The real estate companies pointed out against the bill that would regulate the sector and pointed out unconstitutional aspects. They seek to open a dialogue table.
The Uruguayan Chamber of Brands and Real Estate Companies (Cumei) spoke out against the bill real estate operators that seeks to regulate the sector, and claimed that their proposals, which represent some 700 independent workers, were not taken into account by the legislators who drafted the initiative. In addition to denouncing that the project has unconstitutional aspects, They pointed out that the text “ignores an important part of the market.”
The union stated that “it is very important that the Parliament regulate this activity”, but at the same time he questioned whether the legislators had ignored the contributions made in the final drafting of the bill. In that sense, they stated that its possible approval could put the jobs of 700 people directly at risk, to which a similar number of indirectly affected people must be added.
The Cumei also pointed out that the law being studied by Parliament includes unconstitutional aspects, according to an opinion by the professor Martin Risso.
“We see with great concern that our arguments and contributions have not been considered, and that some sectors seem committed to a corporate regime that limits for the future the entry into it of those who today make up certain associations that bring together a group of real estate agencies that are already established,” the Chamber summarized in a statement.
A project that does not take into account the modality of the sector
“The project ignores the reality of a very important part of the Uruguayan real estate market“, said to Area José Luis Noya, spokesperson for Cumei. “It does not recognize the figure of the operator who decides not to act under a dependency relationship. Nor does it contemplate the franchises, the agencies, nor the use of brands, aspects that are the central axis of our way of developing the business as we have been doing for more than 10 years,” added the business spokesperson.
“In our sector there are sole proprietors, employees and some several franchises, but with independence. Here it only includes people with dependency, since the word ‘personal’ is mentioned in the wording,” he considered, and added that, in addition, “they are entry barriers who wants to enter the field, and that also means that franchises cannot grow.
“We once again demand that the parliamentary analysis of an initiative that will only bring damages and install a dialogue table in which all actors in the sector participate without exclusions. The market must be regulated but not favor one sector,” concluded Noya, in this regard.
Source: Ambito
