Large protests by Egyptian employees about the provisions of a new law governing those working in the civil service look likely to continue. The new legislation, Civil Service Law No. 18 of 2015, is supposed to help reform and trim an oversized bureaucracy as well as end an unsustainable situation where the number of state employees continuously rises along with their salaries. The new law is also supposed to tackle issues of corruption, prejudice and nepotism.

Large protests by Egyptian employees about the provisions of a new law governing those working in the civil service look likely to continue. The new legislation, Civil Service Law No. 18 of 2015, is supposed to help reform and trim an oversized bureaucracy as well as end an unsustainable situation where the number of state employees continuously rises along with their salaries. The new law is also supposed to tackle issues of corruption, prejudice and nepotism. However many civil servants and other employed locals do not believe the law is doing this in a fair way; they also do not believe there was enough consultation with concerned parties as the law was being formulated.

In an interview with Correspondents, Kamal Abbas, the general coordinator of the Center of Trade Union and Worker Services, or CTUWS – one of the most active human rights centers on labor issues – explained why demonstrators are so angry about a law that is supposed to make things better.

What is your explanation for the huge protests against this new civil service law?

The civil service law contains many points that represent a threat to a large number of employees, both at the salaried level and at the civil service level. This is in terms of the employer-employee relations, the percentage of people with disabilities and the recruitment criteria for new employees.

Besides that, this new law was created without any dialogue – even though it affects a large number of employees. It had not even been presented to union representatives.

What are the main points of disagreement in the law?

The main controversy, which triggered the protests, is the article related to salaries. Salaries were divided into fixed wages, variable remuneration and allowances before. This law divides them into fixed wages and the rest into something called a complimentary salary. This complimentary salary is no longer variable. It is a fixed salary that does not take into account inflation and rising prices. Additionally the social allowance which was 10 percent to 12 percent of the basic salary has been canceled.

There are also objections about the powers given to the managers.

Another drawback of the new law is the unlimited powers given to managers. These include the issuing of reports, power over dismissals and the lifting of sanctions imposed on employees.

While the law emphasizes integrity in human resources by specifying that all recruitments should be based on merit, it also entitles managers to dismiss any employee during the first six months of their employment, before their status becomes more fixed.

The new law has also abolished the potential to upgrade an employee’s salary grade in a situation where they may have achieved additional qualifications. A lot of employees are trying to raise their grades by undertaking postgraduate and higher education and the new law basically cancels out this potential for them.

And what are your objections to the provisions dealing with hours worked?

The new law sets a limit for the minimum working hours but does not set a maximum. The old law used to allow compensation for overtime. Under this new law, the employee could be assigned extra hours without extra pay. The rule should be that a person’s salary matches their actual working hours.

It seems that one good point in the new civil service law is that it stipulates that there should be more opportunities for people with disabilities, specifying that 7 percent of opportunities should be for people with disabilities and people whose parents were injured while in military service, rather than the previous 5 percent. Surely this is a positive?

The new law stipulates that 7 percent of job opportunities should be assigned to disabled people, the children of those injured while in military service or who were killed during operations against terrorism. But it didn’t retain the 5 percent figure solely for disabled people. This means that people who are disabled may end up with even less than 5 percent of job opportunities and there could be favoritism for others at their expense.

The new law also makes no mention of the need for kindergartens and child care in every institution that employs more than a hundred female workers – meanwhile the government is enforcing this provision in private companies.

The law also promotes early retirement, which looks like a good idea. Why are you objecting to this part of the law too?

Although the new law promotes early retirement, it does not protect employees against pressure from management, which has broad powers and which could impose penalties or exercise arbitrary transfers to force employees to demand early retirement.

So you feel that this new law has absolutely no positive aspects?

The law has its advantages and its disadvantages. Its positive aspects include that it regulates employee relations for more than 6.5 million employees and that it will replace the old Law 47 of 1978 and improve services provided to all employees by state agencies .

So what is the CTUWS’ plan to achieve the changes that demonstrators have demanded?

We have organized more than 12 seminars all over the country, from Sohag to Alexandria, to hear employees’ complaints and to find a channel for dialogue with the Minister of Planning. In fact we have conducted a seminar with the Minister and he has already promised to consider all of our demands, as far as he can, within the bounds of the new law. This dialogue was positive but we don’t know how far up, and how much, our demands have been considered. When we decided to organize another protest for next Monday in front of the Ministry of Finance, the security forces refused to give us permission and we don’t understand why. We have peaceful demands and we want to deliver them. We have since sent requests to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Planning but we’ve had no response whatsoever as yet.