Trade Unions in the Former Socialist Countries, Low Wages and Worthy Work

Trade unions in the former socialist countries, low wages and decent work

Kuzbas - ISITO

Bizyukov, P., Kemerovo

Bizyukova, V., Kemerovo

K.Burnyshev, Novokuznetsk

1. The political environment in which activity of trade unions in KEMEROVO oblast’ is carried out

Kemerovo oblast’ (Kuzbass) is the most industrialised and most densely populated region of Russia beyond the Urals. Here, in comparison with other regions of Siberia, are the highest population density, share of urban population and share of workers employed in industry. One can say with confidence that it is the leading industrial region, not only in Siberia, but in all Russia. In Kuzbass the majority of all Russian coal is extracted (over 70% of total coal output), and a significant proportion of ferrous and nonferrous metals is produced.

Kuzbass at the end of the 1980s was the place where the independent working-class movement revived, and the first independent trade unions appeared. But in the course of a few years the independent working-class movement in Kuzbass has practically disappeared. This was also facilitated by mistakes of the leaders of the independent trade unions in Kuzbass and pressure on the part of regional authorities which support the trade unions which are included inthe FNPR system, and, moreover, only those which show loyalty to the authorities and the employers.

1.1. Existing level of wages and working conditions

Beginning from the end of the period of mass strikes, in Kemerovo oblast’ all possible resources of power are used to create steady economic development. In volume of industrial production Kemerovo oblast’ has fallen to second place in Siberia. Re-structuring of coal, chemical, metallurgical and machine-building industries is beginning to bear fruit and especially significant, for the revival of the region, is the work of the industrial giants, which comprise the basis of the economy of the oblast’.[1]

In the opinion of experts, such results have been managed to be achievedthanks to the competent policy of the administration of the oblast’, thus the governor of the oblast’, in their opinion, is the leading engine of progress in the oblast’: «It really is so, our governor is the strategist, he foresaw whatthey have only just started to do at the federal level. In fact the first practice of “national projects” was ours».[2]During the realization of national projects mechanisms of control and support of the initiative were realised which had already been developed where the administrative system had obviously slipped. This was shown especially obviouslyin the realization of the National Project"Health".

The influence of the governor on the economy of the oblast’ is great because of his significant economy and political weight. Many experts speak of the establishment in the oblast’ of a favourable economic climate for particular large holding companies (for example, SDS, alongside Moscow and foreign partners), and strong opposition of the administration to other companies. Those who try to work independently can become the object of all-round persecution on the part of the local authorities and law enforcement bodies. As a matter of fact, only those companies which have reached agreement with the governor and administrative structures can workin the region.

The strong side of the activity of the governor of Kemerovo oblast’ is considered to behis «care for the people», the social orientation of his regional policy. There is a series of indicators which are particularly monitored and which are a basic theme in negotiations with large employers. These indicators include the regional GDP, average pay, the birth rate, safety at work in the coal-mning industry and also indicators of the development of the social sphere. Having analysed the dynamics of the growth in average pay, one has to note that for the period 2005-7 it has been positive. Thus, in 2005 average nominal pay was 8654 roubles, and by 2007 it had reached 12506 roubles, an increase of 45%. The basic results for 2007 on the level of pay show that wages increased in almost all spheres of employment, the maximum increase being 88% in finance, in industry the highest increase, in the production of coke and oil products, was 52%, the lowest increase was in light industry and printing, from 0.7% to 7%. The level of differentiation of pay, that is the difference between the average maximum and minimal sum is alsoincreasing, in 2004 it was 4.9 times, in 2005 5.2 times, in 2006 5.8 times and in 2007 6.3 times. The task set by the administration of the region of increasing average wages annually by 30% was close to being achieved in many branches (see table № 1). Comparison of the average salary in the oblast’ with other regions of Siberia shows that according to this indicatorthe oblast’ is stably in fourth place in the Western Siberian okrug.

So how have they managed to achieve such an increase in pay? Over the past three years there has been a struggle with ‘grey pay’, pay in ‘envelopes’, and with tariffs below the subsistence level.This policy was well organized and had results (see more on this in section 1.2).

The enterprises of Kemerovo oblast’, as in the past, have a significant number of zoneswith dangerous and harmful working conditions and the proportion has increased in the period – from 44% in 2005 to 48% in 2007(against the Russian average of 21%) (see table № 2). According to the administration, the oblast’ has high indicators «of occupational diseases, industrial injury and industrial diseases».About 20 thousand people annuallyundergo medico-socialexamination to establish the percentage loss of professional work capacity. Up to two thousand people annuallyundergo medico-socialexamination for the first time.

