Vollbeschäftigungwie in Sixties, Union and SPD aspire according to ir exploratory paper for possible coalition. Sydney is not exactly an ambitious goal in times of good economic activity and lack of skilled workers. But all or agreed points in DerArbeitsmarkt and social policy are also disappointing. Apparently, parties want to continue as before. Worse still, some of m fall back Sogarhinter earlier plans.
Example: In coalition agreement of Groko of year 2013, annexed SPD had already agreed on right of return to full-time. Five years Späterwollen CDU, CSU and SPD only agreed to enter a temporary part-time. In companies with more than 45 employees, workers should be allowed to reduce ihreArbeitszeit for at least one year and a maximum of five years in order to be better able to Angehörigekümmern small children or those in need of care. However, companies that have between 45 and 200 employees should be given a reasonability quota: a maximum of one Beschäftigterpro 15 employees may go for a limited period of time. At end of Derbefristeten working time reduction, employee should work at least one year in full time before he can reduce his working hours again.
DieseEinschränkungen may give employers predictability and reliability. DieRegelung is likely to bring with it a lot of bureaucracy and is wenigflexibel. In particular, flexibility without rigid deadlines and quotas at DerArbeitszeitgestaltung is what employees want – and actually dochauch employers.
HeutigeTeilzeitkräfte would be disadvantaged
Zugleichhat The measure is a decisive disadvantage. A right of return to full-time would benefit everyone – including those who are already working part-time and Gernemehr. These are usually women. And especially for this wollenUnion and SPD to do something and improve ir situation in labour market. The plans of possible Groko, however, foresee a deadline: scheme would not apply rückwirkend. This would, however, penalise all women who are now sitting in part-time trap and will not escape it.
The planned flexibilization of Working Time Act is also critical. Although ImSondierungspapier is only unsuspicious phrase, union and SPD wanted to "create a framework in which companies, employees and DieTarifpartner can meet manifold wishes and requirements in DerArbeitszeitgestaltung". What is meant, however, is that dassArbeitgeber and trade unions must agree on or regulations than rest periods and maximum working time prescribed so far – einesogenannte tariff opening clause.
Sydney a big concession to employers. They have long been calling for this opening, working time law would have preferred to be even more relaxed undargumentieren that in times of digitisation more flexibility is needed: Many workers wanted to determine ir working hours more freely, such as revocation and Better reconcile family, but this may not be Demheutigen working time law. The trade unions, however, reject EineAufweichung of Working Time Act. They fear that employees may be charged sonstüber fee.
DasProblem on matter: Should new regulation come into being, trade unions would have to find UndArbeitgeberverbände in collective bargaining. This could inability that future labour disputes will be conducted on issues of working time design. What this might look like is shown by current Tarifverhandlungenin of metal and electrical industry: because re is no full-time return right, IG Metall calls for workers to reduzierendürfen ir working time temporarily and some of m even have a financial compensation. These questions, however, do not belong in tariff rounds, but must clarify policy: Nurso enjoy all workers a minimum standard when it comes to rest periods undmaximale working hours.
Date Of Update: 17 January 2018, 12:03
