Let's start talking about history

BOOK OF ASAMBLEAS FROM 1985 TO 2003

TRANSCRIPT MINUTES OF MAY 22, 1985

(excerpt from the minutes) of the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Fishing Sector with the attendance of 68 members) 

TODAY IN APRIL 2024 WE ARE EXPERIENCED BY THE EMPLOYER'S LOCK OUT OF THE FISHING SHIPPERSONS AND THAT IS WHY WE BELIEVE THAT READING THIS MEMORANDUM FROM THE YEAR 1985 BY THE YOUNG MACHINISTS CAN BE USEFUL TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM AND WHERE THEY ARE GOING. Jorge Canziani "At 10 a.m. on May 22, 1985, 68 attendees met at the AEBU premises, with the Agenda having only two points: 1st. Reading of the draft memorandum that would be sent to the Committee on Labor Legislation of the House of Representatives and 2nd. Modification of Fight Measures and evaluation of those applied to date. Cro. Jorge Canziani reads the draft memorandum which sets out the material that was prepared and which reads: " May 1985. Labor Legislation Commission. It is our wish to present to you the point of view of the onboard workers on the problems of the fishing sector.

ANTECEDENT

The national legislation on fishing dates back to 1900 (Law 2660) where the Executive Branch was authorized to organize a special honorary Commission with the task of studying and projecting, in the shortest possible time, the laws and regulations that would regulate fishing in the sea. territorial in the Rio de la Plata and public domain rivers. In December 1914, the Executive Branch decreed the regulations of the Fisheries Law, in Art 2, we see: "

"Fishing in jurisdictional waters is prohibited to all foreign vessels and to vessels or personnel posted on them without prejudice to international conversations that may be held."

In September 1945, with the promulgation of Law 10653, the SOYP was created as a decentralized service and the bases for developing a fishing policy were established there. With the consolidation of SOYP, the legal bases were created that would later be adapted in Law 13833 (year 1969) and in the creation of INAPE.

In Law 10653, however, reference is made to the personnel of the ships insofar as their regulation will depend on the National Cabotage Law and distinguishing the crew members from the rest of the Entity's personnel, since the powers of the Board include the appoint, suspend and dismiss work and service personnel.

On the other hand, the appointment and dismissal of technical and administrative personnel can only be done with the prior approval of the Executive Branch.

There appears here a clear discrimination, towards the crew members, of the benefits attributed to other workers of the Entity.

Esta mentalidad perdurara hasta nuestros días, ya que permanentemente se nos echa en cara, por parte de los armadores, el hecho de que reclamemos derechos al igual que los otros trabajadores cuando ganamos por encima de la media del país, como si por el hecho de ganar relativamente bien debíamos perder nuestra condición de trabajadores dignos. En el año 1969 se promulga la ley 13833, que recoge el lineamiento básico de la ley 10653 y donde aparece en el Art.28º., la consagración de la jornada ilimitada de trabajo como única referencia hacia los trabajadores. 

In the rest of the law, the infrastructure of a national fishing plan is established, leaving large gaps that could not be filled because the country entered into an institutional economic situation that brought about the fall of Parliament in 1973, and the installation of the government of fact that he governed until 1985.

In 1975, through Law 14484, INAPE was created, the powers that corresponded to SOYP in Law 13383 became completely its own, in addition to the other tasks attributed to it. The creation of INAPE is a consequence of the studies and background of fishing that the government authorities of the Process had done, in the Conclaves of San Miguel and Colonia, guiding the conception of National Security for Development.

In a meeting held at the UTE Vacation Park in Minas, between General Alvarez and government authorities, Captain Ulises Walter Perez (1976) spoke, referring to the fishing industry as "a controlled industry, without negative emergencies or utopian dazzles." He said,"we have a policy, we have plans, we have goals and results.

The important thing is to be developing an industry with deep political, economic and strategic connotations, since we initiate effective economic sovereignty on our maritime front, "do we ask ourselves today, and it would be good if the topic were delved into, do we initiate effective economic sovereignty on our seafront?

