When the ready-mix concrete workers’ strike began 15-16 days ago, an impression was created – not by the unions or workers – that this was just a temporary disturbance of little importance.
The Minister of Labour contributed to this impression when he stated, very early on, that the gap between workers and employers wasn’t significant.
This assessment seemingly suited the employers at the time – though I’m not suggesting this was Mr Panayiotou’s intention.
The message sent to the public was, more or less, that the strike had been called over trivial matters. Over small sums.
The public was puzzled, however, when over what was supposedly a minor disagreement, the employers’ side proved utterly unwilling to even discuss the negotiation framework proposed by the minister.
Instead, they responded with a lockout and sought strikebreakers. How could the difference be small, yet they wouldn’t even discuss it to reach some compromise?
Perhaps because they had no intention of making the slightest concession? Or did they misjudge their opponents’ resilience and are now whinging alongside the contractors about the construction industry grinding to a halt?
After all these days, it’s crystal clear that the Minister, the employers, and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (which was directly involved through one of its senior executives) all got their assessments spectacularly wrong.
While the stakes might seem disproportionately small to the owners and shareholders of these profitable businesses compared to their revenue and profits (just some small percentage increases in overtime compensation), for the workers, every penny clearly counts.
When you decide (after the natural hesitation caused by these difficult times, when thousands of workers face partial or complete deregulation) to go on strike and hold out for 16 days, losing income for your family, and then choose on day 16 or 17 to continue until your demands are reasonably met – it means that your cause isn’t disproportionate to such drastic measures. Nor to your sacrifices.
If employers think it’s disproportionate, they should just grant it and be done with it.
Because yes, it makes no sense to criticise unions for “striking over a trivial demand” while the employers act as if their low overtime rates are the cornerstone of their business.
We read yesterday in Stockwatch that unions are asking for an increase from the current 1:1.25 overtime rate for weekdays (we’re talking about unsociable hours, mind you) to 1:1.40.
Is that really too much? We remember times when our own people “on the buildings” would work weekends and holidays without complaint because the rate was “one-to-two” or “one-to-three”.
How did things get so bad? How can a demand for 1:1.40 on weekdays (in the early hours!) or 1:1.80 on weekends be considered excessive?
The minister made a compromise proposal closer to the weekday demand (1:1.37) but falling short of the weekend rate request (1:1.62).
Perhaps he too no longer sees weekends as anything special nowadays. Well yes, it was inevitable after that initial shift to flexible hours and seven-day trading.
Notably, we haven’t noticed any support for the workers from “political figures”. I searched Google for “AKEL strike” and got a long list of announcements about “doctors’ strike”.
Perhaps they did release something about the concrete workers and I missed it. The others didn’t say anything either, but this column wasn’t expecting much from them.
Only Averof made an announcement, but predictably, he was more concerned about developers and hoteliers than workers.
We haven’t heard anything from Parliament either.
Yet for months they’ve been up in arms about the legally imposed fines on companies – and directors – for failing to declare their real owners on time (after repeated warnings from the Registrar of Companies), until they managed on Tuesday to agree with the Government to write off the fines!
Just as they horizontally abolished the €350 annual company fee, supposedly to boost the competitiveness of the Cypriot economy…
Read more:
