Unemployment protection for casual agricultural workers under debate

Download article in original language : ES9909252FES.DOC

Casual agricultural workers in Spain are covered by a separate system of unemployment protection. Trade union calls to include them in the general system have so far not borne fruit, and in spring and summer 1999, there have been mobilisations of agricultural workers in protest. The debate between supporters and detractors of a special protection regime for these workers has been reopened.

The issue of unemployment protection for casual agricultural workers has been prominent in Spain during 1999, with negotiations between trade unions and the government breaking down and large-scale mobilisations of workers being organised (ES9905226N). Below we examine the current special protection system for casual agricultural workers and outline the current debate.

Special protection system for casual agricultural workers

The current unemployment protection system for casual agricultural workers is based on two instruments: the Agricultural Subsidy (Subsidio Agrario) and the Development Plan for Agricultural Employment (Plan de Fomento del Empleo Agrario, previously known as the PER), in addition to an Occupational Training Plan (Plan de Formación Ocupacional).

The Development Plan for Agricultural Employment is a public plan, which is applied in rural areas with a level of unemployment higher than the national average. During the period of the PER, this plan was applied only in the autonomous communities of Andalucia and Extremadura, but it has now been extended to Castilla-la Mancha, Castilla y León, the Valencian Community and Murcia. Its main objective is to generate immediate temporary employment in these areas through public works financed by different institutions - ministerial bodies of the central government, the National Employment Institute (Instituto Nacional de Empleo, INEM) (through agreements with local corporations) and the regional governments, using their own funds or through the Inter-regional Compensation Fund (Fondo de Compensación Interterritorial). In general, these works have focused on improving infrastructures (such as construction or rehabilitation of buildings or public parks, and road repairs) on the basis of the projects approved annually and incorporated in the Plan by decree.

The Agricultural Subsidy is a protection system for casual agricultural workers. It is a non-contributory benefit applicable in the autonomous communities in which seasonal unemployment of casual agricultural workers is higher than the national average and the number of these workers is proportionally higher than in other agricultural areas; in practice it has been applied only in Andalucia and Extremadura.

Under the scheme, the worker is entitled to receive a maximum annual benefit of 180 days of subsidy, equivalent to 75% of the national minimum wage (SMI). Payment is spread over nine months of the corresponding year at 20 days per month. The unusual feature of this protection system is that while the unemployment benefit is being received the beneficiary must perform some work in order to accumulate the necessary working days (currently 35) to be entitled to the subsidy the following year.

The relationship between the Development Plan for Agricultural Employment and the Agricultural Subsidy is that the working days performed by casual workers under the Plan are calculated for the purposes of reaching the necessary number of days to be entitled to the unemployment subsidy. The PER, and now the Development Plan for Agricultural Employment, have acted as a good supplement to the Agricultural Subsidy in some areas in which it is difficult to accumulate the necessary number of working days in agriculture.

The new Rural Development Plans

As a supplement to the current system of protection for agricultural workers, other measures to generate employment in rural areas have been applied within European Union programmes for rural development. These measures include regional initiatives such as the Andalucia Rural Development Plan (Plan de Desarrollo Rural de Andalucía, PDRA). Like other regional initiatives - and unlike the Development Plan for Agricultural Employment - the PDRA does not seek final results but is a strategic plan aimed at promoting and supporting initiatives in rural areas that generate stable employment both in the agricultural sector and outside it, within the more general objective of diversifying production. The main feature of the PDRA is the participation of rural society in the development projects, in line with the LEADER rural development initiatives of the European Commission and its PRODER methodology. The PDRA's objective is therefore to energise and mobilise existing material and human resources in the rural areas of Andalucia in order to generate stable employment and wealth. By its very nature, it is a medium- to long-term plan whose results will not be seen immediately, unlike the Development Plan for Agricultural Employment. Its success will depend not only on the public funds that support the development projects, but also on the involvement of private initiative in the development of rural areas.

