* Originally Published in revista 22 collection ' a Constitution for liberty III '

Constitutional framework of labour formulated in Art. 41 and 43 provides for so-called rights to social protection and to strike, together with compulsory collective bargaining. The work is one of the most important aspects of people's lives. It's worth to take a look at serious correctness with which it rewarded the opportunity and freedom to work permits for this frame. Is the price which an employer pays for il a particular work, and a work is useful primarily to the extent that this is recognised by those who benefit from that work and reflected how they are willing to pay for it. When the State is involved in this process in order to condition the employer increases labour costs, he for the employer and, as a result, limit your options.

In the category of social protection enter a series of regulations which grievously misrepresent its labor market, such as minimum wage, State jurisdiction over the criteria of employment and dismissal, as well as regulations and special controls relating to working conditions. Minimum wage imposed by express Art. 41, para. 2 of the Constitution, has the ideal speaking, meant to raise the standard for the most poorly paid jobs, so for the lowest skilled people. But he suffers from three shortcomings.

First, alter the functionality of the market worker in damages. If a price increase, then demand falls. Thus, when the market price is established (salary) for a work, and artificially increases the State this price, there will be the reaction of employers to hire the same number of skilled workers at a higher price, but to hire less qualified workers. In this way, the minimum wage pushes towards unemployment or to the black market on those whose qualifications do not achieve the standard minimum wage that would be achieved naturally, limiting people's freedom to work.

Secondly, the consecration in Art. 41 para. 2 within the concept of the right to social protection of the State to establish a system of work specifically for categories such as women or youth cannot be viewed regardless of light in which policy would be the virtue of "positive discrimination", as something other than legal discrimination consecration of legitimacy.

Thirdly, after an enumeration of issues that consistency could justify State intervention. 2 let the possibility of extending social protection measures without any conceptual limit expressed.

The right to strike, formulated in Art. 43, sits above the will of any parts that would seek to buy and to sell.

It should be understood that the effect is not to give something to the employee, but to take something from it. When the employer knows that whatever you write in the contract, the person employed comes with power to block its activity, employer or angajatoarea will take into account these costs. As a result, will decrease from the amount by which remuneration calculated as may be provided from this participation committed to possible strikes. The right to strike is thus a right that the State forces us to buy it.

How is it useful? In today's economic context, the market is sufficiently developed to give troubleshooting situations for abuse of the employer, without having the right of employees to block economic activity. Because a frame of freedom to ensure the presence of other potential competing employers, even without a special law to strike, free associations of laborers can threaten with resignation when you want better conditions. Here things can evolve in two ways. If, in the context of the market in which they are requested, requests are unreasonable, the employer will grant them, because they will find others to work under the same conditions. If claims are not unreasonable in the context in which they were required, the employer will be able to accept the resignation and unhappy employees will engage others under the same conditions.

It is not legitimate to demand better conditions while others are more than happy to work in our present conditions. Error in economic Constitution is to assume that we can determine how much work other than through the price which it is sold. Its effect is to block economic activity. The error is of order and morale. The effect of granting the right to strike is to lock in unemployment or in worse conditions for all those who would be willing to work in place of grevistilor.

System generated by this constitutional framework, declarative level, protects, but in reality blocks. The right to social protection and strike, combined with compulsory collective agreements forcing employees and employers what restrictions or economic performance and rewarding labor. The effect obtained is artificial in opposition to implementation of trade unions "protected" by the State and employers that will be culpabilizati for their natural reaction to try to recover additional costs arising from the constitutional framework hostile market.