European Economic Union, the Spanish government is mounting an unprecedented attack on the working class. In spite of promises of a hypothetical bright "European" future, the workers have resisted; since the end of 1991 there have been a series of regional general strikes, leading up to a social movement of a breadth unknown since the general strike of December 14, 1988.
International Viewpoint spoke to Joaquin Nieto, a member of the executive commission of the Workers' Commission (CCOO - the Maastricht accords, which in one of Spain's main trade union confederations).
14-D
INCE 1991 certain regions of the Spanish State, notably Asturias, have witnessed movements of resistance to the government's plans for the economy. The leaders of the big union confederations, the
General Union of Workers (UGT)
and the Workers Commissions
(CCOO), called for a half day general strike on May 28, 1992. How
There are three factors at work. Firstly, there has been mounting discontent in response to the economic and social policy of the Socialist government, whose credibility is fading (as with its
French counterpart, corruption scandals have played a role in discrediting it.
The anger has expressed itself in a rise in mobilizations and wage conflicts;
since autumn 1991 we have seen a series of general strikes in various regions against the creation of postindustrial wastelands. There have been important movements in Leon, and a
12 general strike in Asturias, in Cartagena
28-M
and in Galicia on April 2, 1992. On the same date, 100,000 workers struck in Aviles in Asturias and there was also an action in Hernani in Guipuzkoa.
There has been a sharp rise in strikes; the number of strike days in 1991 was well above the 1990 level, while the first four months of 1992 have seen two or three times as many days lost to strikes as in the whole of 1991. The Spanish state is now well ahead in the
The factor which finally set the powder keg alight was the government's persistence in its anti-worker offensive despite all the protests. A very tough economic programme is being prepared so that Spain can meet the requirements set in the Maastricht Treaty for it to be in the leading group of Economic and Monetary Union.
The government's "convergence" plan involves a savage attack on the unemployed, the workers and the public sector as a whole, including a decree sharply reducing unemployment benefits. The most recent government measure strike in the autumn. The union movement in the Spanish state is currently discussing Maastricht, which the government is claiming is the reason for the current measures. In the same way as the Confederation of European Unions, the CCOO and the UGT have expressed critical support for my view is a mistake. The union confederations have also expressed their concern about the fact that the macro-economic homogeneity embodied in the Treaty is not reflected at the social level and they have been critical of the fact that the centralization of economic decision-making has not been accompanied by central political decision-making structures. Such criticisms are justified but partial. However, recently we have increasingly been hearing criticisms of the European project as a whole, for example from the United Left (IU — a coalition led by the Spanish Communist Party). • The ruling Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) has had resort to exceptional measures reminiscent Franco's time to get its decree on unemployment passed.
This measure was not adopted by the usual parliamentary channels but in the form of a decree decided by the Council of Ministers and then published in the official state bulletin. It was neither discussed in parliament nor submitted for consideration to the unions. This decretazo is a sign of a very authoritarian way of governing; here in the the Spanish state we are highly sensitive to this kind of thing, which reminds us of the dictatorship which used to govern by
Then, the government tried to sugar the pill by putting forward a draft law to parliament. They did this in order to head off any union resistance. The general strike of December 14, 1988 was chiefly in protest against an employment plan which discriminated against youth arriving on the job market. The government had to withdraw this plan and it has never been heard of again. Thus, this time, to avoid a similar embarrassment the government wanted to give the law parliamentary legitimacy and make it harder for it to be with-
least in the CCOO; at the latter's drawn.
• What is the content of this which is based on a royal decree decree?
It is not yet finalized; it may be amenthe constitution, is already highly ded in parliament. However the proporestrictive. In the course of diffesal is one that affects all wage-earners.
The plan is to increase the length of time one has to work before becoming entitled to unemployment benefits from their rights with the exception of six months to one year. Very many worthe issue of the minimum public kers in the Spanish state work on six month contracts, in agricultural or tourism for example, and would be deprived of unemployment benefit. Furtherrecent congress it was clear that the left's proposals were meeting with a more favourable echo than hitherto. Indeed some amendments were adopted; previously the mere fact that they came from the union left would have condemned the most rational proposal to defeat. • Do you expect to see increasing unity between the UGT and the CCOO?
