In a previous article I exposed my interests on some of the basic aspects of the recent labour reform, fundamentally the perpetuation in the heart of companies of workers with distinct degree of protection (the ones hired before and after the reform) and between new companies and old companies (the created from now, with all the subject staff to the new normative, and the others, with the greater part of workers hired with the previous norm).

But there is a third duality that seems to me still more worrisome. It is the extraordinarily advantageous treatment that go to have the companies in losses or with prolonged decrease of income to tackle his adjust, in front of those in that no concurran said supposed but that they can have equally need to do adjust in his staff.

Results extremely arbitrary that a mere countable result, subject by the way to interpretations very diverse, can determine the global cost of a business restructuring. It does not have any sense that the alone fact that the account of exploitation of a company reflect the loss of a euro during the last quarters, allow to realise dismissals to a minimum cost and if this same account of exploitation offers a minimum profit can arrive to cost him to the company two or thrice more. It is not logical to give advantages to some companies in front of others attending exclusively to the contextual situation of his accounts of exploitation. It is not logical and breaks with the principle of free competition.

On the other hand, this reform seems thought to resolve the problems of the big company but, as almost always, anybody has thought in the casuística concrete of the SME and, especially, of the microempresa. It is known that the companies of small and average dimension are not forced to subject to external auditss. Many of them carry his accounting through gestorías and, some, not even carry accounting. This interpretation of the causes of objective dismissal by economic reasons, based only in the income or in the profits, can carry to that some employers pose like aim achieve countable losses with the only purpose to be able to sack cheaper. And this is not at all difficult.

The result of all this is, again, the predictable judicialización of the labour relations and the indefinición and inhygiene that this goes to create so much between the workers as between the employers. It is not, in this appearance, a good reform.

In my opinion had been clearer, less arbitrary, more effective and juster delete the distinction between pertinent dismissal and improcedente, always subject to subjective interpretations, and fix an only compensation for all the dismissals (the one of 33 days by year worked and until 24 mensualidades seems me reasonable), valid in all the suppositions and for all the workers, so much for the new agreements as for the ancient. And keep the administrative permission in the files of collective regulation, susceptible of compensation lower, to avoid abuses.

This decision had deleted all discrimination in terms of protection in front of the dismissal between some workers and others inside the company, had avoided the distinct conditions of competition between the companies of new creation in front of the ancient and had saved us all this dislate of the income menguantes and of the accounts of negative exploitation. And besides, very few cases would have arrived to the cuttings. I save for the lawyers laboralistas, had been much better for all.