2025-02-13

Public Debate “Strike in the Absence of a New Strike Law”: New Legislative Framework A Necessity

Labour Rights and Decent Work in Socio Economic Reforms in Serbia - Black and White

The Center for Democracy Foundation organized a public debate on February 13, 2025, in Belgrade as part of the project “Labour Rights and Decent Work in Socio-Economic Reforms in Serbia – Black and White” supported by the Olof Palme International Center. The debate focused on the topic “Strike in the Absence of a New Strike Law”.

Participants included: Biljana Stojković, professor at the University of Belgrade and member of the Democratic Party; Bojan Urdarević, professor at the Faculty of Law; Milica Lupšor, Association ROZA; Nebojša Atanacković, Employers' Union of Serbia; Duško Vuković, Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (SSSS); Slađana Kiković, UGS “Nezavisnost”; Željko Veselinović, Trade Union “Sloga”; Milja Dimitrijević, Serbian Trade Union of Doctors and Pharmacists; Jovana Spajić Erdeljan, International Labour Organization; Nataša Vučković, Center for Democracy Foundation, among others. The discussion was moderated by journalist Ivana Stojanović.

The Strike Law: An Outdated Regulation or a Deliberately Neglected Issue?

Strikes in Serbia have become a subject of widespread debate – trade unions warn of the limitations and outdated nature of the current Strike Law, while experts highlight its lack of alignment with international standards. The absence of social dialogue further weakens workers' rights, leaving trade unions increasingly powerless to protect employees. All stakeholders agree – new legislation is necessary.

The Secretary General of the Center for Democracy Foundation, Nataša Vučković, stated that the concept of striking has resurfaced in public discourse as a long-forgotten issue, primarily associated with certain sectors, and that it has not received such attention for a long time.

She recalled that the current Strike Law was enacted in 1996 and that a Draft Law was prepared in 2018 but was never adopted.

Beyond the Strike Law, she added, the Labor Law will be one of the key legal regulations influencing the closure of Chapter 19 in Serbia’s EU accession process, should Cluster 3 be opened.

“Cluster 3 covers social policy and employment, and these two laws will be crucial in assessing the alignment of Serbia’s legal system with EU standards”, said Vučković.

Professor Bojan Urdarević from the Faculty of Law at the University of Kragujevac argued that while the current Strike Law was not a bad regulation for its time, it is unrealistic to expect that a law adopted in 1996. can still be applicable in 2025.

“The key issues that are not aligned with international standards relate to the definition of the minimum work process during strikes and the selection of public interest services where this minimum work process must be ensured”, Urdarević stated.

He explained that each public service should have a clearly defined minimum work process, but in some cases, this is regulated by law, while in others, it is covered by collective agreements, leading to inconsistency.

Education, for example, is considered a public interest activity in Serbia, but according to international standards, “this is not necessarily the case”.

“A catalog of activities requiring a minimum work process should be established, ensuring that this is determined not by the founder or the director of public enterprises, as has been the case, but through social dialogue between social partners”, Urdarević emphasized.

Serbia, he noted, follows a continental law system, which, unlike France, for example, requires prior notice of a strike – an approach that weakens the effectiveness of strikes.

“Last year, strikes were highly relevant and disruptive across Europe – transport in Germany came to a standstill, proving that strikes as a mechanism have not lost their significance. Only in Serbia has the concept been misrepresented, with state interventionism dulling the power of trade unions, making strikes less feared”, Urdarević said.

He stressed that strikes should serve as a last resort warning to employers. However, many collective agreements state that strikes are prohibited if the employer abides by the agreement, even though the right to strike can only be limited by law, as stipulated by the Serbian Constitution.

“The issue of strikes has been largely neglected – whether consciously or unconsciously, or because the current law suits certain interests. It must be updated, modernized, and expanded to include additional forms of strikes. In Serbia, people talk about general strikes, but I can’t recall one happening recently – perhaps on October 5th”, Urdarević added.

He pointed out that international law does not provide a definition of strikes, and that the International Labour Organization deliberately avoids defining them, leaving it to national legislation.

Professor Biljana Stojković from the University of Belgrade and a member of the Democratic Party noted that “whatever educators do, they will always fall outside the legal framework of the minimum work process”.

She argued that the legal framework surrounding strikes has been deliberately neglected, making the law inconsistent with international labor rights standards, effectively serving as “a tool of the regime against workers and their rights”.

In her view, expecting sector-wide strikes is unrealistic, as strikes typically occur within an organizational unit or at the employer’s level.

“Students have overridden their authorized bodies, such as student parliaments, which were designed to cooperate with the regime. Similarly, educators have been forced to bypass representative trade unions that failed to protect them and instead sought compromises with the authorities. This has led to the necessity of guerrilla-style organizing, precisely because the laws do not protect workers' rights”, Stojković said.

She emphasized that educators today find themselves in a difficult position because their unions have failed to support them, forcing them to organize independently within each school.

The “Rebellious University” initiative, she noted, has mobile teams assisting educators in cases of threats to individual teachers or schools, as well as providing legal aid.