It has continued since the 1988
EXISTING strike legislation, of 1977, before the adoption of rent social conflicts, the unions have succeeded in expanding service, which the government uses against the right to strike.
The law currently being considered is inspired by the Francoist more, the decree reduces the rate of benefit by between 10 and 15%. Here unemployment is the highest in the EEC - at 17% or some 2.6 million people who have little social security. More than half of those without work (1.4 general strike, despite conflicts during the union elections. It is inspired by the common pressures we are under and by an awareness of the enemy's determination and the scale of the defeat it wants to legislation of 1970 to 1975, without the penalties entailed by the latter. It legally allows the employment of strikebreakers, makes strikes in some sectors illegal and complicates the proce million people get nothing dures required to call a strike. The is only officially registered unemployment. There is also the army of longwill be established by the authoriterm unemployed, and above all of women, who have given up wearing themselves out trying to get pittances out of the state. Thus there are probably some two million unemployed people inflict on us. Maintaining unity is thus an obligation on all responsible union members.
I think that in the future we may take unity a step further; some of the biggest obstacles to increased unity between the two confederations have disappeared. The political references and links (the PSOE level of minimum public service ties who reserve the right to enforce them in any case whatsoever. Finally, a whole range of individual sanctions, including the sacking of those involved in who get nothing. • Why, after a long period of foot- the requirement to provide a minidragging, have the unions leaders mum public service and collective decided to call for a general strike?
Besides the violence of the government's attacks, the union leaders are also under strong internal pressure. The need to mount a comprehensive campaign against the government's programme was already raised in people's minds by the 1988 strike, which has left very vivid memories among the workers.
Now, after the various regional general strikes, rank-and-file pressure for a large-scale action is rising. The union leaders meanwhile can see that the government's attacks will have longterm implications. They know they have to reply if they are not to lose credibility. During the discussions on what to do, it was middle-level union officials as well as the left that protested against the restriction of this action to a half-day. They realize that a whole day action has a different social impact, and that, furthermore, a half-day action could create conflicts among workers, with, depending on the working day, some going on strike, others missing only an hour or two, with different losses in terms of wages.
The discussion itself is a healthy development, breaking out of the pattern of a leadership decision being seen as something that cannot be questioned - or the idea that an opposition proposal must necessarily be voted down. This is part of a broader development at for the UGT and the Communist Party [PCE] for the CCOO) have frayed; the CCOO has simply cut its ties with the PCE while the UGT is at loggerheads with the PSOE - it seems indeed that the UGT would welcome the defeat of the PSOE in elections, since this would split the party.
Furthermore, the mixed system of union representation in all spheres has been accepted on both sides. Even so, the two confederations have different cultures; today it still remains true that most of the CCOO's cadres come out of the anti-Franco struggle, while those of the UGT have been educated after Franco's fall. Unification is not on the agenda. • What happened on May 28, 1992?
Different strike calls were issued in different places. In some places — in some parts of Euskadi, in the Balearic Islands, in Murcia, in Huelva (Andalusia), in the south of Andalusia and in the canton of Gibraltar there were calls for 24-hour strikes, as was also true for some industrial branches including the mines and steel and among teachers, with the support of students' organizations. The rest observed a half day strike between 5 and 12 o'clock. In this period, electricity consumption in fact fell by 68%, indicating that production had been seriously affected. • You thus consider the strike to illegal strike action or ignoring sanctions, including against union delegates and bodies held responsible for calling "illegal" strikes, are to be introduced. * have been a success. What kinds of demonstrations of support were there from the general population?
The fact that there was no unified strike call affected the mobilization. Where a whole day strike was called it was total. Where the strike was partial, the paralysis was almost total in the centres of work, above all in industry, construction and services but there was less impact on social life as a whole. In
Madrid the big shops stayed open, but the smaller retail sector was hard hit, above all in the workers' neighbourhoods and the city centre.
The strike was supported by 174 organizations, including all the social movements, 30 ecological organizations, 20 women's associations, 40 youth and student groups, anti-poverty groups, Gypsies, rank-and-file Christians and so on.
