The general secretary of CCOO, Unai Sordo, defends the general strike and rejects that it is directed against the opposition, although he admits that it would be illogical to take to the streets against an economic and labor policy in which the unions have been co-participants with their agreements with the Government. He accuses the CEOE of blocking salary negotiations while waiting for a change of color in Moncloa and warns that a tax cut would force pensions to be cut.
Do you fear a blow to the strike because it will be interpreted as a mobilization against the opposition?
We do not share that interpretation. In Spain the legislative power exists and it is as susceptible to criticism as any other institution. Why are we not going to be able to question that a majority formed by PP, Vox and Junts has rejected decrees on housing or the reduction of working hours? The strike appeals to all Administrations and also demands better salaries and more resources for public services and infrastructure. If PP and Vox feel appealed by these demands, it will be for a reason.
They are criticized for having not called a general strike against the Government of Pedro Sánchez for eight years...
It seems surreal to me that we are required to go on strike against labor and economic policies in which we have participated. If the right governed, there would be talk of an economic miracle in Spain. We have raised the SMI, reformed the labor market, revalued pensions and reduced temporary employment, while employment grew. But that's only part of the picture: inflation is eroding wages, house prices are absolutely out of control, and we need to improve the financing of public services.
What responsibility do unions have in this erosion of salaries? Is it all the fault of the CEOE?
It is not a question of guilt, but of interests. The CEOE has made a reading of the political moment and considers that, if there is a change of Government, it will be able to negotiate under better conditions. Surely he expects an Executive to reduce social contributions or modify business obligations for medical leave. That is why it has preferred not to seriously address a new collective bargaining agreement that would allow significant wage increases to compensate for inflation. But it rains in the wet, because they have also taken advantage of the fact that there was a parliamentary majority capable of blocking ambitious reforms.
One of them, the reduction of the working day. Have you missed an opportunity?
It's been a shame. We had broken many dogmas about the functioning of the labor market: it has been shown that it is possible to raise wages, improve productivity and create jobs simultaneously. It was time to reduce the working day, also due to the digitalization of companies. The average working day agreed in the agreement is around 38.2 hours and we wanted to legally extend that reduction to the sectors that have not been able to obtain it. Now we will have to try it through collective bargaining.
Among the great advances, the SMI stands out. Yolanda Díaz has set a 5.3% increase for 2027. Is it enough?
It is a relevant increase, but insufficient for union organizations. It consolidates an increase in the minimum wage of practically 70% in eight years, compatible with job creation. But two fundamental issues remain pending: the tax treatment and, above all, the modification of the system of compensation and absorption of benefits. It was a Government commitment that has not been fulfilled.
Are they going to sign?
With the times we have, I do not see a reasonable signing of the SMI practically during the electoral campaign.
Speaking of elections, the polls show a Government of PP and Vox. What are your red lines?
I am concerned about labor and economic proposals that I consider regressive, ineffective and old. They return us to a country that seeks to compete through low wages and lower taxes. The PP contemplates in its economic program abolishing works councils in companies with between 50 and 250 workers. It would be a huge democratic regression. And reducing taxes and contributions, as these parties propose, would force drastic cuts in pensions. That would mean a social conflict and would also harm an economy that is growing thanks to investment and internal demand.
The pre-campaign is marked by the Urda tragedy and the crisis of the railway system. Have sufficient political responsibilities been assumed?
Sometimes resignations are presented as almost Roman circus solutions for problems that are structural. I respect Óscar Puente's decision, but the important thing is to analyze all possible technical failures and insufficiencies. The railway network has multiplied journeys and passengers and, in addition, new operators have entered. It is necessary to check whether the coordination, surveillance and control systems function properly. Based on this analysis, the necessary investments will have to be established and, if appropriate, other decisions of political responsibility will be adopted.
The minority unions demand to reform the Freedom of Association Law because they consider that CCOO and UGT monopolize social dialogue. Would you agree to open the system?
Unions are responsible for defending the general interests of workers, we are not simply a sum of corporate interests. To participate in social dialogue, sufficient representativeness must be demonstrated, sectorally and territorially. They are not arbitrary percentages. When we negotiate laws or agreements we assume an enormous responsibility. If any union with minimal representation could access these tables, the system would be ungovernable and we would end up blocking social consensus. The current electoral hearing model seems perfectly reasonable to me.
