THE UNION MESSENGER   July-August 2004, no. 27

Information Bulletin on the Trade-Union Movement in Russia

CONFLICT AT BASHIRIYA AIRLINES (BAL) 

            Negotiations and pressure tactics having led to an impasse, the pilots and other flight personnel of Bashikriya airlines struck on July 8. PLS, the independent pilots’ union (pilots, flight engineers and navigators) led the way in this conflict and was supported by the other flight and ground personnel. Besides wages increases and indexation, the union was demanding control over layoffs and oversight of the company’s finances in response to the incompetent, possibly criminal, activity of management that has placed in jeopardy the very existence of the enterprise. BAL, a state company slated for privatization in 2005, has moved from the ninth to the twenty-fifth place in the ranking of Russian airlines over the last two years. 

            The strike action, which lasted only one day, was successful on all major points: a 20-per-cent wage increase with quarterly indexation; no layoffs without union agreement; and union oversight of company finances. To this end, the new collective agreement provides for the creation of a commission with representatives of the two unions (the other is the United Union of Aviation Employees, which has remained loyal to management).   

Background (for further detail, see no. 24) 

            On March 22, 2003, PLS picketed the government building in UFA (the regional capital) to denounce BAL management’s intention of selling off part of its aircraft, a move that would have entailed a large number of layoffs. Management argued that it needed the sale to redress the company’s financial situation. In face of the public protest, management temporarily retreated. It subsequently obtained a court decision to seize some of the aircraft to pay off BAL’s debts. The union was able to block only some of the layoffs – 70 pilots and flight engineers were let go. (The 70 found work with other airlines.) Faced with the threat of bankruptcy, the union agreed to a temporary reduction in work hours – and so also in wages – on the condition that management agreed to restore the original level of wages by January 2004. Management agreed but then reneged, restoring the wages only in April 2004. 

            The pilots’ collective agreement expired in November 2003. A joint union negotiating committee was set up with four representatives of PLS and six from the United Union of Aviation Employees, affiliated with the FNPR (Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia, successor to the Soviet trade-union federation). The latter union at the time organized a majority of the airline’s personnel, except among the pilots. The unions’ put forth three new demands: no layoffs without union approval; union oversight of company finances; access to information on management salaries. At a general assembly, the pilots approved the demands and gave the leadership a strike mandate.            

            In March 2004, management’s negotiators rejected the new demands and instead offered to extend the existing contract for a year. At the same time, they refused to sign a joint declaration confirming the impasse in negotiations, a necessary step to begin arbitration and for an eventual legal strike. On its part, the FNPR-affiliate agreed to extend the old contract. But on March 23, virtually all of the 130 stewards and stewardesses, incensed at their union’s position, decided to join PLS. They were admitted after PLS amended its constitution. At present, the two unions have approximately an equal number of members. 

            PLS set up a seven-person mobilizing committee and managed to obtain considerable positive press coverage for its position. Management turned to intimidation, calling in PLS’s leaders to a meeting with the region’s public transport prosecutor and an FSB (formerly KGB) agent stationed at the airport. But the union did not flinch. Even the prosecutor had to admit that management did not have any legal ground to stand on, since it refused to negotiate. At a series of union meetings, the members reaffirmed their determination to fight. Management, on its part, brandished the spectre of bankruptcy, but all its efforts to turn the personnel against PLS failed. 

            In April, the Director of Civil Aviation of the Ministry of Transport called the Director of BAL and the union leaders to Moscow. He gave them an ultimatum: if no agreement was signed by May 11, the company would lose its licence, effectively shutting it down. Negotiations were resumed at an accelerated pace, but management still refused the union’s three demands.  

            Strikes and genuinely independent unions are rare in Russia today. That is why the victory at BAL is so significant. According to PLS’s leaders, the messages of support it received from Western-European unions played an important role in the victory by lending the strike a certain international dimension.  PLS can be contacted at eshtokin@list.ru.  

