The jobs exist. The wages are set. The problem is preference.
In Vitoria-Gasteiz, the president of Spain's leading business federation stood before corporate leaders and offered a diagnosis of the country's labor paradox: three million people without work, yet entire industries unable to fill their positions. Antonio Garamendi's argument was not purely economic but moral and institutional — pointing to a fraying work ethic on one hand and a government he believes has abandoned the art of genuine dialogue on the other. The tension he described is older than any single policy dispute: who holds the legitimate authority to shape the conditions under which people labor, and what happens to a society when those conversations break down.
- Spain loses 1.5 million workers to daily absences — a figure rising year over year, costing an estimated €32 billion annually, with the pattern of Monday and Friday clustering suggesting something more cultural than medical.
- Three million unemployed coexist with desperate shortages in hospitality, construction, and transport, a contradiction that Garamendi frames not as a market failure but as a crisis of willingness.
- The CEOE charges that the Ministry of Labor has turned the negotiating table into theater — using social dialogue as a formality before imposing predetermined outcomes, most recently on expanded bereavement leave worth roughly a billion euros to employers.
- Garamendi's warning is pointed: businesses seeking regulatory certainty will look beyond Spain's borders, and the erosion of business input into policy is not merely a grievance but a signal to investors.
- With unions advancing alongside government and the CEOE repeatedly excluded from final agreements, Spain's model of tripartite social dialogue appears to be fracturing in real time.
Antonio Garamendi took the stage in Vitoria-Gasteiz not to celebrate Spain's economic recovery but to challenge its foundations. The CEOE president laid out a troubling arithmetic: 1.5 million daily absences, up from 1.4 million the year before, concentrated on Mondays and Fridays, costing employers and the broader economy some €32 billion a year. Young workers under 35 alone accumulated 9 million missed workdays in a single year. For Garamendi, the pattern pointed to something cultural — a deficit of work ethic rather than a deficit of opportunity.
The paradox he described is genuine. Spain counts 3 million unemployed while hospitality, construction, and transport struggle to find workers willing to fill positions that come with negotiated wages and formal contracts. Garamendi was pointed in his criticism of those who resist foreign labor — workers who, he noted, actually want to work — and dismissive of political voices calling for shorter hours, which he framed as disconnected from economic reality.
But the speech carried a second, sharper edge. Garamendi accused the Ministry of Labor of systematically sidelining the business federation from collective bargaining, using formal negotiation structures not to build consensus but to ratify decisions already made. The immediate trigger was the government's unilateral expansion of bereavement leave — a proposal introduced without prior discussion, rejected by the CEOE, and then advanced anyway in partnership with unions alone. 'Yesterday they threw us out again,' he said plainly.
Beneath the policy dispute lies a structural anxiety. Garamendi warned that investors and companies weigh regulatory predictability when choosing where to operate, and that Spain's current trajectory risks making that calculus unfavorable. The CEOE does not dispute the government's right to govern, but insists on its place as a legitimate social partner — a role it believes is being methodically dismantled. The government, for its part, frames its actions as necessary progress on worker protections. Neither side shows signs of yielding, and the collaborative architecture that long defined Spanish labor relations is under visible strain.
Antonio Garamendi, president of Spain's business federation CEOE, stood before an audience of corporate leaders in Vitoria-Gasteiz and delivered a diagnosis of Spain's labor crisis that pointed not at economics but at attitude. The country's real problem, he argued, was not a shortage of jobs but a shortage of willingness to fill them—a cultural deficit he called the absence of a "work ethic."
The numbers Garamendi cited were stark. On any given day, 1.5 million people fail to show up for work across Spain. That figure has grown from 1.4 million the year before. The pattern is unmistakable: absences cluster on Mondays and Fridays, suggesting something other than illness or emergency. Young people under 35 accumulated 9 million missed workdays in the previous year alone. The economic toll, by Garamendi's calculation, reaches 32 billion euros annually—16 billion of that borne directly by employers, the rest distributed across the broader cost of replacement labor and lost productivity.
