Nearly 20 years ago, the court ruled that the difference in treatment between blue and white collar workers, a relic of the industrial past, was indeed a major discrimination. Blue collar workers receive far less compensation when they are laid off. Also, they have different terms for sick leave, the employment trial period and the payment of holiday bonuses.

By June, two decades after the Constitutional Court’s ruling, these differences need to be abolished.

In Belgium, problems like this are traditionally solved by talks between workers and employers. However, as the past 20 years have shown, this method has not worked when it comes to the creation of the so called “unity statute” for all workers. As the deadline draws near, animosity between unions and employers organisations mounts, too.

Two solutions are possible. The first is “raising” the blue collar workers’ statute, so that it equals that of their white collar colleagues. Employers have warned that this could amount to economic disaster, with the export of thousands of jobs to countries with lower labour costs.

Another possible solution is “lowering” the white collar workers’ statute. Unsurprisingly, the unions find this unacceptable. Most white collar workers are flat-out against this. In the words of labour law specialist Marc De Vos of Ghent University: “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”.

The final compromise will be some middle ground, but that is yet to be found, even with the help of the federal government, which unions and employers requested. The negotiations have been all but suspended, with unions and employers mostly talking through the media.

“Everyone knows that the compromise will be an ugly baby, so they are all trying to postpone the birth as long as possible,” says professor De Vos. He believes that the compensation in case of job loss is outdated anyway. Leaving people inactive, even when giving them large sums of money, is not the way to move forward. Instead, the compensation should lead to new employment.

No-one is against that, but, then again, who will vote for it?