Our partner Jorge Arredondo spoke with Diario Financiero following the debate generated by the multilevel collective bargaining bill that was recently introduced in Congress.
The government’s multi-level collective bargaining bill has only been in Congress for a few days, but it has already received harsh criticism from the business community.
These questions are now being echoed by labor lawyers, most of whom have several criticisms of the proposed model, particularly the consequences of its implementation.
The bill, in general terms, seeks to implement a bargaining system that will be structured on three interrelated levels: sectoral (superior), intermediate (framework agreements), and company.
Sectoral-level negotiations will set a minimum standard of rights and benefits that is mandatory and non-waivable in matters of remuneration, benefits, obligations, among others.
At the intermediate level, conditions in specific contexts, such as value chains, large projects, or work sites, can be discussed, allowing for the coordination of reciprocal obligations between main companies and contractors in areas such as safety and training, which are currently occurring in our country. The company level has the function of adapting and improving the conditions established at the higher levels, never diminishing them.
A proposal that has generated intense debate.
“I think the timing of this bill is inappropriate. Although it stems from a promise made by this government, which committed to it with the CUT years ago, such an important matter cannot be discussed quickly, lightly, and when this government is on its last legs,” criticized Jorge Arredondo, partner and leader of the Albagli Zaliasnik Labor Group.
For Sebastián Wielandt, director of the judicial and labor area at MCP Abogados, the bill seeks to “impose on companies a sectoral bargaining regime that establishes minimum floors for each economic sector, including those companies that do not feel represented in the bargaining. This is very complex and can cause serious problems, as it does not take into account the particularities of each company.”
Cristobal Raby, partner at Prieto Abogados, offered a similar interpretation, questioning whether the bill would help resolve issues related to productivity and wages.
“Productivity issues should always be viewed at the company level in relation to the specific incentive plans regulated in each company,” he said.
For him, moreover, in terms of wages, it will be very difficult to agree on sectoral criteria, since, he explained, wages and market mobility depend not only on economic activity viewed in abstract terms, but also on the geographical area in which they develop. “For example, a supermarket in Arica cannot be compared to a supermarket in Temuco. In the long run, setting sectoral wages could tend to lower them with the aim of regulating productivity-related incentives at the company level,” said Raby.
This concern was shared by Arredondo, who added that “not all companies in the same industry have the same characteristics.”
Rodrigo Ugarte, a partner at Aninat Abogados, was more drastic, saying that the proposal is “radically” out of touch with historical reality and is based, he says, “on what, at this point, is a tradition of outgoing governments presenting bills in the last days of their term to formally fulfill their program.”
He also pointed out that the bill “is not the result of a prior, broad, and consensual agreement between the various actors in the labor world, as it is based solely on an agreement reached between the Executive Branch and the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT).”