A few days ago, in a conversation with a well-known radio journalist, he told us that the country spent around one hundred and fifty million dollars to install the fishing plan and three hundred million dollars entered the country through exports in the same period, if that is true. So the debt of the fishing vessel owners is sixty-five million dollars, meaning that they did not pay what they owed, where are the hundreds of millions of dollars that are missing? We can assure with certainty that we do not have workers.

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

With this background regarding fishing legislation, we saw the BOOM arrive in 1975, the year in which "coincidentally" the SOYP denounced the Agreements that existed with the machinists, who were paid with a mixed system, that is, INSURED SALARY. and PART OF THE CAPTURE, in addition to paying them overtime and paying them SOCIAL BENEFITS regardless of the part. It is not whimsical then that naval machinists wish to have an INSURED SALARY since it was a genuine union conquest of the (state) fishing sector. In addition, the Argentine naval machinists sent us their Collective Agreement (1976), which includes the BASIC SALARY, THE PARTY, THE FOOD at the expense of the shipowner, SOCIAL BENEFITS regardless of the PARTY and not as currently happens in our country. Why did we reach the conflict of 1984? legislators ask.

The Fisheries Plan carried out by INAPE is not bad in itself, but, in our opinion, it fails in part because it is immersed in a general policy that makes decisions by itself, without consulting national interests, among which we, the workers, include. . During all these years of dictatorship, every controversy between workers and employers was resolved in favor of the latter.

 A partir del año 1981, el Centro de Maquinistas Navales plantea a la Dirección de la Marina Mercante (Armada Nacional) una serie de puntos sobre la realidad pesquera nacional, en el 83 varias Asociaciones Profesionales realizan un simposio Jurídico referente a la pesca, con la presencia de reputados abogados laboralistas (PLA RODRIGUEZ, NOVOA,RASO DELGUE,SARTHOU,CASALA, HERMIDA URIARTE,ANUAR FRANCES,CAGGIANI,HECTOR H.BARBAGELATA).La preocupación de las organizaciones se generaba por la reactivación popular de resistencia a la dictadura, ello llevaba a que cada quien desarrollara su accionar en su ámbito natural. 

The first shock occurs when the "tablita" breaks, as a result of the appearance of Marians in our country, the shipowners decided to alleviate their economic situation by applying the old recipe of the International Monetary Fund, the salaries of the workers on board were reduced by 30 %, as stated in the resolution of the Chamber of Shipowners signed by its legitimate authorities.

In addition to this, the price of the catch began to be quoted, only for the crew members, in national currency and not in dollars as was done until then. The processors continued to quote the catch in dollars to pay the ship owners. The workers made claims to the MTSS for the salary reduction, but it was argued that, due to the "specialty" of fishing (old verse) the shipowners could not be made to quote the price of the catch in dollars again and return us 30 % taken away.

El 17 de mayo de 1983 el Centro de Maquinistas Navales entrego al Comandante de la Prefectura C/P Calagui, un proyecto de convenio basado en los viejos convenios del SOYP y en convenios de los maquinistas argentinos, nunca obtuvimos respuesta. 

In October 1983, a letter was presented to the MTSS regarding the food consumed on board the fishing vessels, with the workers' organization understanding that it was up to the shipowner to provide it free of charge for the crew member. With great pleasure we learned that the lawyer from the Legal Department gave us the reason, but coincidentally when Law 15523 is approved it is not determined who is responsible for paying for the food.

In the last days of December 1983, the embarked workers declared themselves in pre-conflict and on January 2, 1984, a complicated conflict began that ended with the declaration of illegality of the strike by the Executive Branch and the employment of a device of the Naval Prefecture that forced the crew members to embark by coercion, leaving them with two options: BOARDING or ELIMINATION OF THE CREW RECORD applying Decree 384/76 Art.6º. (we attach photocopies of telegrams sent to the striking crew members).

However, three companies reached an agreement with the crews, establishing important bases that partially protected the rights of the workers. Regarding the salary, the "a part" system was maintained, but by paying the SOCIAL BENEFITS, regardless of the part, job stability was established, the payment of food by the companies was fixed, a fictitious price was set in dollars to quote per ton of catch, beyond the fact that salaries are settled in national currency and the study of a Law or Collective Agreement.