The debate on the reform of the protection system

It is 15 years since the current unemployment protection system for casual agricultural workers was introduced. The agricultural workers' federations of the two main trade union confederations, FeCampo-CC.OO and FTT-UGT, had on several occasions called for the abolition of this system and the inclusion of casual agricultural workers in the general system of unemployment protection, so that they receive the same social and economic benefits as other unemployed workers. This aim was included in the "agreement for agricultural employment and social welfare" (AEPSA) concluded by the unions and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in 1996 and ratified by the government, which set up a commission to study the proposal. This commission, three years later, has still reached no agreement, a situation which has brought about major protest mobilisations by agricultural workers (ES9907145N). The main reasons that have led the two majority trade unions to propose the abolition of the special protection system for unemployed agricultural workers are as follows:

1. the negative effects that the system has had for casual agricultural workers, by creating a new relationship of dependence between the worker and the employer, due to the need to reach the necessary number of working days to qualify for the subsidy. In this situation there is a relationship of individual dependence in which the trade unions are unable to act as mediators because on most farms there is no union representation;

2. the distortions that the current system has produced in the agricultural labour market, because after reaching the minimum number of working days to qualify for the subsidy, the worker has no incentive to continue working. This has led to serious cases of connivance between employers and workers in favour of hidden employment;

3. the unfair treatment of some regions, in particular as a result of the industrial crisis and the increase in unemployment, because some regions (such as Extremadura and Andalucia) were beneficiaries of the agricultural subsidy and others were not. Some regional trade unions have demanded the extension of the subsidy to the whole of Spain;

4. the Special Agricultural Social Security Scheme (Régimen Especial Agraio de la Seguridad Social, REASS) pays less benefit than the general unemployment benefit system; and

5. finally, a reason of a more ideological type, which is the fact that FeCampo-CC.OO and FTT-UGT, the agricultural federations of the two majority union confederations - unlike the minority trade union, Sindicato Obrero y Campesino (SOC) - are moving away from their traditional position on the rural proletariat. They no longer claim that it is a differentiated social group and feel that it should come under the same system as other workers in paid employment.

Commentary

The current protection system for casual agricultural workers has been seen as socially legitimate for several reasons:

1. it was agreed by consensus with the trade unions to replace the former "Community Employment" system;

2. the PER (and now the Development Plan for Agricultural Employment) has proved to be a good public works plan to palliate agricultural unemployment and to improve the infrastructures of many rural municipalities; and

3. the Agricultural Subsidy has made it possible to extend unemployment cover to groups that were excluded from the general system because they were casual workers.

In response to the proposals of the two majority trade unions, one must consider whether it would not be more advisable and more economically feasible to reform rather than to abolish the present system. The author believes that the current system, extended to other Spanish regions, provides better protection for casual agricultural workers than if they were included in the general system. The great advantage of the special system lies in the fact that it has no time limit (workers can earn the subsidy permanently providing they have worked a minimum number of days in the previous year), whereas the general system places limits on both the duration and the amount of the subsidy. The other great advantage is that workers can continue working while they receive the subsidy (in order to accumulate the working days needed for the subsidy for the following year), which allows them to combine the two sources of income.

The current system must be reformed to introduce improvements and to avoid the negative effects that have given rise to the current criticisms. Some ideas for improvement could be the following:

1. to modify the system of qualifying for the REASS so as to favour people who really work in agriculture as wage earners and to disqualify people who have no relationship with agriculture. The minimum number of working days to qualify initially for the REASS could be raised and other requirements could be added, such as attending occupational training courses in agricultural subjects for a certain number of hours. The situation of the current beneficiaries of the REASS would be respected, though mechanisms must be found to exclude from the system many workers who now qualify but have no real relationship with agricultural work and who acquire working days illegally (by buying working days, for example). The requirement to attend occupational training courses in agricultural subjects and the obligation to accept any offer of agricultural employment could be good control mechanisms whose non-fulfilment by a worker would mean their exclusion from the REASS;

2. after the modification of the qualification system for REASS, it would be advisable to carry out a real census of casual agricultural workers;

3. once inside the REASS, the number of working days necessary to earn the subsidy should be raised every year (going back to the previous figure of 60 would not be a bad idea, with the necessary exceptions for the most vulnerable groups, such as those aged over 50);

4. to raise the current amount of unemployment benefit, especially for the workers who support families, and to increase the other benefits until they are fully in line with the general system;

5. to modify gradually the nature of the works contained in the Development Plan for Agricultural Employment, gradually incorporating works that generate stable employment; and

6. to reduce the involvement of local councils in designating the beneficiaries of the works of the Development Plan for Agricultural Employment, and to transfer this duty to the offices of INEM, in collaboration with the Regional Employment Offices (Oficinas Comarcales de Empleo) that are already in operation. (Eduardo Moyano, vice-director, IESA-CSIC of Andalucia)