Representatives of the opposition parties rejected the Government’s legislative proposal on essential work during the general debate pertaining to the proposal.
In their speeches, they emphasised that the Government is trying to use legislation to fix a problem that does not exist. The legislative proposal was criticised as a means by the Government to, once again, promote the position of the employer by reducing the rights of employees with regard to the controversial topic of emergency work in particular.
“The role of emergency work in this legislative proposal is a real gem of dictated policy. This law is an unscrupulous act towards employees and their rights, not only with regard to emergency work but also as a whole,” summed up Member of Parliament Piritta Rantanen (Social Democratic Party).
Member of Parliament Timo Suhonen (Social Democratic Party) described the legislative proposal as “ideological policy that punishes employees” and, once again, limits the right of employees to strike.
“The Government is forcefully corralling employees. The legislation concerning essential work and the Government’s proposal on emergency work is a purely ideological move by the Government. Several experts have said that there is no need for this,” Suhonen emphasised.
Messy legislative drafting
Tehy has highlighted both the discrepancies in the legislative drafting process and the problematic nature of the law’s content throughout the process and has also filed a report with the police. Members of Parliament also widely criticised the assessment work on which the legislative drafting was based, describing it as non-existent.
“Instead of conducting an assessment, the Government launched the legislative drafting project right away. With regard to emergency work, this is completely on the wrong rails,” said Olga Oinas-Panuma (Centre Party).
“This legislative proposal and its drafting process are perhaps the messiest and vaguest laws during this term,” Oinas-Panuma described.
This opinion about the drafting process was shared by Member of Parliament Suhonen (Social Democratic Party), who also brought up the police report filed by Tehy and described the launch of the drafting process concerning emergency work as “having been done in a roundabout way” and the entire drafting process in general as “very peculiar” during the debate.
The impacts of the law raise concerns
Many Members of Parliament expressed concerns about the impacts of this vaguely and too broadly drafted law during their turns on the floor. They believe that, if passed, the law will at worst confuse the job market more broadly and also put a strain on the justice system, which would most certainly have its work cut out for it due to different interpretations of emergency work.
“It remains to be seen how employers will determine who has the right to participate in industrial action and who does not. Or what kind of interpretations will be made of when it is truly lawful to order emergency work to be carried out. Orders to carry out emergency work should absolutely come from a party not involved in a labour dispute,” said Piritta Rantanen (Social Democratic Party) in her speech.
The consideration of the law in Parliament will continue during a second debate on the 20th of May.
Author: Lotta Nuotio
