On September 10, the bill to reduce the maximum length of the ordinary working day was rejected in the Congress of Deputies.
In strictly political terms, and I will be brief on this point, the rejection was due to the votes of the PP, Vox, Juntos, and UPN. This rejection represents a setback for the government, which had been fixated, I would say almost obsessed, on reducing working hours, given that it has long been its flagship project.
Whether they have a star or not, it makes no difference, and leaving aside the political issue, the measure sought to reduce working hours without any reduction in wages (this is important), trying to bring the conditions of the private sector closer to those of public officials, two diametrically opposed worlds.
While the measure will almost certainly have been a cold shower for workers, given the expectations that had been generated, the fact is that the maximum working day in Spain has not changed since 1983, 42 years ago. I'm not referring to the maximum working day established in collective bargaining agreements, but rather the general one established by our Workers' Statute.
Should the working day be reduced? Well, I don't know. I lack the macroeconomic knowledge that could give us more scientific answers.
Without that knowledge, and if basic math serves me right, that reduction, just at the salary level, represents a 6,25% increase in wages, and it will likely be more, since the percentage of 2,5 hours compared to the current 40 cannot be applied solely, as that reduction would certainly mean more hiring or more overtime. But without going into detail, it's a 6,25% "just for the money," with nothing in return.
I still maintain that, in terms of productivity indices, at the European level, we're not the best. It's comforting to know that Malta, Cyprus, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Portugal, Poland, Latvia, Greece, and Bulgaria are below us. To use a football analogy, we're not in the Champions League, but in the middle of the table, although staring down the barrel at relegation.
Now, regardless of whether or not working hours should be reduced, my opinion as a labor lawyer is that it cannot be done with the trumpet.
The intended widespread imposition is clearly a public intervention in an area where the true protagonist must necessarily be collective bargaining, which for so many years has always ended up being understood, with greater or lesser difficulty, and with the discrepancies specific to each of the social partners.
The rejected bill, presented as a maximum measure, abrupt, without transition, without a clear economic basis, as a one-size-fits-all, has met with outright opposition from the employers' association from the outset.
The natural space to negotiate a possible reduction in working hours, as I have anticipated, is collective bargaining, in accordance with parameters of productivity and work organization, primarily by sectors of activity or even within the companies themselves, given the diversity of sectors that may exist, each of them with its own special circumstances.
And since collective bargaining is where this important aspect of maximum working hours must be addressed, we must say, so that no one sells us a sham, that currently, in our country, the average maximum working day is now 38,2 hours per week on an annual average. This reinforces the fact that, having achieved this through collective bargaining over the years, this must continue to be the natural path forward.
I would like to conclude by reflecting that, given the rejection of the bill, and considering that it is appropriate for the issue to be addressed in collective bargaining, I am very afraid that it will continue to be a flagship issue for our politicians. Therefore, "Reduction of working hours: not for the moment, although you never know."
Santiago Blanes Mompó
Partner of the labor department
