The worker does not acquire the status of partner

[mahbubamim077]

As has been rightly pointed out, this form of participation has many drawbacks, the most serious of which are the dispersion, often in minimal portions, of profits, with a decapitalization of companies with inflationary effects and without any significant advantages for workers, who will only be left with the feeling of receiving an additional share of wages, with the character of a bonus, to be spent without any major benefit to their standard of living or their economic situation.

It would be preferable to introduce the system of participation canada bulk sms packages through special types of shares, as has been suggested, or even tried, in several countries. This is the solution advocated by GEORGE GURVITCH, in his draft declaration of social rights: a type of work-share, which would be nominative, non-transferable, and whose value the worker could only pocket upon leaving the company, or his family, in the event of his death.

Some difficulties to be overcome in regulating the constitutional precept
However, I believe that, given our constitutional text, it will not be possible to adopt this form of distribution on a compulsory basis. I believe it would be advantageous to adopt a specific definition of what constitutes profits for the purposes of workers' participation. Adopting the definition or characterization established for the purposes of paying income tax would confuse and confuse various issues and problems, not without serious drawbacks. The definition of profit for the purposes of calculating income tax is in keeping with tax purposes; with regard to workers' participation, it is linked to a social policy measure. Confusing the two criteria does not seem to me to be prudent or correct; and, in addition to other consequences, it will only intensify the conflict between employers and employees.