The issue is relatively simple. But no less striking. In the XXI century Chile, day by day, a full view of the public authorities and ourselves, "thousands of customers-is grossly violates labor law, and in an extremely sensitive for a country that dreams of the poster development: child labor. In this case, the packers in supermarkets.
Far from the ridiculously self-serving rhetoric Government-of the chilean way and that sort of nonsense, and much of the business circle that likes to talk about a world-class country, is the harsh reality of child labor outside the law.
These minors who are not recognized by the major supermarket chains as workers and their most basic labor rights. Not only that, and here the figure borders on the grotesque: they must pay to work.
Far from the ridiculously self-serving rhetoric Government-of the chilean way and that sort of nonsense, and much of the business circle that likes to talk about a world-class country, is the harsh reality of child labor outside the law.
These minors who are not recognized by the major supermarket chains as workers and their most basic labor rights. Not only that, and here the figure borders on the grotesque: they must pay to work.
As I read it. Must pay to have an outside company - entrepreneurs take and back as-is allowed to be placed in any of the boxes from the supermarket to receive a salary and not be naive-no sr. reader, but an occasional tip which, precisely, do not wear headscarves in the burial: the supermarket customers. Business
round. Entrepreneurship is a pure state. The supermarket chain pays no labor rights, he has fled from its responsibility through an external company. And this, was not idle, not only recognizes their status as employer, but it puts a price on fraud: 500 pesos a day to work.
Leader (D & S) has strongly denied copper packers. Obviously, if it makes the company placed.
And the State where it is?
studying the issue. Have said so. Indeed, the Labour Ministry has taken a language full of metaphors commenter's own French film, which public authorities responsible for punishing the fraud to refer to this matter. We have talked with a remarkable level of understatement: "It's a complex situation," "delicate", "we're studying", etc..
seems that they had been commissioned to decide the issue of the beginning of life, rather than decide whether this group of children are entitled to have an employment contract and minimum labor rights, and worse, if they have the right not to charge for them work.
may be necessary, therefore, help to the beleaguered authorities to help them complete the doctoral thesis that appear to be drafted in this case: children not packaged by the irresistible taste of putting things in bags, not least because they are entrepreneurs packaging.
They do this by getting paid for it, and in a business that directs and controls the platitudes such large supermarket-sorry but in Chile, the obvious support, if the fish is fat, several interpretations. In other words, the child does not work for himself but for another, who is in charge and sends him: the point is to know who that is.
And there are two options: either the supermarket or the foreign company. And whatever the choice, there is a gross insult to the labor law.
If the employer is the supermarket, then it must all corresponding labor rights as other workers. With a serious added: unpaid wages since time immemorial.
And if you decide that the employer is the company externally charge for the entrepreneurs who provide work-then the matter is even worse: it would be a contract where both companies are violating the law: do external the respective contracts of employment, and the supermarket for not acting as lead company, exercising control over their contractor.
as simple and easy.
The complex, yes, there is no legal status. That's not important. The hard part is how to deal with power economic policy and that during all these years has shown the supermarket trade association to simply suppress the most obvious solutions: applying the law as in any other case.
Now that power is surprising. Not idle this association, which endorsed the fraud work for decades, has the luxury of proposing a solution for those with smell of the past:
Eject by law to those under the labor law and its protection, he said, without wrinkling , its President. Good idea, must have thought, recalling General and efficient collaborator José Piñera, who did the same with students in practice.
may need in any case, thank you for the sincerity, but we are workers without rights.
Whether it be children, to be paid for work and while working in one of the most profitable industries of national economic life, are, at this point, simple details of a paradox.
Of those Third World countries often force their employees.
round. Entrepreneurship is a pure state. The supermarket chain pays no labor rights, he has fled from its responsibility through an external company. And this, was not idle, not only recognizes their status as employer, but it puts a price on fraud: 500 pesos a day to work.
Leader (D & S) has strongly denied copper packers. Obviously, if it makes the company placed.
And the State where it is?
studying the issue. Have said so. Indeed, the Labour Ministry has taken a language full of metaphors commenter's own French film, which public authorities responsible for punishing the fraud to refer to this matter. We have talked with a remarkable level of understatement: "It's a complex situation," "delicate", "we're studying", etc..
seems that they had been commissioned to decide the issue of the beginning of life, rather than decide whether this group of children are entitled to have an employment contract and minimum labor rights, and worse, if they have the right not to charge for them work.
may be necessary, therefore, help to the beleaguered authorities to help them complete the doctoral thesis that appear to be drafted in this case: children not packaged by the irresistible taste of putting things in bags, not least because they are entrepreneurs packaging.
They do this by getting paid for it, and in a business that directs and controls the platitudes such large supermarket-sorry but in Chile, the obvious support, if the fish is fat, several interpretations. In other words, the child does not work for himself but for another, who is in charge and sends him: the point is to know who that is.
And there are two options: either the supermarket or the foreign company. And whatever the choice, there is a gross insult to the labor law.
If the employer is the supermarket, then it must all corresponding labor rights as other workers. With a serious added: unpaid wages since time immemorial.
And if you decide that the employer is the company externally charge for the entrepreneurs who provide work-then the matter is even worse: it would be a contract where both companies are violating the law: do external the respective contracts of employment, and the supermarket for not acting as lead company, exercising control over their contractor.
as simple and easy.
The complex, yes, there is no legal status. That's not important. The hard part is how to deal with power economic policy and that during all these years has shown the supermarket trade association to simply suppress the most obvious solutions: applying the law as in any other case.
Now that power is surprising. Not idle this association, which endorsed the fraud work for decades, has the luxury of proposing a solution for those with smell of the past:
Eject by law to those under the labor law and its protection, he said, without wrinkling , its President. Good idea, must have thought, recalling General and efficient collaborator José Piñera, who did the same with students in practice.
may need in any case, thank you for the sincerity, but we are workers without rights.
Whether it be children, to be paid for work and while working in one of the most profitable industries of national economic life, are, at this point, simple details of a paradox.
Of those Third World countries often force their employees.