This bi-partite had diverse results, reaching agreements on various reshipments, leaving the 2nd issue to be resolved to this day. engineer RAMON ROLON, it was possible to arrange with the shipowners the entry into port of the fishing vessels for the national elections in November 1984. In September 1984 the Naval Machinists Center gave the shipowners the basic points to reach an agreement and unfortunately they were not was able to reach agreement on the basic points regarding the mixed salary, social benefits outside the share, and the payment of food by the companies. Why do we consider that a guaranteed salary is necessary in fishing? There is permanent controversy between shipowners and crew as to whether or not there should be a guaranteed salary.

The shipowners claim that they cannot pay it because the business is loss-making; we have been waiting for almost three years for them to show us with figures from their companies that this is the case. However, in the advertising campaign they carried out in the press during the conflict of '84, figures appear that if true would allow the crew members to be assured 50% of the average salaries and the other 50% would arise from the capture.

We all know the irreducible position of the shipowners of not leaving "the part" and if you ask them why they do not want the mixed system, they will answer that the fishermen are lazy and that if they were guaranteed a basic salary, instead of going fishing They will go behind Gorriti Island until the food runs out or they will walk with the ship until the fuel runs out. Can you imagine 60 ships anchored in Punta del Este? Surely the whole country would find out quickly. And as for spending fuel walking, it is absolutely unrealistic since the fuel consumption of a vessel in trawling (operating) is significantly higher than in free navigation (without set fishing gear), therefore, the autonomy of the vessel is see enlarged. !!! It seems incredible that shipowners hand over a ship, ultimately capital, to people who have such low moral principles, regardless of the way they pay their salary!!!!!

Naval machinists understand that the correct way to settle salaries in fishing is to ensure a fixed minimum monthly amount, and that per catch they receive the productivity gain. There are two engineers on fishing vessels in the case of high- and medium-high vessels, and only one in coastal vessels. In the first case, the engineers divide the 24 hours of the day into shifts of 12 hours each, in coastal vessels from the moment they set sail. Until arrival at the port, the driver covers all schedules, with the average duration of the trips being 60 to 70 hours of work. The engineer's tasks are practically the same regardless of whether the vessel catches, if the vessel does not operate due to poor sea conditions, if the area chosen by the fishing skipper lacks schools of fish, etc.

We also see that in order not to abruptly go from a "a part" system to a fixed salary system as in merchant ships, it would be convenient to install a mixed system that, through production incentives, can make the machinists ensure the employer a continuity in operation, keeping it in the area even if the resources it has are not ideal to keep the machine in perfect condition. The "a part" payment system was exclusively adopted by shipowners as a form of salary payment and has advantages for them, namely: it allows the salary to be regulated based on various variants,

CATCH PRICE, LOAD WEIGHT, FISH MEASUREMENTS, FISH QUALITY. 

These variables cannot be controlled by the worker since the price is set by the factory and is not set by government act. The weight per box is another variable that is very difficult to control since most plants do not accept weighing at the dock and then after the fish leaves the board, the worker's ability to control it is lost.

The measurements of the fish are set arbitrarily by the plants and, therefore, a fish that is "good" today can go to the manufacture of flour tomorrow. We fishermen are bored of feeling from the shipowners that they went to the flour for X boxes of fish and the INAPE ballot never appears. The quality of the fish is the other variable that, together with the size, makes the catch go "down the drain."

Fish quality refers to the conditions in which the fish arrives at the plants and not how it leaves the ship. Cargoes that leave ships in poor condition are very rare, however seizures due to crushed, rotten fish, with little ice, with a lot of ice, dirty, etc., etc. are frequent.

Due to all these factors, the "a part" system does not provide "great benefits" to the workers and we believe that it does to the shipowners. The a part system as enshrined in Law 15523 leaves workers on board in terms of benefits. Social since it includes them within the part, adding also the very serious fact that it eliminates them from the right to receive compensation for dismissal.

In our opinion, if the fisherman is a dependent worker, he acquires all the rights of workers, and among them is compensation for dismissal, which is why we consider that there is no need for Nuremberg courts to judge whether or not a crew member was correctly dismissed. Perhaps the owner/owners of FUNSA, for example, is constantly visiting his factory to fire him or control the work of the workers? Don't you delegate the fulfillment of those tasks to intermediate officials? The shipowners argue that since they do not have control of the personnel, they do not have to pay severance pay, which is why this is a very small explanation. In the event that a worker is dismissed by decision of a personnel manager and the worker considers that he was wrongfully dismissed, does he not have the right to go to court to resolve the case? Here the case appears since the fisherman is left without that right by law 15523.