Rates of industrial accidents and fatalities are not included in the indicators of the success of Kemerov oblast’. The statistics of these indicators are not reassuring either in their dynamics or their structure (see Table № 3). At the annual meetings in the Labour Department it was noted that in connection with the high intensity of work the number of occupational diseases, accidents and fatal cases in the coal industry remains at a high level, and the bad position at open-cast mines is especially marked. Over the period of the report in Kemerovo oblast’ there were three large accidents and several small incidents which took 334 lives. Interviews with workers and trade union leaders revealed that alongside measures to strengthen technical safety, senior management of the coal companies constantly strives to ‘condense’ the working day. Thus at a number of open-cast and deep mines short breaks in work for personal needs have been abolished, which has a particularly harsh impact on drivers of excavators and heavy trucks at open cast mines, who work an 8-12 hour day. Obviously this was a reason for the further increase in industrial injury in the coal industry in 2007 and as a result of certification of workplaces undertaken the number of workplaces with heavy working conditions increased by almost 10%.

Apart from this, the Board of trade union technical inspectors noted that ‘there have been cases of concealment of industrial accidents by employers. For example, in the third quarter of 2007 there were 23 such cases. Moreover, one was multiple, five with fatal outcomes, ten with serious injuries and seven with light injuries.[3] This is evidence that trade union control in the sphere of health and safety is very significant and that administrative resources will not help employers conceal such facts.

In 2007 for the first time in five years there were mass demonstrations of workers (a strike at Esaul’skaya mine over the work regime, an appeal to the governor by miners in Anzhero-Sudzhensk over delays in the payment of wages, a strike of metallurgists over wages). They were scarcely reported in the mass media, but locally they had a strong impact on the mood of workers and the character of their relations with the employers.

It is evident that administrative methods have not succeeded in achieving well-being in the social-labour sphere. However, it has to be recognized that where there is a tradition of interaction between employers and trade unions it has been possible to overcome ‘social stupour’, have constructive dialogue with employers and sometimes even resolve federal level defects. Below examples will be reported of such dialogue in health services, metallurgy and the coal industry.

In Kemerovo oblast’ independent discussion of issues connected with industrial injury, working conditions, exploitation, the purchasing power of wages, their level and delays in their payment is forbidden. For the analyzed period trade-union subjects have actually disappeared from regional newspapers, there have been no reviews by experts or specialists on social-labour questions. And if at the beginning of the research (the end of 2005) we noted the presence of this theme in a progovernor tone, by the beginning of 2008 it is necessary to note its neglect.

Thus, Kemerovo oblast’ is a region with a strongly pronounced authoritarian policy in the field of the economy and social development. The level of pay in the oblast’ steadily increases as a result of two factors: the administrative mechanism of getting pay out of the ‘grey’ zone of the economy and the introduction of administrative order into the tariff policy of holdings and enterprises which have an impact on its average indicator. The regional administration, and correspondingly the municipal authorities with its support, maintainsstrict control of the activity of the most significant business structures, and does not allow them to carry out independent economic and social policy.

The situation with working conditions, technical safety and health and safety in enterprises, according to indicators of capital investment in this sphere might have positive characteristics, but statistics and research in the social-labour sphere shows the ineffectiveness of investments and how, as a result, high levels of industrial injury, disease and death. Administrative resources in the social-labour sphere make it possible to legalise part of pay in the economy of the oblast’, make it possible to increase the regularity of payment, create conditions for the elevation of the minimum wage to the subsistence minimum, to create order in the system of pay in the public sector and to conclude agreements and to finance improvement of working conditions. However, the paternalistic position of the leadership of the oblast’ does not provide for the formation of parallel independent or partnerly forms of interaction and control. Even, in the view of the administration of the oblast’, the trade union remains departmental, ‘unknown’ structure, which which consultation takes place, but the decisions have often already been taken.So the growth of capital investment, investment in personnel, the growth of labour productivity are accompanied by growth of tension in the labour sphere and protest actions.[4]

1.2. Forms of interaction between trade unions and regional / city administrations

Two aspects will be included in the review of forms of interaction between trade unionsand administrations:

- activity on development and realization of agreements;

- Practice of joint actions in regulation of labour questions.

In the opinion of N. Surikov, chief of the Labour Department of the administration of Kemerovo oblast’, «from year to year the Kuzbass agreement becomes more and more concrete – in it the powers and responsibility of the partners are more precisely differentiated. In particular, this is the case with the regulation of pay at the regional level and expansion of guarantees to workers»[5]. Today in the region several kinds of agreements which regulate the size of wages and working conditions operate:

1. «Kuzbass tripartite agreement for 2007-2009»;

2. «Agreement on social and economic cooperation»;

3. regional branch agreements;

4. priority projects (regional) or state projects (for example, "Health", “Culture”, “Education” etc.);

5. collective agreements at the level of the enterprises.

