According to the online economy report, citing Tasnim, while the livelihood pressure on workers has reached one of the most severe levels in recent years, some new decisions in the field of wages and employment have created the concern that, under the pretext of economic conditions, the protective foundations of the labor law will gradually weaken; A path that, if not corrected, can lead to structural changes in the country’s labor rights system.
Samia Golpour, the head of the Supreme Center of Workers’ Trade Unions, has written a note about this:
In a situation where the livelihood pressure on the working community has reached its highest level in recent years, it is a natural expectation that the policymaker in the labor field will emphasize more than ever on the strict implementation of the labor law and maintaining minimum support. However, what can be seen in clauses 8 and 9 of the 1405 Wage Law is not strengthening the law but opening loopholes to bypass it; Loopholes that, if fixed, can lead to structural changes in the labor rights system.
The fact is that some decision-makers are taking advantage of the economic conditions and the so-called “war conditions” to make holes in the labor law. The two notes that have been added to the wage approval can in practice open the way for an agreed wage; That is, the same thing that the labor law intended to prevent by determining the minimum wage. The minimum wage in Article 41 of the Labor Law is a mandatory rule, and its philosophy is to prevent destructive competition over the reduction of labor wages. Any mechanism that makes it possible to pay less than this minimum is actually weakening the main pillar of the labor law protection system.
The concern becomes more serious when there are rumors about the elimination or reduction of the employer’s insurance premium share. If this path continues, the result could be the creation of a new pattern of employment in which lower wages, weaker insurance and more fragile job security are introduced as “employment policy”. In other words, a permanent change in the labor rights system is taking place; That too under the pretext of a temporary economic condition.
Meanwhile, in the experience of social policy, the solution to face the economic crisis is clear: the government should manage the cost of the crisis through support tools, not by transferring it to the labor force. Tools such as wage subsidies for workers, low-cost facilities for enterprises, targeted tax exemptions or active labor market policies are designed precisely for these conditions. But instead of using these tools, a simpler path has been chosen: reducing legal labor standards.
On the other hand, in the justification of some of these policies, concepts such as “public benefit work”, “public employment” or “supportive employment” are mentioned; While in social policy literature, these programs have a clear definition. Public employment is basically designed for people who have not had a job before and are among the poor and poor unemployed. In these schemes, by providing grants or financial support, the government asks these people to participate in public activities such as elderly care, social services or local affairs.
But what is taking shape now is something different. In this model, instead of being employed in public activities, labor is actually provided to contractors and other employers; That too with lower wage and insurance standards. In such a case, the plan that should be a tool of social protection becomes a mechanism to provide cheap labor for the market.
This is exactly the approach that some theorists call “profitable poverty alleviation”; That is, policies that are apparently designed with the aim of reducing poverty, but in practice lead to the creation of a new market of cheap labor. In such a model, poverty is neither eradicated nor reduced, but merely transformed into a new form of management and even a source of profit.
Meanwhile, a contradiction can be seen in policy making. On the one hand, at the level of discourse, there is talk of gathering contracting companies and eliminating labor mediation; But on the other hand, mechanisms are designed that reproduce the same mediation in a new format. If the labor force is to be provided to the contractors through support schemes or public employment, practically a new form of the same previous structure has been reconstructed; A structure that violates even the boundaries of the minimum wage and the floor of social support.
From a legal point of view, the matter is not so complicated. Article 41 of the Labor Law, the principles of the Constitution in the field of economic justice, as well as the fundamental rules of labor rights, all emphasize one principle: the labor force protection minimums cannot be reduced. This is why the serious question is raised now whether the recent policies in the field of wages and employment are compatible with the labor law or not.
In such a situation, it must be said clearly that the Ministry of Labor and the government are facing serious ambiguity in complying with the labor law. When the text of the law is clear, but resolutions are drawn up that allow it to be circumvented, the issue is no longer just an expert dispute; Rather, it is a matter of law enforcement.
Based on this, it is necessary to urgently review paragraphs 8 and 9 of the 1405 Wage Resolution and remove any mechanism that allows paying wages lower than the legal minimum approved by the Supreme Labor Council or weakening insurance coverage from the text of the resolution. Also, the Administrative Court of Justice should carefully examine this issue from the point of view of compliance with Article 41 of the Labor Law.
What is at stake today is not just a clause in the wage decree; The subject is the future of the labor force support system in Iran. If the minimum wage, insurance and job security are gradually weakened due to economic conditions, the result will be nothing but the spread of poverty and instability in the labor market.
And this is exactly the point where the policymaker has to decide: to comply with the labor law or continue on the path of disobeying it.
