Major Spanish labor unions CCOO and UGT announced yesterday that they will keep the pressure on until May 1 if the government does not make changes to its recent labor reforms. Cándido Méndez and Ignacio Fernández Toxo issued this threat in order to demonstrate a position of force that, despite its apparent strength, is an admission of weakness that confirms that they were not able to meet the objectives that they sought in yesterday's general labor strike.
First of all, yesterday's strike did not receive as big a following as the previous strike (held on September 29, 2010) against the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party government. This is ironic, because Zapatero's labor reforms tried to enact fewer changes than the reforms Rajoy's government proposes.
Second, the government announced that it will not change the elements contained in the labor reform that passed through Congress, although it will keep open discussion of some aspects of the reform. If the unions want to continue representing workers effectively they will have to work hard because their strike did not meet expectations. They will also have to increase their power to influence in order to drive changes that the country needs in order to escape the economic crisis, regain Europe's trust and create jobs.
They should also analyze how to achieve these goals. It doesn't make sense to keep forming picket lines that coerce those who provide the right to work. The CCOO and UGT's attempt to increase tensions in the street like protesters did in Greece is a bad example. It is a step backward that shows how the situation is unraveling and social discontent with unemployment at nearly six million people cannot be contained. Social agents know very well that negotiations must endure until an agreement can be reached.
For example, training programs that used to be monopolized by labor unions and employers' representatives are now free and open to the public. Why? Because there are no grounds for the monopoly and the programs had become a source of corruption that social agents either did not know about or did not want to change. If the labor unions want to represent workers effectively, they will have to think seriously about the results of the general strike held yesterday and other strikes held before, analyzing why they have not reached agreements that will solve the unemployment problem. They will have to change.
Change must spring from an understanding of how society has developed over the past several years. The unions need to articulate their commitments. Will they defend the rights of today's workers who live under conditions that are different than those of thirty or forty years ago? Or will they offer weak concessions by supporting principles that work today but don't endure? With their answers, unions write their future.