THE NEW OFFENSIVE AGAINST SOCIAL RIGHTS 

            The Russian government’s campaign against the Khodorkovsky, head of the giant oil company Yukos, lent it a certain “anti-liberal” aura. But in fact, the Putin’s main goal is to demonstrate to the new capitalist class not to nourish political ambitions and that the state, which in fact appointed Russia’s billionaires, is still in control. Yukos’s property, which accounts for a major part of Russian GNP, will probably be “redistributed” to oligarchs close to Putin. As for the Russian people, the government’s “war against poverty” remains a war against the poor, that is, the overwhelming majority of the population.  

            Over the past few months, the government has launched a new wave of neo-liberal reforms in the areas of housing, health, pensions, education and labour. At the same time, the rights to organize protest demonstrations and to initiate national referenda have been curtailed and new steps have been taken to muzzle what remains of the critical media. 

The New Labour Code, adopted two years ago, seriously undermined the rights of workers and unions. Now the pro-government party in the Duma (parliament) is going after elements of the new code with the following proposed amendments:   

--the prohibition of work that endangers the health of workers would be limited to situations where the danger has been proven, presumably after the accident or illness has occurred.;

--the official list of seasonal jobs would be eliminated, the employer deciding which jobs are seasonal;

--the list of jobs subject to special work regimes and providing extra benefits would be reduced, limiting it to dangerous or harmful jobs.  

            Meanwhile, the commitment contained the revised Labour Code to raise the minimum wage (currently about 20$US) to the minimum subsistence level has not been respected, and, according to a forecast by Ministry of Economic Development, that will not happen until 2026.  

The Unified Social Tax was introduced in 2000 to replace employers’ separate payments into the pension, health insurance, unemployment and welfare funds. This amounted to integration of these taxes into the general state budget, making oversight practically impossible. The unified tax was originally as high as 36 per cent of the wage bill but it will now be limited to 26 per cent. The avowed goal is to encourage investment and increase wages. But as a result the funds for pensions will be reduced by more than 20 per cent; those for healthcare will be cut by a quarter; and the first three sick days of sickness will now be paid, if the worker is lucky, by the employer rather than the state. In sum, this is another blow to the little that remains of the social safety net.  

Wage of State Employees from 2005 will not longer be paid according to a unified system. The federal state is transferring the payment of wages of most public employees to regional and municipal governments, allowing them to set levels on their own. This will lead to major differences in pay from one region to the next.  

Education While the dismemberment and privatization of the educational system proceeds apace, the Union of Education Employees lists the following measures being discussed or about to be adopted: 

--rural teachers will lose their right to free housing and their 25-per-cent wage supplement;

--henceforth, only educational establishments under federal jurisdiction, a small part of the total, will have a guaranteed level of funding;

--educational institutions will have their status changed to “commercial organizations with an educational function”, removing one of the final obstacles to wholesale privatization;

--quotas for students enjoying free tuition in higher education will be abolished; 

--all benefits for students from poor families (subsidized transport, meals, etc.) will be eliminated. 

Housing  Despite protests in many cities that forced partial retreats, authorities have by no means given up on making citizens assume the full cost of housing and communal services, a cost that until recently was assumed largely by the state. This is a new blow to popular living standards. In parallel fashion, other measures are in preparation to fully subject the housing sector to the “laws of the market.” The new Housing Code will facilitate evictions for non-payment of rent or services, limit the duration of leases, and so accelerate the development a profit-making housing sector.  

Elimination of In-Kind Social Benefits A draft law would eliminate in-kind benefits, such as subsidized housing, transportation and medicines received by pensioners, veterans, invalids and other categories, replacing them with monetary payments that in many cases will not compensate for the lost in-kind benefit. It is also feared that the value of the monetary payments will be quickly eroded by inflation.   

