The debate of the reduction of day has once again removed those demons that always accompany economic recipe measures, distribution of wealth or social improvements for the majority. It is a very primary principle that is always associated with the principle of private property, where any option to regulate the penguins that someone from your heritage obtains is an incalculable risk that cannot be assumed.
I am convinced that an important part of society can empathize with this liberal approach. In fact, it is; If not, the democratic support that some ideological options represent these interests would not be understood. But it is advisable to insist on those explanations that clarify and contradict these basic principles of economic liberalism, because reality is a more complex tad and, above all, it houses a greater interrelation between those with the productive heritage and those that we work to transform it into a business, via which the benefit is generated. It is therefore the first nuance: if the heritage is not transformed into business through the intermediation of work, there is no possible benefit.
The more they work, the more likely to improve the margins of heritage in the business, and, therefore, the more likely to improve the benefits. If for this work little is paid and it is achieved for long working days, as the benefits improve. Is that fair? Here is the quid of the matter, the confrontation in the debate.
That is why we can assert that working people want to win more and work less as a social and economic justice exercise against the benefits of companies. Simple approach, it seems.
And curiously, when we reach an agreement to reduce the working day, the old demons of the carpets state that what people want is not to work less, but to earn more money. But on the other hand, in a little coherent way, when the SMI is uploaded for the people who earn less, they refuse to agree, which is a deep contradiction with their approaches contrary to the reduction of day.
Anyone who can look at all this with a little distance may think that they are opportunistic arguments that are used at all times to better defend their interests. Yes, I am a little closer to the debate, I fully agree: they are opportunistic arguments to oppose a distribution of the benefits more just through a regulated measure, which limits them the full disposition of their heritage to do with him what suits them, generates social inequalities or not. Their benefits must be distributed as best, not as a regulatory framework, decides!
When you remember reducing the working day the old demons propose that people really do not want to work less, but to earn more money. But when the SMI is uploaded they refuse to agree. It is little consistent
Why do we look at what decides the regulatory framework that benefits them and who does not put any paste?
It is a framework of aid and subsidies for investments, hiring, bonuses in social security contributions, fiscal measures to bonate some business activities, etc … which also includes physical and digital infrastructure built and maintained by the State without which they could not develop their economic activity. For all this they do not seem to have so much detachment of public regulation, that seems that it does not question the principles of private property. But of course, they will say that with their taxes these infrastructure and aid and subsidies are paid. Yes, of course, but they are also paid by working people, and with a load much greater than them. The income of the work on GDP is tendentially below 50%, and instead the weight of our contribution to public coffers exceeds 70% of the whole taxes. We could say that also with our taxes the working people we finance more than they are “economic opportunities” that come from public regulation.
This country needs to incorporate rigor into the public debate and do justice to the successes we have achieved in recent years, still insufficient, very important, very important.
The energy transition and digitalization has begun to transform the productive model of our country, and have increased the average size of the company, which has gone from 6.4 to 6.9 average workers in the SME, and increased the number of companies in total. The labor market shows recorded hiring figures with 21.8 million employed people, the Spanish economy has grown at a rate of 3.2% of GDP in 2024 while the euro zone did it at 0.7% and real productivity has grown 6% on average in 99% of Spanish companies.
The competitive factor of a cheaper renewable energy than that of our geographical environment is meaning an increase in investment in material assets, which have gone from 26.3 billion in 2018 to 30.8 billion in 2022, a growth of 8.5%.
In this cycle the improvement of labor rights has raised a paradigmatic change in labor relations. The duality in the hiring has been contracted, thus correcting one of the factors that weighed our economic model and dragged it to the competition for the low salary costs. The labor reform has made the contract indefinite the ordinary contract in our country. The hiring that has been created has been developed above 70%, in professions of greater added value, improving the qualification of work. Salary inequalities, between deciles of rent and between gender, have been reduced, thanks to the important increases of the SMI. These working conditions have promoted a new niche of creation of more added companies and that partially balances the strong growth of the services sector, dragged by a sector such as tourism of a strong implementation in our economic model.
The configuration of the society must be moved in other coordinates, where the Triad of Time 8-8-8 only serves a work society without women in production devices
It is not incompatible to improve the exploitation of heritage, private property, with the regulation of benefits. On the contrary. It has been demonstrated in recent years that labor improvements carry greater business benefits.
Therefore, now it’s time to keep winning more, yes, and working less. It is not necessary to choose how some pose. Winning more, reinforcing the negotiation frameworks of collective agreements. Moving the greatest business margins in salary increases that improve the level of income of the majority and that reverse in an increase in productivity.
And it’s time to work less, too. Today the society of the 21st century is made up of patterns different from that of the twentieth century. Today the family models are more diverse, the demographic reality of our country is changing its physiognomy, ages and incorporates more foreign people into its radiography. Women are fully incorporated into productive and paid work, but instead men are not at reproductive work, care. Women dedicate 3 hours more a day to reproductive work than men.
The configuration of the society must be moved in other coordinates, where the Triad of Time 8-8-8 only serves a work society without women in production devices. Today the management and distribution of times must incorporate this demographic reality and requires free time to dedicate it to care, personal development, social coexistence, political commitment, access to culture and leisure.
It is essential to release time from the working day to guarantee sufficient time to other vital priorities. That is why we want to work less and this is the logic of the reduction of day to 37.5 hours per week.
That is why we defend this measure and call the mobilization to society with the unionists at the forefront. To form a social tide that avoids that no party is confused with the priorities of society, of the majority, of the working class, when voting the processing of law to take the statute of workers the maximum legal day in Spain of 37.5 hours per week.
#people #win #work
