Was it a success, the strike?

Imagine a strike against at-will dismissal. 95% of the working population supports it, but the government does not modify the legislation. Was it a success? No. It will have had a huge following, but it will not have achieved its goal.

The unions speak of a massive mobilization; the employers' associations, of a reduced turnout. Electricity consumption as a thermometer is only an approximation. On the other hand, I want to recall that the Constitution protects the right to strike. But it is also necessary to respect the freedom of those who decide not to support it. Informational pickets are legitimate; intimidation and coercion are not. The general crime of coercion carries prison sentences of six months to three years. Preventing a business from opening or going to work is not an expression of the right to strike, but a violation of the freedom of others.

But it does not matter. The success of a strike must be measured by what it will achieve, not by how many people supported it. The demands were decent wages, affordable housing and price control. Well, companies cannot solve the housing crisis. And neither can inflation caused by cost increases that must be passed on to prices in order to be viable be attributed to them.

Furthermore, in 2024 the average annual salary increased by 5.3%, significantly more than inflation. The minimum wage has also experienced strong growth in recent years. This does not mean that there are no problems making ends meet. But companies cannot be accused of not raising salaries above the cost of living.

The housing problem falls to the public administrations. We will need between five and seven years of unified policies. To complain about housing, the appropriate instrument was a large demonstration against the government, not paralyzing companies and harming workers, self-employed people, and citizens with no capacity to act in the face of the problem.

Perhaps the day served to restore visibility to unions in need of regaining social weight. But regaining prominence is not equivalent to achieving the announced objectives. Housing will remain the same, prices will not go down due to a one-day strike, and wages will continue to depend on productivity and collective bargaining.

I firmly believe that this strike was unnecessary, illegitimate, and that it was not the appropriate instrument. Spain is growing, unemployment is decreasing, wages are rising more than inflation... and housing is not the responsibility of companies.

But, of course, media attention and fomenting unrest produce dividends of all kinds, especially for the unions, who were interested in having people take to the streets for their own reasons.