IN THE last issue of International Viewpoint, we published an interview with Natalya Kuzental, who explained her belief in the importance of the trade unions for workers and democrats in Russia.
Below, Alexander Safronov and Volodya Fedorov, locomotive engineers at the Kiev depot (in Moscow) of the
Moscow-Kiev passenger line, talk about their decision to take part in the formation of a new union.*
S
ASHA, you used to be chairman of the former state union committee at the Kiev depot of the Moscow-Kiev passenger line. Why are you now organizing a new union of locomotive brigades?
Alexander Safronov: I was elected chairman of the union committee in 1988 and quit after seven months to go back to being an engineer. The basic reason was that the union only existed on paper and was mainly involved in allocating various benefits.
They weren't even thinking about defending the workers.
• What concretely prevented you doing what you wanted in the union
I told Olga Vakulenko, the chairman of the district union council, that the functions we were carrying out weren't suited to a union. She agreed but said there was no one else to do them. I asked when we were supposed to do our strictly union work, but she claimed we were doing it. In fact, I was allocating one food mixer, one refrigerator and one vacuum cleaner for 600 people.
We'd get one car in six months or a year and it was a tough job figuring out what to do with it: veterans who had served at the front had priority, but so did workers with long seniority, and people who had been in line for a long time.
The other thing I was doing was giving union consent to dismissals for disciplinary violations, mostly drunkenness. If it was a first offence we usually sent them for a cure. But if the person was caught several times, the union committee would consent to the dismissal.
I was elected by the depot workers and I should have been working in the depot, going around the work places to keep abreast of the situation. But they didn't let me do this. I was called from the district council and told that I had to go to a seminar. So, off I went. I found it was a waste of time - there was a quota to fill for atten-
20 dance
The next time I went, signed up and went straight back to the depot. But they got wind of this. There were few people in the hall -meaning I wasn't the only one who had better things to do with their time. Maybe the others went to the movies, but I was at work. So they started to re-register the attendance at the lunch break - so I had an argument with the district council. I threatened to quit, although they tried to dissuade • What did you think you should really
The system in the depot leaves the engineers without any social protection at all. If anything should happen like a late train, you had a whole hierarchy trying to foist the blame for the delay onto you. And you had to fight off the attack all on your own. The union, whose consent is formally needed for the punishment, is only there for the show.
I went through a lot of training to become an engineer. First you have to work six months on the machinery. Then, it's up to the administration if they want to send you to engineers' school. So, you get your licence to drive, but you're still not an engineer. The administration has to see how you work. That used to take a year or a year and a half, now its much faster. Then they have to give you the go-ahead to take the exam. If you pass, you work a year to get your third class; another two for the second class and more for the third.
And what's the result of all this study? I'm a person without rights. The problem may result from the careless work of other services, but we are told "The engineer is the last person who can prevent a crash". He is the only skilled person and it is his fault.
And that's why after seven months I quit my union job and then in February this year we formed a new union of locomotive bri-
At the time there was also the wages issue. Before perestroika, if an ordinary factory wage was 200 roubles a month, we earned about 220. However we put in far more hours. While an ordinary worker put in an average 173.1 hours a month, we worked the mass of rules — on the technical operation of the locomotive, rules on traffic, signaling, safety and so on. Often these rules contradict each other, so if you've followed one rule you've broken another. • How does the disciplinary system
There are three warning cards. Say you don't raise up the platform. They call you in to write up an explanation, take away your green warning card and give you a yellow one. In the same way, they can take away the yellow one next time and give you a red one. After that you have to take the exams again. Of course, if you are compliant, you can get away with all sorts of infractions
It can take between ten and 15 years to get your first class, and in six months you can be demoted back to assistant. I have twelve years of work experience, five as an engineer. Both me and Volodya are active in the new union - I'm chairman of the local committee — and we' ve both been demoted to assistant.
Volodya Fedorov: They admit themselves that the demoted engineers, those that fought for their rights, are technically more literate than those now driving in their • What do you mean by compliant?
A. S.: I mean people who don't ask the bosses any questions. Questions like: why do locomotive brigades have so little time to rest at home with their families? Who do they work on their days off? Why aren't there enough people to cope with the existing volume of work, so that people have to work two and even three weeks without a day off? Why is there an order from above to cut personnel?
They began with the elimination of the conductors in the last car. Their job was to watch the passengers getting in and out. Now it's the job of the engineer's assistant. Many passengers have died as a result. But it was after the creation of our trade union and after we struck that documents specifying the number and the individuals to be cut started to arrive.
Here's another issue; for the third month in a row they haven't paid the wages on time. In April, our union committee sent an official inquiry to the administration. We got no explanation. That was April; you can * The interview was conducted by David Mandel in Moscow in August 1992. In some English-speaking countries an "engineer" would be known as a "train driver" (an "engineer" being something else entirely)!
