Critics of the CEOE campaign, led by CCOO, argue that the advertisements represent a dangerous and irresponsible attempt to shift the blame for service failures onto individual employees. By linking legitimate medical leave and family-related absences to the poor quality of services, the union contends that the employers' association is deliberately confusing fraud with the exercise of fundamental labor rights. This strategy, they argue, creates a climate of suspicion that stigmatizes those who are genuinely ill or fulfilling family obligations, effectively turning them into targets for public frustration.
From this perspective, the campaign is a calculated move to pave the way for future legislative rollbacks. By 'criminalizing' the use of sick leave, the CEOE is accused of trying to pressure the government into making it easier to cut benefits or reduce protections for workers. Critics point out that the real issue is not the workers, but the failure of companies to invest in sufficient staffing levels or to prioritize the health and safety of their employees. They argue that if a business cannot provide a service because a worker is on leave, the fault lies with the company's management and its inability to plan for predictable absences.
Furthermore, labor representatives emphasize that they have provided rigorous data on the deterioration of worker health, which they believe is being ignored in favor of inflammatory rhetoric. They warn that such campaigns do not solve the problem of absenteeism but instead poison the social dialogue necessary for healthy labor relations. For these critics, the campaign is an insult to the workforce and a distraction from the urgent need to address the root causes of workplace stress and poor working conditions that lead to health issues in the first place.