‘Convention’ for the climate, was rejected Saturday, June 20, a proposal of reduction of working hours to 28 hours a week, after heated debates. The proposal to “reduce the working time without loss of pay in an objective of simplicity and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions” was rejected by 65% by the 150 members of the Convention.
read also : the climate Convention: a series of proposals in shock that advocate sobriety at all costs
This is the first of the 150 measures subject to the adoption of the members to be rejected. Many stakeholders are worried about the economic consequences of the measure, and the image that adoption would give their work.
heated Debate
“This is completely disconnected of the reality, and it is untenable in the current context. And this discredits totally the convention, it is to give the stick to get beaten. If this is proposed, it will be rejected and it will just be discredited our work,” thus thought Mélanie (in session, the members of the convention are referred to only by their first names).
read also : “The’ Convention ‘for the climate’s going to give birth to a big waste”
“sharing this is beautiful but with the current crisis it is not possible. I’ve worked all my life 50 hours a week, raising only two children. It’s always the same people working less, always the same who work for wages pitiful,” started from his side, Marie-Hélène rejecting the measure. “It is out of mandate relative to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions”, saw his side Lionel, while others abounded : “There should be a ‘convention’ separate on the job.”
“telework before it was a ufo, no one imagined that. But the application of this measure it is not in six months, that is, in ten years, it is necessary to plan and reflect”, said Sylvie to defend the measure. “We can be agree or not agree, but it’s not up to you to say that we are going to have the air of puppets” was Annie. “We wanted to say that the model, and the system does not suit us, then dare”.
see also – Convention on climate change: is it going too far?