few days of tranquility Celestino Corbacho had since he came to head the Ministry of Labour. Unemployment has not given respite. This week ran quiet for him, until the Prime Minister on Wednesday announced a ministerial committee to negotiate an economic pact with the opposition than he has been left out. Again, if only by default, became the protagonist. Corbacho (Valverde de Leganés, Badajoz, 1949) argues that political discussions are not going to talk or labor reform or pension, it makes no sense that he participates in that dialogue.
course in these two areas will have to work hard. In the first, to achieve better social outcomes of the dialogue so far. In the second, to overcome the resistance that the Executive's proposal to delay the retirement age been harvested. Tomorrow is an important litmus test: to appear in Congress to defend a proposal he rejected until shortly before the Ministry of Economy to impose its criteria.
Question. Would you Salgado has already convinced of the need to extend the retirement age from 65 to 67 years?
Response. Not a problem convincing a minister to another. The Government has been a debate that is inevitable rush. We aimed at a demographic shift. Over the next 25 years, the retired population will have grown significantly. Once the government decides it is not given by a minister or another, but the Government's proposal.
P. But it was his proposal. This was stated in January.
R. The Ministry of Labour had raised two issues. One, that Social Security has an excellent health, and that gives security to all, especially to pensioners. Two, they had to make changes to a horizon of 2030. We should address this issue, but without haste. That circumstances precipitated debate Government. We see the need to accelerate that decision, we proposed that the Ministry with a tour of the longer term, because at the international level is being watched with concern to Social Security. That weighed. Spain must submit a budget stability plan in early February, is playing the credit. Surely the Ministry of Labour had done in two stages. Probably. What we had not avoided the debate.
P. Are you willing to withdraw the proposal if the social response is very strong?
R. No. The government will not withdraw the proposal. It is necessary to address the debate. The final proposal will be agreed by the Toledo Pact. What spirit? The most consensus.
P. Are not you afraid of losing union support?
R. English trade unions have given ample evidence that they can be forceful in rejecting the proposal, but are also willing to consultation and dialogue. It is a sign of normality democratic a government makes a proposal and that unions do not agree.
P. Was it his idea to withdraw from the proposed stability plan to raise the period for calculating the pension?
R. It was a decision of one's second vice president.
P. Include and withdraw?
R. It seems it was not the vice president who decided to put it in the report, is what she said. And it was she who decided to withdraw. I have no further comment to make.
P. Would not it be an idea to consider the renewal of the Toledo Pact?
R. Should be discussed. But we must start with a closed proposal. This item can not ignore it because the current system has strengths and weaknesses. Here is just one example of a weakness. If a person is left standing at 55 years and is thus four or five years, his pension is closer than the minimum average. It is not fair. That must be corrected.
P. With that in mind, the Ministry has said it wants to curb early retirement. How does taking into account that many public companies promote them?
R. In some cases, banned. A company that has benefits, if you make an adjustment in the workforce do so. If people want to retire at age 30, who retires, but pay Social Security until age 65. And that through no unemployment. We must end a company profits to go to a file in which workers spend most of unemployment, then, retirement from the 61. And that is just doing this. Now, for settings like Figueruelas template, for example, it seems reasonable figure of early retirement and early retirement. I seem more logical to address the setting with people who have 59 years with whom he has 29. Here's a cultural problem. It has to come a time that is frowned upon people retire at age 54, even a public company.
P. What is that time?
R. I think so. Can you imagine a company now benefits that dared to make a record saying that it will adjust the template and go into early retirement for people 47 years?
P. Not long ago, Telefónica and banks.
R. Of course I have. Telefónica and the record had to be changed by statements of this minister. But the next step is to change things is to be banned.
P. Is that what you want?
R. Is what we have to discuss. And what I think. What will the end? The decision of the Toledo Pact. But the early retirement and early retirement have to limit them. And in the case of companies in profits should be banned outright. I mean banned. For two things, economy and culture. You can not be telling the company that will have to retire later and in parallel it.
P. The Government can do, regardless of the Toledo Pact.
R. Yes, but if we are talking about recommendations of the Toledo Pact, it seems reasonable that the Covenant to rule on these matters under discussion.
P. Will they understand the public that when the Social Security surplus still has two years to extend the retirement age?
R. If we make the debate on economic matters, did not understand anyone. How to tell people who have to retire later when we have a 40% youth unemployment? The debate is demographic. How will the population evolve in the next 20 years? And so, what will be the population in 2030? It will produce a significant aging. And then life expectancy will be closer to 90 years than 80. There will be more than 4.5 million retirees and active population probably will not grow at that pace. There will be a demographic gap between the population that is trading and what not.
P. And do not believe that the Government has lacked a bit of education to announce the move?
R. Sure. The answer has been, because nobody expected it, has been overwhelming. The pedagogy will have to do it. We need to calm the debate. We must not hurry, we are not compelled the time, we have good health pensions. We have a surplus.
P. Do you think profound changes in the widow's pension?
R. It seems reasonable to reflect on the concept of widowhood, thought about the role that women had historically. We must be careful. If it is the role of women over 45 years, there are still many without having contributed. But in the long term is not logical that a lifetime pension and a little care. This is not to save money or to question the income of people now have a widow's pension.
P. Could linking benefits to income of the beneficiary?
R. Yes, that will have to talk. It seems logical that the status and income are taken into account. But it is a topic for the future, because even today, unfortunately, the bulk of widows comes from people whose role was that of housewife. But that is not going to keep many years. These things must change.
P. The announcement of the pension reform corresponded to Salgado, the labor reform, Zapatero, and this week has been left out of the committee that will negotiate the economic pact with the opposition. Do you feel unauthorized these three issues that touch so closely?
R. Absolutely. The day I felt that way in this ministry would last two minutes. The Prime Minister came out with me [to explain the labor reform] because they agreed. That week was horrendous, with turmoil in the markets and public opinion, and it seems reasonable that the first thing to convey serenity in this context is who has the ultimate responsibility, the Prime Minister. Why I did not attend the previous meeting? Because I was in Barcelona chair the European Council of Ministers. If not, I would have given the press conference.
As the commission set up this week, I assure you it is the appropriate forum for labor issues, which are discussed in the dialogue, or to discuss the future of pensions, which is discussed in the Pact of Toledo.
P. In the labor reform, the Government proposes to extend the contract with 33-day layoff. Given that the only group excluded from this contract is that of men between 31 and 44, that means generalized.
R. We discuss in social dialogue. You have to work so that the timing yield in the interests of permanent contracts. It seems reasonable to discuss the contract for building the [33 days] and temporality.
P. The document proposes to limit the reasons for the dismissal and facilitate causes economic. How will you combine that?
R. In Spain there is a debate on the issue of cost of dismissal. But it is curious that when the dismissal may be due to objective reasons [to an indemnity of 20 days per year worked], 77% occurs through the unfair dismissal of 45 days after the deposit in court. What does the document? Is discussed whether the rule of dismissal for objective reasons can be improved or not.
P. But there is no concrete proposal of the Ministry?
R. Clearly intends to discuss and reach an agreement.
P. What the Ministry intends to save the rearrangement of the bonus?
R. Nothing. It is intended to rationalize. We have universalized and have lost interest. Bonuses are not limited in time and for a particular group does not serve the purpose they seek to encourage recruitment. We are throwing money. The idea is to abandon this model to go into a time-limited and collective.
P. Does not that mean less money?
R. No. It means concentrating resources in a collective. My opinion is that there are two groups for which the bonus must be maintained: women for domestic violence and disabled. But the group with which to do the maximum effort is the youth. For three years, not more. Now we have started dialogue and social partners have to say if they agree.
P. But that some spare.
R. No provision as well. But within three years the Labour Minister, I'm not going to be me, sure, will have to ask what to do when the time runs out.
P. Will there be talk of a reduction in social contributions, even temporarily?
R. In the table we can talk about everything under the headings listed [in the document.] But within them must be an open discussion. I do not know if any of the participants will put on the table. But if we speak of the need to extend the retirement age, it seems difficult that this action may be taken into account without further.
P. Do you intend to make a labor deal, even warm, the wear suffered with pensions?
R. In the long run, be recognized that the Government did not err in entering this debate. We can park it, but we will not be able to avoid.
P. However, labor reform itself has been a different attitude of the Government, a more open.
R. Yes, we were in a process. Is of great value to resume the dialogue. Citizens appreciate that as far as possible agree things. And the Government has a role thinking that it was necessary to sit down to discuss. That role was that goal, and I think he has.
P. How many more unemployed generate the labor market before there is an agreement?
R. We are in a final phase of economic adjustment and, therefore, at the end of the adjustment of unemployment. In the second half of the year things start to change.
P. But when will we see job creation?
R. In the second half of this year will have produced the final set of unemployment. The economy starts to grow then, but that does not mean that there is a strong job creation.
P. Why has it taken so long to admit that the Government needed a change working to resolve this situation?
R. There have been a false debate in Spain. A labor market reform will not create jobs.
P. And then why do it?
R. Is necessary. The crisis will not emerge until the people have confidence and have credit. The debate we have done the opposite. It takes faith and credit, but we agreed that when we leave, the economic model has to be different. The reform is necessary because the labor market to adapt to a new era in which things are necessarily different. -
Source: The country
0 comments:
Post a Comment