-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:04
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Labor code -what will
it mean?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
RUSSIA INFO-LIST
from International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ISWoR web-site - http://members.aol.com/ISWoR/english/index.html
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The New Labor Codex. What does it mean?
By Oleg Shein
Translation M. Harris
On the 5th of July the State Duma adopted the new Labor Code on the first
reading. It's not important what corrections are made in the second
reading
and what is allowed to stand. No one knows this. The experience of
the
adoption of other legislation demonstrates that nothing important will manage
to change, regardless.
What does the new Codex bring to the Workers?
To begin with, all but state employees will be converted to fixed term
contracts. The following is verbatim: "fixed term contracts
are concluded
for carrying out work, concerning admittedly temporary (up to 2 years)
extension of the amount of services offered". Under the conditions
of the
market economy, the extension of production by any firm is temporary.
Today
a construction company builds a house on Kerchensky street, and hires workers
for this purpose. Tomorrow - a house on Krasnogvardeisky street, and
hiring
begins anew. The same in a factory producing concrete or cement.
And for
machine manufacture, transportation, light industry? In those cases the
work
goes from order to order, in other words, by fixed term contracts.
The workers in the theatre and journalists will be converted to fixed term
contracts individually, but all 20 million working pensioners will be
converted at once (this is a generally anti-constitutional procedure.)
It's
understood, that such a worker is an eternally dependent person. No labor
negotiation will be renewed if he begins to speak his mind. Naturally, in
energy or urban transport it's difficult to establish the variability of
production. But there is another cudgel ('knut' in Russian original) -
reductions in force. Now that firings have been brought out from under
the
control of the trade unions, that is, that no agreement of the trade union
for firing and layoffs is necessary. Consequently, the management of any
motor depot can announce to the drivers: "Well, my friends, a reduction in
force is imminent. 90 out of 100 will stay. But we will need more
flexible
work schedules so there is a proposal that all go voluntarily to fixed term
contracts. Otherwise, the lay-offs can not be avoided."
Clearly, it's
practically impossible to prove that there is no basis for reductions in
court. Unfortunately, the drivers will not be able to strike. The
agreement
of the cleaners, bookkeepers, dispatchers and cashiers is needed for this,
since according to the adopted Codex strikes are lawful only in the case
where more than 50% of the entire collective votes for the strike
authorization (p. 390). We may ask, will the cashiers quarrel with the
management because of the conversion of the drivers to fixed term contracts?
These people will also not be able to create their own union, unfortunately,
since the right to an independent collective agreement only occurs in unions
with the inclusion of more than half of the collective.
The director has other levers. We'll assume, someone is found who goes to
court and that something can be proven. Nothing will prevent giving this
person such a schedule of shifts that he will simply leave work.
No one is in a better position that the state employees. Teachers can be
fired for "disruption of regulations" (p. 335). Of course,
everything can be
put under regulations, that's the right of management.
In addition, the Codex intends the transition to the 58 hour working week.
This is not some invention of the left, but an absolute fact. "On
application of the worker", he can work 16 hours a week extra, in addition
to
regular 40 hours and 2 hours overtime" (p. 96). Not in one's basic
specialty, but in another. That is, leaving the lathe and going to the
milling machine. There is no restriction for invalids, for women or
children. One should not believe that he will be well paid for this.
Reviewing the mass media for the past week, I have not seen such lies, as
about the "merits of the Codex", since the time of the two Yeltsin
elections.
The entire country is strung along, while they speak as if wages will now
be
above the subsistence minimum. In fact, the Codex says that such wages
will
be introduced only upon adoption of separate Federal legislation. The
Minister of Labor A. Pochinok has already declared, that this will not happen
in the coming year. Obviously, this will not happen after a year either,
since the peak payment of external debts will begin. According to the
same
Minister in the broadcast of "Echo of Moscow", this section of the
Codex will
come into force after four years, that is, not in this life, but after
elections when others will be in power.
Unfortunately, wages can now be paid in kind (p. 129). And in the full
amount, since the Codex Author, A. Isaev fibbed: There are no restrictions in
international law or treaty whatsoever.
And for the statement that in the simple case that instead of 2/3 of the pay
being in the form of "tariff" [i.e. basic wage, not bonuses or money
dependent on other conditions] the employer paid 2/3 of the wage [in the
latter form] , the worker would obviously have to prove the employer's guilt
in court. Who is at risk in this case, no one knows.
The single merit of the draft is the penalty for withholding wages. Be
the
penalty is not in percent per day, as was said on the Television, but 2% per
month. And yet more: if today on the day following withholding pay it's
possible to reduce work, then it's only one fifteenth. It's certain that
the
country will have to prepare itself for new withholding of pay.
The reconciled draft received worse marks than the government's. In the
government version there were a total of 5 cases of the application of
overtime (here it can be for whatever reason). In the government version
there was a right of workers to have representatives with a deciding vote in
the Councils of Directors (here such rights are liquidated). In the
government version only 1/5 of wages can be paid in kind. Finally, in the
government version, the right of every union to collective bargaining with
the administration is preserved, and there were no restrictions on the right
to strike.
The fact is that there was an exchange. Shmakov, on the threshold of the
congress of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions, and in the hope of
support from the Kremlin, gave away all rights of the country's trade unions
and workers. In exchange for this he received a monopoly for the
Federation
and the legislative liquidation of most of the new trade unions. Not all
of
them, since some of our organizations were preserved, and have entrenched
themselves for collective bargaining.
One should not, however, think that having eliminated the people's power, the
authorities can celebrate the final victory. The revolution
of 1917 took
place exactly because it was unthinkable to have to go to courts and
prosecutors to create a union. But that's exactly the decision adopted by
the Duma on 5 July.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The RUSSIA INFO-LIST
puts out information and analysis from a wide range of sources.
If you have something you would like to distribute on Russia Info-List, or
want to help in our practical solidarity work, contact: >[EMAIL PROTECTED]<
Box R, 46 Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8RZ, England
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
