When trade union leaders from across the public, semi-public and private sectors announce after a pan-union meeting that they’re seeking an audience with the President over ongoing labour issues, the obvious question is: “Why not meet with the Labour Minister instead?”
Some union representatives might respond by pointing to July 2024, when the President himself hosted dozens of business community representatives at the Presidential Palace for a roundtable discussion on “improving the business climate and enhancing the competitiveness and outward focus of the Cypriot economy.”
Why didn’t he direct these business leaders and their organisations to the relevant ministers? Instead, he organised a massive gathering – albeit with 11 ministers and deputy ministers present – where these officials seemed to be there merely to listen to the distinguished guests and act accordingly. Indeed, following that meeting, there was considerable talk about assurances or promises made to the President’s guests regarding solutions to their problems, including matters of employment, strengthening foreign workforce numbers, payroll costs, and so forth.
That Presidential Palace meeting ultimately left many dissatisfied. The business community claims the President made various promises but delivered on very few. Meanwhile, the unions voiced numerous complaints about promises made to employers regarding sensitive issues that hadn’t been discussed through social dialogue, and without the President and Government hearing their side.
This column believes that meeting damaged the Government’s credibility with both sides of the market, particularly with workers. It bred mistrust.
Yesterday, the country’s most powerful unions announced they want to meet the President. Are they expecting him to offer something that the relevant minister either cannot or will not? Do they have an issue with the minister specifically, or with the Government and its leader?
The SEK Secretary-General, who has been signalling his dissatisfaction with labour developments for some time, along with Sotiroula Charalambous of PEO, told our paper yesterday that they’re experiencing “unprecedented situations” regarding the implementation of social dialogue procedures. He mentioned there’s discontent within the labour movement, and to some extent among employers too! He emphasised this isn’t a personal matter but one of policy – in other words, it’s about the Government’s collective choices.
He added that through the meeting with the President, they want to ensure he has a complete picture of what’s happening (which has provoked anger among unions) and what he intends to do about major outstanding issues that need resolution – some very soon (e.g., foreign workers and collective agreements), others by summer (e.g., COLA), and others by year-end (minimum wage).
Despite Matsas’s clarification that the problems aren’t personal, when unions say they want to verify whether the President fully understands current and future developments, one can’t help but think that communication between the union movement and Government isn’t what it should be. Other union leaders have expressed similar sentiments.
In essence, union representatives increasingly believe that (like its predecessors) this Government isn’t impartial and fair in social dialogue – whenever it chooses to engage in it.
The Government must consider the significance of what Sotiroula Charalambous, Andreas Matsas, Stelios Christodoulou (DEOK) and Stratis Matthaiou jointly declared: That the union movement will present a united front in the lengthy negotiations ahead on major pending issues. They also reminded everyone of “the vital role of social partners, given our country’s upcoming presidency of the European Council in the first half of 2026.”
It’s now clear that the first serious test of industrial peace in 2025 will concern the revision of the strategy regarding third-country labour force.
Read more:
