Trade unions head: Employers visiting legal violence on people

Head of the Estonian Trade Unions Confederation Peep Peterson. Photo: Madis Veltman

Head of the Estonian Trade Unions Confederation Peep Peterson says that the state and a part of employers are clearly ignoring people’s basic rights.

Is being a union member the same as signing one’s letter of resignation in Estonia today?

There are places where that’s true. We perceive that employers are afraid and interpret it as a personal vote of no confidence. They do not realize that employees can negotiate their contracts calmly, which is why this myth that unions will end badly for people is reproduced. However, well over half of employers now understand that organizing in unions is a fundamental right.

If cashiers could achieve a collective wage agreement today, their salary could be hiked by at least €150 in Tallinn, past €700 a month and from there to €1,000 a month.

Why aren’t cashiers organizing?

Cashiers have a trade union, but since it only has a thousand or so members right now, reaching 50,000 will take time. People ask how many more members are required for a collective agreement and tend to give up when they’re told it’s 20,000. They get to keep their membership fee and avoid the employer becoming hostile toward them. However, any employer who is actively working against unionization can be held liable in criminal procedure.

Has an employer ever been convicted of something like that in Estonia?

I am not aware of such a precedent. I cannot say why because there have been cases where people should have turned to court. It is a fundamental right. The right to organize in unions requires additional protection and we cannot just say that what we have now is okay. If a person’s particular fundamental right is violated, they are more likely to eventually give up on others.

How does Estonia compare to other countries in this aspect?

Trade unions having a tough time is a characteristically Eastern European problem. It was difficult to adjust to the new situation and put one’s foot down. Our strike bans are on a whole other level. Policemen are allowed to go on strike over their pension in Brussels. Our policemen are prohibited from signing comprehensive collective agreements, not to mention going on strike. Furthermore, our Supreme Court says that pensions are a political topic. People cannot go on strike to defend their fundamental rights in Estonia, not to mention in matters of democracy.

Employers say that unions and giving employees more power would harm competitive ability…

Looking at the Nordics, they created unions, went on strike and achieved higher salaries. When they saw that purchasing power did not improve, they opted for a more scientific approach. We cannot even do that in Estonia because salary advance immediately translates into price advance, meaning that people are still left with the same amount of money at the end of the day.

There has been a lot of talk about enterprise support in the coronavirus era. Leaving aside the Unemployment Insurance Fund’s salary support instrument – that was conditionally also support for the entrepreneur – what has been done for workers?

We pursue very close cooperation with the government. For example, the unemployment insurance benefit is about to be hiked from 50 percent to 60 percent. Unemployment subsidies will also be hiked for people who have not been insured long enough to qualify for that percentage. The state will start compensating people for the first days of sick leave. Not all governments have been this open to these topics.

There is often talk of paid poverty and the wage gap in Estonia. How is the situation there?

Paid poverty started to retreat when the minimum salary was hiked by 10 percent a year for five consecutive years. However, salary advance has slowed and it is immediately reflected in paid poverty. Faster growth of minimum salary is a necessary measure in Estonia.

Why couldn’t the employer and employee agree on the terms themselves?

Practical experience shows that two things will happen. Firstly, wage gaps will grow out of hand. Men are paid more than women, Estonian-speakers more than Russian-speakers, with salary taking a nosedive after the person turns 40, even though people do the same job. That is where asking for one’s own salary has gotten us.

What is your opinion of employment contract clauses that prohibit people from disclosing their salary?

It is a form of legal violence used to intimidate people. It is null and void and people are free to ignore such clauses, while very few are knowledgeable enough to know that. All legally null and void contractual clauses can be ignored.

How often can we see cases where the contract seems legitimate at first glance, while it later turns out that the person will have to work 16-hour shifts instead of 12-hour shifts to make the agreed upon salary? Or where people are given tasks that cannot be performed inside the allocated time? Or pressure from employers to work free weekends in a situation where the contract includes nothing of the sort?

I do not know. Around 80 percent of companies commit minor violations, while this can be the result of ignorance or intentional. Estonia has enough people who will not stand for that. Unions have been brought in to call employers to order. It works in major sectors. However, it is true that we hear of such incidents too often.

How are employers straightened out?

We contact employers and say that this is not how it works. The interview is necessary to understand why the employer is doing what they are doing. People are not born mean and usually have an explanation… but they usually do not convince us. We are told that competition is fierce or that everyone else is already doing it… We have managed to improve the situation in the hotel business that had a practice of changing contracts monthly to avoid having to pay people for overtime. But we need to look at the entire sector to make sure good employers are not forced to close shops because the bad apples use schemes. Otherwise it depends on whether we are strong in a given sector or not. If we are, entrepreneurs have usually adjusted and we can solve the problem through negotiations. If not – well, our lawyers spend most of their time arguing such cases in court.

What about the scheme where employers hire people only for as long as they qualify for the Unemployment Insurance Fund’s salary benefit before firing and replacing them to repeat the cycle?

The important thing is to report such employers to the fund or unions to have a list. They are given an unfair competitive advantage on the taxpayer’s dime and we need to call them to order.

Where are problems greatest?

Construction. Builders met with us and asked whether we would be talking about the law or what is really going on. They had long since stopped associating themselves with Estonian labor law. How long will the state tolerate entire sectors working outside the law? It is a matter of cooperation, because laws not being in effect in one area will eventually spill over to others. The state should not be interested in such vacuums as they are costing it tax money.

What other changes are you planning to take to the government?

One thing that has not been discussed is longer-term support for the unemployed should the crisis linger. To keep people from disappearing. The previous economic crisis cost us 100,000 people some of whom went to Finland or Sweden and some simply disappeared. Keeping them on the radar is cheaper than trying to bring them back later.

Employers want labor law to become more flexible. How do you feel about flexibility?

We are currently in talks with the Estonian Traders Association that wants to make it possible to have a person work 160 hours one months and 130 the next, for example. The problem is that the proposals that are still on the table only benefit employers. But when it comes to flexibility that would also serve employees – such as taking a few personal health days a year – employers suddenly become irritated. For instance, IT companies trying to tell us they now speak for both themselves and their employees will not fly with us.