The new Infection Protection Act leaves an ambivalent impression of the first government action of the officially not yet formed traffic light coalition.
The SPD, Greens and FDP have shown in the Bundestag that they do not lack the will to power, but still (?) The ability and feeling for the right time.
In view of the rapidly rampant virus again, letting the "epidemic emergency of national scope" run out remains a major contradiction that the traffic light partners do not resolve convincingly.
This does not mean that the amendment, which has been sharpened several times, will inevitably be a worse basis in the fight against the virus than the old law.
The central endeavor to spare schools and businesses another lockdown deserves recognition.
To this end, companies and employees are obliged, in a different way than last winter, to ban the risk of infection in the workplace.
Only those who have been tested, vaccinated or recovered are still allowed into the companies.
Compulsory home office is problematic
This makes sense and at the same time reduces health risks for commuters using local public transport.
The employers are condemned to strict control.
They bear the costs of tests or vaccinations during working hours.
For this they get the necessary information rights.
And even trade unionists affirm the controversial obligation of the employees to provide information, the SPD labor minister openly names the consequences: Those who refuse to accept 3G will lose their wages.
Such support helps companies, the corona crash in companies is the last thing they need now.
Unfortunately, the renewed grip on the tightened home office obligation is prone to disputes.
As in spring, it binds employers more than employees, who can evade with excuses.
Since home office is now a voluntary practice in many companies and 3G enables safe working, this interference in the company organization is superfluous.
It seems ideologically motivated and arouses concern: Do the Ampel-Trio also believe that the interests of companies can be better balanced with state coercion than with collective bargaining or company negotiation solutions?