The strike, described as the first specific to the architecture sector, will mark the beginning of a campaign to “end” what the union considers a “recurring and structural practice in the profession.”
Data collected by SINTARQ shows that 80% of workers in the sector work overtime, 55% do so at night or outside stipulated hours, and only 4% report receiving the compensation prescribed by law.
The survey further indicates that 16% exceed the annual limit for overtime work, particularly in micro and small enterprises that predominate in the sector, where the legal maximum is 175 hours per year.
The union highlights in its statement that this scenario reveals a “reality of overload and lack of appropriate compensation” for workers.
The list of demands approved by the workers includes measures related to the right to rest, such as standardizing 25 days of vacation, reducing the weekly working hours to 35 without loss of pay, and ending unpaid overtime with the reinstatement of increases provided for in labor legislation.
SINTARQ’s planned strike will involve the refusal to perform overtime work that does not meet certain conditions, including full payment for extra hours with increases of 50% for the first hour, 75% for subsequent hours on weekdays, and 100% on rest days or holidays.
There is also a demand for respect for the minimum rest period of 11 hours between consecutive work periods.
SINTARQ advocates reducing the annual overtime limit to 100 hours and strictly adhering to daily limits of two hours on weekdays and eight hours on rest days.
Overtime “should only occur in exceptional situations of temporary workload increase, force majeure, or prevention of serious damage to the company,” it adds.
The demands also include revoking individual and group work time flexibility arrangements, as well as other flexibility schemes, which the union claims have contributed to “normalizing excessive work” in the sector.
On November 25, SINTARQ had announced its participation in the general strike on Thursday against the labor package proposed by the Government, arguing it means “less protection and more instability for those who work.”