The Kuzbass agreement for 2007-2009 between the Federation of trade-union organizations of Kuzbass, the oblst’ Administration and employers of the oblast’ was signed in April, 2007. During work on this agreement 70 remarks were received, many of which it was possible to resolve. In negotiations each of the sides insists on its leadership, but, judging by the result, positions favourable to the administrative interests were agreed. «One can name three positions of principle about which most of the discussion took place. These were point 4.15, about the minimum wage being not less than 1,5 times the subsistence minimum. Item 4.17 about the structure of wages, where the tariff should be not less than 55-70%. Item 4.22 – on the ratio of wages of workers and heads not exceeding 25 times. The first two positions were asserted by the trade union and Administration against the employers and they managed to defend them. And on the last … it was necessary to accept the proposal of the employers, they insisted on it, originally this difference was much less».[6] Participation of the trade union in this process has been complicated with the procedure of internal coordination in branch oblast’ committeesand their defence at a general meeting. According to trade-union leaders, proposals from trade unions were more difficult to put forward and agree in the framework of FPOK, so there were cases when proposals were put forward and accepted contrary to procedure (this is described in the case study of the Health Workers’ regional committee). Employers «gave a lesson in legal literacy» in the work of the tripartite commission. They had never been so active in their work and possibly as result of this work, one cananticipate the creation of a Kuzbass union of employers, right after the signing of the Kuzbass agreement. The assessment of the whole campaign over the preparation and signing of the agreement is this: substantive provisions of the agreement were prepared and agreed by the Administration, the trade union had a consultative position, the employer acted with an active position.

Not all partnership agreements imply the participation of three parties. For example, agreements on social and economic cooperation are concluded only between the oblast’ administration and large owners of enterprises which are located on the territory of the oblast’. This form is recognized by the authorities as effective and the primary goal of the historical period is the development of a similar process at the level of cities and districts where the participants will be already city (district) administrations and large employers. In total now (in April 2008) 22such agreementsoperate (their number has increased in the period of research from 20 in 2005), they are not public as they contain obligations on financing works and welfare projects with a full estimate of spending, so in 2007 the total expenditure of the employers on these projects amounted to 62 billion roubles.. In return for financial injections the administration guarantees loyalty and help in the realization of economic activities in the territory of the oblast’. «Without a contract with the authorities it is difficult to construct effective business in the oblast’, you need support» (from interview with an expert from the administration).

Such agreements started to be signed in Kemerovo oblast’ in 2000 – the first agreement was with the company "Kuzbassrazrezugol’". It was the first experience – today these agreements have become some kind of "business card" of the system of social partnership of Kuzbass.

The agreement consists of a preamble and four sections about the spheres of action of the agreement. In the first section the question is stabilization of the economy and development of production. In the second — about duties of the parties to maintain the employment of the population and the development of a labour market. In the third section the parties talk about support of the social sphere. Thelast fourth section refers to the «Development of the enterprise’s housing-and-municipal complex». In each section of the document joint obligations of the parties in carrying out a coordinated policy, and also the obligation of the administration and the enterprise, are stated.

According to this document, the company undertakes to develop production, to carry out investments into reconstruction and modernisation of the enterprise, to raise workers’ wages, to create new workplaces, to provide financing for the social needs of workers and pensioners. The administration of the oblast’, in turn, undertakes to support the activity of these companies in every possible way.

It is necessary to note that the initiator of signing of agreements on social and economic cooperation between the administration of the oblast’ and business was the governor. «Social responsibility is assigned to all heads of enterprisesworking on theterritory of Kemerovo oblast’,Aman Tuleev said in an interview with the newspaper Kontinent-Sibir’‘Before agreeing to the organization of the activityon the territory ofKuzbass, we enter into a corresponding agreement with the head. As a matter of fact, we give our consent only in the event that the future proprietor undertakes to participate in all social programs carried out on the territory of the oblast’. If the proprietor does not fulfil hisobligations we find ways to struggle against him, down to exclusion from Kuzbass. That was what happened in its time with "MIKOM". And further: «I think, that work with the proprietors of large industrial enterprises makes it possible to overcome approximately 25% of the deficiency of the regional budget – Aman Tuleyev said, answering a question from a journalist. – For example, we have handedover completely the maintenance of some settlements to those enterprises which are locatedthere. And proprietors helplarge citiestoo, in particular, Novokuznetsk. Without cooperation with proprietors there would be many more social problemsin the region».