But its effects may not bring the expected benefits.
For example, in the face of a possible reduction in the working day that would force the hiring of personnel to cover shifts, there would be a cascade of bankruptcies of SMEs, whose model would be broken given their financial conditions. On the other hand, before the publication of NOM 037, as of December, many companies will limit teleworking to two days a week and will somehow end labor flexibility as a competitiveness tool.
Why did we come this far, when we shouldn’t have come this far? At this time, all the measures that have been imposed or are intended to be imposed in labor matters are being reviewed under a political aspect and many of them are classified as populist. There is some reason for this, but it is also true that there have been many outrages against labor policy and, now, regulations are being launched that seek, according to the official narrative, to balance the circumstances.
Burnout is not a recent symptom. Since long ago, many workers carry some symptoms of burn out. Safety at work is being regulated, but before there was not much concern for the health of the worker. The employer was handling the relationship with a fictitious contract and they did not even have the consideration to ask the employee’s opinion, who also paid union dues.
It is true, there is a serious delay in the labor field and the employers did not want to see forward. It seemed that they were betting that an imposition would come and, only until then, apply what even by common sense should be applied. Therefore, beyond the impacts that the battery of initiatives that have already been approved and others that are already on the way will bring, the call is to propose a new work culture that cares for people and guarantees the competitiveness of companies. Instead of putting out fires, think about how to have a new work culture.
Teleworking, the ‘right to disconnect’, taking care of workers’ mental health, are not under discussion, but their application should not be subject to regulation. The focus should be elsewhere. Culture is not changed with laws; it is changed by conviction and it takes time.
In what happens, the competitiveness of the labor market is not going through its best moment. In some sectors, a clash between supply and demand is beginning to manifest. Technological changes make it necessary to train the labor force and give way to upskilling and reskilling. The equation is like this: either the staff is trained or it will be necessary to hire very expensive people from outside; Today, there is not the necessary talent for the large investments that come with nearshoring.
For Ana Gutiérrez, coordinator of Foreign Trade and Labor Market at IMCO, some sectors are beginning to have difficulties filling some vacancies. Under her gaze, the battery of initiatives that have been launched fight for labor quality, taking into account that compliance with labor rights is still pending.
“Undoubtedly, improving working conditions increases the cost that employers face when formalizing their employees, but it also has a medium-term effect of increasing productivity. So, it is something that takes a while to be reflected but the truth is that, with a higher quality of employment, workers can also become more productive”, explains Ana Gutiérrez.
How do we adapt to rethink our work culture and productivity? It is not an incremental issue, it has to be an opportunity to think about what type of company and country we want to be. No one, neither the government nor employers, is working on the description of the employee profile that is needed to be more competitive. There is no strategic vision in this regard.