The CES recognises the “importance” of reducing working hours, but believes that the Government does not justify the law properly

The Economic and Social Council (CES), the Government's advisory body on socio-economic and labour matters, has made an ambiguous assessment of the draft law to reduce the working day from 40 to 37 and a half hours. On the one hand, it recognises the "importance of making progress in reducing the working day", but on the other, it criticises the Government for an economic justification that is "insufficiently well-founded", according to the report prepared by the CES, to which EL PAÍS has had access and which will be voted on in the plenary session on Wednesday. It is expected to be approved unanimously, as is usual in this type of meeting. The CES is made up of 60 members : 20 employers' advisers, 20 trade unions and another 20 from different areas (six proposed by the Government, three from agricultural associations, another three from fishing groups, four from the social economy...). The president, who signs the report, is Antón Costas.

The CES says it recognises “the social, economic and business relevance” of the reduction of working hours and considers it “fundamental to continue adapting working conditions to social, economic and technological changes, guaranteeing at all times a balance between the rights of workers and the organisational and productive needs of the business sector”. Along the same lines, it underlines the “importance of making progress in the reduction of working hours”. At the same time, it points out that “significant differences persist between the organisations represented in this consultative body regarding the regulatory instrument to achieve these objectives”. The employers’ associations have been insisting for months that this reduction should be achieved through collective bargaining, agreement by agreement, while the unions and Labour stress the convenience of a legislative change.

Likewise, the CES is dealing with the entry into force of the regulation, which under the criteria of Labour cannot be delayed beyond 31 December 2025. “In the opinion of the CES, it is advisable to provide the Preliminary Draft with a more flexible framework that allows effective compliance with the regulation,” adds the CES, in an approach similar to that defended by the Ministry of Economy before the approval of the regulation in the Council of Ministers. “It would be necessary to contemplate a sufficient transitional regime that would allow areas without a collective agreement in force to adapt the organisational systems of companies and, in cases where there is an applicable agreement, a period also sufficient to make the adaptation effective through collective bargaining,” adds the CES. The preliminary draft needs the endorsement of Congress to enter into force, with the vote of Junts as the main unknown .

The advisory body addresses the registration of working hours, which, if the draft law is complied with , must be digital and interoperable so that the Inspection can review it. “This matter should be regulated in such a way as to guarantee its coherence and compatibility with the requirements imposed by the Organic Law on the protection of personal data and the European General Data Protection Regulation,” specifies the CES. The body believes that the registration of working hours must take into account “the differential productive reality, among others, of the agricultural and fishing sectors, where the application of digital means for the registration of working hours can be especially complicated.” At the same time, it says that it is positive “because it is clarifying” that all the regulation of the registration of working hours is consolidated in a single article, with the proposed draft.

Economic justification

The CES is highly critical of the economic justification for the reform: “It is based on an analysis of the expected economic impacts that is insufficiently substantiated and incomplete.” The CES believes that, given the “economic significance” of the reduction in working time, “in the opinion of this Council, it would have required an in-depth study to determine, with the utmost rigor, first of all, the foreseeable short-term economic and redistributive effects of the measure, both from a macroeconomic point of view and specifically in the different sectors, branches of activity and companies affected by the reform, given the heterogeneity of the Spanish business fabric.”

“The initiative,” the CES continues, “should also provide a more well-founded analysis of the scope of the indirect or medium-term economic impacts expected from the reduction of the maximum legal working day, and which are practically assumed in the MAIN (Regulatory Impact Analysis Report). These are complex economic issues of great importance, subject to theoretical controversy and difficult to measure, which would have required a more consistent and complete economic impact report, also including the economic effects of the new system for recording working hours and the new regulation of the right to disconnect, about which nothing is said.” It also misses a better “legal” and “sociological” basis in the explanatory statement of the norm.

On the other hand, the CES criticises the fact that it is not given more time to analyse the norm better, as it usually does in the case of any urgent consultation: “It would have been desirable for the processing of this draft bill, prior to its arrival at the Cortes, to have been sent to the CES within the ordinary period, which would have allowed for a longer and sufficient period to address its content, without undermining or limiting its consultative function.” And it vindicates its role: “Far from meaning the mere completion of a consultation procedure, it must continue to provide effective value to the same.”