In the parliamentary debate between Paulo Raimundo and Luís Montenegro, the government’s draft revision of the Labor Code was the sole topic of discussion.
“You want to impose an American-style law: You’re fired and don’t bother coming back tomorrow,” stated the PCP secretary-general at the end of the debate with the executive leader.
The PCP leader began by asking the prime minister about the number of precarious workers in Portugal. Luís Montenegro responded with a counter-question, asking if the PCP intends to support changes to the current labor law.
The communist leader reacted immediately: “The prime minister either doesn’t know or doesn’t want to say the current precariousness rate in Portugal.”
“It’s 30%, people living on the edge daily, people who cannot access housing. We’re talking about 2.7 million workers with irregular schedules, without time for themselves or their families,” he pointed out.
Faced with this scenario, the PCP leader stated that the government wants “more precariousness, more flexible working hours, and more unfair dismissals.”
The prime minister countered that the PCP was showing “prejudice” and argued that in a competitive economy, there will always be shift work and varied schedules.
In this context, he cited current cases in tech companies, “where young software engineers, in particular, insist on not signing permanent contracts.”
Paulo Raimundo seized this point to pose a second question to Luís Montenegro: “Under current law, is it prohibited for someone with a permanent contract to change jobs?”
However, Luís Montenegro claimed he did not want to engage in “case-by-case discussions.”
“We want a work relationship that promotes stability, predictability for the worker and enhances the economy’s competitiveness and productivity,” replied the executive leader.
Paulo Raimundo noted that under the current law, “there is no provision, nothing that prevents a permanent worker, if they wish, from resigning and working wherever they choose.”
The prime minister retorted that Raimundo’s tone and approach to the labor reform discussion are outdated and reflect someone not looking towards the future, progress, or construction but rather to keep everything the same.
