Santo Domingo. – Both the ruling party and the political opposition continue playing “good and bad” with the most socially sensitive issues.
In recent weeks, the debate on the layoff and wage indexation once again placed both sides in antagonistic positionsalthough in essence, both avoid taking public positions contrary to the feelings of the population without that being necessarily what is required.
Layoff: the spark
The most recent confrontation arose after the statements of the deputy of the Modern Revolutionary Party (PRM), Carmen Ligia Barcelówho proposed establishing a limit on unemployment, a measure that unleashed a wave of criticism from the opposition.
Barceló later clarified that he does not intend to eliminate this right, but rather protect microbusinesses and entrepreneurs of burdens that could lead them to bankruptcy.
“In my province we have some 37 thousand people working informally and only 4 thousand formalized. “What I propose is a limit, not eliminating unemployment,” said the Hato Mayor legislator.
His concern, he said, is that small businesses can continue generating formal jobs.
The president of the Chamber of Deputies, Alfredo Pachecosubtracted drama from the episode and assured that the PRM will approve the dismissal “just as it came from the Senate.”
He described the criticism of Dominican Liberation Party (PLD) as “speculation and political chatter.”
“It is true that a representative from our bench asked to review the issue, but that is not the party’s position.
We will approve the layoff as it came from the Senate,” said Pacheco, who insisted that the project is under review within the Labor Commission and that it will be resolved in November.
PLD takes political advantage of the issue
The Block of Deputies of the PLD, headed by Gustavo Sancheztook advantage of the noise generated to assume the role of worker defender.
At a press conference, they warned that they will go to the Constitutional Court If a reform is approved that limits the right to unemploymentguaranteed in article 62 of the Constitution.
“Limiting severance pay to six months of salary would be a legal setback and moral. We will not allow a reform disguised as modernization to weaken the rights of the working class,” Sánchez proclaimed. He accused “hidden sectors of the PRM” of wanting to make layoffs cheaper and break the balance between capital and labor.
Thus, while the ruling party tried to lower the tone of the debate, the opposition He amplified it in an electoral key, appealing to the defense of acquired rights and placing the issue in the public arena.
Salary indexation: another chapter of the same script
In parallel, the senator’s proposal Omar Fernandez to adjust the salary exempt from Income Tax (ISR) in accordance with inflation—as established by law since 2017—opened another front of discussion.
Fernández recalled that the base amount for the tax collection It has remained frozen for eight years, despite the sustained increase in the cost of living.
His initiative received immediate support from union leaders Gabriel del Rio (CASC) and Pepe Abreu (CNUS), who agreed that tax free Salaries of less than RD$52,000 would alleviate the burden on the working class and stimulate consumption.
“The government should put that money in the hands of the worker; in any case it returns to the treasury through consumption taxes,” Abreu reasoned.
Del Río, in turn, insisted that the Executive must pursue evasion and comply with the law instead of penalizing those who earn the least.
PRM responds: “we are not opposed, but there are fiscal reasons”
In response, the PRM clarified that it is not opposed to the salary indexationbut justified its suspension since 2017 by the need to preserve fiscal stability.
In a statement from its Secretariat of Economic Affairs, the official party maintained that not knowing the reasons that led the previous administrations – including those of the PLD— to freeze indexing “only serves as policy tool without content.”
“The topic requires a broader contributor base and a formal employmentmania with better opportunities. “That is what we have been promoting,” the organization indicated, while acknowledging that the measure could be resumed if the tax conditions they allow it.
The pattern repeats
Both episodes, although different in subject matter and context, respond to the same political pattern: officialdom that avoids the social cost and opposition that capitalizes on discontent.
The same thing happened before with the tax reformwhich was abandoned due to widespread rejection, and in past governments with issues such as fuel prices or the reform to the Penal Code.
In the end, neither one nor the other expose themselves technically to the structural debates.
Meanwhile, the high social impact issues they are half-discussed, used to mark political territory, and ultimately shelved until the next election cycle.
