|
|
In a context characterized by the application of sanitary containment measures that limited or discouraged mobility, the art. 5 of rdlof march 17, decided decisively for the establishment of a remote work system in an extreme emergency situation. It was a standard of net labor content that temporarily displaced the provisions of art 13 et and, partially, in art. 16 lprl. And it is that, as explained in the explanatory statements of both rdl in the covid-19 crisis, teleworking came to be the preferred means to guarantee the continuity of business activity (a alternative to ertes, although a factor that does not exclude them as stated in san 43/2020 of june 29), and an essential instrument to guarantee containment measures and the protection of workers and to continue attending to the conciliation needs of work and family life. The art. continued that line. But the insufficiency of the existing regulation and the new demands arising from the significant practical experience that had taken place in these months demanded a comprehensive response.
Many hopes were placed on the draft of the remote Italy Telegram Number Data work law that began its parliamentary processing, but which the legislative hyposthenia ended up turning into a royal decree-law, although with the important reinforcement of social legitimacy that its recognition through dialogue implies. Social. A formula that, slowly and smoothly, is becoming an instrument to replace parliamentary procedure and to which, at some point, it would be advisable to devote a slow reflection. In this context, and with the aforementioned antecedents, the rdl of september 22, of distance work, which is directed, as expressed in its statement of motives, “to provide a sufficient, transversal and integrated regulation in a single substantive norm that responds to diverse needs, balancing the use of these new forms of paid employment and the advantages they entail for companies and workers.
A standard of blurred profiles which responds to a particular normative logic and a debatable legislative technique that leads to incorporating into its regulation matters as surprising as they are unexpected if we pay attention to the statement of its content (for example, its 6th da relative to the “tax regime applicable to the end of the« uefa women's champions league 2020 ”). The first uniqueness that rdl 28/2020 offers is that its content is as important for what it says as for what it omits. And it is that it puts the focus on the field of paid employment setting its frame in one of the possible forms of remote work, which the norm qualifies as "Regular" (art. 1). Remain out of his focus, therefore, self-employment, including the one developed by trade; work for others that does not reach the legally established threshold, as well as remote work in the field of public employment. Regulations that are remitted to the imprecise sphere of the ordinary regulations applicable in each caso.
|
|
發表於 2024-3-7 19:12:02