Yet Spain officially counts 3 million unemployed people. This paradox sits at the heart of Garamendi's argument. Hospitality, construction, and transport all report desperate shortages of workers. Positions exist with collective bargaining agreements and established wages. The issue, he insisted, is not that jobs are unavailable but that some portion of the population has decided not to take them. He criticized those who argue against bringing foreign workers—people who, he noted pointedly, actually want to work—and he took aim at political voices advocating for shorter working hours, framing such positions as fundamentally at odds with economic reality.
But Garamendi's speech was not merely a lecture on work ethic. It was also a confrontation with the government over how labor policy is made. The Ministry of Labor, he charged, has been systematically excluding the business federation from negotiations while pursuing its own political agenda through what he called the "roller and chainsaw" approach to collective bargaining. The immediate flashpoint was the government's decision to expand bereavement leave—a proposal that emerged without prior discussion at the negotiating table, Garamendi said, and one the CEOE rejected. When the federation refused to sign on, the ministry simply ended talks with business and moved forward with unions alone.
Garamendi framed this not as a policy disagreement but as an assault on the institution of social dialogue itself. The government, he argued, uses the formal structures of negotiation not to build consensus but to impose predetermined decisions. The CEOE, he emphasized, does not walk away from these tables—they are being ejected from them. "Yesterday they threw us out again," he said, his frustration evident. The bereavement leave expansion alone, he calculated, would cost employers roughly a billion euros.
Underlying this conflict is a deeper anxiety about investment and stability. Garamendi warned that companies looking to establish or expand operations will seek jurisdictions offering regulatory certainty and legal security. Spain's current trajectory—characterized by unilateral government action and the erosion of business input into policy—risks pushing capital elsewhere. The federation leader did not question the government's legitimacy to govern, but he insisted on the CEOE's rightful place as a social partner, a role he said was being systematically dismantled.
The speech captured a moment of genuine tension between Spain's executive and its business establishment. The government sees labor protections and expanded benefits as necessary social progress. The CEOE sees unilateral action and exclusion from decision-making as a threat to the collaborative framework that has historically shaped Spanish labor relations. Both sides claim to be defending something essential—the government, worker welfare; business, the conditions necessary for economic dynamism. Neither appears willing to yield.
Citas Notables
In Spain there are thousands of people missing from hospitality, thousands from construction, thousands from transport, and that is a problem of attitude.— Antonio Garamendi, CEOE president
The Ministry of Labor is intent on eroding the space for social dialogue and uses that forum to impose its political program.— Antonio Garamendi, CEOE president
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When Garamendi says there's a problem of "attitude" rather than jobs, what does he actually mean? Is he saying people are lazy?
Not exactly. He's pointing to a specific pattern—absences spike on Mondays and Fridays, which suggests choice rather than circumstance. He's saying the jobs exist, the wages are set by collective agreement, but some workers are declining them or not showing up. It's a claim about preference, not capability.
But couldn't those Monday and Friday absences have other explanations? Childcare, health issues, second jobs?
They could. Garamendi doesn't dig into that. He's making a rhetorical move—presenting the pattern as evidence of cultural decline. Whether that's the full picture is a different question.
The government's move on bereavement leave—why does that matter so much to him?
Because it's not really about the leave itself. It's about process. The government proposed something new without consulting business at the table, then when CEOE said no, the government just moved forward with unions. To Garamendi, that signals the end of genuine negotiation. Business is being sidelined.
Is he wrong about that?
He's describing what happened accurately. Whether it's a problem depends on your view of how labor policy should be made. The government might argue it has the democratic mandate to set policy without business approval. Garamendi argues that excluding one of the three traditional partners in social dialogue weakens the whole system.
What's the real threat he's worried about?
Capital flight. If Spain becomes a place where government acts unilaterally and business has no seat at the table, companies will invest elsewhere. That's not a complaint about one policy—it's a warning about the stability of the entire framework.
And the 32 billion euro cost—is that real?
It's his calculation based on the absenteeism figures. Whether you accept it depends on whether you accept his premise that all those absences are avoidable and attributable to attitude rather than systemic factors.