Following the announcement of the so-called “trenuleț” ordinance, which proposes austerity measures largely aimed at workers employed in companies with majority state capital and public administration, but also with small measures targeting entrepreneurs/capitalists, trade unions have announced several protests. The first of these protests were initiated by the unions of ELCEN and METROREX. In the case of both companies, the main issue was wages, which according to the train ordinance should be frozen and jobs frozen. At the same time, the collective bargaining agreement (CCM) stipulates something else, namely both bonuses, benefits and salary increases, and also the addition of additional manpower in the case of METROREX.
ELCEN
In the case of the protest in the courtyard of the headquarters of the Electrocentrale Bucharest, ELCEN employees of SLI-SEB, affiliated to BNS, gathered in their hundreds. The protest participants ranged in age from 21 to 60. The large number of protesters (considering that only people who were NOT on shift at the time could protest) coupled with indignation towards the government created an energetic atmosphere in which workers expressed their discontent. There were regular chants demanding respect for the CCM and booing every time the union leader mentioned management and the government in his speech. As the placards, which were held in plain sight both by workers taking part in a trade union action for the first time and by more experienced workers, said, the problem is that the CCM signed last year has not been respected, in the case of most of them. What specifically does this mean? A pay cut of around 1500 lei per worker. In some cases it is also a lack of salary increase, as it should have been increased from January 2025. The union leader has made it clear that the workers are prepared to take all possible steps to ensure that their rights are not violated. Later on, the union representatives had a discussion with a representative of the Ministry of Energy, but they failed to win what they had proposed.
The workers, while appreciative of our solidarity with the cause, were skeptical about our presence there. This is, of course, to be expected, and a good reaction, given the recent history of attempts by some parliamentary parties to confiscate strikes and protests by workers, and the relatively distant history of various paid and unpaid thugs infiltrating demonstrations by workers to stop them by various means.
However, if a strike becomes necessary, what would be imperative for the success of this approach would be to explain the situation to the other workers in Bucharest in various ways (inter-union communiqués, popularizing the cause among unorganized workers by all possible means), taking into account past situations. An example would be the spontaneous protest at Metrorex in which not only did a large part of the workers not show solidarity with the protesting trade unionists, but they were even outraged by this action. Of course, this, together with the low rate of unionization in the private sector, shows us that we are still in a historical period in which workers as a class are on the defensive.
Some of the messages seen on placards:
“You stole from the poor to give to the rich with the austerity ordinance.”
“We want CCM compliance.”
“Better cut from you from their special pensions than from us.”
METROREX
In the case of the protest organized by the Free Metro Union, the number of protesters was larger, around 1000 people of all ages. The atmosphere was again lively, but the crowd was separated from the roadway by a fence with placards attached. In between the sound emanating from the vuvuzelas blowing loudly, a union representative highlighted the problems encountered and also created by the train ordinance, namely the failure to increase wages despite the fact that ticket prices have gone up and the shortage, which endangers the passengers. During the representative’s speech, calls for the governments to resign were chanted and booing was heard. Some of the workers said they were unhappy with the small number of their colleagues who had gathered there and explained that the workplace involves many health risks due to the dampness which causes mold or the proximity to certain tools (e.g. special electrical substations where high voltage is used). Lack of manpower leads to mechanics working overtime, which leads to exhaustion and endangers their lives and the lives of passengers as a result. All because it’s cheaper to force employees to go to work and pay them overtime instead of hiring another mechanic. We also learned that there are many cases where METROREX workers are forced to find another job or end up having to pay for spare parts needed on the job out of their own money. Here again, the protesters were assured that they would take all necessary steps to defend what they have earned so far. They were then promised that everything they had asked for would be given to them.
The workers expressed their appreciation for our solidarity, but avoided staying in touch on the grounds that they might end up in trouble with either the union or management and even lose their jobs. This may be for a variety of reasons, like those listed above, but the fact that specific information about the possible strike could be used against them.
Protest January 24
The notorious ordinance together with the pension law and the non-application of the railroad workers’ statute managed to bring various unions to the streets on January 24, a day off for most workers. This time it was announced that workers from several sectors, such as foresters, steelworkers, metrorex employees and miners, as well as police and military employees, would be present. But with the appearance of far-right supporters, the protest ended.
