By Shuki Stauber
You hold that transferring employees to service contractors doesn’t enable implementing the amendment, which seeks to protect their rights. Let’s take a look at one of the prominent areas in which services are provided by service contractors – the computer world. Companies like Ness, Matrix and IBM place many workers onsite at organizations that commission assistance. Would you say these are service contractors or personnel companies?This jobs employment pattern requires them to obtain an operating license like a personnel company, unequivocally. It should also be noted that you’re citing examples of very large companies, but there are hundreds of small software companies that provide this service.
Does IBM have a license to operate as a personnel company?Certainly. But that particular example doesn’t truly reflect our main points of discussion. Computer companies sought to sever themselves from the world of personnel companies, though there’s no difference between their mode of operation and that of the classic personnel companies. But by lobbying in the Knesset they managed to prevent the arrangement from applying to computer companies.
The main problem is transferring personnel company workers to service contractors just to bypass the law; and not because the service contractors have unique know-how like in the computer field. It came to a point where sometimes the very same consulting companies that helped organizations hold a tender turned into service contractors.
Now we’re waiting for the outcome of a lawsuit involving an employee who worked through a personnel company and then was switched to consulting company Martens Hoffman. She claims the new company has to provide her equivalent employment terms because her conditions worsened, and that was through the Civil Service.
The main problem is transferring personnel company workers to service contractors just to bypass the law; and not because the service contractors have unique know-how like in the computer field. It came to a point where sometimes the very same consulting companies that helped organizations hold a tender turned into service contractors.
Now we’re waiting for the outcome of a lawsuit involving an employee who worked through a personnel company and then was switched to consulting company Martens Hoffman. She claims the new company has to provide her equivalent employment terms because her conditions worsened, and that was through the Civil Service.
And the extension of the employment restriction will solve the primary problems?Some of the problems. You cannot restrict one type of employment and leave an opening for an alternative type of employment. A single collective agreement has to be applied to all service providers, clearly delineating who is the employer in each and every case. The Personnel Companies Law already determines that the employer during the period of employment job is the personnel company. In the case of service contractors, who the employer is remains unclear and then there are all sorts of complex agreements between the service contractor and the company commissioning the service, which try to cover all situations. The whole business is very murky.
You can’t just touch on individual points at personnel companies without seeing the ramifications.
The private employers, the Finance Ministry, the Histadrus and personnel companies have to sit down together and put matters in order, because the rationale for the law is legitimate, only the restrictions are too rigid and ineffective.
You can’t just touch on individual points at personnel companies without seeing the ramifications.
The private employers, the Finance Ministry, the Histadrus and personnel companies have to sit down together and put matters in order, because the rationale for the law is legitimate, only the restrictions are too rigid and ineffective.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar