Government and trade unions see political strike ban in different light.
Editorial: the trade triangle
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Trade unions are angry at the government: the bill sent for Riigikogu ratification last week bans political strikes, leaving loose room to interpret what exactly is being meant. According to unions, forbidding interruption of work with intent to influence the activities of executive power, legislative power and judicial power borders on ban of striking altogether.
Central Federation of Trade Unions chief Peep Peterson does not hesitate to play the weirdness and North-Korean card.
To this, the government replies through the lips of social minister Taavi Rõivas that trade unions’ interpretation largely differs from what they meant. All would retain the right to strike in order to improve their working conditions.
Employers, however, would love to see the support strike option deleted: why should entrepreneurs suffer for labour disputes not their own. This, however, is still in the bill.
As the labour market disputes go, one unfailingly is reminded of the Swan, Pike and Crawfish created by the Russian parable legend, Ivan Andreevich Krylov. However: the definition of political strike, its intended ban, and reactions by parties produce some food for deep thought.
For starters: let’s believe social minister as he vows that the teachers’ etc right to strike for their wages and conditions will remain. The teachers’ salary money comes from central and local government budget, ratified by parliament and council. Let’s picture that the teachers are not satisfied, as the money planned for wage rise fails to show in the budget. Can they strike, then? – this being bona fide labour dispute, but the decisions were taken by state and local government.
Regarding the utterance by trade unions: use of striking rights is not as widespread, in Estonia, as to justify labelling a ban of clumsily defined political strikes as a step towards North-Korea. True, we’ve seen strikes by doctors and teachers i.e. workers who may take public support for granted, and the transport workers who have a strong trade union (once headed by the current «central» chief). Even so, these examples aside: how many political government-critical strikes have we had? Fearing muzzling – is that really the danger?
Looking at the bill from another angle: maybe the government rather intended to guide the parties towards negotiations, to avoid the situation where employers will say, when asked for higher pay: what is that to us, the money comes from taxes so go ask the government. This we did hear, during the teachers’ and doctors’ strikes – the argument never resolving any labour disputes. As, at the end of the day, it is the employer who sets the wages, not the government.
Nevertheless, it is also obvious that when a bill contains a term so differently interpreted by parties, the wording needs to be agreed anew.