The president of the Chamber of Construction of Uruguay (CCU), Alejandro Ruibalsurprised by introducing into the debate a new argument for opposition to the plebiscite on the social security reform that drives the PIT-CNT. During the traditional lunch of the Association of Marketing Managers (ADM)said that the repeal of the AFAPs would have major impacts on the employment.
In interview with Ambit The union representative provides more details and proposes a more in-depth debate on the impact of the popular consultation.
What impact could the eventual repeal of the retirement reform and specifically of the AFAPs have if the plebiscite is approved in October?
-What is at risk is the flow of investment that the AFAPs make with the contributions of the workers. Half of them are in Afap Republic, which corresponds to the state bank. What do AFAPs invest in? In the stock market and a good part in works, in infrastructure works through different vehicles. And we have been talking about this for 10, 15 years, right? So, if I take it to numbers, all those projects that AFAPs take local risk with local currency and indexed units, which are not taken by those who lend you money from abroad. This impacts a number of projects that would take a long time or would not be done directly.
What impact could that have on employment?
– Some 2,000 million dollars in the last 10 years are direct only for that part, almost 4,000 direct jobs, plus the part of the project that is not done, that others put in place. I estimate that 10% of construction’s wage bill is impacted by this. It doesn’t mean it’s the end of the public work, I’m not saying that. But it is a very hard blow to a tool that, in any case, must be improved. It is a very hard blow that will affect construction activity and direct jobs.
Other arguments have been raised by other business chambers, ranging from the impact on the country’s international image to an imbalance in public accounts. What assessment do you make of this?
-I have a position, but the truth is that it seemed to me that the best way that we from the Chamber could make a contribution is with what we know most about our day-to-day life, which is this. The amount of employment, activity and companies that will suffer. The other thing, there are enough people who are discussing this topic in an open way. I have my personal position and it is clearly critical. I think it’s unnecessary. Changes can be made in the social security law, discussed, but we must not play with the Constitution and generate rigidities that later, when one becomes very rigid, becomes fragile. Then you break. It is also said that there may be an impact on the country’s economy, because resources will have to be allocated. That is what almost all economists in the country say. The truth is, it is scary when one listens to the diagnoses of economists. The picture they paint is gloomy and I have to believe what they say.
Did the business chambers delay in coming out to comment on the plebiscite and that is why the signatures gathered?
No no. Let’s see, I am not against gathering signatures or having a plebiscite. I am against the argument for convenience, but this is part of the rules of the game. And the cameras, each one taking responsibility. We are making this contribution now and we never plan to hinder the gathering of signatures. People sign and go to vote. What we do have to do, and we are obliged, is to participate in the debate if we see that something is wrong. If the work of our companies and workers is going to be affected, I have to say, how am I going to hide that information?
Have you raised this discussion in a meeting with workers?
– We have talked to some of them, they have a different vision of the matter. Maybe what I want is to have a more in-depth debate about the impact of this.
Source: Ambito
