General strike without government: unions target November

General strike without government: unions target November

There is a paradox biting its own tail: CCOO and UGT have called for a 24-hour general strike this autumn, but parliament is dissolved and the Spanish government is in caretaker mode. Who is being pressured? PSOE-A leader María Jesús Montero stated the strike is "against the opposition," meaning against the PP and Vox, which blocked housing decrees. Anarchist union CGT and the Tenants' Union have also shown support. The CEOE business association questions the legal framework, arguing it is not a strict labor dispute.

The planned date is early November, before the official start of the November 29 election campaign. It would be the first general strike supported by both major unions during Pedro Sánchez's era and the first in Spain since 2012. The stated reason: decent wages to access housing. Some argue the real motive is different.

Why a general strike when there is no government?

The short answer: because the caretaker government cannot approve housing decrees blocked by the opposition in the Permanent Fruta. The longer answer, according to some debate participants: because the PSOE needs to mobilize its base before elections that polls suggest it may lose. Montero voiced this: the strike is "against the opposition." Not against the government that has failed to solve the problem for eight years. Not against business. Against those yet to arrive.

The calculation among skeptical analysts is that this strike seeks not to gain votes, but not to lose them. Mobilizing the core before demobilization takes its toll. The problem is that the core also needs to eat.

Unionism that lost the manual

There is an uncomfortable consensus: unions no longer know who to pressure. The classic general strike pressured the employer. The 1988 strike against Felipe González toppled a labor reform. The 2012 strike against Rajoy was massive. This one, against no one, is an unprecedented experiment.

The CEOE has questioned the legal framework of the call. It argues there is no strict labor conflict. It is formally correct: there is no employer to pressure. The employer is the State, but the State is in caretaker mode. The employee supporting the strike loses a day's pay. The government loses nothing. The PP loses nothing. Only the worker loses.

The question no one answers: if the problem is housing, why was this strike not called in 2020, 2021, 2022, or 2023, when the PSOE governed with a majority? The answer, according to the most cynical analysis, is that no campaign was needed then.

Maricarmen's eviction and the narrative of indignation

The media trigger was Maricarmen's eviction, a case that ignited social media and streets. Thousands of protesters marched in multiple cities. Unions took up the challenge. CCOO and UGT, with one million members each, support a general strike again 14 years later.

But the narrative has cracks. If the problem is structural, why react now and not before? If the solution is legislative, why not apply it when they had the votes? The prevailing answer, according to some: because the electoral calendar dictates. The strike is the last cartridge of an exhausted legislature.

What does the CEOE think and why does it matter?

The business association not only questions the legal framework. It argues this is not a strict labor conflict, opening the door to legal challenges. If the strike is not labor-related, it is not protected by the right to strike. If not protected, organizers could face liabilities. It is a warning to mariners.

Meanwhile, the tenants' union and CGT push from the more radical flank. They want the strike to be massive. They want it to be disruptive. They want, in essence, it to be against the system, not a party. But the system does not vote.

The electoral calculation no one wants to say aloud

If the strike happens before the campaign, the PP can use it as proof of chaos. If during, it can mobilize the useful left-wing vote. If called off, the PSOE is exposed. There is no good scenario.

The most repeated analysis is that this strike is a symptom of a left that no longer knows how to check the right. The general strike was for decades the working class's weapon against economic power. Now it is one party's weapon against another. The comedy, as the original title says, is that no one knows who hurts.

What if the problem is not the strike, but that no one believes it serves any purpose anymore?