|
|
On was presented in the Plenary of the Chamber of Deputies, being submitted under the urgency regime. The proposal: imposition of leave for pregnant employees "due to the state of public calamity recognized by Legislative Decree nº , of " [] . On that date, it had been just over five months since the Ministry of Health, through Ordinance , of had declared a Public Health Emergency of National Importance (Espin) due to the infection that came to be called of Covid- The justification presented in the legislative proposal was to "protect pregnant women in a broader and more effective way" , since the Ministry of Health had observed "high rates of complications, including mortality, in women in the pregne wording of which reads as follows: "Article During the public health emergency of national importance resulting from the new coronavirus, pregnant employees must remain away from in-person work activities, without prejudice to their remuneration. Single paragraph. The employee on leave under the terms of the caput of this article will be available to carry out activities at home, through teleworking, remote work or another form of distance work. Article This law comes into force on the date of its publication."
Despite the commendable Greece Phone Number attempt to keep pregnant employees safe from the risk of contracting Covid-, the law, in fact, suffers from two serious problems whose consequences are a risk to the policy of inserting women into the job market. The first defect, perhaps the most obvious, is that the law mistakenly assumes that all work activities performed by pregnant women can be carried out remotely. According to the law, upon confirmation of the employee's pregnancy status, she must be removed from face-to-face activities and begin performing her duties at home. However, it is clear that there are numerous activities that are incompatible with remote work, which are only viable in person. This is the case of salespeople, supermarket restockers, bank tellers, receptionists, domestic workers, etc. How will these professionals be able to carry out their work activities from the safety of their homes? Obviously, in the overwhelming majority of cases, this will be impossible. Even so, the pregnant employee must be removed from her face-to-face activities, "without prejudice to her remuneration" , as expressly determined by law. Hence the second problem with the law.
Pregnant employees, even without being able to carry out their activities remotely, must have their remuneration paid in full by the employer. In practice, due to the aforementioned law, pregnancy during the pandemic, in cases where it is unfeasible to carry out activities remotely, has become a case of interruption of the employment contract , since the pregnant employee will not provide her services to the employer , but you will continue to be entitled to your remuneration. Contrary to what happened with Provisional Measure , converted into Law which implemented measures to maintain employment Law in an extremely delicate moment experienced by the national economy, created another charge to be borne exclusively by the employer. In doing so, under the pretext of protecting the health of pregnant employees and the unborn child, the law created, in practice, a disincentive to hiring women of childbearing age during the pandemic, going against the direction of realizing their social rights. The bill should have been the subject of deeper reflection, in order to provide a solution for such cases or, at least, compensation or relief for the employer, such as, for example, the suspension of FGTS payments for the employee on leave, the reduction in the rate of taxes levied on payroll, etc.
|
|
發表於 16:56:27