December 7, 1992 • see how much worse the situation in the country has become since.
Anyway, last month, one of our engineers, Maximov, refused to work because he hadn't been paid his wages. It was his right. He gave management 13 hours warning.
It was a purely individual act. He called me after he had given his warning. He was hungry; he had nothing to live on. If he had consulted us, we would have tried to dissuade him from individual actions, especially on the issue of wages.
The administration could easily have found a replacement and let him have his day off. But instead they waited and then demoted him to assistant. The next day, we were paid our wages. • Doesn't the union have to consent to
In principle, though I'm not sure where things stand now. First of all, they don't recognize our union committee. According to the law, all transfers require the consent of the union committee, and the transfer of elected union officials requires the consent of higher union authorities. But we've just heard that the Russian Supreme Soviet has adopted amendments to the Labour Code depriving the unions of any rights in relation to discipline. • I gather you've totally given up on the old unions. Why do you feel they can't be reformed?
That's the position of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia: force the old structures to work. The FITR united these same state branch unions. I read an argument by its chairman Klochkov where he argues that we don't need new unions. All we need to do is to change the people in
But we think it isn't a question of people but of a system that has to be changed so that people can and are obliged to do the work they are supposed to: defend workers' rights so that they are able to work in a nor-
What sort of union is is where management and workers are together? It's clear that the trade union leaders will defend the positions of the administration, on which they are dependent. • When you were chairman of the former state union, what sort of pressure could the administration put on you?
Actually, we had levers to pressure each other. You see, I had to sign the documents authorizing vacation pay for the director or chief engineer. The director, for example, doesn't just get vacation pay; he also gets 85% of his basic salary. I also signed the documents for the thirteenth month. An engineer, Zhirov, was unjustly given a severe reprimand for failing to keep to the seven minute schedule between two stations although everywhere else he was on time. I argued for a lesser punishment, because after a severe reprimand, the next stage is
The refused. So I said: "The time will come for me to sign, and I'll refuse too". And I did. Then the management backed down over Zhirov. • On what basis could you refuse to sign the director's document?
Not only his, but all the workers' documents. All these things require union consent. The director could have got back at me through my union superior, the chairman of the district union council, Vakulenko or her assistant Chibisova. The latter I could more or less ignore, but it was Vakulenko who paid my bonus. My wage is guaranteed - that's the black bread. But if I want butter too, that's the bonus that is paid every quarter and that depends on my super• How did you come to decide to form a new trade union of locomotive
Volodya: It began in February 1991 when the locomotive brigades of the Il'ich depot called a conference of representatives of locomotive brigades throughout Moscow. I was sent by the general assembly of our collective with the right to vote in its name.
initiative was this
I'm not really sure where it came from. Apparently it was the leadership of the branch union of the Moscow railroad, and probably the railroad administration itself, that wanted to take the growing dissatisfaction in hand. A lot of grievances had accumulated. And the miners had already struck for wage demands, the Moscow public
RUSSIA transport workers, the metro workers were starting. From Moscow-Kiev, besides myself, another engineer, an instructor and the director of the depot went.
It was well attended. The demands worked out by the Il'ich depot were adopted with some amendments. A Moscow Coordinating Council for the Social Defence of Railroad Workers (MCC) was elected from among the delegates - but only from the engineers and assistants. The representatives of the administration did not take part.
But the head of the Moscow railroad and the chair man of the central committee of the branch union did take the floor. They spoke of the tense situation on the railroad and expresse 1 their support for the workers.
sent off telegrammes supporting our demands which remained unchanged to this day. Afterwards, however, they began to fight a ainst us.
The MC was mandated to negotiate these der ands with the authorities. were several meetings with representatives of the braich union central committee of the ministry and the railroad administration, but in the end they applied the brakes. The conversat on took the following turn: "you don't legally represent anyone, and we won't negotiate with you". So we began to think about forming a union, one that the new law would require them to negotiate
We began with the preparatory work in the depots. Normally, planning sessions with representatives of the locomotive brigades and the administration are held every week. So we used them to ask, at the end of the meetings, for a few minutes to talk about the Coordinating Council and our organizing work. But after a month of this, the administration purposely began to drag out the meetings and refused to give us other pre-
21
IGOR SMIANOVO # 240 International Viewpoint
International Viewpoint # 240 • December 7, 1992
RUSSIA
We set January 27, 1992, as the date for our founding congress. In accordance with the December 18 resolution of the Russian Supreme Soviet, we held organizational meetings in those depots where we were strong. But we had already lost some of the people who had begun to work in the union - some had been fired, others were put in conditions that made it impossible to work and others just dropped out on their own.
