Adeoms wants a dispute after Albisu's ruling, but in 2015 it didn't defend the dismissed workers. Union double talk in Salto.
Adeoms calls for a protest over Albisu's regulation of union leave. The union presents itself as a defender, although in 2015 it did not support the 252 workers laid off by Lima, leaving workers without union support.
The union claims that it defends workers today, but in 2015 it remained silent.
Adeoms is making a fuss today, claiming that Albisu's resolution is legal and that it violates workers' rights. But let's not be mistaken: they're just putting on a show. Because when Lima decided to fire 252 employees, the union didn't even show up to defend them. How convenient it is to tear one's clothes now.
Albisu decided to regulate union furloughs: requests must be submitted through a file, with two days' notice, or one if urgent, and a cap of 400 days' wages per year for all leaders. For the union, this is an attack. But where were they when their members were fired without any support?
The Municipality is in the red due to a large debt it inherited, and it needs functioning services. Albisu regulated within the law: he regulates, not eliminates, the right. No one takes away their licenses; they are simply required to justify their actions and comply with the rules. These are sensible conditions in any area of public work, even more so with limited resources.
ADEOMS today proclaims that it defends workers. Right. But in 2015, when Lima arrived and removed dozens of workers in demand, the union looked the other way. It was said that negotiations had taken place, yes; but many members were left out anyway, and there was no meeting to explore the situation. It was an awkward conflict. Today, the union wants to present itself as a defender; so why didn't it do so when the chips were down?
Some say: it's union freedom for Albisu to touch a nonexistent agreement for years. But union freedom isn't a license for perpetual cronyism. And if ADEOMS complains about rights violations today, it contradicts its past silence when it agreed to irregular transformations. It's double talk.
On the other hand, the union denounces a political campaign by the municipal government. But that narrative has no basis except in public outrage. Albisu met and held talks; the union was summoned to the MTSS (Metsa Social Security Administration), and the Mayor's Office was absent. That, yes, was serious. But the conflict is brought by those who complain about the lack of widespread media coverage rather than institutional coverage.
It's clear that ADEOMS intends to establish conflict as a strategy. They announce it: they will hold an assembly to initiate a stage of conflict. This could harm everyone, but it serves to flex their muscles. It's mobilization for mobilization's sake; the issue is in the form, not the substance.
The Municipality hasn't blocked licenses, it's just restricting them. It's establishing an agreement that didn't exist before and that gives the union the ability to continue operating, but within an orderly framework. Adeoms seems to believe this regulation is an affront, as if union leave should be an open and permanent checkbook. It's a corporate defense disguised as union resistance, and it backfires.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Uruguayan union statute provides for collective bargaining. This resolution is the beginning of a negotiation. Why doesn't ADEOMS view it as part of the democratic process, but instead calls it an attack? It's contradictory.
The real impact of this regulation is order and transparency. This may make some leaders uncomfortable, but it benefits the rest of the municipal workers and the taxpayers. And if the union doesn't see it that way today, it's missing an opportunity to make a difference within its own base, instead of seeking a media conflict that only generates noise and wears people down.
Now, if they're talking about a violation of union freedoms, they should explain why that concept wasn't activated when it came to contracts in 2015. That was when Albisu eliminated positions due to a lack of collective bargaining agreement and excessive spending. The union didn't raise a flag; on the contrary, it quietly denounced this lack of order. Today they're campaigning. It's a story that bears no comparison.
On the street, people perceive this as a double standard. It's understandable that they want to protect their members. But it's also questionable to send people to stop a conflict when they failed to defend them during the previous crisis. This wound can't be healed by appealing to legalistic rhetoric, especially when respect for rights is only demanded in the present.
The resolution doesn't revoke their license: it requires a procedure. That's reasonable. If they strike or hold an assembly, they have the means. But conflict as an initial tool, without first exhausting all channels, reveals that today it's a symbolic defense, not a functional one.
Ultimately, this "they attacked us" narrative rings hollow in retrospect. If you have legal concerns, go ahead with legal action. But don't use the same arguments you ignored when your members were left stranded. That's inconsistent.
