Post by xyz3000 on Feb 12, 2024 4:34:04 GMT -5
As if the multitude of taxes that companies have to pay were not enough, a bill intends to create yet another financial obligation: mandatory insurance to guarantee the payment of labor compensation, if the employer is sued in court. The rule is provided for in Complementary Bill 301/05, currently being processed in the Chamber of Deputies. The law creates mandatory insurance to cover labor compensation for final and unappealable decisions. The project is signed by deputy Ricardo Barros (PP-PR). According to the parliamentarian, with mandatory insurance, companies would be able to concentrate their efforts on their core activities, and employees would have guarantees that their labor rights would be questioned in court.
For the president of Sincor — Union of Insurance Brokers in São Paulo, Leoncio de Arruda , “forcing companies to have surety insurance, because that is what it should be called, is changing the course of labor laws. This possibility is completely unfeasible.” “Once again, we would work to make Estonia Email List the tax burden on companies more expensive. The employer is already responsible for so many taxes and forcing him to pay yet another would break an entire system”, observes the president of Sincor. According to Leoncio de Arruda, “what the project envisages has no place for it to be called insurance. This is more of a guarantee, because the company would buy the service just to have the guarantee of honoring the labor compensation, if it did not provide resources for this”.
The project is being processed on a priority basis in the Labor, Administration and Public Service committees; Finance and Taxation; and Constitution and Justice and Citizenship. Then, it goes to the Plenary. Unfeasible rule For the professor of Labor Law at USP and partner at Mesquita Barros Advogados, Cássio Mesquita Barros , legally, it is possible to imagine something like this since some Brazilian companies sign, for example, insurance contracts for losses caused by strikes. However, for him, the obligation to take out insurance for final and unappealable labor compensation “is inconvenient because it has no reason to exist”. Cássio Mesquita Barros explains that insurance exists to cover unforeseen situations or, if foreseen, for those that cause major problems.
For the president of Sincor — Union of Insurance Brokers in São Paulo, Leoncio de Arruda , “forcing companies to have surety insurance, because that is what it should be called, is changing the course of labor laws. This possibility is completely unfeasible.” “Once again, we would work to make Estonia Email List the tax burden on companies more expensive. The employer is already responsible for so many taxes and forcing him to pay yet another would break an entire system”, observes the president of Sincor. According to Leoncio de Arruda, “what the project envisages has no place for it to be called insurance. This is more of a guarantee, because the company would buy the service just to have the guarantee of honoring the labor compensation, if it did not provide resources for this”.
The project is being processed on a priority basis in the Labor, Administration and Public Service committees; Finance and Taxation; and Constitution and Justice and Citizenship. Then, it goes to the Plenary. Unfeasible rule For the professor of Labor Law at USP and partner at Mesquita Barros Advogados, Cássio Mesquita Barros , legally, it is possible to imagine something like this since some Brazilian companies sign, for example, insurance contracts for losses caused by strikes. However, for him, the obligation to take out insurance for final and unappealable labor compensation “is inconvenient because it has no reason to exist”. Cássio Mesquita Barros explains that insurance exists to cover unforeseen situations or, if foreseen, for those that cause major problems.