Even the Catholic hierarchy felt obliged to respond to pressure from below and eight Bishops publicly expressed support for the mobilization. The ecological organizations issued a manifesto in support of the strike, they met with the
COO and the UGT and made commit- 13 ments concerning a common approach June 22, 1992• # 231 International Viewpoint
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
SPANISH STATE By royal decree
International Viewpoint # 231 • June 22, 1992
SPANISH STATE / THAILAND to ecological problems. The many informal contacts need to be consolidated.
The unions' strike appeal had a significant impact on the workers, disproving assertions that the unions no longer have worker support. The unions are thus right to consider the action a success; the statements from the other side to the effect that it failed because life did not totally cease are simply demagogy.
It seems clear that, had the unions called for a 24-hour strike, the dynamic would have been stronger. We have counted 140 demonstrations on May 28, with tens of thousands in the big cities. The biggest was in Madrid (the radio estimated 100,000 people) with the next biggest being in Barcelona. • There was an impressive police presence in all the big cities.
The government took this strike very seriously and tried to browbeat the workers by a show of force. Such a police presence had not been seen since the end of the dictatorship; in Madrid, for example, the official figure for the number of police deployed was 17,000. Sometimes you would have a 100 strong strike picket surrounded by 400 riot police. The Ministry of the Interior organized an entire spectacle with police cars rushing about with lights flashing and sirens blasting; a helicopter fluttered all day long over Madrid and so on. Even the most pro-government press reported on this climate. This deployment was making a point to everybody, in a country which well knows the meaning of repression.
There is a clear authoritarian shift going on. A few months ago the so-called Corcuera law (after the minister of the interior) was adopted. This stipulates that the police can enter private premises without a warrant and that people can be held in custody without habeas corpus; the law also restricts the right to strike. The law was passed on the pretext of the need to fight drug trafficking but its main target is the workers. It has already been used against strike pickets during the wage disputes at the end of 1991 and the start of 1992.
What public services functioned on May 28 were able to do so only due to the police presence. In Madrid and Valencia the definition of a minimum service was strict - for example, 40% of buses must run - and thus under police surveillance public transport was ensured in these cities. But it should be pointed out that the buses were largely empty. Even if the unions were not able to prevent buses running the lack of pas14 support for the strike. sengers indicated the real level of public
• Many European countries have seen sharp falls in levels of unionization. What is the situation in the Spanish state? The workers' response to the unions' appeal on the other hand seems to suggest that the CCOO and UGT retain the ability to mobilize.
The rate of unionization in the Spanish state is low - around 20% of wage earners. Unionization has however seen a rise since the strike of December 1988, spreading into new sectors. In the public sector, unions have registered three and fourfold increases in membership. Unionization has remained stable in industry and weak in the small and medium sized firms that employ 80% of this country's workers.
At the end of the dictatorship in 197677 the unions experienced a dramatic increase in membership, but were unable to hold on to their gains; they went down the road of social pacts, betraying the workers' hopes. The workers first protested and then left the unions. The fact is, the union leaders did not understand the fragile nature of these post-Franco affiliations. 40 years of dictatorship leave their mark in terms of people's commitment to collective
The bosses frequently try to use the low level of unionization to claim that the unions are unrepresentative. But one could say the same for the political parties. The PSOE for example has no more than 150,000 members, of whom 148,000 have public office. Thus as a genuine social organization it is simply zero. However it rules on the basis of its vote (in which abstentions are not counted). Union representation in the Spanish state is based on elections in which between 80 and 95% of the workers participate. These are real elections with competing programmes and ideas between candidates known to the voters. Some 250,000 union delegates are elected every four years; thus the unions have a powerful source of democratic legitimacy. This is expressed in their ability to mobilize — as was seen on
Finally, the level of militancy and commitment needs to be taken into account. In places with low rates of unionization, union activists have to be highly committed; in many cases merely joining a union means confrontation with the boss. When the government or the bosses use the argument that the unions are not representative, they know they are lying. They have had to accurately measure the reality according to the resistance their measures have encoun
The May