The general secretary of UGT, Pepe Álvarez, defends the call for a general strike against accusations of electoral opportunism, demands a State pact for housing and warns that with a Government of PP and Vox the CEOE will make fewer concessions in collective bargaining, which could increase labor conflict. He also questions the unions that have distanced themselves from the protest and assures that not supporting it is "a monumental mistake."
They are going on strike at the gates of the elections. Are you worried that this will be interpreted as an attempt to influence the campaign?
Not at all. We have been hearing for a long time from workers who do not make ends meet. And when you explain to them that their agreement has increased more than the cost of living, we find an element that derails everything: housing. For two years we have had a lawsuit before the European Committee of Social Rights to demand that Spain comply with the European Social Charter, that housing be accessible and that its cost does not exceed 30% of income. Unions have to participate in these demands together with social movements.
But you have recognized that UGT wants to influence the electoral debate.
Of course we want to. How can we not want to participate in a debate that will determine what treatment will be given to pensions, sick leave, pending permits or the minimum wage? We want the parties to explain their proposals with clarity and transparency. Then the people will decide who they vote for.
What responsibility do you attribute to the Government in the housing crisis?
If we stick to the powers, less than to the autonomous communities and city councils. But he has responsibilities. Spain needs a State pact. City councils must provide land and urban resources; communities, develop a public park; and the central government, legislate and provide money. Urban planning procedures must be streamlined and guarantee that public housing is permanently public. And no administration can solve it alone.
The CEOE threatened to appeal the strike because it considered it illegal. Why do you think he backed down?
Because you know it's not illegal. With his accusations he has coerced many people. They backed down just when we had planned a lawsuit for protection of freedom of association and the right to strike before the National Court. Here there are economic and labor reasons that fully justify the call.
Do you expect more monitoring in companies or at demonstrations?
I wouldn't like to oppose it. I think there will be a lot of mobilization in companies and that the strike has generated expectations of participation in the streets that would not exist without this call. The important thing is that it is a day that marks a before and after.
The legislature ends without the reduction in working hours and with other pending reforms. What balance does it make?
It is necessary to distinguish which responsibility corresponds to the Government and which to the Cortes. In reducing working hours, the Executive went as far as it could and there was a parliamentary majority that said no. It has been an atypical legislature, without General State Budgets. But very important advances have also been achieved, such as the increases in the SMI, the revaluation of pensions and the implementation of reducing coefficients to anticipate retirement in especially difficult professions. There is still a lot to do and we need a parliamentary majority to complete it.
Is the UGT prepared to negotiate with a PP Government that depends on Vox? Will there be more labor conflict?
A PP Government is not the same as one of the PP and Vox. We will have to face what the citizens decide. Our demands will be the same, but the policies adopted by the new Executive will determine the union response. With a right-wing government, employers may consider it less necessary to make concessions in agreements and that could increase conflict, which is already growing. I believe that the CEOE has placed its hopes in the elections and that salary negotiations will be reactivated when the next Government is formed.
Pensions have entered the campaign. In the next legislature will we have to demand new efforts from companies and workers?
It is false that the system is broken. For the first time we have a mechanism to monitor its sustainability with periodic controls from AIReF. It is necessary to distinguish which benefits must be financed through contributions and which correspond to the Budgets. Minimum supplements, for example, do not have to be financed with contributions. The increase in income makes it possible to pay pensions. What worries me is that they are considering returning to privatization formulas or mixed systems that have already failed.
There are minority unions that do not support the strike and accuse CCOO and UGT of duopoly. What do you think?
Changes may have to be introduced, but not because we have a union majority. The law does not favor anyone: it is a clean system of representation. And regarding the general strike, not supporting this call is a monumental mistake. Commercial workers, where these unions have a presence, also suffer from the housing problem. They have missed a great opportunity.
