(We request that this article be substituted with a previous one on the same topic due to an inaccuracy in the fourth paragraph)
The Ashotel director states that the day proceeds with “normality” and defends the 6% agreement and salary increment
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, 17 (Europa Press)
The director of Ashotel, Juan Pablo González, remarked on Thursday that they are “taken aback” and “disheartened” by the announcement of the strike within the tourism subsector, as his proposal for a salary increase of 6% was made with “sincerity”, which now leads them to resume collective bargaining anew, starting with a “blank slate.”
While speaking to reporters, he noted that a strike possesses a “deterrent” capacity that has previously prompted negotiations from the employer, yet he added, “the day that nuclear weapons are employed, the film has ended.” “We have nothing further to discuss,” he stated.
He indicated that the day is unfolding “normally” and without any significant incidents, regretting that the pre-agreement reached on Wednesday in the Government presidency, with the mediation of President Fernando Clavijo, “was a beneficial agreement that did not disadvantage anyone.”
He explained that the offer entailed, in broad terms, a 6% increase in the wage bill for employees, the assurance that purchasing power would be preserved in any agreements that are concluded, the introduction of lifting beds in hotels, and a pilot project to assess temporary disability.
González also addressed the issue of seniority supplements, which are currently subject to a lawsuit that the TSJC must resolve and that “will ultimately reach the Supreme Court” since it could entail a more than 15% increase in salary costs.
He expressed his concern regarding the “divisions” among the workers, as some assemblies did not receive unanimous votes while, in others, such as those for use, the agreement was validated, with workers expressing that they “did not comprehend their union’s resignation of that agreement.”
He insisted that a strike has been convened against an existing collective agreement and although initially they “discussed many issues”, in the end, the conversation revolved solely around salary increases, which the employer agreed to consider based on a report of purchasing power loss conducted by the ULL.
He acknowledged that from the business perspective “everything feasible has been undertaken” and they are still open to “listening” to the unions’ demands but now without “coercion” since the strike has taken place.
Concerning the discrepancies in salary tables between hospitality agreements in the two Canary provinces, he defended that Santa Cruz de Tenerife’s is “adapted to the flexibility and the circumstances of each establishment” because “a 500-room hotel in prime beach front is not comparable to a hotel of the same category located five rows back from the beach.”
Nevertheless, he stated that if there will indeed be unified salary tables across the Canary Islands, “that will come or not,” while admitting that “it can’t be that bad” considering the tourism subsector had been free of strikes for more than 30 years.
González acknowledged that there may be “discrimination” against larger firms as compared to smaller ones but clarified that “it is not factual” that pay rates are higher in the province of Las Palmas.
Ashotel “cannot be asked for more”
He also mentioned that Ashotel “cannot be demanded to do more” and during the “garbage minutes, as they say in basketball, it becomes increasingly challenging to resolve issues.”
Regarding future collective negotiations, he highlighted that employers would focus on addressing absenteeism, as “we must start implementing solutions” concerning a lack of health resources and mobility difficulties that prevent workers living in the north from easily commuting to the south for work, along with the “Damocles sword” of legal disputes regarding age-related matters.
“These are the concerns that weigh on us, concern and occupy our thoughts,” he elaborated.
When questioned about the minimum services established by the Canary Islands Government for the strike, he emphasised that the decision was “courageous” because “we cannot leave individuals, children, adults, the elderly, without food for two days”, nor hotels without attending to essential maintenance needs. “There may be a fire risk and who will extinguish it?”
He did not shy away from acknowledging the reputational harm caused by a tourist strike and conceded that there have been prior cancellations in local tourism, particularly in Tenerife, but not so much from European or mainland tourists who already had their holidays arranged.