In our depot, 35 people met on January 22, decided to create a local union and elected delegates to the founding congress. At the founding congress we adopted a constitution and elected a Russian committee that included representatives of eleven depots. We transferred the negotiating mandate of the MCC to it. According to the law, unions no longer have to be registered constitution and other documents merely have to be noted and deposited with the Ministry of Justice, which puts your name on its list and gives you a number. • How many members do you have now?
In our depot, there are 49 people who left the branch union and came over to us. About 50% of the workers are wavering, waiting to see the outcome of the struggle. If we win, they'll join. In all, there are 315 engineers and assistants at the depot. We have locals in some 16 Moscow depots. I don't know how many in the rest of Russia - they exist in Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Rostov, Magnitogorsk, Ekaterininburg and elsewhere. • What are the demands?
The first was for a wage rise. However, we've removed this demand for now, since after the freeing of prices, the administration itself began raising wages — these are, of course, nominal rises that are eaten away by inflation. There is also the demand for special wage supplements for those working in areas affected by the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. We also have demands related to time off and a shorter working week — this is also a defence against unemployment, as well as over pensions and health and safety issues.
Finally, we have demanded the abolition of the military-style railroad disciplinary code. At the moment it is suspended but not
All these demands were sent years back to Mikhail Gorbachev when he was still president of the USSR, then to Yeltsin and the Supreme Soviet. There was absolutely no result except that they began to attack our • Did you get an answer?
V: No. So the MCC called for a strike on December 27, 1991, demanding that they at 22 held a meeting on December 25 to prepare least negotiate with us. In our depot, we for the strike. The Law on labour Conflicts makes it very hard to strike. You have to assemble at least two thirds of the collective, and to do that in our depot is impossible. Actually, the law forbids strikes on the railroad, but if they refuse even to answer us? If they don't observe the law, why should we?
At the December 25 meeting, representatives of the Russian Ministry came, as did the central committee of the branch union, and they finally brought answers to our demands. So we decided to suspend the strike, while maintaining strike readiness. But communications are very bad and Moscow 2 — these are electric trains going in the direction of Yaroslavl - struck for two hours. They received the documents but the one with the decision to suspend the strike wasn't among them. We can't help wondering if this wasn't a provocation.
Sergei Stankevich, an advisor to Yeltsin, came, and we worked out an agreement to form a tripartite commission: representatives of the MCC, of the Moscow government and of the Ministry of Means of Communication. In the first two weeks of January we reached an agreement on all 15 points. Dates were set for their fulfillment, and the demands that couldn't be met were set aside for a future industry-wide agree-
However, none of the demands were carried out on schedule. And for some reason, all the people who signed the agreement with us went on to other jobs. Then we founded our union and the whole process
On February 17, we held a plenary meeting of the Russian committee of our union of locomotive brigades. We invited the government and our branch union, but no one came. Representatives of eight depots voted for a strike on March 2. But again we had problems with communication. At Moscow-Kursk, the whole depot struck, but they changed the schedule at our depot. As a result I could not contact the members and nothing much happened at our depot. On March 3, however, two brigades refused to take their trains out.
At that time, representatives of the Moscow-Kursk line were negotiating but couldn't reach an agreement. But when the administration heard that we at MoscowKiev were striking to support them, they signed at once. But that agreement is also not being carried out.
The next day our administration removed the two brigades. We declared that the administration had violated the Labour Code, had gone beyond its legal authority, and we wanted the matter discussed at a general assembly of the work collective at the depot. They refused in a very coarse way. So the next day, we struck for the restoration of our comrades to their jobs. 53 people struck during the 24-hour period. So the administration restored the two brigades to their jobs but took the union and its committee to court on the basis of the USSR Law on the Resolution of Labour Conflicts.
The court found our actions of March 3-6 illegal. We appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there had been a mass of procedural irregularities and, moreover, that the decision violated the Russian Declaration on Human Rights as well as the Russian constitution. We lost the appeal and learnt that the declaration was only a declaration and not to be taken seriously. Remember that in February 1991, Yeltsin told the miners that they had every right to threaten a strike, since "that's the right of every human person". So a right is not always a right! • What's the situation now?
Four engineers, including myself, have been demoted to assistants. Three assistants have been demoted to mechanics. The other 40-odd people received severe reprimands, reprimands or just notices. Yet even the Law on Labour Conflicts states in article 15 that strikers who end their strike before it is declared illegal bear no material or legal responsibility. Our strike was declared illegal by the court two months after it ended. And I said: "Even if you had the legal right to do it, you have to get the union committee's consent to punishments". But the director just answered "I don't recognize your union". Even so, half the strikers were members of the branch union.
So now, we are working on reversing these decisions through the civil courts, but we are coming up against all sorts of judicial irregularities. The prosecutor even told us that the Labour Code applied only to the branch unions, not the new unions, which were formed after the code had been adopted. In other words, they pick and choose the laws according to what suits them.
