Wanting financial operations in a company to be in constant growth, like the tip of a vector on a graph whose inclination to forty-five degrees is sufficiently far from the equilibrium point, is the dream of any businessman and even of any worker, But for this, all the favorable conditions that generate it must exist, which are somewhat difficult in a globalized world.
Everything that happens around and within the company affects its financial reality: government policies, market trends, customer preference, perception of the quality of the product or service, armed conflicts… etc., and it is logical to suppose that in a contracted and inflationary economy the drop in consumption and the absence of investment are part of the above, to which is added the lack of identification presented by some employees, labor conflicts, lack of motivation and all those elements typical of the organizational life; Given these variables, it is difficult to assume that the existence of stable and predictable scenarios that facilitate decision-making and the generation of commitments in the medium and long term. It is simple: in today's world uncertainty reigns.
However, in the face of this so evident and contemporary reality, collective bargaining survives as a figure strongly hosted in the minds of workers and present in the day-to-day life of companies, even though it does not fit the changing modern world and corresponds more to scenes typical of past decades where, apparently, the past was the basis for predicting the future.
Years ago, when the conception of work was more associated with production, without stopping to deepen and develop the individual capacity of the worker and therefore his competencies, talking about equality of conditions seemed to be a pertinent topic. At that time the vision of an "exploiting employer", typical of the industrial era and further back, dominated the perception of the collective and, of course, the examples that justified it were abundant, materializing that invisible line that separated the "owners" of the company of its "workers" to such an extent that even today the latter are considered "weak legal" and consequently the labor legislation, in some countries, is usually extremely paternalistic.
It seems that the new trends and the current vision that the business context has of its Human Capital has gone unnoticed, since it is notorious that there is no dividing line between employers and workers beyond the contribution of capital and that exploitation of man by man is Observe more and more frequently only in the didactic field.
But it is a fact, Collective Contracting dominated a good part of the 20th century and its presence remains in force as the formula that will guarantee the well-being of workers, of course, strictly observing them as the labor mass and extracting them from the principle that people are supposed to be. the company.
Although it is true that for some organizations collective contracts are beneficial because they have managed to adapt them to their realities, it is no less true that for others they become a sort of straitjacket that ends up unbalancing their finances, and it is not for less, said contracts commit them to increases and benefits that must be met regardless of economic conditions, which translates, in some cases, into the reduction of payroll and closure of production lines, decisions that are only useful for those who manage to maintain their Job positions.
Collective contracts are rigid elements in a flexible reality, in them treatment is usually given without distinction, regardless of the added value, identification or efforts made individually by the worker. And it is that when celebrating them, the famous win-win that Covey popularized is usually ignored… Perhaps it is common to read a clause that indicates: "if the organization fails to generate X% of profits, the benefits, increases and other commitments" will be seen affected proportionally »?.
Contrary to what was stated, when a clause is not complied with, the presence of conflicts, stoppage of production, strikes and demonstrations become the order of the day. It is easy to understand such behavior, because it does not end with understanding that "people are the company" and to the extent that "people" produce the "company" will win and if so, it is possible to achieve the expected benefits.
But not everything is as easy as adding two plus two, companies can not sell their products and services in the same way that generates them in the face of economic contraction and loss of purchasing power, you can have all the elements of a good brand, quality and fair price, but this is of no use if the customer changes their consumption habits in the face of a reality that is adverse to them. Very well, the company produces the same but does not sell the same. How can it fulfill the obligations established in the collective contract if its income is not the same? Furthermore, in the most basic concept of money, the company receives the same amount of income but due to inflation or currency devaluation the real value is not the same, which will significantly impact replacement costs,So should you strictly adhere to what a collective contract establishes at the expense of your financial health?
It is logical to suppose that in some cases companies have managed to establish mechanisms that prevent them from risking their profit and even their operations due to contracts whose nature does not represent an appropriate profit margin, but in the end the figure of collective contracting is maintained in their inflexibility, as already mentioned, which forces other organizations to devise contraptions that allow the recruitment of personnel away from existing work commitments.
All of the above allows us to reflect on the need that companies have to retain talent, the nature of the benefits related to that need and on the current concept of "equality of conditions" that generated the appearance of collective hiring in the past and that seems not to have been updated on a par with the vision that Human Resources is handling at present.
Today some entrepreneurs have understood that people are not a piece, a number or any other object within large, medium and small corporations, the world trend is "back to man" and therefore the concern to do of your workplace and its conditions as favorable as possible to achieve the objectives that originated your hiring are the goal of the now called human management, therefore a contract that forces companies to one or the other is not required thing, as it was necessary in the past, but an agreement that moves along with the financial reality of both the company and its environment and therefore is as flexible as the economy itself, thus giving rise to the kits or compensation and benefits combos that were pointed out in previous articles.
If a company wants to attract and retain talent, it will have to offer those socioeconomic benefits that fit the desired profile, which will make sense if hiring generates the expected results. If the person adds value, this must be compensated in such a way that the economic attractiveness between the company and the employee is maintained, duly adjusted to the reality of both parties, since in social matters no employee resembles another since their needs, although similar they are the same.
Ahora bien, si las empresas juzgan necesaria la presencia de un contrato marco que regule sus deberes y derechos con los empleados, este debe ser lo suficientemente amplio y flexible para ajustarse a los cambios que pudiera sufrir la empresa en materia económica, lo que se traduciría en la reducción de los porcentajes acordados si el escenario no es favorable o el incremento de estos si las condiciones superan las expectativas. Lo que es igual no es trampa.
However, the trend is more inclined to individual than collective hiring, this generates healthy competition in the organization because it guarantees more to the one who strives the most, makes the individual the owner of his future within the company and at the same time of his own compensation. In the case of collective bargaining, whether the employee strives or not in the end will receive the same benefits, which prevents the strengthening of values such as identification and responsibility that are essential in companies.
There is no doubt that it is difficult to question something that for years seemed to have been very useful, however it is prudent to remember that thanks to the questioning, advances of such magnitude have been achieved in the physical, chemical and social sciences, the importance of which is impossible to ignore. Collective contracting will be valid as long as there are employers whose only vision is to generate profits at the expense of their employees, who will resort to it to guarantee a minimum of ideal conditions during their stay in the company; and it will disappear once both parties, employee and employer, understand that the existence of one depends on the existence of the other and therefore the understanding of their realities, needs and expectations will generate the favorable scenarios to achieve the goals that have been set..
Engaging the company against a group in an environment of uncertainty seems not to be a very responsible practice, unless there are sufficient elements to guarantee the fulfillment of the promise; evaluating the scenarios and adjusting them to the prevailing reality on an individual basis could be the most appropriate decision as long as it represents an advantage for the company and those who run it.
