| SYNDICALISM 21/04/2010 |
| Last updated: 2010-04-22 13:05 EET |
Having fulfilled a purely decorative role during communism, used to convey the decisions of the Communist Party to the people, after the 1989 anti-communist revolution the trade unions resumed their traditional role as representatives of the people, amidst high expectations from everybody. Now, more than two decades later, Romanian trade unions are losing their credibility and strength in their relationship with employers. We talked about this with Daniel Barbu, a professor of political sciences at the University of Bucharest:
“Between 91 and 93, Romanian public scene, trade unions were not just new actors on the scene, but also began creating links between themselves. Back then, trade unions had the power to mobilise huge masses. There were trade union demonstrations in Bucharest, for example, that brought together more than 100,000 people. At the time, trade unions had to deal with a lot of new issues. Between 1992 and 1993 a new taxation system was introduced, namely the value added tax, which changed the whole idea of consumption and, more importantly, the attitude of families towards it. It is also in this period that the first privatisations were carried out, accompanied by layoffs and early retirements. Trade unions began to grow in importance, and to become a relevant partner in discussions with the government.”
Some trade union leaders then turned to politics, such as Miron Mitrea, Victor Ciorbea and Ion Radoi. Opinion polls show that it was mixing politics with trade union affairs that led to the drop in the unions' credibility. The sociologist Alfred Bulai from the National School of Political and Administrative Studies explains:
“Today, the general view on unions is a negative one. People are unhappy with trade unions for many reasons. Their structure has remained intact since the 90s, with mainly the same leaders as twenty years ago. This leads to low credibility. There is also the matter of the many union leaders who dabble in politics, suggesting that they are in cahoots with politicians. Unions enjoyed some success during the 90s, as people were still willing to take to the streets. This is what made unions look so powerful. What weakened the labour movement even more was the period of national economic growth experience during the last years of Nastase's cabinet and during Tariceanu's term as Prime Minister. Labour unions usually thrive in times of financial distress.”
Romania also has an additional peculiarity – wealthy union leaders. One example is Liviu Luca, oil industry union leader. For years, according to the media, he managed a trade union company that has the exclusive right to provide maintenance services for machinery owned by PETROM, the largest Romanian oil company. One other example is Romexterra Bank, whose board of administration has included several union leaders. Daniel Barbu told us more.
“These people are union leaders and businessmen at the same time, but also deal with employees' rights. Our unions are growing smaller and smaller, and have limited funds. Many Romanian union leaders own companies or shares in other enterprises. This is an unusual practice in other European countries. Many employees claim that union leaders are indifferent to their needs and condition. Also, union leaders are often not constrained by standard salary and work program regulations. The very image of the union leader has made trade unions lose power, even in a sector as large as the public one.”
Economic reforms have also contributed to the trade unions loss of power. Some companies explicitly forbid employers from being part of a trade union. Unions are losing influence and power, and will continue to do so as the economic strength of the public sector shrinks. This raises doubts about the future among those who still have faith in these organizations' abilities to efficiently protect their members' rights.
|
2010-09-06
Print
