Fuel dispute settled without trade union intervention

Download article in original language : ES0010217FES.DOC

A dispute over rising fuel prices broke out in autumn 2000 between the Spanish government and employers and self-employed workers in transport, agriculture and fishing. The conflict, which was a major cause of public concern, was finally settled in October. The trade unions, surprisingly. played no role in this dispute.

A dispute over the spectacular increases in the price of fuel began in Spain in August 2000. First the farmers' associations, then the fishing associations, then the road haulage organisations, and finally the taxi drivers applied pressure in order to obtain a reduction in the price of diesel for industrial use. The accumulated increases in the price of diesel since the beginning of the year, arising originally from the increase in the price of crude oil, are around 50% (and significantly more for fishing), which threatens the profitability of these areas of business.

The groups affected called unanimously for a drastic reduction in the cost of diesel for industrial use through a reduction in government taxes on fuel. The same measure had been requested by similar groups in several European Union countries (BE0010329F and UK0010192N).

Some support for this demand came from the opposition parties - the Socialist Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español, PSOE) and the United Left (Izquierda Unida, IU) - which also suggested a temporary reduction in fuel taxes and/or an increase in taxes on the profits of oil companies (a demand of the IU).

The development of the dispute

The first to react to the price rises were the three main agricultural associations: the Association of Arable and Livestock Farmers (Coordinadora de Agricultores y Ganaderos, COAG); the Small Farmers' Union (Unión de Pequeños Agricultores, UPA); and the Young Farmers' Association (Asociación de Jóvenes Agricultores, ASAJA). From 10 September, they blocked highways and accesses to the most important cities in the country with tractors.

They were joined a few days later by fishing workers in Catalonia, Valencia, Andalusia and Galicia, who moored their fleets for several weeks and began to boycott fish imports and the transport of fish from other regions. The shortage of fresh fish was noticed in the markets. On the first two days of October, the frontiers were blocked by protesters. Subsequently they blocked the establishments of the Logistical Hydrocarbon Company (Compañía Logística de Hidrocarburos, CLH), which distributes fuel in Spain, and access to the BP Oil refinery in Castellón. The result was a shortage of all types of fuel, which was critical for a few hours in Catalonia, and noticeable in other regions. Some associations of Galician ship-owners also protested, although only verbally.

In the first few days of October, the road transport sector joined the dispute, in particular the most important organisation, Fenadismer. Taxi drivers held a strike of between eight and 18 hours in various cities on 3 October. Road transport protesters blocked the frontiers and the access points and ringroads of several cities from 2 to 4 October.

There was great public concern, but the closure of petrol stations, which would have certainly raised public alarm, was prevented by the police, who enforced minimum services (which the protesters described as excessive) and escorted trucks to guarantee supplies.

Negotiations with the government

Meanwhile, negotiations between the government and the protesters advanced very slowly. The Prime Minister and the ministers of economy, agriculture, transport and public works stuck to their position that a cut in the duty on fuel was out of the question for two reasons: it would increase inflation due to the resulting increase in consumption; and the EU's decision was firmly against changing taxes on fuel. The minister of the economy suggested reducing consumption, to which those affected replied that it would mean stopping work. The government offered low-interest loans, reductions in personal income tax (IRPF) and increases in value-added tax (VAT) receipts. The protesters' refusal to accept these offers was based on the fact that many of them did not need to make new investments and were not obliged to declare VAT (because of their low incomes), so the benefit would be negligible.

After several weeks the fishing workers and road hauliers – the most radical groups – began to suffer from the lack of income and the lack of public support. Though the hauliers were in favour of continuing the dispute, the government and the Spanish Confederation of Employers' Organisations (Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales, CEOE) fostered an agreement between shippers and hauliers to allow the latter to increase their fees by 10% on those of 1999. This agreement was later criticised by consumers' associations, which felt that it would lead to an increase in prices for end-users.

Some sectors, such as motor manufacturing, were already suffering from a lack of parts due to the transport strike. In other sectors, the shortage of fuel was causing problems. However, most people seemed fairly indifferent to the protest after the impact of the first few days, except for the few hours in which the supply of petrol was threatened.

The agreement between the parties

Finally, the protesters accepted the government offer. The agreement will cost the exchequer – that is to say the whole country – ESP 120 billion. For those involved in the conflict, income tax has been reduced and for some groups compensatory VAT has been increased. All the groups have been granted low-interest loans to allow them to renew their fleets, means of transport, machinery etc. The fishing workers have been granted reductions in their social security contributions. There are also some other sector-specific incentives.

The silence of the trade unions

The trade unions maintained a surprising silence during this whole period, unlike CEOE, which said little but was very active. Its chair stated that the increase in the cost of fuel should be compensated for by lower wage rises and reductions in social security contributions – an important observation in the run-up to a new round of collective bargaining. CEOE also took action because some of the organisations involved in the conflict are its members and some are represented on the governing bodies. The employers' association thus mediated, albeit indirectly, in resolving the conflict favourably for its members.

Surprisingly, the trade unions played practically no part in a dispute that could have a decisive impact on the model of production now or in the future. They have made no statement on the subject. In private, some leaders have stated that the conflict did not threaten the situation of wage earners and that the main issue is that the oil companies are reaping enormous profits from the situation.

Commentary

There are two questions in this conflict that should be given serious attention from the labour viewpoint once the situation has calmed down.

The first is the silence of the trade unions both during and after the dispute. The rise in the price of oil and fuel is likely to lead to a slow-down in economic activity and therefore in employment. It may also affect the euro single currency and lead to an increase in interest rates that will affect mortgages and the investment possibilities of small companies. It is true that the organisations that have intervened in the dispute are employers' organisations, which would seem to put the ball in the other court, but the trade unions cannot remain aloof from economic phenomena that will affect the living conditions of workers. Furthermore, for some time the trade unions have been trying to unionise the self-employed (ES0002277F), many of whom work in the affected sectors.

The second question is of greater scope and affects the longer term. This mini-oil crisis once more opens the debate on the stability and appropriateness of a production system based on cheap, abundant energy, not only due to the pollution that it causes but also because without alternative forms of energy the future well-being of society cannot be guaranteed. It is disappointing that the trade unions, political parties and other organisations have failed to take advantage of this dispute to consider ecological problems, the future well-being of citizens, and the need for alternative energy sources. (Fausto Miguélez, QUIT-UAB)