However, it is important to emphasize that the protest speeches had social and republican overtones. Even with the periodic economist and nationalist slippages. On a general level all the speakers understood the emergency ordinances both as a violation of the social dialog and as an attack on all socio-professional categories of the popular classes. The president was not mentioned at all, and implicitly or explicitly the conflict was presented as one between a government separated from the population and a parliament that was either treacherous or institutionally isolated; the subject of emergency ordinances that supersede or even violate organic laws was a common motif in the speeches. Almost all the speeches emphasized the ways in which the government’s activity in recent years has affected the population in general, through inflation, tax increases, wage and pension cuts. But they came with few concrete demands, most of them of a political nature, but in the context of bourgeois politics: respect for the constitution, for the laws in force, reopening and respect for social dialog. One exception was the Meridian delegation from Italy, which proposed uniting all the trade union movements.
Certainly, January 24 encourages a republican-social discourse, but the historical event
commemorated does not explain everything; although the participants were announced in the tens of thousands, most of the participants were not active salaried workers, but retired, reservists, or dismissed military, so they are forced to make a general appeal for solidarity with the broad society, because they are not fighting against a private employer, but, from their point of view, against the state; there may also be a proletarian consciousness that has emerged during the trade union struggles of recent years, but this proletarian consciousness is mediated through citizenship and the relationship between citizen and state.
Conclusions
How did this so-called tax problem come about? Could this scenario have been avoided?
The trainlet ordinance is the materialization of the taxation problem highlighted by trade unionists in the past. If at the time the issue seemed a bit vague, now everyone is feeling it and the leftists in the workers’ queue are now proposing what the unions proposed 7 months ago. The BNS addressed and foresaw this problem, but it seems that their strength and the pressure created was not enough to succeed in pushing through an increase in capital taxation and shifting taxes from the employee to the employer to avoid the current situation which requires restructuring and a series of losses among those who work. Even though this tax measure affected all workers, it did not have much support, or if it did, it was only manifested in small protests. Several things can be drawn from this:
- At first, it may seem that it is enough for employees to be militant and well-organized to get their demands. A promise was made immediately after the very first metrorex protest this year. Why did this not happen in the case of ELCEN? Here we can clearly see that when capital is jeopardized, even with just a slowdown in production, demands are taken more seriously. If the METROREX workers stop their work, the traffic in Bucharest will increase so much that the workers (their labor force, bought by the capitalists) will get to work much more slowly, which would slow down production in many areas. This cannot be acceptable, as it directly slows down an entire production chain not just locally, but across the globe (automotive, IT, etc.) By contrast, freezing workers in apartments has no IMMEDIATE effect on capital. Sure, over time workers may get sick, but the discomfort created, any luck, can solve itself from the point of view of capital anyway. How? The other workers to put pressure on the withdrawing workers to give them what they need, the provision of heat and hot water. Apart from the fact that the demands of the withdrawing workers could be ignored, the struggle between the workers would not only put a smile on the faces but also line the pockets of the ruling class (capitalists). Because it would remove some of the workers from organizing as a class, thus overwork could be intensified – without the solidarity and limited economistic struggle that is generally waged today capital, which unhindered like a vampire seeks to consume labor power will be even freer to do so, the defenses of the working people weakening.
But as I pointed out in the article Ciolacu is the symptom, the disease is the capital, the struggle is not just at the level of a single , but at the level of the whole of society. Therefore, without an effort by the entire working class, all victories are partial and temporary. Even with the strength held by the Metrorex workers, the necessity of the Japanese strike and the moves towards a concrete strike show us the need for solidarity between workers in different sectors for the strength to win the struggles proposed by themselves. Even so, for the ELCEN workers, not even a promise has been made yet and a possible strike in this company is approaching.
- Without demands that cover all workers, huge losses for workers cannot be avoided and, more importantly, more ambitious demands that cover us workers cannot be won.
We sell our labor as a class. Without the struggle for these common demands, a program cannot be produced and won that represents us workers as a class, so that we can then emancipate ourselves.
- The need for a party of working people is more evident than ever. Without a party to advance their interests and address the fundamental problems of today’s society in order to overcome them, any struggle is doomed to failure. In sense that sooner or later our, workers’, gains will be lost or at the very least challenged and the condition of the worker cannot be overcome.