The problem for us lies in the fact that the fishermen receive high incomes compared to those on land, therefore, the payment of severance compensation will also be high. We have no doubt that if the shipowners managed to pay the fishermen the salaries of hunger that the vast majority of the country's workers perceive, they would have no problem paying severance pay.

SALARY INCOME

Income from fishing is high compared to land income in terms of gross volume, but there are reasons for this that we will try to explain. 1st. The shipowners sell the catch to the plants in dollars. 2nd. The amount produced by catch sales reaches annual figures, for each vessel, of several hundred thousand dollars. 3rd. If we compare the figures received by the fisherman and the worker on land, we must also compare the work done. Let's take what a Public Health doctor receives for working 96 hours a month----------96 hours ------------N$ 7,500, which will give N$ per hour 78.

The 1st. Engineer of a deep-sea vessel that captures 300 tons per month, he receives 1.4% of the proceeds from the sale of the catch. It can be said that the average ton is set by shipowners at 200 dollars, therefore 300 Tons x U$S 200 = U$S 60,000----------------------------------- --------------------U$S 60,000 x 1.4%= U$S 840 x N$ 95 = N$ 78,000 monthly gross. Deep-sea ships sail with 2 engineers, therefore each one has 12 hours of mandatory watch, but after his hour ends he does not go home, since it is impossible, so he remains on call for 12 more hours. of the company. As there are no overtime hours in fishing, we will consider 24 hours as simple hours without computing 50%, nor 20% for night work, nor 100% when working on Sunday, therefore discounting the 3 days that the vessel is in port for catch unloading operations, the worker is there 27 days x 24 hours = 648 hours. If we divide the N$ 78,000 by 648, it gives us N$ 123 per hour gross, but leave is included = 7.5% of the salary; the bonus 8.33% of the salary; vacation salary =2.67% of salary,

From which it turns out that the hour is N$ 100 gross, from which the food must be deducted. As you can see then, the problem is that the doctor's salary is very low and not that the machinist's salary is high.

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

Based on ILO Convention 114, we consider that the best solution for the capture sector is to achieve Collective Agreements where working conditions are established between crew members and shipowners; To achieve this, the repeal of Law 15523 is necessary since it abandons us in our rights and violates the Constitution, through Art 4º.subsection G (15523), since Art.56º. Our Magna Carta delimits who should be responsible for the housing, and the Commercial Code clearly specifies it; Art 7 (law 15523) establishes unlimited working hours, violating Art 54 of the Constitution, an issue that has been going on since the promulgation of law 13833. At this time we can say that, despite there being no collective agreements signed by The companies, half of them are paying on a fictitious price quoted for the catch (eliminates the possibility of variations in the price of the catch for the settlement of salaries), the company pays for the food.

FISHING PLAN

The Fishing Plan always operated with a protectionist criterion towards companies, applying certain benefits such as: Fuel refunds; Tax exemptions of various kinds; Granting of credits under conditions beneficial to capitalists. We would consider a detailed study of the economic situation of the companies to be beneficial, since the credits were granted by the BROU and if, as the shipowners state, they have not been able to pay them, the owner of the fleet is the State. Therefore, beyond the salary demand aspect, we believe that it would be positive for the sector:

A) That prices for the capture be set in at least annual periods

B) That the creation of a fleet and witness plant be encouraged through the ILPE, reactivating vessels that are currently inactive but with acceptable recovery conditions; expropriation by the State of those companies that have debts that cannot be collected, with worker participation for possible formation of cooperatives.

C) That a National Fish Consumption Plan be studied through the Municipal Governments and the ILPE, at prices accessible to the population, taking advantage of the species that are currently preyed upon because they have no outlet for export.

D) That a National Tuna Fishing Plan be studied that truly defends the interests of the country. E) That the actions of the SOYP authorities, today ILPE, be investigated in relation to the sale of the organization's vessels (ROCHA; ARGIMON; LAVALLEJA; FLORIDA; TACUAREMBO) into private hands.