A strike on the eve of an election needs more than slogans
CCOO and UGT have called a general strike for 11 November, 18 days before the election, in support of higher wages and better housing. With details still to be settled, the call raises questions about who it is aimed at, whether it is lawful and what specific results it seeks to achieve.
A general strike should be judged not by the noise it makes, but by the improvements it secures. CCOO and UGT’s call for a strike on 11 November, just 18 days before the election on the 29th, puts important demands — higher wages and better housing — on the table, but also raises a simple question: who can respond to them at this point?
As of 10 October, the call still had to be formally registered and details remained to be settled. The CEOE disputes that there is an industrial dispute that would justify the strike and is considering challenging it once it is submitted; its legality has therefore not been determined. USO, which will not join the strike, points to another problem: with Parliament dissolved and the Government in a caretaker capacity, there is no clear target. That is no minor objection.
The timing is no mere detail, either. CCOO announced protests leading up to the election, and the strike will take place just before the campaign begins. That does not prove the demands are fictitious, but it does make it necessary to explain why this date was chosen and what specific measures are being sought. Defending workers requires more than calling a strike: it requires verifiable objectives and a sense of responsibility. Without them, the strike risks serving the election dispute more than the people it claims to represent.
This is an automatic translation of an article originally published in Spanish by La Gaceta de Guardamar. If in doubt, the Spanish version prevails. Read the original · More news in English