The future of labor reform is in the air after the end of the term that the board gave to suspend the government


fiscal inspection board (JSF) has not filed an appeal before the judge Laura Taylor Swain To prevent the implementation of the provisions contained in Law 41-2022 which amends it labor reform Despite the fact that the period given to the government expired yesterday, on Thursday.

sylvette santiagoA spokesman for the fiscal unit highlighted, via written statements, that the agency was still “evaluating” a government communication sent out on Thursday night and that the board would express itself soon on its next steps.

For his part, the governor’s spokesman Peter Pierluisic, Sheila Engleroindicated that Once the board sought to quash the suit, the executive maintained the position of defending Law 41 in court., Angleró specified that, with reference to the expiration of the given period, Financial Advisory Authority and Financial Agency (aff) sent a letter to the Board, a copy of which at that time had not been made available to this medium.

Before the signing of Law 41 in June, the board warned Assembly and executive that the project that restored the share of workers’ rights abolished in the 2017 labor reform was inconsistent with the certified financial plan Because of its perceived impact on the economy and, consequently, on the revenue of the central government.

Facing the expected challenge of law, expert lawyer promise law, John Mudd recalled that the board has won all lawsuits where it has sought to repeal recently enacted state laws.Including Law 7 of Respectable Retirement, a year earlier.

“The judge (Laura Taylor Swain) has said, and the First Circuit (of appeals) has confirmed, that the board’s decisions about this sort of thing are like the decisions of a federal administrative agency. It’s up to the government to say That the decision of the Board is arbitrary and capricious. That’s where the problem comes in: Since it’s about a tax plan, the court lacks jurisdiction to challenge the tax plan. clearly say promise”, underlined the bankruptcy lawyer.

In that sense, Mudd said, the burden would be on the Peerlussi administration to demonstrate that the board is wrong in its approach regarding the non-compliance of Law 41 with financial planning. Even then, Pierlucci himself admitted that his government lacked studies or empirical analysis to support the premise that the law would promote economic growth. Or, at least, it won’t stop that development, to argue that JSF hasn’t proven otherwise.

“The same thing that Pearlucci said beats him. He says, ‘We didn’t show it, but the board doesn’t even have to’. But the fact that the board doesn’t have to do that, the decision has been made. “,” Mudd said, expressing that the only way for the government to get out of a potential lawsuit would be to present academic studies that would justify its position.

even for lawyers rolando imanelliHowever, the case would bring a series of novel elements to Promesa’s context, which, in his opinion, would give the government an opportunity to convince Judge Swain that his proposals are correct.

“Here we are dealing with a macroeconomic perspective as it is labor reform in the private sector. The parties shall establish through expert evidence that, in effect, the reform established by this law does or does not affect the economy. It is part of the contemporary debate about the economy, about how minimum wages or fringe benefits affect the economy,” Emmanuelli said, arguing that the “neoliberal” idea is to provide more benefits to the labor sector. ” has been rejected. harmful effect on the economy.

In its letter to the FAFAA on July 30, the board included an analysis by economist Robert Trieste, which concludes that the labor market characteristics in Puerto Rico make it “particularly vulnerable” as a result of “decreased employment in the formal economy”. “Makes. Law. Among other elements, Law 41 reduced the probationary period and the number of hours required to qualify for benefits such as Christmas bonusWhile increasing the accumulation of sick leave and holiday leave.

for the economist Jose Caraballo CutoEven then, Trieste’s analysis is far from the type of study needed to reach concrete conclusions.Since, for example, he attributes the increase in registered jobs over the past year and a half to the 2017 labor reform, without considering the impact of the influx of federal Reconstruction funds over that period.

“What the board is proposing requires much more analysis than what the board is proposing,” said Caraballo Cueto, noting that, so far, the debate between the fiscal body and the areas protecting Law 41 is more than “ideological” between those There is nothing more to protect a neoliberal economy and those who want to protect labor rights.

For Emmanuelli, although there is “space” for the government to state that the board’s position is “arbitrary and whimsical”, it would require a “willingness” to present a case based on scientific evidence.

“In light of past experience, I think it is not so. In many cases the government has raised its hands and in other cases the defense (of its signed laws) has been very poor. There must be a will which I have not yet Saw it,” said the lawyer.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here