THERE WAS complete chaos at Cyprus’ two airports yesterday, after porters decided to call an indefinite strike because they could not reach agreement over their work conditions and pay with the Hermes consortium which is set to take over the running of the airport from the autumn. Ominously, the strike was called on the very day that Hermes and the government had signed the BOT contract.
No cargo was unloaded from or onto planes, with the result that thousands of people were stranded at the airports without their luggage. Those who had just arrived eventually left without their suitcases while those unfortunate enough to have checked it in had to wait at the airport indefinitely. More than 10 planes were grounded, unable to take any passengers, as there was nobody to load the luggage.
But the inconvenience caused to passengers by the strike, not to mention the cost to the economy and harm done to Cyprus’ reputation as a tourist destination, are not of the slightest concern to unions. Their members’ narrow interests are above everyone else’s and unions have no compunction about holding the country to ransom in order to achieve their ends.
Yesterday’s decision to strike was a blatant violation of the industrial relations code, but it seems that only the employers’ side is expected to comply with the code and brought to book if it does not. Unions are above codes and laws in Cyprus because nobody dares to stand up to them. The reason for calling an indefinite strike is indicative of union arrogance – they are trying to force the government to guarantee any workers made redundant by the consortium running the airport alternative employment or compensation, as if this is a right.
Unions claim that a deal to this effect had been struck with the previous government, but the current government was refusing to honour it. They decided to bring the airports to a standstill and punish the public in order to pressure the government into giving them the answer they want.
If it were only the government that would have been punished by the strike, nobody would have protested. On the contrary, it would have been a good lesson because all the parties belonging to the current government alliance, including the president, had voted against a bill banning strikes in essential services tabled by the previous government. These parties wanted to safeguard “the sacred right to strike” and they are now reaping the benefits of their so-called idealism.
Perhaps now, all the guardians of the proletariat will modify their views on the issue. But in the meantime, if the government has no intention of giving in, it should be considering ways of getting workers into the airport to do the work of the porters. Allowing this strike to drag on for more than a day would be disastrous for the country.
