[ad_1]
In theory, the same 1,094 million Portuguese workers who, during the closure that began in March, were teleworking should have returned to remote work when the Government decreed the state of emergency, which reimposed the regime as mandatory in the municipalities of high risk. contagion, and as advisable in others. However, that was not the case. And that is why António Costa announced this Saturday that he would increase the inspection of companies. But the conclusion is different: why is the country resisting teleworking? Are they companies or workers? Both, but for different reasons.
In the first phase of the pandemic, total confinement and teleworking were the government’s most powerful weapon to stop the spread of infections. On the one hand, it made it possible to eliminate the risk factor associated with the daily displacement of thousands of workers to the office during peak hours, also removing them from companies and from close contact with colleagues; on the other, it allowed the economy to continue operating in some sectors.
Between the end of the first quarter of this year and the beginning of the second, 1,094 million professionals were telecommuting. A number that deflation started in June decreased, but not significantly. Only 412.2 thousand Portuguese returned to the office and face-to-face work at the end of the third quarter of the year, complying with the new lag regulations. 681.9 thousand of the more than one million who had been in remote work during the confinement remained at home, reveal the latest indicators made available by the National Institute of Statistics.
There is no updated data on the number of workers who will now be telecommuting in this second phase of the pandemic. But for António Costa they are not enough.
When yesterday announced the new measures to be implemented in the country as part of the extension of the state of emergency, the prime minister stressed that companies were not complying with the mandatory rule of teleworking. There is, he said, a “significant noncompliance” where this work is possible. And in fact, just when he announced the return to compulsory teleworking, António Costa made it clear that in situations where it was possible in the past, companies would now have great difficulty proving otherwise. “Where teleworking is compulsory, it will really be respected,” said the prime minister, noting that the government has already instructed the Working Conditions Authority (ACT) to strengthen inspections and ensure compliance with this obligation.
Problem that was anticipated
But, in fact, this default of the companies was already expected. When, at the beginning of the month, the Minister of Economy, Pedro Siza Vieira, expressed to the employers and unions his intention to recover teleworking as mandatory, neither one nor the other applauded the idea.
On the employers’ side, João Vieira Lopes, president of the Portuguese Confederation of Commerce and Services (CCP), highlighted the economic impacts that generalized teleworking would have on the economy and commerce. Despite considering that “teleworking has obvious virtues to contain contagion,” he emphasized that “it is equivalent to the confinement that the Government says it wants to avoid”, due to the impacts it will have on the economic recovery. The CCP also clarified this position in an opinion sent to the Government where it stressed that “the indiscriminate confinement of the working population, even if it is limited to certain municipalities, is a blind measure that lacks due to lack of criteria.”
On the part of the unions, the arguments against a new compulsory teleworking were mainly related to the legal fragility of its framework and the various abuses that were reported during the first confinement. At that time, issues such as abuses regarding the privacy of workers, payment of allowances and others, failure to comply with breaks and work schedules or even the breach of the company’s duty to reimburse electricity, communication and consumables of professionals Teleworkers exposed weaknesses in the legislation that labor law specialists recognize no longer adapt to current challenges.
The Government has now sought to clarify these issues, but the decree-law regulating the new mandatory teleworking has created new gray areas that are difficult to overcome.
The workers also resist
For different reasons, after the experience of teleworking in March and April, many workers do not want to repeat the experience, at least permanently. “The way in which the pandemic imposed remote work made many professionals realize that, after all, it is not so simple,” admits psychologist Teresa Espassandim. “There are many professionals who live alone and for whom contact with colleagues in the office is almost the only form of socialization,” recalls the psychologist, recalling that, for these workers, telework reinforces the feeling of isolation and increases risks . for mental health.
In addition to these issues, there are others that exclude telework professionals exclusively. Recent research has emphasized the emotional impacts of workers’ excessive isolation, loss of creativity derived from less interaction between peers, slower decision-making processes and even possible discrimination against teleworkers in situations of career progression or equal pay.
That is why more and more professionals are unfavorable to the return to total teleworking and will favor a mixed regime, which will allow them to work part of the week at home and another at the office, in a model similar to mirror work, also adopted by Government.
Currently there are 127 municipalities covered by compulsory telework, “regardless of the employment relationship, provided that the functions in question allow it and the worker has the conditions to perform them, without the need for a written agreement between the employer and the worker” .
Only activities where teleworking is not compatible are exempt from complying with this determination or workers who demonstrate that they cannot telework. In any case, companies and workers must communicate their intention or objection in writing.
That is, the company will have to inform the worker if they will go to telework or the reasons why they will not, and they may request the intervention of ACT to monitor the company’s argument if it prevents them from teleworking and that is their will. If, on the contrary, the employer places a professional in teleworking and he cannot do it under this regime, he must inform the company in writing and justify his reasons.
A protocol that the lawyer Rita García Pereira says the companies have complied with. Recognizing that the number of professionals who work in teleworking may be less than desired, the lawyer emphasizes that “companies have notified workers of their decision to work in person or remotely” and recalls that, to determine non-compliance, “I need professionals to request the intervention of ACT. ”And it is also necessary to realize how many workers who have been teleworking in the first phase of the pandemic will have stated that companies will not be able to do it again in this second phase. The law approved by the government also gives them that power.
