Until two or three days ago, trade union organisations insisted the Labour Minister had not submitted a proposal for regulating the cost of living allowance (CoLA) and had merely set off some fireworks for show.
All of Cyprus understood there was an unexpectedly positive, pro-worker proposal from a centre-right government—except the trade unions.
Yesterday, the secretary-general of SEK demanded the government provide legal justification for its proposal to extend CoLA to all employees, even through legislative regulation. Rather than spontaneously and reflexively rejecting the employers’ associations’ attempt to torpedo the satisfaction of a long-standing demand from hundreds of thousands of workers through legal technicalities, Mr Matsas sent the government to the Attorney General. As if there exists any bill that does not undergo legal review by the Law Office anyway.
In any case, Matsas’s statement (“the government’s proposal”) suggests we have agreed, albeit with unjustifiable delay of several days, that we are indeed dealing with a government proposal—a government SEK also worked to elect. It shows that social partners, if they wish, can contribute effectively to the final formulation of the proposal or subsequent legislation.
From yesterday’s reactions—statements by trade union officials regarding the opinion prepared at the behest of the Cyprus Employers & Industrialists Federation (OEB) and the Cyprus Chamber Of Commerce and Industry (CCCI) by Achilles Emilianides concerning the constitutionality of a law or bill that does not currently exist—I believe it reveals that trade unions are seeking excuses to reject or obstruct any consideration of legislative protection for CoLA entitlement for all workers without exception.
They want the CoLA issue to continue being discussed (for unknown duration) within the much-publicised Social Dialogue, knowing full well that in this dialogue, one side—the employers—refuses even to discuss CoLA for All. The employers’ associations are not saying now that they will not discuss extending ATA to everyone; they have been saying this for years, and the trade unions knew this very well then and know it now.
By accepting to discuss CoLA with OEB and CCCI within Social Dialogue, trade unions tacitly accept that CoLA will not become a right for all workers. It will remain a right of civil servants, broader public sector staff, and a small segment of private sector employees whose rights are still regulated through collective agreements. The armies of remaining private sector workers were and remain outside the scope of trade union interest.
The slogan “CoLA for All” exists and circulates at civil service strikes, flooding media with related photographs. But now that the government has said “let us turn the slogan into action” and “let us do this through law to criminalise violations,” trade unions initially pretended not to understand it was a government decision and proposal. Now some are relying on the Emilianides opinion, saying “if there is also a constitutional problem, we can reach agreement through Social Dialogue”—whilst knowing that even if they reach agreement (which they never will), it would not cover everyone.
It is clear that trade unions do not want or demand legislation for CoLA for All. They should explain why to the thousands of workers who listen and wonder. Or they should dispel the impression formed in the majority of public opinion by officially confirming they support and demand such legislation, so they can examine it when drafted and take positions on its content. Instead of telling the government “bring the bill NOW for us to study,” they ask “but might it be unconstitutional?”
That is what OEB and CCCI should have said, rather than requesting an opinion on something that does not exist on paper. After all, have they never heard there are a thousand ways to write a bill and as many ways to plant reservations, defences, and constructive ambiguities within it, so something apparently unconstitutional appears perfectly constitutional?
Despite it being entirely clear that it seems inconceivable for the constitutional legislator to tolerate chronic violation of equality between workers, accepting that some receive ATA and others do not (Article 28, Mr Emilianides?), whilst they are simultaneously affected by inflation—with those not compensated by ATA suffering more.
Or is this the first time a law will be passed regulating employment relations and workers’ (or employers’) rights and freedom of contract?
When it comes to regulating strikes in essential services through law (a standing demand of employers’ associations), or permitted working hours, or maximum overtime duration, or mandatory contributions to funds and insurance, we can pass laws. But when it comes to protecting workers from inflation, suddenly the Constitution objects?
P.S. More than half the laws of all states were deliberately enacted to restrict the free market and “freedom of contract”—and freedom of exploitation. Otherwise, we would remain entirely defenceless against the law of the strong, in modern jungles. And no opinion from distinguished constitutional scholars would have any meaning.
