The pleistocene regulation of teleworking in some collective agreements

soyeb19

On the other hand, regarding the amount of expenses, the agreements that have regulated this issue , which are many, contain tremendously disparate ranges and regulations. One of the most recent, and also a highly anticipated agreement, is the XVIII Collective Agreement for consulting, information technologies and market and public opinion studies, regulating a ridiculous amount of 17 gross euros per month, which contrasts with the 55 euros/monthly of the XXIV Collective Agreement of the banking sector.

And I say “laughable” because although the ranges are very different, it is one of the lowest that has been set by the collective agreements we have to date (most are in the range of 25-35 euros/month).

And to this is added the strange idea in some collective agreements Whatsapp Database of setting the amount of compensation for expenses in a daily amount (for example, the XX National Collective Agreement of engineering companies and technical studies offices; which sets the amount of 1 euro for each day of effective remote work carried out by the worker), which complicates bureaucracy and payroll calculations.

And although there are those who believe that the issue of expenses has been one of the biggest obstacles to not promoting teleworking, in my opinion it is that, although it is true that it may be another reason, I do not consider it (especially given the low amount of the compensation amounts that are established in the vast majority of agreements) as the main brake on teleworking.

To top things off, a year ago the Collective Agreement for the Madrid office sector was published in the BOCM . It is, in my opinion, the greatest absurdity of teleworking regulation to date, setting a mandatory minimum percentage of monthly presence in the workplace of 40% , except in the summer period.

Precisely, one of the most serious problems in Spain is presenteeism. The only thing that the Spaniards were missing is having collective agreements that encourage this presenteeism. Not to mention that given the regulation of the agreement, if in the selection process your best candidate is from Navarra (for example), with the agreement in hand, if that person is hired he or she has to move to Madrid or be traveling permanently. to meet that percentage of monthly presence in the workplace.

Two years after the Law, and the end of the pandemic having been officially decreed (Order SND/726/2023, of July 4, which also banishes any possibility, if there really was one, of continuing to “stretch” the so-called “ teleworking due to Covid” as some companies were still doing), it would be more than necessary to consider whether we have the appropriate labor framework for teleworking.

And of course it would be desirable to do so from a multidisciplinary perspective: labor, strategic management of people, prevention of occupational risks (a thorny issue and about which we are already seeing rulings in the social courts on the issue of accidents in teleworking). , data protection, etc.

The teleworking data in Spain is there and the return to face-to-face is a reality in many companies. And after teleworking due to Covid, the data in the coming months will most likely show even lower teleworking figures. And, to this, another reality is added: we put out a “red carpet” for knowmads (Startup Law) while “national” teleworking collapses.

It is essential to rethink an appropriate work framework for teleworking and, above all, emphasize that a well-implemented model of teleworking, with the appropriate means and resources, linked to a management system by objectives and from the conception that teleworking should be seen neither more nor less than what it is: a natural way of working in 21st century organizations that is beneficial not only for companies and working people, also in terms of productivity and competitiveness, and as one more lever to try to end the Spanish scourge of the “chair culture”.