Union and political objections to the “New Work” law in Egypt: strike and wages

The Egyptian Parliament continues to discuss the new labor bill and agree to most of its articles, amid wide societal objections to many of its items, especially strike materials, and reduce salaries and employment agencies. In the last plenary session of the Egyptian Parliament, 261 articles out of 297 of the new labor law submitted by the government, which regulates the conditions of approximately 30 million workers in private sector facilities, and the discussions are scheduled to complete in the next session. While his session on February 25, he agreed to 12 articles: “issuance materials” permanently.

Under the title “The Parliament of Whales Approved the reduction in the salaries of workers in the new labor law”, the Revolutionary Socialists Movement announced its refusal to continue the House of Representatives to discuss the new draft law, despite the extensive objections to it. In a statement, the movement objected to the government’s proposal to amendments to the allowance rate, which included “not applying the annual increase in the private sector at all”, on the pretext that “the percentage of the bonus by 3% of the insurance wage is better, because this wage is witnessing an annual increase for workers in the private sector, and that the National Wages Council can be seen later an increase in the minimum level of the bonus.”

The alliance of workers and unions’ secretariats, also criticized in a statement, these amendments, calling for linking the period of periodic allowance to inflation because the real value of the wage decreases day by day, within the phenomenon of erosion of wages. The coalition criticized the government’s proposal, which enables employers to “disavow the bonus” by adding a paragraph (and in the event that the facility is exposed to economic conditions, with which the periodic allowance referred to, the matter presents the matter to the National Council for Wages to decide to reduce or exempt it, within thirty days of presentation on it), which the coalition described as the government’s “bribery for businessmen.”

Also, the House of trade union and labor services criticized the approval of the House of Representatives on about 90% of the project articles provided by the government without major amendments, in the absence of extensive hearings with workers and business owners. And the house considered that “the strikes of the strike in the new law are incapable conditions that make the exploitation of this right difficult, if not impossible.” Article (231) of the new labor bill states that “workers have the right to strike to demand what they see as the investigator of their professional, economic and social interests, provided that the friendly settlement methods of disputes are exhausted first.”

Article (232) of the project also sparked a great controversy, stipulating “the necessity of notifying the employer and the competent administrative authority at least ten days before the date of the strike”, and the council rejected proposals to amend the text so that the notification is limited to the date of the start of the strike only, instead of its “appointments” as stated in the text; As the beginning and end of the strike must be determined through negotiation and not according to prior dates, which may lose the strike.

Wide criticism also has the table of Article (234), which prohibits the strike in vital installations that affect national security or provide basic services to citizens, without setting frames on how to identify these facilities, so that these vital facilities remain excluded from the strike.

Other extensive criticisms of the second paragraph of Article 43 of the new labor law, which allows employment companies to collect 1% of the worker’s wages in the first year as administrative expenses, criticism has focused that “the employer is the main beneficiary of employment and not the worker, and that setting a specific collection rate does not correspond to international standards, and is a violation of the agreements of the International Labor Organization.” But the government replied that “Egypt did not sign the International Labor Organization agreement, and that the current percentage (1%) is present in the current law.”