thanks for the comments. in truth, i was posted this as a fishing exercise to glean a response - not knowing to what degree this stuff was accurate or not.
perhaps your friend would post a reply to the cnt news service itself? if your friend also has any other details on this subject, i'd rteally like to see them, though unfortunately my spanish is not very good at all, but i could do a bad translation.
> Where does the CNT get the idea that temporary employment agencies are
don't know what they mean here. but i can say that in australia there has been mucxh dispute over the legality of labour hire agency agreements, as evidenced in the not-so-recent maritime strike. also, there is good reason tho think that international conventions against slavery may well make workfare programs illegal in countries which have them, but this is a slightly separate issue, and has yet to be tested in the courts.
> 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.
great! is there any stuff they have on this?
> My friend would like to ask you if you know of a single
> company where the unionist movement is led by the CNT dudes.
i have absolutely no idea, and i am not a supporter of the cnt as such. i was much more interested in the issues of work contracts and job agencies, and the positions of the various union movements on these changes. thanks for clarifying.