There are expressions that lose part of their meaning after being used so much. The same thing happens with certain measures: by repeating them and implementing them poorly, they become diluted and generate more skepticism than confidence or enthusiasm. There would not be many fingers to count the times when a party or a parliamentary group has included in its programs or speeches the universalization of education from 0 to 3 years old. However, in 2024 and although it is considered a key measure of conciliation and co-responsibility, this question remains unanswered.
This time it is once again the turn of the PP, which includes it in the law of conciliation and co-responsibility that it registered in Congress this Tuesday. His project does not, however, guarantee the creation of public squares but co-financing between the State and the autonomous communities to make them free. Two territories governed by the PP serve as a clue to guess where its proposal is going. On the one hand, a few months ago, Andalusia returned 119 million in European aid to create public places in public schools and thus protect the private sector. On the other hand, Galicia offers families free preschool education by paying for their place in private nurseries instead of relying on public nurseries. So increase public spending yes, another thing is knowing where this money is going.
In any case, the proposal registered by the PP makes a nod to the “freedom” of families, without explicitly mentioning its favorite word. The increase in places for girls and boys aged 0 to 3 will be compatible with the establishment of “direct aid” to families who “choose not to send their children to school in this age group. age “. Neither the amount nor the formula of this “direct aid” appear in the bill, and even less does it specify whether it would be a benefit to which any family, whatever its income, could access.
Beyond the specific points, the PP text attempts a difficult balance between claiming to propose something and not proposing anything new. Between having to recognize in your preamble that gender gaps exist and not including a global gender perspective in your project. Between the inclusion of generic measures aimed at making working hours and schedules more flexible, and stopping the reduction in working hours that the government is trying to negotiate with employers and unions. Between his speech on the birth rate and the importance of taking care of children and the elderly, his text includes absolutely no new measures or authorizations to do so, with the exception of those already envisaged by European directives or projects of the current executive.
There are of course more tax deductions or proposals to convert some of these deductions into direct payments whose form and criteria are not specified in the text. Under the title “Improving the tax treatment of families”, the PP proposes to transform the “minimum for descendants” deductible from the income tax return into a “direct payment system to the families who generate this right”. The wording is so generic that it can give rise to different interpretations, from a social benefit for children (although this term does not appear in the text) to a payment independent of the tax return.
Vulnerability and time banks
The PP’s proposal makes the gesture of including “vulnerability” criteria when it comes to giving large and single-parent families priority access to resources and aid to reconcile and, five lines later, speaks of tax advantages, bonuses on social security contributions to hire caregivers. and access reductions on transport tickets without specifying income criteria.
Families “in vulnerable situations” are one of the most elusive points of the PP bill. “To strengthen your parental abilities and your development in terms of co-responsibility, you will benefit from privileged access to social support, accompaniment and family guidance services,” specifies the text. Feijóo’s party does not explain what it considers “parenting skills” or why only vulnerable families should strengthen them.
Another of the measures proposed by the popular parties is the creation of “hour banks”, a system that has been discussed in recent years as a way to allow workers to meet specific personal and conciliation needs without having to ask authorization or conciliation. see their wages decrease. However, the wording of the text does not place as much emphasis on the availability of overtime to be reconciled as on the possibility of accumulating overtime and then recovering it in different ways.
Time banks for businesses?
This tool, they say, would allow you to “accumulate additional work hours, overtime or unused paid leave, in order to better manage your work-life balance”. Current legislation already provides that companies must pay their employees for overtime. However, just a few days ago, CCOO published a report which stated that companies were saving or “appropriating” €3.245 million per year for unpaid working hours. The PP proposal, as presented, instead aims to make it easier for companies to request overtime to compensate in time and not money, or for workers to accumulate hours during peak periods and reduce them then when possible. Perhaps another of the most repeated political proposals of the last decade and the most unsuccessful.
Days divided into two hours for eating, meetings beyond six hours, a prime timewhich makes you sleepy, calendars and school schedules which unfold on their own, or even a culture of presenteeism and pandemic-proof teleworking serve as examples. The promise, but also its violation, are of course transversal to the parties. Although, without a doubt, the fact that the PP includes it in its proposed law on family conciliation and joint responsibility goes beyond the word contradiction if we consider that it is the same party that pleaded for freedom of working hours and labor reforms. this gave more power to companies to benefit from the days of those working part-time (among others).
