Go ahead, I consider it a success, not insignificant, the one achieved by the Second Vice President when approving in Congress a reform that has the backing of unions and businessmen, although it has been achieved with a truly surprising hubbub of support and opposition. But, given the deep-rooted Cainite tradition of this country, it is quite an achievement. From there his position has several flaws. In her presentation, Mrs. Díaz did not spare insults, contempt and disqualifications of the current legislation. He said it was disastrous and so aggressive that it took away the dignity of the workers. In short, a failed model. But, if all this is true, how do you explain that, dishonoring your repeated promises of repeal, you present a reform that retouches only 10% of the previous catastrophe? Then he was ‘adanist’ and attributed the reduction in unemployment to his reform.
Let’s see, the aforementioned 13% was achieved in December, when the new law was not in force and its approval was not even guaranteed. It is true that temporary employment has decreased in January and that is good, but it is also true that unemployment has increased. So if the employment situation has improved, it is not due to his merits, but to the previous ones, whom he now denigrates so easily.
He said more surprising and unfair things, such as that in the first year of the PP reform a million jobs were destroyed, forgetting the trend of destruction that was carried over from the Zapatero era and the fact that it created three million jobs work once that inertia is overcome. Ecstasy overtook him when he discovered, as his own and original identity trait, that his parents were workers. What do you think were the parents of the rest of the Spaniards? Do you think that all of them were idle landowners or apathetic rentiers? He also said that social protection (the ERTES that come from the PP reform) was responsible for the reduction in unemployment. Well no. Social protection has guaranteed income, which has contributed to maintaining activity, but by itself has not provided a single job, at least outside those that it has created in the public services that it directs.
Going to the substance, what can we expect from the reform? Without a doubt, its success will have to be judged according to how the reduction in temporary employment evolves, and its failure will come if it fails to reduce those more than three million people who fill the unemployment lists. The rest, the cost of dismissal, pick-ups, flexibility, etc., remain the same. In good time.