Regular readers of this blog know that we never like to talk about politics, but rather about the economy, and this article should be read from an economic perspective, as we do not wish to engage in debate over political or trade union positions.The source of the controversy is the redundancy plan that Sony is set to announce for its factory in Viladecavalls (Barcelona), which will affect 275 of the 1,600 people who work there. Furthermore, these redundancies confirm once again the policy of cutbacks and redundancies affecting more than 8,000 jobs, which the company announced months ago. But however unfair and unexpected this may be, a trade union leader cannot threaten the company or attempt to turn public opinion against it. At least, if I put myself in the shoes of the workers who have been lucky enough not to be on the blacklist of the 275. If I hear such threats from the General Secretary of the UGT, who is supposed to be defending my job, in a global crisis such as this, I’d feel like covering his mouth and telling the Sony executives, «Forgive him, for he knows not what he says.» Here’s an excerpt of what the trade unionist spouted:
«If they push things too far, they could face retaliation from their customers.". We’re right in the middle of the Christmas shopping season, and Sony needs to realise that it has a brand—and that it’s a brand that sells well in this country. And that »If he keeps rubbing people up the wrong way, they might switch brands."
Jose Mª Álvarez, General Secretary of UGT Catalonia.
Just a few weeks ago, this same union leader led several protests demanding «more work quotas» for the Nissan factory, which was set to announce another redundancy plan affecting 1,680 workers. They called them «gangsters» and demanded that the redundancy plan be withdrawn because he considered it a «threat» prior to negotiations. Aren’t threats to boycott brands and withdraw redundancy plans against those who must drastically cut production and costs just to survive far more typical of low-life gangsters? Making things difficult for those who must cut costs to maintain some level of activity is tantamount to begging them to cease operations entirely and relocate their business (whether residual or not) to other countries that make fewer demands, hurl fewer insults and issue fewer threats. It is not a question of trade union or social justice, but of job security in times of severe crisis.
I find it extremely dangerous that someone like this should be defending the interests of the few workers who will continue to work in these companies. The economic outlook is devastating, yet the General Secretary of the UGT in Catalonia continues to treat business leaders as if they were stealing money from the workers. Just as vehemently, if not more so, than at the height of the economic boom, when he had to defend pay rises and reductions in working hours to offset the billions in profits that companies were making.
The fact is, this union leader continues to in Disneyland, in the welfare state, and hasn't realised that the world has changed radically.
But for heaven’s sake, can’t you see that the business situation—and consequently the employment and social situation—is extremely serious? It is telling and paradoxical to «demand more working hours», but for this to come from someone who has spent their life demanding cuts in working hours is simply unheard of. The fact is, Mr Álvarez, the world has changed – and for the worse, in case you haven’t noticed. Whereas you used to demand (a curious concept, that of ‘demanding’) fewer hours, you now demand more hours (even more curious). At least enough to be able to earn a wage. But business conditions are radically different, and multinationals are no longer striving to maximise their profits but to survive as companies through cuts in production, costs and relocations. Only a few will succeed, because many will fall by the wayside and their redundancy schemes will affect 100% of the workforce. And if the proportion is significant, governments will face a serious problem that they will pass on to all of us, both those who have lost their jobs and those who have kept them. As long as the trade union leaders who are supposed to defend workers’ interests fail to realise the world we have been living in for almost two years, they will continue to make fools of themselves. In this new global and economic landscape, we need new trade union policies and arguments. Otherwise, the global crisis and the severe recession we are only just entering will sweep away those foolish trade union leaders who remain wedded to concepts that were valid in times of economic expansion, but which today are not only useless but also extremely dangerous to the interests of workers and the local and regional economy.
We cannot blame the current economic situation on the 35- or 40-hour working week, not at all. But what is clear is that, to avoid zero-hour contracts, the way forward lies in a massive increase in productivity. And not even that solution has managed to pull Japan – a country as productive as they come – out of a depression lasting more than two decades. Personally, I find the 65-hour working week that Europe rejected a couple of weeks ago excessive, but the answer cannot be the Eurosclerosis as we know it today. The labour policies needed to tackle the challenges ahead are going to be very tough. Perhaps comparable to those our grandparents experienced, because economically – but above all socially – the regression is going to be tremendous. Nor do they guarantee success, but it is clear that, faced with such a scenario, trade union leadership must also be rebuilt, or it will be highly detrimental to the interests of workers and the economy. After all, dissociating the two – workers and the economy – leads to an absurd collapse that is obvious to almost everyone.