            Leftist Duma Deputy and trade unionist Oleg Shein issued an appeal to trade unions, pensioners associations and other popular organizations detailing the consequences of these bills and calling for a united front of resistance. At the initiative of the Association of Invalids, Greenpeace Russia, the Federation of Trade Unions of Russia (see below), and the Party of Labour of Russia a broadsheet was printed up in 200,000 copies detailing the proposed measures and analyzing their consequences. The internet site of the Institute of Collective Actions offers information on all the draft bills as well as regional and local initiatives. 

            The viciousness of these measures forced the FNPR to react, even though its political arm, the Union of Labour, belongs to the pro-government majority party, Edinaya Rossiya, the very party that is rushing these very bills through parliament. In fact, many of the bills were drafted by the party’s own members. FNPR called a national day of protest on June 10 that attracted tens of thousands of protesters and in which the alternative (genuinely independent) unions also participated. The FNPR is discussing another protest for the fall. Some of its affiliates, notably the Union of Education Workers and the Union of Metallurgy, have called for a more serious mobilization to make the government retreat.   

A New National Federation of Alternative Unions 

            The founding congress of the Federation of Unions of Russia (FPR) took place on April 24. It united thirteen national unions and regional union centres, among which were the National Union of Air-Traffic Controllers (FPAD), the Union of Aviation Technicians and Engineers (PARRiS), the union federation Zashchita truda, Zheleznodorozhnik (railway workers), Solidarnost, as well the regional centres of the Urals, Tyumen and Novosibirsk.  A series of other unions were present as observers. S. Kovalev of the Air-Traffic Controllers was elected President.   

            The founding of FPR arose out of the practical collaboration of alternative unions in 2000-02 in fighting against adoption of the new Labour Code. However, the alternative union movement has had much difficulty overcoming divisions that reflect different choices of strategy in that struggle as well as conflicts among leaders. Another issue is the certain rapprochement that has occurred between the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) and the All-Russian Confederation of Labour (VTR), on the one hand, with the FNPR, on the other. The KTR and VTR, which also unite alternative unions, are members of the national Tripartite Commission (government, employers and unions) and, along with FNPR, affiliates of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.  Most of the unions that joined the FPR were unaffiliated.   

            Like other alternative unions, and in contrast to FNPR, FPR affiliates do not admit management in their ranks. In its declaration, the FPR stated that its goal is not to obtain equal treatment by government and employers with the FNPR but to create conditions for the unification of workers’ organizations in opposition to the management-controlled unions and the state. It expressed its commitment to collective leadership and to democratic principles and its opposition to racism in all its various forms. 

Second Siberian Social Forum 

            The Second Siberian Social Forum was held in Novosibirsk, attended by some 120 people from 25 social organizations and trade unions. The first day the Forum heard reports on the anti-globalization movement abroad as well as on the labour movement in Russia. The second day was organized around thematic workshops, which dealt mainly with organizing a response to the government’s new offensive against social programmes. The participants discussed organization of actions at the regional level.  

            At one point on the second day, the forum erupted into chaos, when some of the participants objected to the official presence of members of the National Bolshevik party (so-called “Limonovtsy”), a proto-fascist organization that hides behind Soviet symbols and leftist rhetoric. In the debate that took place over this, one of the most interesting and lively discussions of the forum, several speakers took issue with the organizers’ tolerance toward the party. They noted that the National Bolsheviks, as well as other Great-Russian chauvinist political groups that in similar fashion hide behind the word “Communist,” are one of the most dangerous legacy’s of the Soviet period, a legacy that has, furthermore, held back the emergence of a genuine socialist left of any significance in Russia. As if to support this, as the discussion broke up, one of the National Bolsheviks menacingly inquired about the ethnic origins of the people who were objecting to their presence. (Some were, in fact, were Jewish.) In the end, the National Bolshevik flag was taken down, but its members remained as observers.   

Editorial committee: David Mandel (Canada), Carine Clément, Denis Paillard (France). For all correspondence: Messager syndical c/o D. Paillard, 156 rue Oberkampf, 75011 Paris.

E-mail: <carine_clement@hotmail.com>