“Teachers understand they are operating outside the legal framework, in a gray zone – they are prepared for this but would absolutely like to know the legal context in which they are operating. That is why discussions on legal regulations are so important for them”, Stojković concluded.

Duško Vuković, Vice President of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia, argued that the current Strike Law is essentially a law designed to prevent strikes.

“We cannot talk about a new Strike Law until Serbian society undergoes a reset. Are employees in education doing something illegal in a country where laws are not respected”, he asked.

He added that Serbia is experiencing a crisis in its political system and social dialogue, with lawmakers either failing to implement laws or openly violating them.

According to Vuković, trade unions should not relinquish their right to strike, particularly when rights such as wages, working hours, tax payments, and safe working conditions are not upheld.

“This puts workers in a position where they are expected to make lawful decisions in response to unlawful actions”, Vuković said.

“The Netherlands, for example, does not have a Strike Law. Instead, courts resolve issues related to workers' rights violations by the state or private employers”, he added.

For him, collective agreements represent acts of social peace, ensuring mutual compliance with obligations and rights.

“At this moment, striking is necessary”, Vuković concluded.

Slađana Kiković from UGS “Nezavisnost” emphasized that the issue of strikes should not be approached in a populist manner. International standards do not prescribe in detail how strikes should be regulated but leave them to national legislation.

She recalled that the last attempt to amend the Strike Law was in 2018, but trade unions and employers rejected the proposed version, arguing that it was not the result of the Working Group’s efforts.

“The biggest point of contention in this law concerns public interest activities, which are subject to special regulations and face severe limitations on the minimum work process, which ultimately benefits the state”, Kiković said.

She noted that UGS “Nezavisnost” is a representative trade union, bearing significant responsibility for all employees in Serbia. In times of crisis, she pointed out, “representative unions are always the first to be called out”.

“A strike is one of the most radical methods of struggle. In our country, both a union and 50% plus one employee can organize a strike. But if you accept a situation where you enter anarchy, you must protect these workers, as the employer will challenge the legality of the strike before the courts," Kiković stated.

She concluded that the state benefits from the law as it currently stands.

“The easiest thing is to take people to the streets, but a strike must have an outcome. Once a strike begins, it must end with an agreement. The real question is how we move forward as a society”, she said.

Nebojša Atanacković from the Employers' Union of Serbia stated that, fundamentally, a strike always represents a form of protest by employees regarding their economic conditions, including the terms under which they sell their labor.

"The state is the largest employer”, Atanacković emphasized.

“It is evident that the current Strike Law is significantly outdated. In situations like these, it is crucial to highlight through strikes that not only representative unions, but all others as well should unite and call for a general strike”, Atanacković said.

He pointed out that employers have actively participated in discussions with unions, often reaching common conclusions.

“We were willing to accept certain changes, just as at other times, we were not. It seems to me that the government was never particularly interested in implementing serious changes to the Strike Law. The Labor Law is the last law any government would want to amend because doing so would open Pandora’s box of various demands”, Atanacković concluded.

Željko Veselinović, President of the Trade Union “Sloga”, believes that all laws enacted before the year 2000 were better than those passed afterward, especially those concerning labor rights. According to him, workers' rights today are at a level similar to those of a hundred years ago.

He emphasized that “a heavy hand has fallen on the unions” and acknowledged that they bear some responsibility for the current situation.

“There is accountability, but the relationship between unions themselves has deteriorated. It is impossible to bring all unions to the same table”, Veselinović claimed, stressing that only a unified union effort can lead to a general strike.

He also pointed out that the representativeness of unions has not been examined for two decades.

“What is happening today cannot be called a general strike because it does not comply with the law, and anyone facing consequences will not even be able to rely on the courts to reinstate them”, Veselinović said.

He believes that students should take the initiative to unite the unions, urging them to sit together and assess whether they have the strength, will, and shared interest to support the students and organize a general strike to protect all those who take to the streets.

Milica Lupšor from the Women's Labor Rights Association ROZA questioned what happens in the private sector, where unions often do not exist.

“Based on our experience working with women in the textile industry in Serbia, out of six factories we visited, four had unions. However, in only one of them was the union active, while in the others, the women didn’t even know who their union representatives were”, Lupšor stated.

She emphasized that unions should be the driving force behind strikes.

“The problem is that these women don’t know who their union trustee is or what rights they have. They know nothing, including the fact that if they are employed under a fixed-term contract, they are not allowed to strike in the streets”, Lupšor explained.

In her opinion, a general strike cannot exist solely in the public sector – the private sector must also be involved.

“We are talking about the Law on Strikes, but not about the people who are supposed to carry out these strikes”, Lupšor noted.

She also believes that there should be a single law – the Labor Law – which would consolidate all fragmented regulations, including the Law on Strikes.

The panelists at the debate “Strike in the Absence of a New Strike Law” agreed that a new legislative framework is necessary. To achieve this, all social partners must engage in discussions, with political will being a prerequisite for any progress.

The debate was organized as part of the project “Labour Rights and Decent Work in Socio Economic Reforms in Serbia - Black and White”, supported by the Olof Palme International Center.