Comment about the Spanish Constitutional Court, Sentence 91/2019

The following is a short analysis done for Law School for the subject of Social Security Law (Part of Labor Law) about a recent sentence of the Spanish Constitutional Court about the countability of the retirement pensions and the differences between those who worked full-time and those who worked half-time. Again, the original was made in spanish, so bear in mind the possibility of typos.

---

Background.
Prior to this sentence, and with the intent of palliate the division of effective hours between part-time workers and full-time, and to create a proportionality within the retirement pension, a series of cautelar meassures were held for the pensions from part-time workers. These measures were so to meassure the minimum period of work to access such pension (15 years quoted in the Social Security system, of which 2 of them ought to be within the last 15 years)

As Blánquez Agudo explains, "every day quoted was countabilized, as part-time, and with independence with the duration of the work hours, and to such the partiality coeficient was applied [...] every day quoted at full time were added and, lastly, the global coeficient of partiality was calculated, a percentage that represents the number of days marked as quoted over the total of days upon the whole laboral life of the worker" (Blánquez Agudo, 2019)

In the end of said calculations, the pension is of a minor quantity if it came from part-time works, than when it comes from full-time.

Actions of the Sentence
The court rules the unconstitutionability of the aplication of the percentaje of partiality since the base of the existence of the percentaje itself is to mitigate the effects of the effective work, and it does not do it with a lower reception of money. It also makes reference to the existence of a discrimination of sex, an offense to the Spanish Constitution of 1978 which, in its article 14 protects the citizen against discriminations (included sex discrimination), since these kinds of contracts are signed by an absolute majority and, almost in an absolute manner, by women. Blánquez Agudo clears this reference, since "from the gathered data of the EPA [Active Population Poll] for the first trimester of 2019 we can conclude that from the total of 19.471 millions of contracts, 2.900 of them are for part-time jobs. From the total of part-time jobs, 738 were performed by men, while the rest of them were performed by women. This deducts easily that the partial contratation is clarly femenine and so, every inequality infringed to this kind of hiring will turn in a discrimination because of sex" (Blánquez Agudo, 2019)

However, the source is to avoid the efectualization of the hours effectively done, as Pozo Moreira points out, and he critiques the sentence, for their sources are upmost wrong, basing themselves on the European Union Directive 79/7/CEE. "The Directive oposes to a rule by which the amount of the retirement pension of a part-time worker is calculated by multiplying a regulatory base, determined by the salary effectively obtained and of the quotations effectively done" (Pozo Moreira, 2019)

Consequences of the Sentence
Upon publishment of the ruling, "the partiality coefficient shall not be applied, but they will be calculated with the percentage obtained by the general rule, counting the time of work from the worker whatever the duration of its work." (Graduados Sociales, 2019)

Opinion.
While it is true that the retirement pensions should be reviewed in an effective manner by the amount of hours spent in work, if said parameter were followed there would be no doubt that a discrimination would be produced in an absolute manner.

Why? Because of the personal conditions of a person. We don't know the conditions of those who are not ourselves, of the other people surrounding us, and the legislation is unable to regulate an absolute causistry by the sheer fact of the continuous addition of people to the Social Security system, and to apply a differenciation on something completely dependant on personal decisions sounds like an error to me.

The ruling of the Court seem correct to me because of what the retirement pension is. It's for people who are no longer going to work, whom have quoted to the system properly and that they fulfill the requirements needed for retirement. The pension is a way to palliate the loss of earnings from not working anymore, and if we apply percentages, in the end the people will no longer be able to live in the same way they lived before. And that would not be a good way to achieve a wellfare state as it is our own in which is not the economy what ought to be perserved, but the people's well being.