The administration has now gone to court to claim that our union wasn't formed in accordance with the law. That's absurd, and yet the court agreed to hear the case.
One of our big problems is absence of information, even among the locomotive brigades. And the public is being told we are asking for huge wage rises at their expense. The government raises prices and the public blames us. An Izvestiya journalist phoned me to ask for information. When I phoned back to ask when the article would come out, she says "well, you see, it's a very delicate question..." This is the kind of
That's why it's hard to ask for a wage rise now. People link the increase in the price of railroad tickets with the engineers' demands for higher wages. They don't realize that I have nothing to do with the rundown of the railroads. All I do is to try to deliver the
A. S.: And as soon as they raise our wages, they'll raise the price of tickets. And
December 7, 1992• # 240 International Viewpoint prices of other goods that go by rail will rise. My parents are pensioners. Will they raise their pensions? So I'm not interested in raising my wages at their expense. • In the light of all this, how do you view the present regime?
V.F.: In general, its hard to figure out who up there is doing what. • Has anything changed for you since the defeat of the putsch last summer?
In my opinion, nothing. • What about work, your relations with management?
All is at it was, they were Communists, they remain Communists. • Well, let me put it this way: do the people carrying out the economic reforms want trade unions?
A.S.: No way! Let me tell you about the mafia. Our railroad needs money. So what do they do? They say, let's allow a cooperative on our territory and it will pay us part of its profits as rent. Well, the cooperative worked there for a couple of years and is now moving on, taking even the boards with it. So then they set up a small private enterprise to repair locomotives and cars. At the depot's expense they supply it with fuel, electricity, lubricants and cranes. No one gets anything from it except the mechanics who work there. No one knows where all the rest goes. When I was in the chief engineer's office, I accidentally learnt that this small enterprise was receiving work that normally went to the depot. Everything is • Who runs this small enterprise?
In practice, it's the chief engineer. • Well, do you support the economic
Is there any question here? The nomenklatura used to sit on our necks and continues to sit on our necks. They grabbed a lot and continue to grab, to steal. Who do you think the reform is for? The pensioners who have to stand in line for pensions? A set of living room chairs and sofa costs 42,000 now. I'll never earn enough to afford that. • What do you think about Yeltsin?
V. F.: If he wanted to, he could take measures to stop the offensive against the labour movement. • Do you think that some kind of workers' party is the answer?
We should start at least with the unions. We need strong unions and a strong federation. The Independent Miners Union held a rally the other week to mark the anniversary of their founding. I liked how the lads from Donetsk (in Ukraine) asked the Russians not to load any coal for the Ukraine after July
20, when their strike was to start. You see their solidarity, how they have managed to organize themselves?
• Many people are now criticizing the
Independent Miners
Union of Russia
(IMUR), saying they have sold out to the government, they have become a new official union in return for the high that wages the government granted the miners at the beginning of the year.
When our comrades went to Sergeev, the head of the IMUR, to ask for his union's support against the should we defend you? Didn't you break the law?" But they have given us some
Of course, we need a party, but I don't think that can work now.
because the workers aren't prepared to support parties. But unions are another matter.
• What about the other railroad workers? Is anything happening there?
The mechanics? Well, if the administration is feeding them through these small enterprises — they are all over the railroad.
This is without any question theft of state resources. And also, to tell the truth, many of the mechanics are scared. But there are comrade mechanics who have left the branch union. For the time being, they aren't joining anything else. But if, for example, they decided to form their own working group, we could work with them.
I wanted also to say that our union is not only there to look after the narrow interests of our members. We have made a lot of proposals on how to improve things generally in the depot but they don't want to listen.
• You said they were laying off workers; what about management?
No way! It's frightening how their numbers are inflated. And now they've set up a computing centre. What do they have to compute there? But they go ahead and announce: "We are starting to lay off locomotive brigades".
RUSSIA
A.S.: We are financed from the state budget, but they are trying to force us into a self-financing regime, at least in part. So I'm not indifferent when I see that they are idle and issue ridiculous orders that I have to carry out. • How do you see the future of your union?
V.F.: Our comrades can no longer work under the old conditions. They will fight, even if they are threatened with being laid off.
A.S.: But they know we are trying to create a real union and they want to crush us to discourage the others. Take yesterday. The instructor was riding with me and he says: "Sasha, don't go to court. Forget all this business and tomorrow you'll be working again as an engineer"
V.F.: And last December, the boss said to me: "We'll be allocating six apartments soon. What's your housing situation? I answered "What do you mean? We're four people in three small rooms". He offered to "help me out". I said: "But I'm not in the line". "well", he said, "that problem can be resolved"
A.S.: So we know what we're up against and we are going ahead with our eyes open. 23 They've given us warning. *