I forwarded this e-mail to a friend of mine who is very active in the United Left party (centered around the Spanish Communist Party, a grabbag for all sectors left of the social-democratic PSOE. Based mostly on his response, here is my reply.
> > CNT versus ETT
> >
>
> > In 1994, the Spanish government modified the law about employment agencies.
> > Previously, all employers seeking workers through an agency had gone through
> > INEM, the state run agency (equivalent to the Employment Service here),
> > because the law required that contracts be directly between worker and
> > employer. Since this change in the law there have been many empresas de
> > trabajo temporal, literally Temporary Work Businesses, established, although
> > many seem to be on a dubious legal footing as the law that created them is
> > unclear. Certainly our sister organisation in Spain, the CNT, regard them as
> > acting illegally.
> >
Where does the CNT get the idea that temporary employment agencies are illegal?.
> > They have been fighting these ETTs because they are a further attempt to
> > attack workers pay and conditions. Workers hired through ETTs are usually
> > paid less than the national agreements for that industry dictate, and they
> > have fewer employment rights. There is also the possibility of blacklisting
> > as the ETTs offer themselves to employers stating they have "secure people".
> > While this suits the bosses very well, it clearly is not in the interest of
> > the workers, though with some of the highest unemployment rates in the EU,
> > Spanish bosses know they can get away with attacking terms and conditions.
> >
This is exactly true.
> > Typically, the main reformist unions (the socialist UGT and communist
> > CC.OO)not only show no interest in fighting the ETTs, but have signed a
> > national agreement allowing a pay differential of up to 30% between directly
> > employed workers and those employed via the ETT. With such an agreement it
> > is no wonder that ETTs are being used for permanent as well as temporary
> > jobs.
> >
This is a crock. No agreement was signed by the 'reformist' unions. CCOO, the lefter of the two main unions, denounces the ETT on a fairly constant basis. At any rate, the implication that either UGT (social-democratic union) or CCOO are happy with temporary work contracts is utterly false.
> > The CNT's strategy is the opposite. They try to create as many difficulties
> > for the ETT as they can. They have stickered and occupied ETT offices.
> > Where they have any strength in a workplace, they fight against the firm
> > using the ETT and in favour of direct employment. Sometimes this is with
> > other unions, but often they are complicit. The CNT has also managed to
> > establish one union section actually in an ETT.
> >
It may well be CNT's only union section. CNT is a thoroughly marginal, irrelevant split from the main anarchist union, the CGT (even though it managed to retain the historic CNT name), which is itself a rather modest section of Spanish unionism: they got 2% of delegates in the last union election. My friend would like to ask you if you know of a single company where the unionist movement is led by the CNT dudes.
Cheers, -- Enrique Diaz-Alvarez Office # (607) 255 5034 Electrical Engineering Home # (607) 272 4808 112 Phillips Hall Fax # (607) 255 4565 Cornell University mailto:enrique at ee.cornell.edu Ithaca, NY 14853 http://peta.ee.cornell.edu/~enrique