The Economic and Social Council criticizes the Government for not defining assist to SMEs within the scholarship holder’s statute | Economy | EUROtoday

The standing of the scholarship holder is one step nearer to going through the scrutiny of the Congress of Deputies. The Economic and Social Council (CES) accepted this Friday the opinion on this draft regulation, which seeks to compensate college students’ bills and restrict extracurricular practices (those who focus essentially the most precariousness), a vital preliminary step for the textual content to return to the Council of Ministers for the second time.

The opinion barely goes into assessing the substance of the challenge. It is ambiguous sufficient to have been accepted by 47 votes in favor and one towards (the Galician union CIG) in a company with extra employer representatives than union representatives, when CEOE and Cepyme reject this regulation. Yes, it’s particular when criticizing that the Government has barely quantified the financial affect of the challenge and that it doesn’t ponder a help community for SMEs.

“The CES positively values ​​the presentation of a regulatory initiative for non-work practical training in a legal standard. […] to establish the legal regime of guarantees, rights and obligations of the parties,” indicates the opinion. That is, the organization applauds that the Government tries to organize the practices, but does not go into assessing the convenience of the content. Hence, this section of the opinion ends with the following reflection: “The organizations represented in the CES have not reached a consensus about the object, the scope of application and the sanctioning regime established by the draft law submitted for opinion.”

The text was agreed upon by the unions and the Ministry of Labor in June 2023, but the rejection of employers, university rectors and, above all, the socialist part of the Government (which initially said that the project was “green” and that it lacked “technical work”) has delayed the deadlines for this regulation. It did not reach the Council of Ministers until November 4 of last year, two and a half years after its presentation to society. The project has very few chances of succeeding in Congress.

After learning of the ruling, Labor tells this newspaper that it is analyzing it and interprets that the CES “positively values ​​the initiative to establish a legal regulation that puts an end to the current dispersion of standards and that it considers that the non-labor practical training that is the subject of the standard is a strategic lever for employment.” The UGT union believes that the CES “recognizes the status of the intern as a way to put an end to precariousness and fraud in internships.”

Economic criticism

Business opposition, as already happened with the reduction of working hours, greatly complicated the possibility of this CES opinion being favorable to this regulation. In the economic field, the opinion is particularly critical: “The CES misses strong estimates on some information, primary to find out the viability and the macroeconomic affect of the provisions of the preliminary challenge.”

The organization says that “you will need to estimate each the amount and periodic movement of people that will take the non-labor internships regulated right here in addition to the variety of firms essential to serve them”, figures that it misses. It goes further by pointing out that the project’s regulatory impact analysis report (MAIN) has “shortcomings and insufficiencies.” […] especially in its economic and organizational aspect.”

Despite these problems, the CES believes that “the reinforcement of coaching planning and monitoring will enhance the standard of the system”, but at the same time qualifies: “It essentially entails important administrative complexity, because of the have to conclude detailed formal agreements between coaching facilities and firms.” The CES believes that “in SMEs these prices and burdens can’t all the time be absorbed simply, particularly in low-margin sectors or in territories with decrease enterprise density.”

“This requires,” in the opinion of the CES, “to reinforce and clarify, already in the law, that aid and compensation will be sufficient, stable and easily accessible, preventing them from being conditioned by an excessive administrative burden and greater complexity in management.” The organization also recommends “minimizing the reluctance of small companies to take part within the system, the event of simplified fashions, widespread instruments and homogeneous procedures, coordinated on the regional stage.”

The CES insists on these ideas by stating that “there are parts that, though socially justified, have a transparent financial affect, from the minimal compensation to individuals in coaching for the bills linked to finishing up the internships to the prices derived from the efficient tutoring time and that the MAIN additionally doesn’t worth.”

The lack of consensus between unions and employers is also palpable in the section dedicated to the tutoring of internships. “In relation to the ratios and limits established within the regulatory draft submitted for opinion, the enterprise organizations that make up the CES think about it essential to introduce parts of commencement within the ratios of individuals in coaching and per tutor,” the companies indicate, and then point out: “The union organizations which can be a part of the CES, for his or her half, perceive that the boundaries established in mentioned draft represent nuclear parts to ensure the standard of sensible coaching in work environments.”